506. The Insanity of Woke Psychologists | Lee Jussim

A long-standing denial among social psychologists regarding left-wing authoritarianism has recently been challenged as studies began to emerge, recognizing its existence and implications.

Social psychologists long denied the existence of left-wing authoritarianism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For 60 years, social psychologists refused to acknowledge the presence of identifiable left-wing authoritarian beliefs and groups, until a few studies in 2016 finally broke this denial.

Peterson and Jussim discuss the historical neglect in social psychology when it comes to the recognition of left-wing authoritarianism. They note that there was an absolute denial of this concept that persisted for six decades. Peterson highlights the gap in political analysis within the psychological community by recalling his supervision of a master's thesis that identified statistical clusters of left-wing authoritarian beliefs.

Jordan Peterson expresses astonishment at the field's failure to acknowledge left-wing authoritarianism, considering the significant impact of such ideologies in the 20th century. On the same note, Lee Jussim’s and Peterson's conversations reveal that there was a widespread neglect in acknowledging left-wing authoritarian movements—movements that they find evidently significant. Only in recent years, specifically since 2016, has there been an acceptance and acknowledgment within the field that left-wing authoritarianism exists.

The definition and measurement of left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism are complex but important for understanding political psychology.

Authoritarianism is a psychological construct defined by a motivation to suppress and deprive the rights of political opponents, which requires assessing attitudes towards one's ideological foes.

The talks between Peterson and Jussim imply that defining and measuring both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism remains a complex endeavor critical to the understanding of political psychology. Auth ...

Researchers, including Lee Jussim and Jordan Peterson, have been investigating the psychological underpinnings of political beliefs by developing validated scales to measure authoritarianism on both the left and right sides of the spectrum.

Researchers have now developed validated scales to measure both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism.

Jussim and Peterson have included measures of both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism in their studies, leading to significant findings about the clustering of authoritarian beliefs among ideological groups. During their investigative work, they differentiated between the liberal left, which does not hold radical views, and an authoritarian left, which endorses more extreme and divisive political imagery.

The scales reveal statistical patterns and clusters of authoritarian beliefs among ideological groups on both the left and right.

The conceptual differentiation allowed Jussim to detail the use of statistical regression to separate liberalism from left-wing authoritarianism. Liberalism correlated with the endorsement of a "humanistic diversity image," whereas left-wing authoritarianism significantly predicted the endorsement of extreme political imagery.

Peterson discussed the method by which they analyzed a wide range of political opinions to determine if specific belief patterns were predictive of authoritarian tendencies. This systematic approach revealed the importance of individual psychological traits in predicting ideological leaning and authoritarian attitudes.

Using these measures, researchers have found that low verbal ability is a strong predictor of left-wing authoritarianism.

In their findings, Jussim and Peterson highlighted that low verbal ability emerged as the strongest predictor of left-wing authoritarianism, a significant and concerning correlation given its negative implications.

Applying these scales can provide important insights into the psychological underpinnings of polit ...

Recent studies have begun to unveil the psychological impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) rhetoric. These findings point to how exposure to DEI ideologies can alter perceptions of racism and bias in situations where evidence of such issues may be limited or absent.

Researchers have investigated the psychological impact of common diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) rhetoric and messaging.

Lee Jussim introduces the conversation by discussing experimental studies that assess the psychological impacts of common DEI rhetoric. It's important to note that these studies were not evaluating the effectiveness of specific DEI programs but rather the rhetoric that is frequently found in DEI materials used in various educational and professional settings.

They used passages from influential DEI texts like Kendi's "How to Be an Antiracist" and D'Angelo's "White Fragility" to expose participants to this type of rhetoric.

Jussim explains that their experiment involved presenting participants with anti-racism rhetoric directly from influential DEI texts such as "How to Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi and "White Fragility" by Robin DiAngelo. These texts were chosen for their prominence and widespread use across numerous DEI interventions.

After reading these passages, participants perceived more bias and microaggressions in ambiguous scenarios, even when no racial information was provided.

After validating the prominence of the passages in college and professional training materials, Jussim describes an observational study that followed. Participants, after reading just a single paragraph from the combined excerpts of "How to Be an Antiracist" and "White Fragility" supplemented by additional writing from the researchers, were more likely to contrive racism in scenarios that provided no explicit evidence of it. For example, in a scenario where a college applicant is rejected by an admissions officer, those who read the ...

In an environment that fiercely backlashes against research or perspectives critical of dominant DEI ideologies, scholars like Lee Jussim find themselves in the crosshairs of academic controversy.

Researchers who publish findings or perspectives critical of dominant DEI ideologies often face fierce backlash and attempts at cancellation

Lee Jussim and colleagues experienced pushback after engaging in scholarly critique of the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideologies in psychology. After Jussim published a commentary critiquing the narrow framing of diversity and pointing out the political homogeneity in academia, over 1,400 academics signed a letter denouncing him and his colleagues as racists.

When Lee Jussim and colleagues published commentaries critiquing the narrow framing of diversity in psychology, over 1,400 academics signed a letter denouncing them as racists

Jussim's involvement in a controversy known as the "Pops Fiasco Racist Mule Trope," which he details on his sub-stack site Unsafe Science, is a case in point. An analogy he used from "Fiddler on the Roof" was misinterpreted as comparing black people to mules, spurring the denouncement. Following this, the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science's editor, Klaus Fiedler, was ousted, and the papers were blocked from publication during a protracted dispute.

Jussim recounts the drama involving an open letter demanding the retraction of papers and the editor's firing resulted in about two-thirds of the editorial board resigning, either in protest or to avoid trouble. The journal, through the Association for Psychological Science, took almost two years to resolve these issues which involved silence and obstacles.

Jussim drew on past experience to navigate these denunciation attempts, employing effective strategies

Jussim's strategy in facing these challenges was multifaceted. First and foremost, he advises going silent initially and thoroughly documenting the process—steps that serve as a foundation to weather the storm of denouncement unscathed. This approach also includes activating supportive professional networks; individuals tend to be more vulnerable when perceived to be isolated.

Staying silent initially, thoroughly documenting the process, and activating supportive professional networks were key to weathering the storm

In addition to silence and sup ...