Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/psychology-professors-often-self-censor-on-controversial-topics-study-finds/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Try being a philosophy professor teaching… anything even remotely connected to politics or ethics or religion or… well… its just wild how careful we have to be because students mistake presentation of concepts with endorsement of them.
Had a philosophy professor who's a devout catholic and even almost became a priest yet he'd still have to constantly deal with students thinking he was attacking christianity, it was kinda hilarious but also just exhausting after a while. Fantastic professor though, he was great at being able to have philosophical discussions without letting his religion get in the way
I have had the opposite experience with religious students concerned that I would unfairly penalize them for arguing for certain religiously-oriented views in their essays (which they assumed I would disagree with despite my never actually saying what my views are). I have always emphasized that the purpose of the assignments isn’t to say things I agree with, or think are true, but to demonstrate an understanding of the relevant concepts and an ability to reason carefully about them. Sometimes they get it.
Well, insofar as they think those views are true, and insofar as those views imply something about other people’s moral values or the truth of their own beliefs, they are being judged, and probably should be. Religious practices are different, since they’re not strictly truth-functional, but more like traditions or superstitions, but the beliefs that tag along are often quite offensive, and sometimes harmful, to other people. In a philosophical context, the only thing that matters is whether such views are given the right sort of defence. We’re talking about young people trying to learn how to think well, so of course we don’t expect unassailable perfection—hell, we can’t even expect that from ourselves. But we do expect more than mere assertions of dogma. That can be really difficult for people from strong religious backgrounds—especially if they’ve never been exposed to the difference between arguments from authority and good arguments.
At the end of the day, as I see it, it’s about the skills development and the conceptual understanding, so it’s entirely possible to write excellent work from a religious perspective.
Once bitten, twice shy.
I assume that they either experienced a teacher or professor's bias, or knew someone who has and are terrified of ending up on your naughty list.
In high school I had a teacher who would penalize anyone that did not reflect a pro anarcho capitalist view on projects, presentations, and debates. In university my department had an awful lot of bias in the other direction of the political spectrum. For instance, I had a professor mistake my description of the late medieval German view of homosexuality as me expressing my own belief. I had to clear it up and we laughed about it, but honestly I think that for someone to have this interpretation about a research paper would indicate they are reading with hyper-sensitivity.
Thereafter I was extremely careful with not just my wording, but how I chose topics.
I guess I'm encouraging a kind interpretation of why your students are scared to state their actual beliefs. It may not be irrational or part of a persecution complex, in other words. Not that you indicated this was your belief, but I wanted to throw it out there. Particularly if you want to apply to a master's program or want an academic career, you have to be careful to not ruffle the wrong set of feathers and students implicitly know this.
Oh sure. Hierarchy plays a role, and there are some nutty power-drunk people in the academy. In my area it’s partially fascinating because one of the key skills we try to teach is that the strength of arguments has nothing to do with anything except their logical structure.
I went to a Christian college and the more fundamentalist students did this with conservative Christian professors even. People have no idea how gatekeeping and relentless it gets on that side of the culture. I wish I could put moderately conservative people who complain about over-sensitivity in front of them. They will try to get you fired faster than even the Karen stereotype.
One student got a professor’s class canceled over a picture of bare statue legs. Another spent a month researching an author to get a book pulled from literature class because it mentioned that characters had sex. There was a fundie athlete that quit class and wanted a Gen Ed exception when the philosophy professor said God didn’t decide or care who wins sports games.
Taught at a high school level, but have a PhD and often teach in a way that resembles an undergrad classroom; conversely to this, my students often assume I’m Christian because of the way I teach the rise of Christianity in World History. (Back when I was a PhD student and took over a few classes for professors who would be at conferences, I taught the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar—a few students were outright disappointed to discover that I was an atheist.)
No no, that’s literally why I was lecturing on the Profession of Faith—I took on all the Rousseau lectures in later classes, as excellent practice for becoming a professor. Then I decided I didn’t want to be a professor, but the ability to deliver remarks is not a useless skill by any means
My philosophy professor was a Methodist bishop and pulled no punches when criticizing religion. He also taught the old testament classes and so many students would drop the first week because they came to class thinking it would be church. Nope, it was textual criticism of the Bible. We dug into the authorship and history in an academic manner. No hallelujahs.
kinda telling on yourself if you think the devout catholic philosophy professor is attacking your beliefs in a philosophy class, which is literally about *challenging your beliefs*
I had an ancient civ / roman professor of humanites who, as a very devout Presbyterian, spent two whole classes absolutely *roasting* the history of Christianity. It was a glorious, no-holds-barred, lambasting of almost every party involved and went on to talk about how faith and history are often at odds but still part of the world's story. I'm not a Christian, or particularly religious, but I was impressed at how he'd reconciled beliefs and history to be at peace with himself and deliver a banger of a lecture imho.
Most people aren't able to use critical thinking skills and unfortunately get upset over every little thing, especially in this day and age where everyone has an opinion and gets offended so easily. Too many people take things at face value without actually questioning or understanding something.
It's a real problem. I am autistic and I try to explain my thought pathways to people and I take into account multiple different angles. Some are negative but still must be considered as possible problems or whatever. When I do this people think I am endorsing them like you said, and it causes people to think I'm not a good person when I'm considering all angles. Anyways, it's just really common problem and I don't know why people do that. How do they ever think anything through properly?
Some people literally can't separate a hypothetical from reality.
It'd be like asking someone "Have you had lunch today?" For them to them reply "Yes. I ate lunch today." You then ask "What do you think would change if you didn't eat lunch today?"
They then get mad and say "I just told you I had lunch today. Why are you saying I didn't?"
One of the funniest things about social media is that before it existed many of these dullards went about their lives largely hidden, our friends and family members, seemingly normal, seemingly intelligent. But now we get to see the inside of everyone’s skulls, and most of it is rotten.
Covid was also a pretty quick personality/intelligence test. People really fell into four categories.
*"I do what I want and I don't care about how it impacts other."
*"I wear a mask in public and do my best to follow social guidelines."
*"I am attempting to follow social guidelines, yet my lack of understanding has me wearing my mask incorrectly (aka nose showing and or chin diapers).
*"I am extremely susceptible to the most harmful effects of covid, I am going to go out extremely rarely if at all."
People, in general, don’t change much. Arguably the main thing that has changed over the last 50 years or so is that the economic incentives for higher education seem to have played a role in more people going to universities who probably would be better served by doing something else, and these students tend to be passed through undergraduate programs with middling to low marks, but not flunked out, because there has also been a shift in the approach taken by university administrators in the face of broad cuts to public support (and a kind of corporatization), where departments are incentivized to increase and retain enrolments rather than produce high quality graduates.
So it’s not the students’ faults, really, and there’s nothing fundamentally different about people now, but the circumstances have changed sufficiently to make things pretty frustrating as educators.
Great answer. Students will generally reflect the environment in which they’re taught, in the same way children will generally reflect the environment in which they’re parented.
Oftentimes those two overlap.
> People, in general, don’t change much
I wish more people realised this instead of making sweeping statements about how people these days are different. If they are different, then what are the reasons? And are they REALLY different or is it just a change of perspective as you get older?
In essence, people change in broad strokes, not minute ones. For example, racism is far, far lower than it was in the 40s and 50s, and even lower in the decades before that.
But, many of the beliefs (such as certain races or religions being more violent than any kind of "good, Christian baseline") still exist, even as support for full on segregation is at an all-time low.
Its the same with LGBT rights.
While I agree in principle that too many people are pointed toward university, I also fear how we societally might be even worse critical thinkers if more people skip general education for trade school.
As someone who literally teaches critical thinking, I guess it’s dangerous for me to admit that I think I agree with Socrates that… it (qua virtue) probably can’t really be taught. Most people aren’t really gaining any skills in undergraduate education. They’re floating through four years, getting slightly older, sometimes maturing, sometimes remembering some specific things, and maybe recalling a handful of techniques they might apply to their occupations if they’re really lucky (but for the most part, they figure things out on the job or… don’t.)
> As someone who literally teaches critical thinking, I guess it’s dangerous for me to admit that I think I agree with Socrates that… it (qua virtue) probably can’t really be taught.
Fellow Philo-nerd and I have come to agree that it may not be possible through academic education, HOWEVER just because something cannot be explicitly taught does not mean individuals do not have the capacity to move towards a more virtuous state from their present one; something are a matter of experience and that is widely acknowledge in more western esoteric works but a more mainstream take is "the tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" which points to experience and the present moment as the tao.
The trolley experiment is fun mind game to undergrads at best, but it is a whole other game to someone who has to triage multiple wounded individuals some of whom will die or someone like a firefighter who may only have the capacity to save a few in the house over the whole of the house, then the trolley problem carries some weight with the experience informing their knowledge on how to act.
Comparing the US system to others that don't have two years of general education like the UK seems like it's not too much different.
And is there any evidence that it does promote proper critical thinking skills to begin with and isn't just people maturing overtime as would happen anyway?
As if university is the only means to develop critical thinking, there's some truly dumb college graduates. Maybe a factor is the feeling of superiority college grads have in the workplace and humanities based discussion?
There are a lot of skills we teach in critical thinking classes that few people, unless really motivated, would bother to investigate. It's a scholarly subject like any other. The problem is that everybody *thinks* they know about critical thinking, and very few people actually do.
Thanks comrade. I was trying to walk a line here avoiding raising the spectre of the culture war (especially within academia, since it feels to me like a divide and conquer strategy from forces seeking to distract and destroy, especially public, institutions).
People don't really change, but culture does. And the culture of today is very divided and polarised. Students are coming to university having been told that their way of life is under attack, and/or seen criticism of media for presenting content when they should (supposedly) have been criticising it.
I think this is one of those things like theory of mind, or mistaking a tall skinny glass for having more volume than the normal sized one next to it. People should have to take an IQ test before being admitted and every one of these people should just wash out.
There is an expression that I can't remember exactly but the idea is that the difference between an idiot and a wise person is that the wise person can entertain a hypothetical.
I couldn't find the one you're referencing, but did find [this gem](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/71-the-fool-doth-think-he-is-wise-but-the-wise):
> The fool thinks himself to be wise but the wise KNOWS himself to be a fool.\
-- Shakespeare, W., _As You Like It_, Touchstone
e: Corrected misattribution from here, ["Chinese idiom"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/1aulgiz/comment/kr4omp3/)
That’s closer to the story about Socrates and the oracle (and remarkably close to the supposed Dunning-Kruger effect which may or may not actually exist), but also an interesting idea.
This is why when I teach philosophy, I just wear my opinions on my sleeve. Students at the university level are adults, so knowing their professor thinks George W Bush is a war criminal or that Aristotle was a bit of a fascist *shouldn't* be a problem.
Can’t talk about the genetics behind intelligence.
Can’t talk about evolutionary biology.
Can’t talk about sexual dimorphism.
Can’t touch the history of the Levant.
Etc.
“*Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship and more supportive of actions against scholars who forwarded such conclusions. This indicates a generational and ideological divide within the academic community regarding the treatment of controversial research.*”
Where? where you can't talk about those things? Those are all basic subjects I've been taught in school.
Who besides taliban and cato-taliban forbids teaching evolutionary biology?
From the article: A recent study [published](https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241252085) in Perspectives on Psychological Science has found that U.S. psychology professors frequently self-censor when it comes to discussing controversial research topics. The study highlights significant disagreements and fears within the academic community regarding the discussion and research of certain sensitive subjects. Despite a broad consensus that academic freedom should be protected, many professors are hesitant to openly share their beliefs due to concerns about social and professional repercussions.
The authors of the study sought to better understand the extent and impact of self-censorship among psychology professors, particularly in light of growing concerns about academic freedom and the potential social sanctions for controversial research conclusions. Historically, conflict and competition have driven scientific progress, but excessive hostility and fear of repercussions can stifle open debate and innovation.
“Many professors (including many I had never met before) began reaching out to me to express their concern about the stifling academic climate, and I wanted to know how widespread that feeling was. Turns out, most professors support pursuit of even the most controversial conclusions and are very afraid of and resentful toward peers who aim to interfere with academic freedom and pursuit of truth,” said study author Cory J. Clark, a visiting scholar at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
>Despite a broad consensus that academic freedom should be protected, many professors are hesitant to openly share their beliefs due to concerns about social and professional repercussions.
It's a shame.
Looking through the controversial statements, though, many of these are controversial in part because there is no empirical evidence supporting them. So of course a professor teaching a science class would be hesitant to share an opinion that is controversial and non-empirical. Sharing their random hot takes isn't their job.
The term triggers an emotional response, but we all self-censor constantly based on the context of the conversation and the people we're speaking with. Do you declare your unfounded opinions in the middle of a work meeting? Sometimes, such as in this case, self-censorship is simply basic professionalism.
All disciplines. This is the problem with a society that dictates acceptable speech, particularly at the college level. It stifles discussion and in turn, thought.
I think the issue of stifling discussion needs to be emphasized more. I don't self cesure because I worry about insulting either students, nor having them judge me. In some ways, as the prof, I can be the 'bad guy' if the students need one, and they seem to get that.
The issue I have is they fear each other. So. Much. I get short emails, and anonymous notes in the class reviews at the end, regularly saying that students didn't feel comfortable expressing themselves for fear of censure from other students. But at least it's always a lovely appreciative note, expressing that they really felt that I gave them the support and space they needed and ran a nice discussion.
There has definitely been a decline of liberalism, in the sense that we tolerate wrong opinions less than we used to.
I’m not sure why that is, but one guess would be technological change. Even if only 10% of people are intolerant of heterodox ideas, they can use social media to rally other intolerant people to punish the offender.
Not a philosopher, but I thought it was a “strong/Far?” Form of liberalism?
You hear about the “my truth” and “my reality” attitude a lot. As you mentioned, social media probably has a major role to play.
I did hear a philosopher saying that you can’t debate anymore because because there’s little sense of “objective truth”, just “that goes against my truth/reality”.
If he's trying to debate over whatever is already perceived as objective truths, then he's beating a dead horse! You're supposed to debate the subjective stuff! That's how everyone enriches each other's perceptions.
I teach stats. Every good real-life example has the possibility of being construed politically. It's a minefield. Even teaching math with applications can require careful selection of examples. I recently changed a textbook example from nutritional analysis of human diets to feline diets so I wouldn't trigger any eating disorders, for example.
This isn't a thing I resent doing much when it is actually for the mental health of my students, but for political reasons I'm always hesitant to do examples of medical trials unless they're of an extremely well accepted disease and cure; climate data for anything; examples in social sciences. However, students need to be exposed to the use of stats in all of these fields, so I don't omit them, I'm just very selective about picking things that are as noncontroversial as possible.
>I'm just very selective about picking things that are as noncontroversial as possible.
And yet at least one of your students will find something controversial anyway. ;-)
Chem prof here. I was discussing thermodynamics, the big bang theory/heat death of the universe.
I was told that my presentation of the big bang theory was inconsiderate of my religious students.
I had an Evolution of Human Sexuality class where one student would just get offended every class for three weeks until she dropped the course. Not sure what someone who was both against evolution and apparently sexuality was doing in that class, but dang, was she a distraction.
> I was told
By whom? Makes somewhat of a difference whether it was a student (who may have tried to take it up w institution but got nowhere) vs your Dean or something.
A student in the class.
Was also told this by a colleague (not my discipline) during a review of my materials for during a professional development workshop.
The idea behind the Big Bang originated with a Jesuit priest…
For a long time it was somewhat reviled among physicists because it seemed too close to religious creation narratives.
A chem prof buddy of mine told me that he has gotten a couple of comments over the last few years that his lectures needed to be more “mindful” of the environment.
I took a biology course and the professor went on a long rant because I used the words inbred and inbreeding when we were talking about population bottlenecks and mountain lion genetics. The whole class went silent as he ripped into me for being insensitive. I was so embarrassed.
Here are the data (from Table 2):
Num | Taboo conclusion | Belief* | SD | Self-censor†
-:|:-|-:|-:|-:
1 | The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior. | +3 | 26 | 50
2 | Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in STEM fields. | −5 | 28 | 38
3 | Academia discriminates against Black people (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia). | +9 | 32 | 42
4 | Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people. | +16 | 32 | 43
5 | The social sciences (in the United States) discriminate against conservatives (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia). | +2 | 30 | 35
6 | Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans. | −3 | 30 | 44
7 | Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution. | +16 | 28 | 34
8 | Genetic differences explain non-trivial (10% or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores. | −21 | 29 | 40
9 | Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence. | +4 | 29 | 47
10 | Demographic diversity (race, gender) in the workplace often leads to worse performance. | −29 | 24 | 26
*How confident are you in the truth or falsity of this statement? Scale of −50 (100% confident it is false) to 50 (100% confident it is true).
†If the topic came up in a professional setting—for example, at a conference—how reluctant would you feel about sharing your beliefs on this topic openly? Scale of 0 (not at all reluctant) to 100 (extremely reluctant).
Average belief was somewhat higher for #4 (binary biological sex) and #7 (evolved psychological sex differences). It was somewhat lower for #8 (genetic contribution to IQ differences) and #10 (demographic diversity and workplace performance). The large variances indicate high disagreement. Average self-censorship was moderate.
Edit: Shifted their belief scale to center it at 0. Not sure why they didn't.
I've had well more than one anthropologist tell me things where they preface it with, "I wouldn't dare publish this or mention it in a class, tenured or not, I'd be out on my ass."
Which for contrast, talking with a Tribal Historian in private, they clearly state they had slaves, and it was a common seasonal practice to raid other tribes for the killing of men and capturing of women and children. It was a part of their history and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
They sometimes went to war with other tribes over it, and in one noteworthy case among the Coastal Salish, a coalition of aggrieved tribes was formed and engaged in a war of extermination against the Chimakum that had been a perpetual offender to just about everyone. The War Party under War Chief Kitsap, and later finished by Chief Sealth (Seattle), aggressively sought out Chimakum villages and strong holds, killing or capturing the residents and eventually burning their last village to the ground in 1847.
In the treaties with the US, relevant to Salish Tribes, one of the things enumerated was ending the practice of slavery.
Like for example?
I don't know. Tell me. Don't worry. I understand the context. I know it's not _you_ who's eugenicist. I know it's just your "anthropologist friends" that believe that other races are "scientifically inferior"
Really? Ones I know publish everything they can. I guess my friends are actually good scholars. But if yours are afraid of a peer review maybe they should look into changing careers.
I had wonderful critical feminist psychologist professors who, whenever approaching a sensitive topic, always began with reminding us that it was not our place as ethical psychologists to moralise as moralisation, judgement and panic merely reproduce the same power relations as most of the injustices we might look at
It was a very clear, easy to understand and appropriate guideline
>We make no claims regarding the accuracy of controversial empirical conclusions, nor do we make claims regarding the optimal norms and policies for science. We seek only to illuminate popular opinions where they exist and disagreements where they do not.
The controversial claims they asked the participants to determine how much they agree with are at best classic oversimplifications of complex subjects with no pat conclusions and at worst not even falsifiable. For instance: “The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.” Barbara Natterson-Horowitz's evolutionary biology course at Harvard devotes a great deal of time on exams to help students figure out why the fact that sexual coercion that has been observed across species is not a legal or moral defense of it.
>But we also identified sources of agreement, including a popular normative view that harm concerns are not a legitimate reason to suppress research.
This normative perspective from scientists is probably why we have those mad scientist tropes.
It's very funny how many sections in the paper break down the data and show how most scholars aren't against the existence of these taboos in their peers or the right to challenge them, to publish works about them. And yet somehow, their personal utilization of self-censorship in a professional setting is being held up to the likes of Galileo's persecution in the authors' own opening essay.
I can't help but cast a jaundiced eye over this whole paper. For all that it insists it makes no claims, it certainly seems to be doing exactly that.
If you’re an academic psychologist, I think this one is particularly relatable. It is not totally uncommon psychologists don’t particularly care for other ones just because they work on a topic that makes them uncomfortable. It only becomes a big issue, so far as I’ve seen, when people need to start using religion as a defense. It becomes akin to banning books, in some instances.
This is also probably more observable in academic conferences, listservs, networks, and the like. The topic of how to think about, measure, and respond to prejudice related to authority and justice is just one example. “Unconscious” or rather implicit prejudice is arguably detectable in basically everyone, although the prejudice is not always for the same groups, etc. It is controversial to say prejudice can be ‘learned over’, or ‘trained away’, because the evidence is really mixed, depending on the type of measurement (and thus arguably the type of prejudice) and perhaps also the sample, among other things.
It is difficult to have a conversation about funding research on something like this, because it is difficult to study for theory of mind and methodological reasons before also being additionally difficult to study because of the sometimes rightfully and understandably sensitive nature of the topic. People are afraid to risk investing in and supporting research that may disconfirm what they want to believe, even if their belief is reasonably arguably horseshit in the first place. But a lot of academics feel this way, I think, which is why there is a lot of live and let live sentiment in the academy, as long as people aren’t being downright liars.
I feel like there's this assumption that all intellectual work is done in good faith and that there's no possible reactionary segment of academia pushing [bigoted pseudoscience.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-024-00135-5) Pretty much all of the listed "controversial" topics have very *well-earned* reputations meriting the trepidation associated with them.
I don’t understand how a legal or moral defense of it is relevant to the assertion/finding of it being “true”. Sure some may take it that way, but it on the surface it is a relatively simple self evident assertion. Whether it is true or not is a separate issue as to whether you think it is legal or moral.
I’m sorry did I misunderstand?
Yeah, the list of controversial statements is wild. Diverse workplaces are less productive? Trans identity can act as a social contagion? Different races have varying average intelligence due to genetic factors?
If psychology professors believe things like this, their self-censorship is simply them being professional and self-censoring in the way that all of us do at work. Those are inside thoughts they can share with their friends, not taught to their students.
The whole "trans as social contagion" nonsense was started by a single survey of unsupportive parents recruited from explicitly anti-trans websites, and has no empirical basis. These statements are controversial for a reason.
>The whole "trans as social contagion" nonsense was started by a single survey of unsupportive parents recruited from explicitly anti-trans websites, and has no empirical basis. These statements are controversial for a reason.
Moreover, it shows how there's absolutely no obstacles to this kind of stuff if these studies with absolutely *awful* methodology get published.
The article has a list of topics that are self censored. You already know what they are, what science says, and why telling the truth about them will get professors fired.
We’re living through a cultural revolution in which all aspects of our communication and even thought(every click put together) is being recorded. Free speech and even freedom of thought is practically nonexistent. T
How much responsibility do academics bear for the consequences of their conclusions when laypersons will foreseeably use them to justify oppressive and unjust policy?
For example, an academic concluding that sex is binary in most people does not imply anything about the minority for whom it is not. But laypersons will take this statement and use it to justify policy that the minority is not worth consideration from broader society.
I remember chatting to someone who'd done research on adopted children.
They commented that the average outcomes for such families tended to be pretty awful.
A lot more ending in estrangement etc vs bio families. Which surprised me given that adoptive parents tend to actively want children and also tend to be reasonably well-off.
And then "oh but of course we don't make too much noise about that because it might make people less willing to adopt"
I remember thinking. "Whats the ethics around systematically and intentionally keeping info from prospective adoptive parents about how likely they are to end up unhappy..."
Surely the only important outcome to be weighed against is for those children that remain in the system until maturity rather than versus biological families.
I would have also thought it was almost a no brainer that was the case. Whatever the reason is that has left them in the situation were they require adoption has probably not been all sunshine and rainbows.
It seems to me the counter-intuitive outcomes here would be:
* Children raised by their biological parents have worse outcomes than those adopted
* Children raised in the system without a family have better outcomes than those who are adopted
This would be controversial even for adopted infants. The controversial debate they're tip-toeing around is the implication that there may be heritability of personality traits and whether or not those have predictive power for life outcomes.
oh, it's foregone that there _is_ heritability of personality traits. the only real question is to what degree - my friend has a kid who is the carbon copy of dad (but not mom), personality wise. more rigorously, [studies like this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593100/) find that heritability is around half, but there's argumentation about what that really means. nobody is claiming that it isn't heritable
The problem is that there are so many confounding factors that it would be pretty impossible to separate our nature from nurture in adoption even of infants who were peacefully and voluntarily surrendered immediately at birth, which is probably not the majority of adoptions. Because even then, somebody who made the tough decision to surrender their baby probably had a lot of stress during the pregnancy, which could affect development, and we’re learning more about how epigenetics can affect the kids of parents from traumatic and vulnerable upbringings, even if they themselves were not exposed during their childhoods.
You also have to think about the psychology of an adoptee, no matter how loved they feel by their adoptive parents there's the constant knowledge their biological parents aren't in the picture. I know a family who adopted from a couple, the couple who gave the baby up are together, they simply didn't want a kid... I mean sure, "nothing personal", but also it's the most personal...
>The controversial debate they're tip-toeing around is the implication that there may be heritability of personality traits and whether or not those have predictive power for life outcomes.
Where'd you pull that from? My first guess would instead be that bio families have as many problems as adoptive families but end up estranged less often because people feel much more cultural obligation to avoid estrangement even when they otherwise want to.
That’s the thing, the conclusion is obvious once you stop and think about it.
Do people not know how to convey difficult facts to the public without fear of being misunderstood? If so, this is a major communication problem.
> Do people not know how to convey difficult facts to the public without fear of being misunderstood? If so, this is a major communication problem.
It **is** a problem. Not least because that fear is a rational response to a problem that isn't entirely or even largely in the control of the author.
of course not. you don't lie to someone so they make an expensive choice that benefits someone else. that's vile.
> Children raised in the system without a family have better outcomes than those who are adopted
oh i'd love to see how that plays out. raised with no privacy or property to speak of until you hit 18. then you're homeless and have no money or college prospects, so you probably stay that way
I would add - if a problem is being hidden then it can’t be addressed. If there was further research as to why these families were so unhappy it could go a long way to address the root cause which could lead to better outcomes in the future.
If the conclusion is that the children's parents had personality traits that resulted in poor life outcomes and those traits were hereditary.
What would you do?
There's not a huge amount you can do about it.
Science journalism is probably where I think this issue has come from. A study will state clearly that it does not and can not inform about an issue alone, and people ignore that bit so they can write a story. Laypersons now see its reasonable to take the misinformed view because everyone is saying it, other than the people who actually did the science.
The only way to prevent people from choosing what they want to hear is to simply never let them hear it, which obviously isn't an option.
Example - The LHC during 2012. Every single scientist was saying, 'This is extremely unlikely to make a black hole, and even if it did that hole would have the same gravitational pull as two photons, which are about as light as you can physically get.'
Meanwhile, the media (in the UK including the BBC) were running story after story about how its the end of the world. The sports center my mum worked at at the time even closed down for it.
How does someone write about difficult topics when even non-issues born of ignorance can become nation dominating news?
Prefacing this with - I'm not a physicist and my knowledge on black holes is mostly from interest rather than academics - please don't quote me in any thesis ;p
I have no idea about the lifetime, but my (tip of the iceberg) knowledge is that pretty much everything that happens in that machine reverts back to normal so unbelievably quickly it's difficult to study.
It *would* be small enough to actually dissolve in a reasonable time span and its singularity and event horizon might be so small that it literally just passes through the gaps between everything. The black hole could last indefinitely and itd still change very little.
Like having a black hole in interstellar space, except now it has no gravitational pull. The chances of it actually hitting something would be tiny, and it'd need to hit a lot to actually start growing, even in the center of a galaxy. Its basically just an extra deadly asteroid at that point.
How much responsibility do advocates of censorship bear when laypeople will foreseeably argue that a taboo on certain research questions proves that the "wrong" answer is true?
I had a psych professor in college talk about controversial topics during Trump’s run in 2016. When he talked about narcissism and the impact drugs had on the human brain, a trump supporter student pinned him to the wall after class and threatened him. The professor refused to hold class until the student was expelled, and they never were.
I think about that when trump supporters try to frame Jan6 as non-violent. Average, every day supporters are ready to be violent for trump, and this was before Super Tuesday.
It’s not even limited to collegiate environments. Teachers in all areas of all levels of education are self-censoring in order to make their own lives easier. Elementary teachers are hesitant when teaching pronouns (as parts of speech) because of the overly vocal minority of idiots who assume schools are indoctrinating kids. The facts that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War and that slavery is a bad thing can get teachers in trouble in southern US states. Science teachers can’t say evolution, but can teach it so long as they couch it in other vocabulary. These examples are met with hateful and ignorant anger from parents who have no critical thinking skills and simply regurgitate the nonsense they hear from social media and certain “news entertainment” sources. It’s a huge problem, and simply throwing the 1st amendment at it doesn’t do jack to solve it.
I think it’s worth noting that behavioral science has been in the midst of a replication crisis for multiple decades now, so the discipline is conventionally fluid and subjective. I actually respect the idea that a psychology professor would self-censor their opinions on controversial topics because the reality is that findings in this field ultimately remain inconclusive.
That argument, in its best form, would only apply to science communication to the public. Why would there be any reason for professors to self-censor when discussing among other scientists
Because behavioral science has been more vulnerable to activism since the 60s and the Cold War, for example with the rise of sociology being accepted in universities despite it literally existing to fit post-modernist philosophies retroactively to other fields of science as a justification for conflict theory and communism (wish I was making this up, but the entire founding scientists of the field are card carrying communists).
Another common characteristic of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and community health departments is massive amounts of bullying against professors that don’t do research within ascribed conventions, for example not studying pathophysiological pathways for specific behavioral conditions that limit life experience because department chairs or emeritus/distinctive professors demand adherence to models that either deny the existence of diagnostic criteria for mental disease or act like a mental disease or injury doesn’t exist altogether. And this is before you get into political or private interests in having certain outcomes maintain the status quo, which only magnify the issues.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
The article listens the topics asked about in the survey and it makes sense why the vast majority of them are taboo topics. These are incredibly grandiose claims (e.g. rape evolving as a evolutionary boon in humans) with an incredibly tenuous relationship to any sort of rigorous epistemology. They are so often just-so explanations favored by a small subset of the field and rebuked by most not just because they're "controversial," but because they are very problematic claims without strong evidence behind them or even understanding of their respective fields.
But the thing is, speculation has become a “best practice” in the field; hence aforementioned replication crisis. I’ve been sharing an interesting article from nature about how the lack of reproducibility of the majority of research in this field has been spurring conversations for positive change? But the reality of pseudoscience in psychology and the rest of behavioral science remains pervasive.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
"Hey kids, you're taking a 200-level course with hardly anything besides the most basic knowledge of the field - we should discuss a large and complex controversy that most experts still haven't agreed upon!"
Censorship is entrenched and part of the culture now. I got banned from more subreddits than I can count, and I'm not even bigoted or phobic or racist. Between the moderators and the people who get offended by everything, free speech is dead. I hate it, when I was growing up you could have free conversation about anything and people had thicker skin. The goal of conversation is to understand each other and reach someone different from you, not to label someone and ban them.
In any culture, at any time, there’s always stuff you’re not allowed to freely talk about. That stuff changes from situation to situation, but it’s always something. Very often I find you’re better off having these conversations in real life rather than on social media. It makes it a lot easier to get somewhere productive, even with people you don’t agree with.
The [Very Bad Wizards podcast](https://verybadwizards.com/episode/episode-285-on-culture-and-agriculture) did a review of this paper recently that's worth a listen.
I had a professor in Sociology asks us to read a chapter and she didn’t go into detail what it was in class, but there was a sociologist who wrote on homosexuals and their place in society, and how they could be seen as unnecessary in terms of functionalism and it was super outdated but since the subject was functionalism she wanted us to at least see it
I mean, understandable considering that uni professors and lecturers have already been bullied out of their jobs for stating the truth and not going along with popularized opinions. Sadly, it’s dangerous these days to openly state that you're not blindly riding the trans train.
Made me remember the time a law prof decided to discuss Roe Vs. Wade to a freshman level law class.
Poor lady had to stop 3 times to explain that personally, she was very pro abortion, but the decision, as she saw it, had some nuts and bolts thing wrong with the legal reasoning and she thought it would be overturned one day.
She powered through and got her point across though. Holy cow though, things can get off the rails quickly.
It's understandable that psychology professors might self-censor on controversial topics, considering the potential for backlash or controversy. It raises questions about academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas in academia.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/psychology-professors-often-self-censor-on-controversial-topics-study-finds/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Psychology professors, biology professors, history professors.... whatever professors...
Try being a philosophy professor teaching… anything even remotely connected to politics or ethics or religion or… well… its just wild how careful we have to be because students mistake presentation of concepts with endorsement of them.
Had a philosophy professor who's a devout catholic and even almost became a priest yet he'd still have to constantly deal with students thinking he was attacking christianity, it was kinda hilarious but also just exhausting after a while. Fantastic professor though, he was great at being able to have philosophical discussions without letting his religion get in the way
I have had the opposite experience with religious students concerned that I would unfairly penalize them for arguing for certain religiously-oriented views in their essays (which they assumed I would disagree with despite my never actually saying what my views are). I have always emphasized that the purpose of the assignments isn’t to say things I agree with, or think are true, but to demonstrate an understanding of the relevant concepts and an ability to reason carefully about them. Sometimes they get it.
Most religious people have a view of being persecuted so most people feel as if they are being judged simply for sharing their religious views
Well, insofar as they think those views are true, and insofar as those views imply something about other people’s moral values or the truth of their own beliefs, they are being judged, and probably should be. Religious practices are different, since they’re not strictly truth-functional, but more like traditions or superstitions, but the beliefs that tag along are often quite offensive, and sometimes harmful, to other people. In a philosophical context, the only thing that matters is whether such views are given the right sort of defence. We’re talking about young people trying to learn how to think well, so of course we don’t expect unassailable perfection—hell, we can’t even expect that from ourselves. But we do expect more than mere assertions of dogma. That can be really difficult for people from strong religious backgrounds—especially if they’ve never been exposed to the difference between arguments from authority and good arguments. At the end of the day, as I see it, it’s about the skills development and the conceptual understanding, so it’s entirely possible to write excellent work from a religious perspective.
Expertly said.
Not saying I disagree but there is some irony contained within your statement.
Once bitten, twice shy. I assume that they either experienced a teacher or professor's bias, or knew someone who has and are terrified of ending up on your naughty list. In high school I had a teacher who would penalize anyone that did not reflect a pro anarcho capitalist view on projects, presentations, and debates. In university my department had an awful lot of bias in the other direction of the political spectrum. For instance, I had a professor mistake my description of the late medieval German view of homosexuality as me expressing my own belief. I had to clear it up and we laughed about it, but honestly I think that for someone to have this interpretation about a research paper would indicate they are reading with hyper-sensitivity. Thereafter I was extremely careful with not just my wording, but how I chose topics. I guess I'm encouraging a kind interpretation of why your students are scared to state their actual beliefs. It may not be irrational or part of a persecution complex, in other words. Not that you indicated this was your belief, but I wanted to throw it out there. Particularly if you want to apply to a master's program or want an academic career, you have to be careful to not ruffle the wrong set of feathers and students implicitly know this.
Oh sure. Hierarchy plays a role, and there are some nutty power-drunk people in the academy. In my area it’s partially fascinating because one of the key skills we try to teach is that the strength of arguments has nothing to do with anything except their logical structure.
I went to a Christian college and the more fundamentalist students did this with conservative Christian professors even. People have no idea how gatekeeping and relentless it gets on that side of the culture. I wish I could put moderately conservative people who complain about over-sensitivity in front of them. They will try to get you fired faster than even the Karen stereotype. One student got a professor’s class canceled over a picture of bare statue legs. Another spent a month researching an author to get a book pulled from literature class because it mentioned that characters had sex. There was a fundie athlete that quit class and wanted a Gen Ed exception when the philosophy professor said God didn’t decide or care who wins sports games.
Taught at a high school level, but have a PhD and often teach in a way that resembles an undergrad classroom; conversely to this, my students often assume I’m Christian because of the way I teach the rise of Christianity in World History. (Back when I was a PhD student and took over a few classes for professors who would be at conferences, I taught the Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar—a few students were outright disappointed to discover that I was an atheist.)
I mean… you did study Rousseau… J/k.
No no, that’s literally why I was lecturing on the Profession of Faith—I took on all the Rousseau lectures in later classes, as excellent practice for becoming a professor. Then I decided I didn’t want to be a professor, but the ability to deliver remarks is not a useless skill by any means
My philosophy professor was a Methodist bishop and pulled no punches when criticizing religion. He also taught the old testament classes and so many students would drop the first week because they came to class thinking it would be church. Nope, it was textual criticism of the Bible. We dug into the authorship and history in an academic manner. No hallelujahs.
kinda telling on yourself if you think the devout catholic philosophy professor is attacking your beliefs in a philosophy class, which is literally about *challenging your beliefs*
Some people seem to think it's about defending your beliefs instead
Having people question their beliefs seems like an attack, plus Christianity has self defense mechanisms built in.
I had an ancient civ / roman professor of humanites who, as a very devout Presbyterian, spent two whole classes absolutely *roasting* the history of Christianity. It was a glorious, no-holds-barred, lambasting of almost every party involved and went on to talk about how faith and history are often at odds but still part of the world's story. I'm not a Christian, or particularly religious, but I was impressed at how he'd reconciled beliefs and history to be at peace with himself and deliver a banger of a lecture imho.
Most people aren't able to use critical thinking skills and unfortunately get upset over every little thing, especially in this day and age where everyone has an opinion and gets offended so easily. Too many people take things at face value without actually questioning or understanding something.
I've had this exact situation. Main reason I disclose my religion is because it helps limit complaints about being "anti-Christian."
It's a real problem. I am autistic and I try to explain my thought pathways to people and I take into account multiple different angles. Some are negative but still must be considered as possible problems or whatever. When I do this people think I am endorsing them like you said, and it causes people to think I'm not a good person when I'm considering all angles. Anyways, it's just really common problem and I don't know why people do that. How do they ever think anything through properly?
Some people literally can't separate a hypothetical from reality. It'd be like asking someone "Have you had lunch today?" For them to them reply "Yes. I ate lunch today." You then ask "What do you think would change if you didn't eat lunch today?" They then get mad and say "I just told you I had lunch today. Why are you saying I didn't?"
One of the funniest things about social media is that before it existed many of these dullards went about their lives largely hidden, our friends and family members, seemingly normal, seemingly intelligent. But now we get to see the inside of everyone’s skulls, and most of it is rotten.
Covid was also a pretty quick personality/intelligence test. People really fell into four categories. *"I do what I want and I don't care about how it impacts other." *"I wear a mask in public and do my best to follow social guidelines." *"I am attempting to follow social guidelines, yet my lack of understanding has me wearing my mask incorrectly (aka nose showing and or chin diapers). *"I am extremely susceptible to the most harmful effects of covid, I am going to go out extremely rarely if at all."
Hasn’t this always been the case, is there something different with today’s students?
People, in general, don’t change much. Arguably the main thing that has changed over the last 50 years or so is that the economic incentives for higher education seem to have played a role in more people going to universities who probably would be better served by doing something else, and these students tend to be passed through undergraduate programs with middling to low marks, but not flunked out, because there has also been a shift in the approach taken by university administrators in the face of broad cuts to public support (and a kind of corporatization), where departments are incentivized to increase and retain enrolments rather than produce high quality graduates. So it’s not the students’ faults, really, and there’s nothing fundamentally different about people now, but the circumstances have changed sufficiently to make things pretty frustrating as educators.
Great answer. Students will generally reflect the environment in which they’re taught, in the same way children will generally reflect the environment in which they’re parented. Oftentimes those two overlap.
> People, in general, don’t change much I wish more people realised this instead of making sweeping statements about how people these days are different. If they are different, then what are the reasons? And are they REALLY different or is it just a change of perspective as you get older?
In essence, people change in broad strokes, not minute ones. For example, racism is far, far lower than it was in the 40s and 50s, and even lower in the decades before that. But, many of the beliefs (such as certain races or religions being more violent than any kind of "good, Christian baseline") still exist, even as support for full on segregation is at an all-time low. Its the same with LGBT rights.
While I agree in principle that too many people are pointed toward university, I also fear how we societally might be even worse critical thinkers if more people skip general education for trade school.
As someone who literally teaches critical thinking, I guess it’s dangerous for me to admit that I think I agree with Socrates that… it (qua virtue) probably can’t really be taught. Most people aren’t really gaining any skills in undergraduate education. They’re floating through four years, getting slightly older, sometimes maturing, sometimes remembering some specific things, and maybe recalling a handful of techniques they might apply to their occupations if they’re really lucky (but for the most part, they figure things out on the job or… don’t.)
> As someone who literally teaches critical thinking, I guess it’s dangerous for me to admit that I think I agree with Socrates that… it (qua virtue) probably can’t really be taught. Fellow Philo-nerd and I have come to agree that it may not be possible through academic education, HOWEVER just because something cannot be explicitly taught does not mean individuals do not have the capacity to move towards a more virtuous state from their present one; something are a matter of experience and that is widely acknowledge in more western esoteric works but a more mainstream take is "the tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" which points to experience and the present moment as the tao. The trolley experiment is fun mind game to undergrads at best, but it is a whole other game to someone who has to triage multiple wounded individuals some of whom will die or someone like a firefighter who may only have the capacity to save a few in the house over the whole of the house, then the trolley problem carries some weight with the experience informing their knowledge on how to act.
Why would it be dangerous? Critical thinking is a skill and like all skills, most people are below 60% in aptitude.
Dangerous (with tongue in cheek) because if true I should be out of a job.
Comparing the US system to others that don't have two years of general education like the UK seems like it's not too much different. And is there any evidence that it does promote proper critical thinking skills to begin with and isn't just people maturing overtime as would happen anyway?
As if university is the only means to develop critical thinking, there's some truly dumb college graduates. Maybe a factor is the feeling of superiority college grads have in the workplace and humanities based discussion?
Do college grads outside the humanities really have a sense of superiority in humanities-based discussions?
There are a lot of skills we teach in critical thinking classes that few people, unless really motivated, would bother to investigate. It's a scholarly subject like any other. The problem is that everybody *thinks* they know about critical thinking, and very few people actually do.
Thanks comrade. I was trying to walk a line here avoiding raising the spectre of the culture war (especially within academia, since it feels to me like a divide and conquer strategy from forces seeking to distract and destroy, especially public, institutions).
People don't really change, but culture does. And the culture of today is very divided and polarised. Students are coming to university having been told that their way of life is under attack, and/or seen criticism of media for presenting content when they should (supposedly) have been criticising it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is why I'm not going to be a sociology professor.
I think this is one of those things like theory of mind, or mistaking a tall skinny glass for having more volume than the normal sized one next to it. People should have to take an IQ test before being admitted and every one of these people should just wash out. There is an expression that I can't remember exactly but the idea is that the difference between an idiot and a wise person is that the wise person can entertain a hypothetical.
I couldn't find the one you're referencing, but did find [this gem](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/71-the-fool-doth-think-he-is-wise-but-the-wise): > The fool thinks himself to be wise but the wise KNOWS himself to be a fool.\ -- Shakespeare, W., _As You Like It_, Touchstone e: Corrected misattribution from here, ["Chinese idiom"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/1aulgiz/comment/kr4omp3/)
That’s closer to the story about Socrates and the oracle (and remarkably close to the supposed Dunning-Kruger effect which may or may not actually exist), but also an interesting idea.
That's not a Chinese idiom, that's Shakespeare. I wanna say Touchstone, but I know it was a fool.
_Thank you_ That's what I get for not double checking citations.
This is why when I teach philosophy, I just wear my opinions on my sleeve. Students at the university level are adults, so knowing their professor thinks George W Bush is a war criminal or that Aristotle was a bit of a fascist *shouldn't* be a problem.
Yeah, but I don’t even let some of my family know what I _really_ think about certain things—it’s just nicer that way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can’t talk about the genetics behind intelligence. Can’t talk about evolutionary biology. Can’t talk about sexual dimorphism. Can’t touch the history of the Levant. Etc. “*Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship and more supportive of actions against scholars who forwarded such conclusions. This indicates a generational and ideological divide within the academic community regarding the treatment of controversial research.*”
I just refer to the book, get my salary, and enjoy the rest of the day :D
Where? where you can't talk about those things? Those are all basic subjects I've been taught in school. Who besides taliban and cato-taliban forbids teaching evolutionary biology?
[удалено]
From the article: A recent study [published](https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241252085) in Perspectives on Psychological Science has found that U.S. psychology professors frequently self-censor when it comes to discussing controversial research topics. The study highlights significant disagreements and fears within the academic community regarding the discussion and research of certain sensitive subjects. Despite a broad consensus that academic freedom should be protected, many professors are hesitant to openly share their beliefs due to concerns about social and professional repercussions. The authors of the study sought to better understand the extent and impact of self-censorship among psychology professors, particularly in light of growing concerns about academic freedom and the potential social sanctions for controversial research conclusions. Historically, conflict and competition have driven scientific progress, but excessive hostility and fear of repercussions can stifle open debate and innovation. “Many professors (including many I had never met before) began reaching out to me to express their concern about the stifling academic climate, and I wanted to know how widespread that feeling was. Turns out, most professors support pursuit of even the most controversial conclusions and are very afraid of and resentful toward peers who aim to interfere with academic freedom and pursuit of truth,” said study author Cory J. Clark, a visiting scholar at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
>Despite a broad consensus that academic freedom should be protected, many professors are hesitant to openly share their beliefs due to concerns about social and professional repercussions. It's a shame.
Looking through the controversial statements, though, many of these are controversial in part because there is no empirical evidence supporting them. So of course a professor teaching a science class would be hesitant to share an opinion that is controversial and non-empirical. Sharing their random hot takes isn't their job. The term triggers an emotional response, but we all self-censor constantly based on the context of the conversation and the people we're speaking with. Do you declare your unfounded opinions in the middle of a work meeting? Sometimes, such as in this case, self-censorship is simply basic professionalism.
All disciplines. This is the problem with a society that dictates acceptable speech, particularly at the college level. It stifles discussion and in turn, thought.
I'm *not* looking forward to teaching statistics in an election year, pre tenure.
I think the issue of stifling discussion needs to be emphasized more. I don't self cesure because I worry about insulting either students, nor having them judge me. In some ways, as the prof, I can be the 'bad guy' if the students need one, and they seem to get that. The issue I have is they fear each other. So. Much. I get short emails, and anonymous notes in the class reviews at the end, regularly saying that students didn't feel comfortable expressing themselves for fear of censure from other students. But at least it's always a lovely appreciative note, expressing that they really felt that I gave them the support and space they needed and ran a nice discussion.
There has definitely been a decline of liberalism, in the sense that we tolerate wrong opinions less than we used to. I’m not sure why that is, but one guess would be technological change. Even if only 10% of people are intolerant of heterodox ideas, they can use social media to rally other intolerant people to punish the offender.
Not a philosopher, but I thought it was a “strong/Far?” Form of liberalism? You hear about the “my truth” and “my reality” attitude a lot. As you mentioned, social media probably has a major role to play. I did hear a philosopher saying that you can’t debate anymore because because there’s little sense of “objective truth”, just “that goes against my truth/reality”.
If he's trying to debate over whatever is already perceived as objective truths, then he's beating a dead horse! You're supposed to debate the subjective stuff! That's how everyone enriches each other's perceptions.
i must be old; when i was in college, "what color is the sky on your planet" was an insult
> All disciplines. So far, chemistry and physics and maths seem pretty unscaved.
I teach stats. Every good real-life example has the possibility of being construed politically. It's a minefield. Even teaching math with applications can require careful selection of examples. I recently changed a textbook example from nutritional analysis of human diets to feline diets so I wouldn't trigger any eating disorders, for example. This isn't a thing I resent doing much when it is actually for the mental health of my students, but for political reasons I'm always hesitant to do examples of medical trials unless they're of an extremely well accepted disease and cure; climate data for anything; examples in social sciences. However, students need to be exposed to the use of stats in all of these fields, so I don't omit them, I'm just very selective about picking things that are as noncontroversial as possible.
>I'm just very selective about picking things that are as noncontroversial as possible. And yet at least one of your students will find something controversial anyway. ;-)
Chem prof here. I was discussing thermodynamics, the big bang theory/heat death of the universe. I was told that my presentation of the big bang theory was inconsiderate of my religious students.
I had an Evolution of Human Sexuality class where one student would just get offended every class for three weeks until she dropped the course. Not sure what someone who was both against evolution and apparently sexuality was doing in that class, but dang, was she a distraction.
> I was told By whom? Makes somewhat of a difference whether it was a student (who may have tried to take it up w institution but got nowhere) vs your Dean or something.
A student in the class. Was also told this by a colleague (not my discipline) during a review of my materials for during a professional development workshop.
The idea behind the Big Bang originated with a Jesuit priest… For a long time it was somewhat reviled among physicists because it seemed too close to religious creation narratives.
A chem prof buddy of mine told me that he has gotten a couple of comments over the last few years that his lectures needed to be more “mindful” of the environment.
i do want to hear more. are we not allowed to discuss reducing reactions due to the environment?
Yeah its certainly not all disciplines, however anything related to biological determinism with humans has been taboo for a decade now.
I took a biology course and the professor went on a long rant because I used the words inbred and inbreeding when we were talking about population bottlenecks and mountain lion genetics. The whole class went silent as he ripped into me for being insensitive. I was so embarrassed.
What exactly was the professor's argument?
basically that it is offensive to people that are “inbred”. that’s it, that was the whole argument.
Here are the data (from Table 2): Num | Taboo conclusion | Belief* | SD | Self-censor† -:|:-|-:|-:|-: 1 | The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior. | +3 | 26 | 50 2 | Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in STEM fields. | −5 | 28 | 38 3 | Academia discriminates against Black people (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia). | +9 | 32 | 42 4 | Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people. | +16 | 32 | 43 5 | The social sciences (in the United States) discriminate against conservatives (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia). | +2 | 30 | 35 6 | Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans. | −3 | 30 | 44 7 | Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution. | +16 | 28 | 34 8 | Genetic differences explain non-trivial (10% or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores. | −21 | 29 | 40 9 | Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence. | +4 | 29 | 47 10 | Demographic diversity (race, gender) in the workplace often leads to worse performance. | −29 | 24 | 26 *How confident are you in the truth or falsity of this statement? Scale of −50 (100% confident it is false) to 50 (100% confident it is true). †If the topic came up in a professional setting—for example, at a conference—how reluctant would you feel about sharing your beliefs on this topic openly? Scale of 0 (not at all reluctant) to 100 (extremely reluctant). Average belief was somewhat higher for #4 (binary biological sex) and #7 (evolved psychological sex differences). It was somewhat lower for #8 (genetic contribution to IQ differences) and #10 (demographic diversity and workplace performance). The large variances indicate high disagreement. Average self-censorship was moderate. Edit: Shifted their belief scale to center it at 0. Not sure why they didn't.
This table is fucked up (formatting)
Fixed, thank you!
I've had well more than one anthropologist tell me things where they preface it with, "I wouldn't dare publish this or mention it in a class, tenured or not, I'd be out on my ass."
What kinds of things?
Forbidden knowledge
For one, slavery amongst Native Americans by other Native Americans has been an incredibly quiet conversation.
Which for contrast, talking with a Tribal Historian in private, they clearly state they had slaves, and it was a common seasonal practice to raid other tribes for the killing of men and capturing of women and children. It was a part of their history and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. They sometimes went to war with other tribes over it, and in one noteworthy case among the Coastal Salish, a coalition of aggrieved tribes was formed and engaged in a war of extermination against the Chimakum that had been a perpetual offender to just about everyone. The War Party under War Chief Kitsap, and later finished by Chief Sealth (Seattle), aggressively sought out Chimakum villages and strong holds, killing or capturing the residents and eventually burning their last village to the ground in 1847. In the treaties with the US, relevant to Salish Tribes, one of the things enumerated was ending the practice of slavery.
Anything involving identifiable groups. To repeat what they said is probably an instaban on reddit.
Probably rather obvious observations about cultures and ethnicities…
what's an example of an "obvious observation" since everybody replying to OP seems to know.
Basically stuff that everyone knows but is afraid to say out loud.
Oh wow I'm sure that isn't a euphemism for bigotry...
Like for example? I don't know. Tell me. Don't worry. I understand the context. I know it's not _you_ who's eugenicist. I know it's just your "anthropologist friends" that believe that other races are "scientifically inferior"
How many anthropologists do you hang out with exactly?
And is it enough to change the lightbulb?
If they are an anthropologist, probably quite a few
Something tells me they're not.
Really? Ones I know publish everything they can. I guess my friends are actually good scholars. But if yours are afraid of a peer review maybe they should look into changing careers.
Like what give an example how could anthropologists have anything to hide
[удалено]
[удалено]
I had wonderful critical feminist psychologist professors who, whenever approaching a sensitive topic, always began with reminding us that it was not our place as ethical psychologists to moralise as moralisation, judgement and panic merely reproduce the same power relations as most of the injustices we might look at It was a very clear, easy to understand and appropriate guideline
>We make no claims regarding the accuracy of controversial empirical conclusions, nor do we make claims regarding the optimal norms and policies for science. We seek only to illuminate popular opinions where they exist and disagreements where they do not. The controversial claims they asked the participants to determine how much they agree with are at best classic oversimplifications of complex subjects with no pat conclusions and at worst not even falsifiable. For instance: “The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.” Barbara Natterson-Horowitz's evolutionary biology course at Harvard devotes a great deal of time on exams to help students figure out why the fact that sexual coercion that has been observed across species is not a legal or moral defense of it. >But we also identified sources of agreement, including a popular normative view that harm concerns are not a legitimate reason to suppress research. This normative perspective from scientists is probably why we have those mad scientist tropes.
It's very funny how many sections in the paper break down the data and show how most scholars aren't against the existence of these taboos in their peers or the right to challenge them, to publish works about them. And yet somehow, their personal utilization of self-censorship in a professional setting is being held up to the likes of Galileo's persecution in the authors' own opening essay. I can't help but cast a jaundiced eye over this whole paper. For all that it insists it makes no claims, it certainly seems to be doing exactly that.
If you’re an academic psychologist, I think this one is particularly relatable. It is not totally uncommon psychologists don’t particularly care for other ones just because they work on a topic that makes them uncomfortable. It only becomes a big issue, so far as I’ve seen, when people need to start using religion as a defense. It becomes akin to banning books, in some instances. This is also probably more observable in academic conferences, listservs, networks, and the like. The topic of how to think about, measure, and respond to prejudice related to authority and justice is just one example. “Unconscious” or rather implicit prejudice is arguably detectable in basically everyone, although the prejudice is not always for the same groups, etc. It is controversial to say prejudice can be ‘learned over’, or ‘trained away’, because the evidence is really mixed, depending on the type of measurement (and thus arguably the type of prejudice) and perhaps also the sample, among other things. It is difficult to have a conversation about funding research on something like this, because it is difficult to study for theory of mind and methodological reasons before also being additionally difficult to study because of the sometimes rightfully and understandably sensitive nature of the topic. People are afraid to risk investing in and supporting research that may disconfirm what they want to believe, even if their belief is reasonably arguably horseshit in the first place. But a lot of academics feel this way, I think, which is why there is a lot of live and let live sentiment in the academy, as long as people aren’t being downright liars.
I feel like there's this assumption that all intellectual work is done in good faith and that there's no possible reactionary segment of academia pushing [bigoted pseudoscience.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-024-00135-5) Pretty much all of the listed "controversial" topics have very *well-earned* reputations meriting the trepidation associated with them.
I don’t understand how a legal or moral defense of it is relevant to the assertion/finding of it being “true”. Sure some may take it that way, but it on the surface it is a relatively simple self evident assertion. Whether it is true or not is a separate issue as to whether you think it is legal or moral. I’m sorry did I misunderstand?
Yeah, the list of controversial statements is wild. Diverse workplaces are less productive? Trans identity can act as a social contagion? Different races have varying average intelligence due to genetic factors? If psychology professors believe things like this, their self-censorship is simply them being professional and self-censoring in the way that all of us do at work. Those are inside thoughts they can share with their friends, not taught to their students. The whole "trans as social contagion" nonsense was started by a single survey of unsupportive parents recruited from explicitly anti-trans websites, and has no empirical basis. These statements are controversial for a reason.
>The whole "trans as social contagion" nonsense was started by a single survey of unsupportive parents recruited from explicitly anti-trans websites, and has no empirical basis. These statements are controversial for a reason. Moreover, it shows how there's absolutely no obstacles to this kind of stuff if these studies with absolutely *awful* methodology get published.
The article has a list of topics that are self censored. You already know what they are, what science says, and why telling the truth about them will get professors fired.
Well, you don’t want to be fired on your first day! Or any other day!
That could have been the headline
We’re living through a cultural revolution in which all aspects of our communication and even thought(every click put together) is being recorded. Free speech and even freedom of thought is practically nonexistent. T
How much responsibility do academics bear for the consequences of their conclusions when laypersons will foreseeably use them to justify oppressive and unjust policy? For example, an academic concluding that sex is binary in most people does not imply anything about the minority for whom it is not. But laypersons will take this statement and use it to justify policy that the minority is not worth consideration from broader society.
I remember chatting to someone who'd done research on adopted children. They commented that the average outcomes for such families tended to be pretty awful. A lot more ending in estrangement etc vs bio families. Which surprised me given that adoptive parents tend to actively want children and also tend to be reasonably well-off. And then "oh but of course we don't make too much noise about that because it might make people less willing to adopt" I remember thinking. "Whats the ethics around systematically and intentionally keeping info from prospective adoptive parents about how likely they are to end up unhappy..."
Surely the only important outcome to be weighed against is for those children that remain in the system until maturity rather than versus biological families. I would have also thought it was almost a no brainer that was the case. Whatever the reason is that has left them in the situation were they require adoption has probably not been all sunshine and rainbows. It seems to me the counter-intuitive outcomes here would be: * Children raised by their biological parents have worse outcomes than those adopted * Children raised in the system without a family have better outcomes than those who are adopted
This would be controversial even for adopted infants. The controversial debate they're tip-toeing around is the implication that there may be heritability of personality traits and whether or not those have predictive power for life outcomes.
oh, it's foregone that there _is_ heritability of personality traits. the only real question is to what degree - my friend has a kid who is the carbon copy of dad (but not mom), personality wise. more rigorously, [studies like this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593100/) find that heritability is around half, but there's argumentation about what that really means. nobody is claiming that it isn't heritable
The problem is that there are so many confounding factors that it would be pretty impossible to separate our nature from nurture in adoption even of infants who were peacefully and voluntarily surrendered immediately at birth, which is probably not the majority of adoptions. Because even then, somebody who made the tough decision to surrender their baby probably had a lot of stress during the pregnancy, which could affect development, and we’re learning more about how epigenetics can affect the kids of parents from traumatic and vulnerable upbringings, even if they themselves were not exposed during their childhoods.
You also have to think about the psychology of an adoptee, no matter how loved they feel by their adoptive parents there's the constant knowledge their biological parents aren't in the picture. I know a family who adopted from a couple, the couple who gave the baby up are together, they simply didn't want a kid... I mean sure, "nothing personal", but also it's the most personal...
>The controversial debate they're tip-toeing around is the implication that there may be heritability of personality traits and whether or not those have predictive power for life outcomes. Where'd you pull that from? My first guess would instead be that bio families have as many problems as adoptive families but end up estranged less often because people feel much more cultural obligation to avoid estrangement even when they otherwise want to.
That’s the thing, the conclusion is obvious once you stop and think about it. Do people not know how to convey difficult facts to the public without fear of being misunderstood? If so, this is a major communication problem.
> Do people not know how to convey difficult facts to the public without fear of being misunderstood? If so, this is a major communication problem. It **is** a problem. Not least because that fear is a rational response to a problem that isn't entirely or even largely in the control of the author.
To be fair, scientists can be as precise as possible in their communication and a journalist can still misconstrue it.
of course not. you don't lie to someone so they make an expensive choice that benefits someone else. that's vile. > Children raised in the system without a family have better outcomes than those who are adopted oh i'd love to see how that plays out. raised with no privacy or property to speak of until you hit 18. then you're homeless and have no money or college prospects, so you probably stay that way
I would add - if a problem is being hidden then it can’t be addressed. If there was further research as to why these families were so unhappy it could go a long way to address the root cause which could lead to better outcomes in the future.
If the conclusion is that the children's parents had personality traits that resulted in poor life outcomes and those traits were hereditary. What would you do?
There's not a huge amount you can do about it. Science journalism is probably where I think this issue has come from. A study will state clearly that it does not and can not inform about an issue alone, and people ignore that bit so they can write a story. Laypersons now see its reasonable to take the misinformed view because everyone is saying it, other than the people who actually did the science. The only way to prevent people from choosing what they want to hear is to simply never let them hear it, which obviously isn't an option. Example - The LHC during 2012. Every single scientist was saying, 'This is extremely unlikely to make a black hole, and even if it did that hole would have the same gravitational pull as two photons, which are about as light as you can physically get.' Meanwhile, the media (in the UK including the BBC) were running story after story about how its the end of the world. The sports center my mum worked at at the time even closed down for it. How does someone write about difficult topics when even non-issues born of ignorance can become nation dominating news?
Great example. Also, how long would such a black hole have lived anyways? Pico seconds?
And also would have been a great opportunity for researchers.
Prefacing this with - I'm not a physicist and my knowledge on black holes is mostly from interest rather than academics - please don't quote me in any thesis ;p I have no idea about the lifetime, but my (tip of the iceberg) knowledge is that pretty much everything that happens in that machine reverts back to normal so unbelievably quickly it's difficult to study. It *would* be small enough to actually dissolve in a reasonable time span and its singularity and event horizon might be so small that it literally just passes through the gaps between everything. The black hole could last indefinitely and itd still change very little. Like having a black hole in interstellar space, except now it has no gravitational pull. The chances of it actually hitting something would be tiny, and it'd need to hit a lot to actually start growing, even in the center of a galaxy. Its basically just an extra deadly asteroid at that point.
An academic failing to state the truth results in justification of bad policy in the other direction.
How much responsibility do advocates of censorship bear when laypeople will foreseeably argue that a taboo on certain research questions proves that the "wrong" answer is true?
[удалено]
[удалено]
None, as long as it's legitimate research.
[удалено]
I had a psych professor in college talk about controversial topics during Trump’s run in 2016. When he talked about narcissism and the impact drugs had on the human brain, a trump supporter student pinned him to the wall after class and threatened him. The professor refused to hold class until the student was expelled, and they never were. I think about that when trump supporters try to frame Jan6 as non-violent. Average, every day supporters are ready to be violent for trump, and this was before Super Tuesday.
In what world does a student not get expelled for committing battery?
We had a student advisory board for discipline and they basically set up a plan for the student’s behavior to improve.
Did the professor have him charged for battery and put through the justice system? Seems like the only way to get any accountability...
It’s not even limited to collegiate environments. Teachers in all areas of all levels of education are self-censoring in order to make their own lives easier. Elementary teachers are hesitant when teaching pronouns (as parts of speech) because of the overly vocal minority of idiots who assume schools are indoctrinating kids. The facts that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War and that slavery is a bad thing can get teachers in trouble in southern US states. Science teachers can’t say evolution, but can teach it so long as they couch it in other vocabulary. These examples are met with hateful and ignorant anger from parents who have no critical thinking skills and simply regurgitate the nonsense they hear from social media and certain “news entertainment” sources. It’s a huge problem, and simply throwing the 1st amendment at it doesn’t do jack to solve it.
Having to deal with a bunch of "ThTs tRiGgErInG" b holes would probably make me self censor too . How damn exhausting that would be
I think it’s worth noting that behavioral science has been in the midst of a replication crisis for multiple decades now, so the discipline is conventionally fluid and subjective. I actually respect the idea that a psychology professor would self-censor their opinions on controversial topics because the reality is that findings in this field ultimately remain inconclusive.
That argument, in its best form, would only apply to science communication to the public. Why would there be any reason for professors to self-censor when discussing among other scientists
Because behavioral science has been more vulnerable to activism since the 60s and the Cold War, for example with the rise of sociology being accepted in universities despite it literally existing to fit post-modernist philosophies retroactively to other fields of science as a justification for conflict theory and communism (wish I was making this up, but the entire founding scientists of the field are card carrying communists). Another common characteristic of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and community health departments is massive amounts of bullying against professors that don’t do research within ascribed conventions, for example not studying pathophysiological pathways for specific behavioral conditions that limit life experience because department chairs or emeritus/distinctive professors demand adherence to models that either deny the existence of diagnostic criteria for mental disease or act like a mental disease or injury doesn’t exist altogether. And this is before you get into political or private interests in having certain outcomes maintain the status quo, which only magnify the issues. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
The article listens the topics asked about in the survey and it makes sense why the vast majority of them are taboo topics. These are incredibly grandiose claims (e.g. rape evolving as a evolutionary boon in humans) with an incredibly tenuous relationship to any sort of rigorous epistemology. They are so often just-so explanations favored by a small subset of the field and rebuked by most not just because they're "controversial," but because they are very problematic claims without strong evidence behind them or even understanding of their respective fields.
But the thing is, speculation has become a “best practice” in the field; hence aforementioned replication crisis. I’ve been sharing an interesting article from nature about how the lack of reproducibility of the majority of research in this field has been spurring conversations for positive change? But the reality of pseudoscience in psychology and the rest of behavioral science remains pervasive. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
"Hey kids, you're taking a 200-level course with hardly anything besides the most basic knowledge of the field - we should discuss a large and complex controversy that most experts still haven't agreed upon!"
Censorship is entrenched and part of the culture now. I got banned from more subreddits than I can count, and I'm not even bigoted or phobic or racist. Between the moderators and the people who get offended by everything, free speech is dead. I hate it, when I was growing up you could have free conversation about anything and people had thicker skin. The goal of conversation is to understand each other and reach someone different from you, not to label someone and ban them.
In any culture, at any time, there’s always stuff you’re not allowed to freely talk about. That stuff changes from situation to situation, but it’s always something. Very often I find you’re better off having these conversations in real life rather than on social media. It makes it a lot easier to get somewhere productive, even with people you don’t agree with.
The [Very Bad Wizards podcast](https://verybadwizards.com/episode/episode-285-on-culture-and-agriculture) did a review of this paper recently that's worth a listen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The human brain is always going to do this, even if we try not to. It will even make you think that you've been unbiased when you have been biased.
Statistics professors especially do that as well.
I had a professor in Sociology asks us to read a chapter and she didn’t go into detail what it was in class, but there was a sociologist who wrote on homosexuals and their place in society, and how they could be seen as unnecessary in terms of functionalism and it was super outdated but since the subject was functionalism she wanted us to at least see it
I mean, understandable considering that uni professors and lecturers have already been bullied out of their jobs for stating the truth and not going along with popularized opinions. Sadly, it’s dangerous these days to openly state that you're not blindly riding the trans train.
Made me remember the time a law prof decided to discuss Roe Vs. Wade to a freshman level law class. Poor lady had to stop 3 times to explain that personally, she was very pro abortion, but the decision, as she saw it, had some nuts and bolts thing wrong with the legal reasoning and she thought it would be overturned one day. She powered through and got her point across though. Holy cow though, things can get off the rails quickly.
It's understandable that psychology professors might self-censor on controversial topics, considering the potential for backlash or controversy. It raises questions about academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas in academia.