The special issue of American Psychologist on antisemitism (a flagship APA journal) is out.
I think some of its editors quit due to the an American Psychologist special issue on "decolonial and liberation psychologies" that contained vitriolic rhetoric against so-called "Zionist psychologies".
Three papers reports several interesting findings that should inform public discussions on the relation between Antizionism and Antisemitism.
A few months ago I sat through a PhD student's talk that wasn't great. Clear delivery, well prepared. The ideas just weren't there yet. Several professors asked tough but respectful questions. Exactly what's supposed to happen.
For a while there, this had become suspect. Critical feedback from someone with more power directed at someone with less got coded as punching down, especially in public. That norm seems to have receded, thankfully, but plenty of people still treat the practice as immoral.
I want to defend it. Scratch that. I want to defend punching, full stop. Up, down, sideways.
Science runs on Merton's principle of universalism: evaluate ideas, not the person attached to them. The "don't punch down" rule violates that. Worse, it ends up infantilizing the people it claims to protect. Telling junior scholars their work is too fragile to scrutinize is not respect.
New essay, free for all. Punch back in the comments.
https://t.co/hSvVsG2iB0
Is the NYT rationalizing today's terrorist attack on a Michigan synagogue? We show that when antisemitism is justified by disapproval of Israel, liberals tolerate it more.
https://t.co/OtFG6sYuzY (forthcoming, American Psychologist)
What did they realize in B that they hadn’t realized in A? Vote in the poll in the next tweet 👇
(1) they realized others saw they were together
(2) they realized they weren’t living up to their ideal selves
Do you want to date someone *willing* to protect you? Someone *strong* enough to protect? Both? Michael Barlev and colleagues test this. Based on a lot of work in evolutionary psychology, you might think that both would matter about equally. Nope!
"Discovering that someone is willing to protect you from physical harm makes them vastly more attractive. Conversely, discovering that someone is unwilling to protect you turns them into a hideous troll."
https://t.co/mERtuie3oq
I'm hiring a postdoc, to be based at Arizona State University, to research the PSYCHOLOGY OF ANTISEMITISM.
Start date as early as Jan-12-25. Email for questions.
Details: https://t.co/3UbSoD3byO
@SpeciesTypical@GreenPlusAnE Yes. In several experiments (date, friend) we manipulated physical strength (weak, ave, strong) and willingness to protect (unwilling, no-info, willing). Clearest effects in the no-info conditions: Stronger people--both men and women--were thought to be more willing to protect.
Academics are wonderfully creative. Reviewers start using AI, authors start inserting hidden text into their papers instructing AI to give positive reviews https://t.co/Z0rH7Fo32f
🚨New in @BBSJournal:
"Ecological Affordances across Life Stages: An Affordance Management Framework" is out as a target article & now open for commentary proposals! Ever wonder why an environment once full of promise 🥰 can later feel constraining 😮💨? https://t.co/ZwBTScG60Q 🧵
Are you a student or professor in psychology -- or any of the social sciences?
If so, you've definitely seen this mistake before.
It's all over the textbooks and journal articles.
You might have seen it formulated in any of these ways:
- Is that behavior evolved or learned?
- Innate or acquired?
- Biological or environmental?
- Evolutionary or sociocultural?
This is 100% the wrong way to think about it.
My newest publication (out now in American Psychologist, @APA_Journals) shows exactly why this is wrong and suggests a better, more accurate alternative:
https://t.co/YvMtkrv2YS
Pls consider RTing for greater spread. Thanks! 🙏
Psychologists: if you want to complain about how our field lacks a theoretical paradigm, try looking for one in evolution—the thing that actually made the human psyche. Seems like a good place to start, no? At least give that a try before throwing up your hands in despair.
1. The Santa Barbara school of evolutionary psychology holds that a universal set of complex psychological adaptations evolved in Pleistocene Africa. In no particular order, here are few folks on here doing research in this tradition, highlighting one paper/thread each:🧵
SO love this post from @paulbloomatyale!
Real-world effects are awesome when you can get them, but psychologists run experiments in controlled environments "for the same reason that chemists keep their test tubes clean". YES!
https://t.co/MWqICz6Way
@sjmermelstein@MackenMurphy 100%. I'm surprised so many critics of EP misunderstand this. (e.g., See this for the same misunderstanding https://t.co/wgRtDRtfDc)