2016年03月发表的文章(20)

[译文]社会心理学界政治单极化

It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
终于来啦:关于社会心理学缺乏政治多元性的大型综述论文

作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2015-9-14
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:龟海海
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

Heterodox Academy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists and a sociologist to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative.)  In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site.

“异端学院”发端于五位社会心理学家和一位社会学家对心理学领域早被注意到的一个问题的合作研究:该领域中几乎所有人都是政治上的左派。自2011年始,我们就一直在共同写作一篇论文,解释这一现象是如何产生的、它如何降低了社会心理学领域所发表的科学文章的质量,以及为改进这一科学可以做些什么。(注意我们之中没人自认为是保守派)在此过程中,我们发现了其他一些学者在其它领域的研究成果,他们加入了我们的队伍,一起创建了这个网站。

Our paper is finally published this week! A preprint of the manuscript was posted last year, but now we have the final typeset version, plus the 33 commentaries. Here is a link to the PDF of the final manuscript, on the website of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (Thanks to Paul Bloom for his wise and patient editorship.) Here’s a link to a page linking to HTML versions of all the documents. But because our article is long (13 dense pages) and the 33 commentaries are longer (another 31 pages) — and then there’s our response (another 7 pages) — we recognize that few people will ever read the whole package.

我们的论文终于在本周出版啦!我们去年曾贴出原稿的预印本,但现在我们已经有了排版稿,外加33条评论。以下是《行为与脑科学》杂志网站上最终稿的PDF版链接(感谢Paul Bloom明确且细致的编辑工作。)以下则是所有文档的HTML版的网页链接。不过,由于我们的文章很长(密密麻麻13页),那33条评论更长(加31页)——还有我们的回应(再加7页)——我们认为没什么人会读完全部材料。

For all these reasons, we offer here a “CliffsNotes” version, giving the basics of our argument using excerpts copied directly from the paper.  [Occasional comments from me–Jonathan Haidt–are interspersed in brackets] Please also see this post by Lee Jussim, explaining why we think this problem is so serious. In a later post Jarret Crawford summarizes the 33 commentaries on our article.

出于以上理由,我们现在提供一份“克里夫笔记”【导读荟萃】版,通过对论文的直接复制摘录,给出我们的论证要点。[间或在括号中加入了由我(Jonathan Haidt)写的评论]。此外,还请阅读Lee Jussim发布的这个帖子,他解释了我们为何认为这个问题很严重。在之后的一片帖子中,Jarret Crawford总结了33条关于我们文章的评论。

CITATION: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[and try this link, with no paywall, or this link to the preprint version]

引用:Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). 政治多样性将会改善社会心理科学。《行为和脑科学》, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[另外,试试这个链接,没有付费墙,或者这个预印本]

ABSTRACT
摘要

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity.

心理学家已向我们展示,多元性——特别是视角的多元性——对于提高创造力、促进新发现和解决问题的价值。但是,一般而言在学院心理学以及特别而言在社会心理学领域,却缺乏一种关键形式的视角多元性:政治多元性。

This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.

本文考察了可见的证据,并为下列四个论断提供了支撑:(1)学院心理学过去曾有过相当大的政治多元性,但在过去50年间几乎已将其丧失殆尽。

(2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike.

(2)这种政治多元性的缺乏,可能破坏社会心理科学的有效性,破坏可能通过这样一些机制发生:将自由派价值观预置于研究问题和方法中,引导研究者避开事关重大但在政治上不受待见的研究课题,并得出对自由派抑或保守派特征的错误描绘。

(3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological (more...)

标签: | |
6702
It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology 终于来啦:关于社会心理学缺乏政治多元性的大型综述论文 作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2015-9-14 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:龟海海 来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/ Heterodox Academy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists and a sociologist to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative.)  In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site. “异端学院”发端于五位社会心理学家和一位社会学家对心理学领域早被注意到的一个问题的合作研究:该领域中几乎所有人都是政治上的左派。自2011年始,我们就一直在共同写作一篇论文,解释这一现象是如何产生的、它如何降低了社会心理学领域所发表的科学文章的质量,以及为改进这一科学可以做些什么。(注意我们之中没人自认为是保守派)在此过程中,我们发现了其他一些学者在其它领域的研究成果,他们加入了我们的队伍,一起创建了这个网站。 Our paper is finally published this week! A preprint of the manuscript was posted last year, but now we have the final typeset version, plus the 33 commentaries. Here is a link to the PDF of the final manuscript, on the website of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (Thanks to Paul Bloom for his wise and patient editorship.) Here’s a link to a page linking to HTML versions of all the documents. But because our article is long (13 dense pages) and the 33 commentaries are longer (another 31 pages) — and then there’s our response (another 7 pages) — we recognize that few people will ever read the whole package. 我们的论文终于在本周出版啦!我们去年曾贴出原稿的预印本,但现在我们已经有了排版稿,外加33条评论。以下是《行为与脑科学》杂志网站上最终稿的PDF版链接(感谢Paul Bloom明确且细致的编辑工作。)以下则是所有文档的HTML版的网页链接。不过,由于我们的文章很长(密密麻麻13页),那33条评论更长(加31页)——还有我们的回应(再加7页)——我们认为没什么人会读完全部材料。 For all these reasons, we offer here a “CliffsNotes” version, giving the basics of our argument using excerpts copied directly from the paper.  [Occasional comments from me–Jonathan Haidt–are interspersed in brackets] Please also see this post by Lee Jussim, explaining why we think this problem is so serious. In a later post Jarret Crawford summarizes the 33 commentaries on our article. 出于以上理由,我们现在提供一份“克里夫笔记”【导读荟萃】版,通过对论文的直接复制摘录,给出我们的论证要点。[间或在括号中加入了由我(Jonathan Haidt)写的评论]。此外,还请阅读Lee Jussim发布的这个帖子,他解释了我们为何认为这个问题很严重。在之后的一片帖子中,Jarret Crawford总结了33条关于我们文章的评论。 CITATION: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[and try this link, with no paywall, or this link to the preprint version] 引用:Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). 政治多样性将会改善社会心理科学。《行为和脑科学》, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[另外,试试这个链接,没有付费墙,或者这个预印本] ABSTRACT 摘要 Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. 心理学家已向我们展示,多元性——特别是视角的多元性——对于提高创造力、促进新发现和解决问题的价值。但是,一般而言在学院心理学以及特别而言在社会心理学领域,却缺乏一种关键形式的视角多元性:政治多元性。 This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. 本文考察了可见的证据,并为下列四个论断提供了支撑:(1)学院心理学过去曾有过相当大的政治多元性,但在过去50年间几乎已将其丧失殆尽。 (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (2)这种政治多元性的缺乏,可能破坏社会心理科学的有效性,破坏可能通过这样一些机制发生:将自由派价值观预置于研究问题和方法中,引导研究者避开事关重大但在政治上不受待见的研究课题,并得出对自由派抑或保守派特征的错误描绘。 (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking. (3)增加政治多元性,能够改善社会心理科学,其途径包括降低偏见机制如确认偏误的影响,让持异议的少数派有机会改进多数派的思考质量。 (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology. (4)社会心理学中非自由派的人数不足,最有可能是自我选择、敌对气氛以及歧视等因素共同作用的结果。文章结尾我们就增进社会心理学中政治多元化提出了一些建议。

******

1. Introduction 1. 导论 In the last few years, social psychology has faced a series of challenges to the validity of its research, including a few high-profile replication failures, a handful of fraud cases, and several articles on questionable research practices and inflated effect sizes… In this article, we suggest that one largely overlooked cause of failure is a lack of political diversity. We review evidence suggesting that political diversity and dissent would improve the reliability and validity of social psychological science… 过去数年间,社会心理学在其研究有效性上面临一系列挑战,包括一些众人瞩目的试验重复失败,一些造假事件,还有一些文章用的是有问题的研究操作和夸大的效应量……我们在本文中表明,此种失败的一个原因受到广泛忽视,即缺乏政治多元性。我们考察了相关证据,表明政治多元性和异议能够改进社会心理科学的可靠性和有效性…… We focus on conservatives as an underrepresented group because the data on the prevalence in psychology of different ideological groups is best for the liberal-conservative contrast – and the departure from the proportion of liberals and conservatives in the U.S. population is so dramatic. However, we argue that the field needs more non-liberals however they specifically self-identify (e.g., libertarian, moderate)… 我们将保守派这个代表性不足的群体作为关注焦点,因为在心理学中,不同意识形态群体的流行程度数据最适合进行自由派-保守派对比,也因为与全美人口的自由派与保守派占比相比,心理学领域偏差极为惊人。不过,我们论证道,这个领域需要更多非自由派,无论他们的自我认同具体为何(如自由意志主义者、温和派等)…… The lack of political diversity is not a threat to the validity of specific studies in many and perhaps most areas of research in social psychology. The lack of diversity causes problems for the scientific process primarily in areas related to the political concerns of the Left – areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality – as well as in areas where conservatives themselves are studied, such as in moral and political psychology. 多元政治的缺乏对某些特定领域(或许是大多数社会心理学领域)的研究有效性,并不构成威胁。多元政治的缺失造成问题的主要是科研过程中涉及那些跟左派的政治关怀有关的领域——如种族、性别、刻板印象、环保主义、权力和不平等,以及在那些研究对象就包括了保守派的领域——如道德和政治心理学。

******

2. Psychology is less politically diverse than ever 2. 心理学的政治多元性之少史无前例 [In this section we review all available information on the political party identification of psychologists, as well as their liberal-conservative self descriptions. The graph below says it all. Whichever of those two measures you use, you find a big change after 1990. Before the 1990s, academic psychology only LEANED left. Liberals and Democrats outnumbered Conservatives and Republican by 4 to 1 or less. But as the “greatest generation” retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers, the ratio skyrocketed to something more like 12 to 1. In just 20 years. Few psychologists realize just how quickly or completely the field has become a political monoculture. This graph took us by surprise too.] [本部分我们就心理学家的政治党派认同以及他们对属于自由派还是保守派的自我描述,回顾所有可以找到的信息。下列图表说明了一切。不论你采用两种测量方法中的哪一种,你都能发现1990年后发生了一个重大变化。1990年代以前,学院心理学只是倾向左派。自由派和民主党比保守派和共和党多,比率为4:1及以下。但到了1990年代,“最伟大的一代”退休【译注:指1920年代生人,因其经历大萧条、二战、战后重建而与美国同铸辉煌而得此名】,“婴儿潮一代”取而代之【译注:指战后至1960年代中期生人】,这一比率飙升到12:1以上的程度。只用了20年。极少有心理学家意识到这一领域转变为一种政治单一栽培的快速程度和彻底程度。这个图标也令我们大吃一惊。] diversity-graph Figure 1. The political party and ideological sympathies of academic psychologists have shifted leftward over time. Circles show ratios of self-reports of liberal vs. conservative. Diamonds show ratios of self-reports of party preference or voting (Democrat vs. Republican). Data for 1924–60 is reported in McClintock et al. (1965). Open diamonds are participants’ recollections of whom they voted for; gray diamonds are self-reported party identification at time of the survey. Data for 1999 is reported in Rothman et al. (2005). Data from 2006 is reported in Gross and Simmons (2007). The right-most circle is from Inbar and Lammers (2012) and is the ratio of selfidentified liberal/conservative social psychologists. 图1. 学院心理学家的政治党派和意识形态倾向已经随时间流逝而趋向左转。圆形表示自陈自由派的与自陈保守派的比率。菱形则表示自陈的政党偏好或投票记录(民主党vs.共和党)的比率。1924-60年数据据McClintock 等(1965)。空心菱形是参与者对投票给谁的回忆;灰色菱形则是被调查时自陈的政党身份。1999年的数据据Rothman等(2005)。2006年的数据据Gross和 Simmons (2007)。最右边的圆形则来自Inbar和Lammers(2012),指的是自认自由派和自认保守派的社会心理学家之比。

******

3. Three ways that the lack of diversity undermines social psychology 3. 多元性的缺乏对社会心理学造成破坏的三种方式 Might a shared moral-historical narrative [the “liberal progress” narrative described by sociologist Christian Smith] in a politically homogeneous field undermine the self-correction processes on which good science depends? We think so, and present three risk points— three ways in which political homogeneity can threaten the validity of social psychological science—and examples from the extant literature illustrating each point. 在一个政治同质化的领域内,一种共享的道德-历史叙事(社会学家Christian Smith所描绘的那种“自由进步”叙事),会破坏良好科学所赖以存在的自我纠正过程吗?我们认为会,并提出了三个风险点——政治同质性能够威胁社会心理科学有效性的三种方式,针对每一点,我们都从现存文献中提出例证来作了说明。 3.1. Risk point 1: Liberal values and assumptions can become embedded into theory and method 3.1. 风险点之一:自由派价值观和假设可能预装到理论和方法之中 The embedding of values occurs when value statements or ideological claims are wrongly treated as objective truth, and observed deviation from that truth is treated as error. 当价值陈述或意识形态主张被错误地当成客观真理对待时,或者与这一真理有出入的现象被观测到,却被当成错误对待时,价值观的预装就发生了。 [Example:] and McBride (2007) found that: 1) people high in social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely to make unethical decisions, 2) people high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders, and 3) dyads with high SDO leaders and high RWA followers made more unethical decisions than dyads with alternative arrangements (e.g., low SDO—low RWA dyads). [例证:]Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna和 McBride(2007)发现:1)社会支配倾向(SDO)高的人更可能作出不道德的决定,2)右翼权威主义(RWA)程度高的人更可能遵从领导人作出的不道德决定,以及3)高SDO的领导人与高RWA的追随者这一组合作出的不道德决定比其它形式的排列组合(如低SDO和低RWA组合)要多。 Yet consider the decisions they defined as unethical: not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case), and a worker placing the well-being of his or her company above unspecified harms to the environment attributed to the company’s operations. Liberal values of feminism and environmentalism were embedded directly into the operationalization of ethics, even to the extent that participants were expected to endorse those values in vignettes that lacked the information one would need to make a considered judgment. 不过,看看被他们界定为不道德的决定:在女性同事对其下属提出性骚扰投诉时不正式站在她的一边(几乎没有任何案件相关信息),工人将他或她所属公司的利益置于未明确说明的环境损害之上(这种损害被归罪于该公司的运营)。自由派的女性主义和环保主义价值取向被直接预装进了伦理概念的执行之中,甚至到了这种程度:在某个场景下缺乏信息的个体不得不做出审慎判断,仍指望参与者支持这些价值。 The appearance of certain words that imply pernicious motives (e.g., deny, legitimize, rationalize, justify, defend, trivialize) may be particularly indicative of research tainted by embedded values. 对某些特定词汇的使用,暗中指涉险恶的动机(如拒斥、合法化、合理化、正当化、维护、琐碎化等)。出现这些词汇,可能就具有特别的标志性,表明研究已被预装的价值观污染。 3.2. Risk point 2: Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative 3.2 风险点之二:研究者可能全神关注那些能够证实自由进步叙事的论题,避开那些对这一叙事构成质疑的论题 Since the enlightenment, scientists have thought of themselves as spreading light and pushing back the darkness. The metaphor is apt, but in a politically homogeneous field, a larger-than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored. Even worse, some areas become walled off, and inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in. 自启蒙运动以来,科学家们一直认为自己所做的,乃是拒绝黑暗、传播光明的事业。这个暗喻是恰当的,不过,在一个政治同质化的地界,把灯光照向境内那些在意识形态上很重要的领域的科学家数目实在是多得过分。这么做会令许多领域无人探索。更糟糕的是,有些领域还会被高墙围起来,任何求知好问的研究者胆敢冒险进入,就有被放逐的风险。 [Example:] Stereotype accuracy. Since the 1930s, social psychologists have been proclaiming the inaccuracy of social stereotypes, despite lacking evidence of such inaccuracy. Evidence has seemed unnecessary because stereotypes have been, in effect, stereotyped as inherently nasty and inaccurate (see Jussim, 2012a for a review). [例证:]刻板印象的准确性。自1930年代起,社会心理学家一直声称,社会刻板印象是不准确的,尽管他们拿不出相关证据。此类证据一直被视为毫无必要,因为刻板印象本身事实上已经被刻板印象化了,成了一种本质上恶劣且不准确的事物(评论见Jussim, 2012a)。 Some group stereotypes are indeed hopelessly crude and untestable. But some may rest on valid empiricism—and represent subjective estimates of population characteristics (e.g. the proportion of people who drop out of high school, are victims of crime, or endorse policies that support women at work, see Jussim, 2012a, Ryan, 2002 for reviews). 某些群体刻板印象确实无可救药地生硬粗糙、不可验证。但还有一些,则可能确实建立在有效的经验主义基础之上——并体现了对于人群特征的主观估计(比如高中辍学的人口比例、罪案受害者的人口比例、支持职业女性的政策的支持者比例等,评论见Jussim, 2012a和Ryan,2002)。 In this context, it is not surprising that the rigorous empirical study of the accuracy of factual stereotypes was initiated by one of the very few self-avowed conservatives in social psychology—Clark McCauley (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). Since then, dozens of studies by independent researchers have yielded evidence that stereotype accuracy (of all sorts of stereotypes) is one of the most robust effects in all of social psychology (Jussim, 2012a). 在这种氛围中,毫不稀奇,关于有事实基础的刻板印象之准确性,最严谨的经验研究是由社会心理学领域极少见的自陈保守派之一——Clark McCauley开创的(McCauley和Stitt, 1978)。自那以后,独立研究者的数十种研究已经得出证据,在所有社会心理学成果中,(关于所有种类的刻板印象的)刻板印象准确性之说乃是最为有力的之一(Jussim, 2012a)。 Here is a clear example of the value of political diversity: a conservative social psychologist asked a question nobody else thought (or dared) to ask, and found results that continue to make many social psychologists uncomfortable. McCauley’s willingness to put the assumption of stereotype inaccuracy to an empirical test led to the correction of one of social psychology’s most longstanding errors. 这是政治多元性之价值的清楚一例:一个保守派社会心理学家追问了一个别人都没想过(或敢于)去问的问题,并得出了一个让许多社会心理学家现在仍一直感到不舒服的结论。McCauley决心对刻板印象不准确这一假设进行经验验证,这就导致了对于社会心理学中最长寿错误之一的纠正。 3.3. Risk point 3: Negative attitudes regarding conservatives can produce a psychological science that mischaracterizes their traits and attributes 3.3 风险点之三:对于保守派的负面看法可能导致心理科学错误地描绘保守派的特征和性质 A long-standing view in social-political psychology is that the right is more dogmatic and intolerant of ambiguity than the left, a view Tetlock (1983) dubbed the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis…. But had social psychologists studied a broad enough range of situations to justify these broad conclusions? Recent evidence suggests not. 社会—政治心理学中存在已久的一个看法是,右派比左派更为教条,更不能容忍模棱两可。Tetlock(1983)将这种看法叫作“右派的死板”假说……但是,社会心理学家为了证明这种一般性的结论,是否研究过范围足够广泛的情形?近来的证据显示:并非如此。 The ideologically objectionable premise model (IOPM; Crawford, 2012) posits that people on the political left and right are equally likely to approach political judgments with their ideological blinders on. That said, they will only do so when the premise of a political judgment is ideologically acceptable. If it’s objectionable, any preferences for one group over another will be short-circuited, and biases won’t emerge. 据“意识形态争议性前提模型”(IOPM; Crawford, 2012)推断,政治上的左派和右派戴着意识形态眼罩形成政治判断的可能性是一样大的。当然,这只会发生于政治判断的前提在意识形态上可以接受的情况下。如果这一前提是可争议的,那么偏好其中任意一个群体都会引起直接短路,偏见就不会出现。 The IOPM thus allows for biases to emerge only among liberals, only among conservatives, or among both liberals and conservatives, depending on the situation. For example, reinterpreting Altemeyer’s mandatory school prayer results, Crawford (2012) argued that for people low in RWA who value individual freedom and autonomy, mandatory school prayer is objectionable; thus, the very nature of the judgment should shut off any biases in favor of one target over the other. 由此,随着情况的不同,IOPM模型可让偏见仅出现于自由派中,或仅出现于保守派中,或同时出现于自由派和保守派中。比如,Crawford(2012)在重新解释Altemeyer的强制性学校祷告数据时论证到,对于右翼权威主义(RWA)程度低、看重个体自由与自主的人,强制性学校祷告是可争议的;因此,这一判断的性质本身会将任何重此轻彼的偏见排斥在外。 However, for people high in RWA who value society-wide conformity to traditional morals and values, mandating school prayer is acceptable; this acceptable premise then allows for people high in RWA to express a bias in favor of Christian over Muslim school prayer. 然而,对于RWA程度高、看重全社会对传统道德和价值观的遵从的人,强制性学校祷告是可以接受的;于是,这种可接受的前提就会让RWA程度高的人表达出重基督教校园祈祷者、轻穆斯林校园祈祷者的偏见。 Crawford (2012, Study 1) replaced mandatory prayer with voluntary prayer, which would be acceptable to both people high and low in RWA. In line with the IOPM, people high in RWA were still biased in favor of Christian over Muslim prayer, while people low in RWA now showed a bias in favor of Muslim over Christian voluntary prayer. Hypocrisy is therefore not necessarily a special province of the right. Crawford(2012,研究1)用自愿祈祷者代替强制祈祷者,于是前提变成了对于RWA程度高和低的两种人都可以接受。与IOPM模型预测一致,RWA程度高的人仍然存在重基督教祈祷者、轻穆斯林祈祷者的偏见,与此同时,RWA程度低的人现在表现出重穆斯林自愿祈祷者、轻基督教自愿祈祷者的偏见。因此,虚伪矫饰可不一定是右派的特殊地盘。 These example illustrate the threats to truth-seeking that emerge when members of a politically homogenous intellectual community are motivated to cast their perceived outgroup (i.e., the ones who violate the liberal progressive narrative) in a negative light. If there were more social psychologists who were motivated to question the design and interpretation of studies biased towards liberal values during peer review, or if there were more researchers running their own studies using different methods, social psychologists could be more confident in the validity of their characterizations of conservatives (and liberals). 这些例子说明,当一个政治同质化的知识群体的成员被鼓励用一种负面灯光去映照他们所理解的圈外人士(比如,冒犯自由进步叙事的人)时,追求真理的事业会受到何种威胁。如果在同行评审中,能有更多的社会心理学家被鼓励去质疑那些偏向自由派价值观的研究的设计和解释,如果能有更多的研究者采用不同的方法来进行他们自己的研究,社会心理学家就能对他们关于保守派(和自由派)的描绘的可信度拥有更多自信。

******

4. Why political diversity is likely to improve social psychological science 4. 为什么政治多元性有可能改进社会心理科学 Diversity can be operationalized in many ways, including demographic diversity (e.g., ethnicity, race, and gender) and viewpoint diversity (e.g., variation in intellectual viewpoints or professional expertise). 将多元性这一概念变得可操作的方式很多,包括人口学多元化(如族群、种族和性别)和视角多元化(比如各种不同的知识视角或专业技能)。 Research in organizational psychology suggest that: a) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are more consistent and pronounced than those of demographic diversity (Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998); and 组织心理学研究表明:a)视角多元化比人口学多元化的益处更为一贯、更为显著(Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998);又 b) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are most pronounced when organizations are pursuing open-ended exploratory goals (e.g., scientific discovery) as opposed to exploitative goals (e.g., applying well-established routines to well-defined problems; Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008). b)与追求利用性目标(比如,在界定明确的问题上执行已良好确立的例行程序)的组织相比,在追求开放式的探索性目标(比如,科学发现)的组织中,视角多元化的益处最为显著(Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008)。 Viewpoint diversity may therefore be more valuable than demographic diversity if social psychology’s core goal is to produce broadly valid and generalizable conclusions. (Of course, demographic diversity can bring viewpoint diversity, but if it is viewpoint diversity that is wanted, then it may be more effective to pursue it directly.) 因此,如果社会心理学的核心目标在于得出广泛有效且可以一般化的结论,那么视角多元性似乎比人口学多元性更有价值。(当然,人口学多元性能带来视角多元性,但如果我们需要的正是视角多元性,那么直接追求它可能更为有效。) It is the lack of political viewpoint diversity that makes social psychology vulnerable to the three risks described in the previous section. Political diversity is likely to have a variety of positive effects by reducing the impact of two familiar mechanisms that we explore below: confirmation bias and groupthink/majority consensus. 正是政治视角多元性的缺乏,才使得社会心理学在前一部分描述的三大风险面前显得很脆弱。通过削弱我们下面将讨论的两个我们熟知的机制的影响,政治多元性很可能具有多种多样的积极功效:确认偏误和群体思维/多数一致。 4.1. Confirmation bias 4.1 确认偏误 People tend to search for evidence that will confirm their existing beliefs while also ignoring or downplaying disconfirming evidence. This confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) is widespread among both laypeople and scientists (Ioannidis, 2012). Confirmation bias can become even stronger when people confront questions that trigger moral emotions and concerns about group identity (Haidt, 2001; 2012). 人们更喜欢为他们已有的信念搜罗证据,同时无视或轻视与既有信念抵触的证据。这种确认偏误(Nickerson, 1998)在外行和科学家中都很常见(Ioannidis, 2012)。当人们面对的问题还能够引发对于群体认同的道德情绪和关怀时,确认偏误可能会变得更为强烈(Haidt, 2001; 2012)。 Further, group-polarization often exacerbates extremism in echo chambers (Lamm & Myers, 1978). [and note from the graph above that social psychology has become an echo chamber since the 1990s] 此外,群体的极化通常还会在回音室中加剧极端主义(Lamm & Myers, 1978)。[并且注意,前面的图表已经显示,社会心理学自1990年代起已经变成了一个回音室]。 Indeed, people are far better at identifying the flaws in other people’s evidence-gathering than in their own, especially if those other people have dissimilar beliefs (e.g., Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber et al., 2010). 实在来说,人们在别人的证据搜集过程中找出错误,可比针对自己时要得心应手得多,特别是当别人具有不同的信念时(如见Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber等, 2010)。 Although such processes may be beneficial for communities whose goal is social cohesion (e.g., a religious or activist movement), they can be devastating for scientific communities by leading to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions (see, e.g., the three risk points discussed previously). 对于目标在于社会团结的共同体(如一个宗教运动或激进运动)来说,这类事情也许是有益的,但是对于科学共同体来说,这将是毁灭性的。因为它们将会导致一些被广泛接受的论断产生,而这些论断更多反映的是科学共同体的盲点,而非科学上得到证明的结论(如见前文所论的三个风险点)。 The most obvious cure for this problem is to increase the viewpoint diversity of the field. Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals (Lilienfeld et al., 2009), but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out. 对于这个问题,最显而易见的疗法就是增加该领域的视角多元性。从来没有人找到过在个体身上根除确认偏误的办法(Lilienfeld等, 2009),但我们可以不断增加一个领域的多元性,直到个体的视角偏见开始相互抵消。 4.2. Minority influence 4.2 众从 Minority influence research has focused on the processes by which minorities influence majority members’ (and thus the groups’) reasoning (e.g., Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). Majorities influence decision-making by producing conformity pressure that creates cohesion and community, but they do little to enhance judgmental depth or quality (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). They also risk creating the type of groupthink that has long been a target of criticism by social psychologists (e.g., Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…. 众从研究聚焦于一种过程:少数派影响多数成员(进而是整个群体)的论证(如见Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。多数派通过制造顺从压力影响决策,而这种压力能够创造凝聚力和共同体,但无益于提高决断的深度或质量(Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。他们也导致群体思维的风险,而这被社会心理学家诟病已久(如见Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…… There is even evidence that politically diverse teams produce more creative solutions than do politically homogeneous teams on problems such as “how can a person of average talent achieve fame” and how to find funding for a partially-built church ineligible for bank loans (Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965)…. 甚至有证据表明,即使是在“某个资质平平的人如何成名”以及怎样为一个烂尾的教堂筹集资金,取得银行贷款这样的问题上,政治上多元的团队也比政治同质的团队更能找到创造性的解决方案。 In sum, there are grounds for hypothesizing that increased political diversity would improve the quality of social psychological science because it would increase the degree of scientific dissent, especially, on such politicized issues as inequality versus equity, the psychological characteristics of liberals and conservatives, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social psychologists have shown these effects in many settings; they could take advantage of them within their own ranks. 总之,政治多元性的增加有助于改善社会心理科学的质量,这一假设是有理有据的,因为它会增加科学分歧的程度。当我们面对的是诸如不平等与平等、自由派和保守派的心理特征、刻板印象、偏见和歧视等等政治化的议题时,情况尤其如此。社会心理学家已经针对许多场合说明过此类效应;他们可以在自己的队伍中好好对其加以利用。

******

5. Why are there so few non-liberals in social psychology? 5. 为什么非自由派在社会心理学中难得一见? the evidence does not point to a single answer. To understand why conservatives are so vastly underrepresented in social psychology, we consider five explanations that have frequently been offered to account for a lack of diversity not just in social psychology, but in other contexts (e.g., the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in STEM fields, e.g., Pinker, 2008). 证据表明,答案不止一个。为了理解为什么保守派在社会心理学中的人数如此不足,我们考虑了五种解释,这五种解释不仅在说明社会心理学中多元性的缺乏时,而且在其它学术文章中也经常被人提到(如在STEM领域内妇女和少数族裔的缺乏,如见Pinker, 2008)【译注:STEM为科学、技术、工程和数学四个学科的英文首字母缩写】。 5.1. Differences in ability 5.1. 能力差异 [Are conservatives simply less intelligent than liberals, and less able to obtain PhDs and faculty positions?] The evidence does not support this view… [published studies are mixed. Part of the complexity is that…] Social conservatism correlates with lower cognitive ability test scores, but economic conservatism correlates with higher scores (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008). [Libertarians are the political group with the highest IQ, yet they are underrepresented in the social sciences other than economics] [难道保守派就是没有自由派那么聪明,取得博士学位和教职岗位的能力要差些?]证据不支持这种观点……[已有的研究形形色色。情况的复杂性部分体现在……]社会保守派与认知能力测试得分较低存在相关性,不过经济保守派则与得分较高存在相关性(Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008)[自由意志主义者是IQ最高的政治团体,但他们在除经济学以外的所有社会科学中人数均不足] 5.2. The effects of education on political ideology 5.2. 政治意识形态教育的影响 Many may view education as “enlightening” and believe that an enlightened view comports with liberal politics. There is little evidence that education causes students to become more liberal. Instead, several longitudinal studies following tens of thousands of college students for many years have concluded that political socialization in college occurs primarily as a function of one’s peers, not education per se (Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997). 许多人可能将教育视为“启蒙”,并相信经过启蒙的观念会与自由派政治一致。鲜有证据表明教育会使得学生更为趋向自由派。几项对数万名大学生的多年追踪研究倒是得出结论认为,大学里的政治社会化过程【译注:指个体形塑政治态度的过程】主要取决于一个人的同伴,而非教育本身(Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997)。 5.3. Differences in interest 5.3. 兴趣差异 Might liberals simply find a career in social psychology (or the academy more broadly) more appealing? Yes, for several reasons. The Big-5 trait that correlates most strongly with political liberalism is openness to experience (r = .32 in Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloways’s 2003 meta-analysis), and people high in that trait are more likely to pursue careers that will let them indulge their curiosity and desire to learn, such as a career in the academy (McCrae, 1996). An academic career requires a Ph.D., and liberals enter (and graduate) college more interested in pursuing Ph.D.s than do conservatives (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)… 有没有可能就是因为自由派觉得社会心理学(或更广泛而言,整个学术界)这种职业更有吸引力?有可能,理由有多个。与政治自由主义相关性最强的“五大”人格特点【译注:五大人格特点,指心理学上描述人格特征时常用的五维度模型,分别为外倾性、经验开放性、随和性、神经质和尽责性】就是“经验开放性”(在Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski和 Sulloways 2003年所做的meta分析中,r=0.32),而在这一特点上得分高的人更有可能从事能让他们的好奇心和求知欲得到满足的职业,比如学术事业(McCrae, 1996)。从事学术事业要求博士学位,而入读大学(和从大学毕业)的自由派比保守派更有兴趣谋求博士学位(Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)…… Such intrinsic variations in interest may be amplified by a “birds of a feather” or “homophile” effect. “Similarity attracts” is one of the most well-established findings in social psychology (Byrne, 1969). As a field begins to lean a certain way, the field will likely become increasingly attractive to people suited to that leaning. 这种兴趣上的内在差异有可能通过“物以类聚”或“同性相爱”效应而得到放大。“同类相吸”是社会心理学中理据最为坚实的成果之一(Byrne, 1969)。随着某个领域开始向一个特定方向倾斜,那么对于适应这种倾斜的人,这个领域就很可能会变得越来越具有吸引力。 Over time the group itself may become characterized by its group members. Professors and scientists may come to be seen as liberal just as nurses are typically thought of as being female. Once that happens, conservatives may disproportionately self-select out of joining the dissimilar group, based on a realistic perception that they “do not fit well.” [See Gross (2013)]… 长此以往,群体本身就被其成员特征化了。教授和科学家可能会逐渐被视为自由派,就像护士经常被理解成为女性一样。一旦如此,保守派就可能自我选择不参加这种异己群体,因为他们有一种现实的认知:他们“合不来”(见Gross , 2013)…… Self-selection clearly plays a role. But it would be ironic if an epistemic community resonated to empirical arguments that appear to exonerate the community of prejudice—when that same community roundly rejects those same arguments when invoked by other institutions to explain the under-representation of women or ethnic minorities (e.g., in STEM disciplines or other elite professions). [Note: we agree that self-selection is a big part of the explanation. If there were no discrimination and no hostile climate, the field would still lean left, as it used to. But it would still have some diversity, and would work much better.] 自我选择很明显起了作用。但是,这种经验论证似乎是在为共同体的歧视行为洗白,如果一个知识共同体与之产生共鸣,这会太讽刺——而且,正是这同一个共同体,在其它机构使用同一论证来解释女性或少数族裔代表性不足的问题时(如在STEM学科或其它精英行业中),对自我选择解释表示了严厉的拒斥。[注意:我们同意,自我选择在原因中占了很大比例。如果不存在歧视、不存在敌对的气氛,这个领域仍然会左倾,正如它在1990年代之前那样。但是它仍会有某种程度的多元性,并会运作得好得多。] 5.4. Hostile climate 5.4. 敌对气氛 Might self-selection be amplified by an accurate perception among conservative students that they are not welcome in the social psychology community? Consider the narrative of conservatives that can be formed from some recent conclusions in social psychological research: compared to liberals, conservatives are less intelligent (Hodson & Busseri, 2012) and less cognitively complex (Jost et al., 2003). They are more rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible (Jost et al., 2003). Their lower IQ explains their racism and sexism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), and their endorsement of inequality explains why they are happier than liberals (Napier & Jost, 2008). 自我选择有没有可能因为保守派学生的一种正确认知——他们得不到社会心理学共同体的欢迎——而被放大?考虑一下我们能从最近的一些社会心理学研究结论中得出的关于保守派的叙述:比起自由派,保守派没那么聪明(Hodson & Busseri, 2012),认知复杂度没那么高(Jost等, 2003)。他们更死板、更教条、更不懂变通(Jost等, 2003)。他们IQ低,所以他们有种族主义和性别歧视(Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008),他们对不平等的支持正是他们之所以比自由派更快乐的理由(Napier & Jost, 2008)。 As conservative undergraduates encounter the research literature in their social psychology classes, might they recognize cues that the field regards them and their beliefs as defective? And what happens if they do attend graduate school and take part in conferences, classes, and social events in which almost everyone else is liberal? 当保守派本科生在他们的社会心理学课堂上接触到研究文献时,他们是否可能认出这种信号,猜到这个领域认为他们以及他们的信念存在缺陷?如果他们确实念上了研究生,那么当他们参会、上课、参加社会活动时,发现参与者几乎个个都是自由派,这时会发生什么? We ourselves have often heard jokes and disparaging comments made by social psychologists about conservatives, not just in informal settings but even from the podium at conferences and lectures. The few conservatives who have enrolled in graduate programs hear these comments too, and some of them wrote to Haidt in the months after his 2011 remarks at the SPSP convention to describe the hostility and ridicule that force them to stay “in the closet” about their political beliefs—or to leave the field entirely. 我们自己就经常听到社会心理学家关于保守派的种种笑话和鄙夷的评论,这不仅出现于非正式场合,而且也出现在会议和讲座的讲台上。注册参加了研究生项目的几个罕见的保守派学生,也听到了这些评论,其中一些在听了Haidt在人格与社会心理学学会2011年年会上所发评论后的几个月里还曾给他写信。他们在信中描写到,敌对和嘲弄迫使他们将自己的政治信念藏在“深柜”——或干脆离开这个领域。 Haidt (2011) put excerpts from these emails online (in anonymous form); representative of them is this one from a former graduate student in a top 10 Ph.D. program: Haidt(2011)在网上贴出了这些邮件的摘录(以匿名形式);其中一封的作者曾是排名前十的博士项目的研究生,很具有代表性:
I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it was for me in graduate school because I am not a liberal Democrat. As one example, following Bush’s defeat of Kerry, one of my professors would email me every time a soldier’s death in Iraq made the headlines; he would call me out, publicly blaming me for not supporting Kerry in the election. 要向你描述我在研究生院时因为不是自由派民主党而过得有多么艰难,我都没法开始。举个例子吧,布什打败克里之后,每逢有驻伊士兵死亡事件上头条,有位教授就会给我发邮件;他会指名道姓的公开指责我没在选举中支持克里。 I was a reasonably successful graduate student, but the political ecology became too uncomfortable for me. Instead of seeking the professorship that I once worked toward, I am now leaving academia for a job in industry. 作为一个研究生,我相当成功,但政治生态变得令我非常不舒服。我没有去谋求我曾为之奋斗的教授职位,而是离开学术圈,现在在实业部门工作。
Evidence of hostile climate is not just anecdotal. Inbar and Lammers (2012) asked members of the SPSP discussion list: “Do you feel that there is a hostile climate towards your political beliefs in your field?” 敌对气氛存在的证据并非只有个别逸闻。Inbar和 Lammers(2012)曾询问人格与社会心理学学会讨论组成员以下问题:“你是否觉得你所在的领域针对你的政治信念存在一种敌对气氛?” Of 17 conservatives, 14 (82%) responded “yes” (i.e., a response at or above the midpoint of the scale, where the midpoint was labeled “somewhat” and the top point “very much”), with half of those responding “very much.” 17个保守派中,14个(即82%)回答了“是”(即回应大于等于量表的中间选项,中间选项是“有些”,最大值则是“非常”),答“是”的人中又有一半回答的是“非常”。 In contrast, only 18 of 266 liberals (7%) responded “yes”, with only two of those responding “very much.” Interestingly, 18 of 25 moderates (72%) responded “yes,” with one responding “very much.” 与此形成对比的是,266个自由派中只有18个(即7%)回答了“是”,其中只有两个答的是“非常”。有意思的是,25个温和派中有18个(即72%)回答了“是”,1个答“非常”。 This surprising result suggests that the hostile climate may adversely affect not only conservatives, but anyone who is not liberal or whose values do not align with the liberal progress narrative. 这一令人惊讶的结果表明,敌对气氛所产生的负面影响不仅仅是对保守派而言,而且针对所有的非自由派,或者所有价值观不能与自由进步叙事相符的人。 5.5. Discrimination 5.5 歧视 The literature on political prejudice demonstrates that strongly identified partisans show little compunction about expressing their overt hostility toward the other side (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012). Partisans routinely believe that their hostility towards opposing groups is justified because of the threat posed to their values by dissimilar others (see Brandt et al., 2014, for a review). 政治偏见方面的研究文献证明,认同感强烈的党徒毫不避讳公开表达对对方的敌意(如见Chambers等, 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012)。党徒们例行公事般认为他们针对对立团体的敌视态度是合理的,因为异己分子威胁到他们珍视的价值(相关评论见Brandt 等, 2014)。 Social psychologists are unlikely to be immune to such psychological processes. Indeed, ample evidence using multiple methods demonstrates that social psychologists do in fact act in discriminatory ways toward non-liberal colleagues and their research. 社会心理学家不太可能对这种心理过程免疫。事实上,基于多种方法的大量证据表明,社会心理学家确实以歧视方式对待他们的非自由派同事及其学术研究。 [Here we review experimental field research: if you change a research proposal so that its hypotheses sound conservative, but you leave the methods the same, then the manuscript is deemed less publishable, and is less likely to get IRB approval] [我们这里来回顾一下实验性的实地研究:如果改动一下你的研究计划,使其假设看起来像个保守派假设,但研究方法保持不变,那么这个稿子发表的可能性在人们眼里就会降低,得到伦理委员会认可的可能性也会降低] Inbar and Lammers (2012) found that most social psychologists who responded to their survey were willing to explicitly state that they would discriminate against conservatives. Their survey posed the question: “If two job candidates (with equal qualifications) were to apply for an opening in your department, and you knew that one was politically quite conservative, do you think you would be inclined to vote for the more liberal one?” Inbar和Lammers(2012)发现,绝大多数接受调查的社会心理学家都愿意明白无误地表明,他们会歧视保守派。他们在调查中提出这样一个问题:“两个求职者(条件相同)申请你所在院系的空缺,你要是知道其中一个政治上特别保守,你觉得你会倾向于投票赞成更自由派的那个吗?” Of the 237 liberals, only 42 (18%) chose the lowest scale point, “not at all.” In other words, 82% admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative candidate, and 43% chose the midpoint (“somewhat”) or above. In contrast, the majority of moderates (67%) and conservatives (83%) chose the lowest scale point (“not at all”)…. 在237个自由派中,仅有42个(即18%)选择了量表上的最低值,“绝不会”。换句话说,82%的人承认他们至少会对保守派求职者有一点点歧视,43%选择了中间值(“有些”)及以上。与此形成对比的是,多数温和派(67%)和保守派(83%)选择了最低值(“绝不”)…… Conservative graduate students and assistant professors are behaving rationally when they keep their political identities hidden, and when they avoid voicing the dissenting opinions that could be of such great benefit to the field. Moderate and libertarian students may be suffering the same fate. 当保守派研究生和助理教授隐瞒他们政治派别时,他们是在依理性行事,然而如果他们缄默不言,那却将是这个领域的巨大损失。温和派和自由意志主义的学生或许也正在遭受同一命运。

******

6. Recommendations 6. 建议 [Please see the longer discussion of recommended steps on our “Solutions” page. In the BBS paper we offer a variety of specific recommendations for what can be done to ameliorate the problem. These are divided into three sections] [建议措施的更长讨论,见我们的“方案”页面。在发表于《行为与脑科学》的文章中,我们提供了多种具体可行建议,以改进这一问题。建议分为三部分] 6.1. Organizational responses 6.1. 组织方面的回应 [We looked at the list of policy steps that the American Psychological Association recommended for itself to improve diversity with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Many of them work well for increasing political diversity, e.g.,:] [我们查看了美国心理学会为增加自身的种族、性别和性取向多元性而建议的系列政策措施。其中许多同样可以有效的增加政治多元性,如……]
  • Formulate and adopt an anti-discrimination policy resolution.
  • 制定并采纳一项反歧视政策决议。
  • Implement a “climate study” regarding members’ experiences, comfort/discomfort, and positive/negative attitudes/opinions/policies affecting or about members of politically diverse groups.
  • 实施一项“气氛研究”,研究对象是其成员的经历,包括舒适的/不适的,以及他们持有的、会影响政治多样化的不同团体(或与他们有关)的积极/消极的态度/观点/政策
  • Each organization should develop strategies to encourage and support research training programs and research conferences to attract, retain, and graduate conservative and other non-liberal doctoral students and early career professionals.
  • 每一个组织都应该形成各种策略,鼓励和支持研究训练项目和研究会议去吸引、留住或毕业送走保守派及其他非自由派博士研究生和新入行的业内人士。
6.2. Professorial responses 6.2. 教授方面的回应 There are many steps that social psychologists who are also college professors can take to encourage non-liberal students to join the field, or to “come out of the closet”: 1) Raise consciousness [acknowledge publicly that we have problem]; 2) Welcome feedback from non-liberals. 3) Expand diversity statements. [i.e., add “political diversity” to any list of kinds of diversity being encouraged]. 同时身为大学教授的社会心理学家,可以采用多个措施来鼓励非自由派学生加入这个领域,或者“出柜”:1)提高意识[公开承认我们有问题];2)欢迎非自由派的反馈。3)扩充有关多元性的声明。[即在任何形式的多元性鼓励列表中加入“政治多元性”]。 6.3. Changes to research practices 6.3. 改变研究做法 1.Be alert to double standards. 2. Support adversarial collaborations.  3. Improve research norms to increase the degree to which a research field becomes self-correcting. 1.警惕双重标准。2. 支持对抗性合作。3. 改进研究规范,以增加研究领域趋向自我纠正的程度。

******

7. Conclusion 7. 结论 Others have sounded this alarm before (e.g., MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)… No changes were made in response to the previous alarms, but we believe that this time may be different. Social psychologists are in deep and productive discussions about how to address multiple threats to the integrity of their research and publication process. This may be a golden opportunity for the field to take seriously the threats caused by political homogeneity. 早已有人敲响过这一警钟(如MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)……对于之前的警钟却无人回应,不过我们相信这次可能有点不同。关于如何应对他们的研究和出版程序之健全性所面临的诸多威胁的问题,社会心理学家目前正在进行深入且卓有成效的讨论。现在也许就是严肃对待政治同质化所导致危机的黄金时期。 We have focused on social (and personality) psychology, but the problems we describe occur in other areas of psychology (Redding, 2001), as well as in other social sciences (Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013). 我们的焦点是社会(及人格)心理学,但我们所描述的问题也发生于心理学的其它领域(Redding, 2001),以及其它社会科学领域(Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013)。 Fortunately, psychology is uniquely well-prepared to rise to the challenge. The five core values of APA include “continual pursuit of excellence; knowledge and its application based upon methods of science; outstanding service to its members and to society; social justice, diversity and inclusion; ethical action in all that we do.” (APA, 2009). 幸运地是,心理学是唯一有准备来应对之个挑战的领域。美国心理学会的五大核心价值包括“不断追求卓越;基于科学方法的知识及其应用;对成员和社会的出色服务;社会正义、多元性和包容性;一切行动遵守伦理规范。”(APA, 2009)。 If discrimination against non-liberals exists at even half the level described in section 4 of this paper, and if this discrimination damages the quality of some psychological research, then all five core values are being betrayed. 如果针对非自由派的歧视存在,哪怕只达到本文第四部分所描述的一半水平,且如果这种歧视损害了某些心理学研究的质量,那就和五大核心价值背道而驰了。 Will psychologists tolerate and defend the status quo, or will psychology make the changes needed to realize its values and improve its science? Social psychology can and should lead the way. 心理学家会容忍并捍卫现状?还是心理学会作出必要改变,实现自己所珍视的价值,改进这一科学?社会心理学能够且应该带个好头。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

往你身上抹鼻涕

【2016-03-08】

@pkuwd: to@whigzhou 嫁个男人生五个孩子在家里做主这种不算女权!做个飞行员比嫁个飞行员好!能争取成为市长远好过争取成为市长夫人!

@whigzhou: 嫁男人生孩子当然不算女权,做飞行员当市长也不算,惊叹号再多也不算,只有要求飞行员中女性比例必须达到50%,市议会里女性席位不得少于50%,才算,你out了~

@whigzhou: 早期女权主义者(和其他进步主义者一样)是我尊重的,她们依靠自身的努力与付出(more...)

标签: | |
7048
【2016-03-08】 @pkuwd: to@whigzhou 嫁个男人生五个孩子在家里做主这种不算女权!做个飞行员比嫁个飞行员好!能争取成为市长远好过争取成为市长夫人! @whigzhou: 嫁男人生孩子当然不算女权,做飞行员当市长也不算,惊叹号再多也不算,只有要求飞行员中女性比例必须达到50%,市议会里女性席位不得少于50%,才算,你out了~ @whigzhou: 早期女权主义者(和其他进步主义者一样)是我尊重的,她们依靠自身的努力与付出、亲身实践,去突破文化与制度障碍,为自己也为弱势女性争取更多自由,但这种女权主义(和其他进步主义)在当代已经十分罕见了,回顾起来,早期与后期的分界线大概是在大萧条时代。 @whigzhou: 如今触目可见的女权主义(和其他进步主义),多是我所称的“犟叫花”型,在她们看来,为她们提供某些机会、资源或条件,让她们达到某种生活状态,是其他社会成员的义务,若是不给,就往你们身上抹鼻涕 @whigzhou: 她们不仅往拒绝承认或被认为未能履行好保姆义务的人身上抹鼻涕,还会往那些安于传统角色的女性身上抹鼻涕,好像只有她们才知道该怎么做个女人  
上海丈母娘

【2016-03-07】

@Ent_evo 一个理科生对三八劳动妇女节的杂感 http://t.cn/Rw3aI8T

@Ent_evo: 转眼一年了,好像也没有什么变化

@whigzhou: “为“男性掌控资源”这一现状公开辩护的人,通常绕来绕去总会绕到生物属性上面……这恐怕并不是最重要的理由,但这应该是唯一还能拿出来说说而不被骂成狗的理由了”——为什么需要辩护?若一种现状并非强制或权利缺失的结果,它就不需要辩护

@whigzhou: 或者说,选择自由就是充分的辩护理由

@whigzhou: 比如一种(more...)

标签: | | |
7046
【2016-03-07】 @Ent_evo 一个理科生对三八劳动妇女节的杂感 http://t.cn/Rw3aI8T @Ent_evo: 转眼一年了,好像也没有什么变化 @whigzhou: “为“男性掌控资源”这一现状公开辩护的人,通常绕来绕去总会绕到生物属性上面……这恐怕并不是最重要的理由,但这应该是唯一还能拿出来说说而不被骂成狗的理由了”——为什么需要辩护?若一种现状并非强制或权利缺失的结果,它就不需要辩护 @whigzhou: 或者说,选择自由就是充分的辩护理由 @whigzhou: 比如一种简单的可能情形,被认为“掌控着资源”(其实这种说法很可疑,姑且接受)的那些职业圈,充满尔虞我诈穷凶极恶的好斗氛围,多数女性不喜欢进入,那你们有什么好操心的? @whigzhou: “掌控着资源”这种说法之可疑,可以考虑这样一种可能情形:某女要求某男必须挣来很多钱才肯嫁给他,嫁了后用这些钱养大五个儿子,并教导、鼓励、帮助这五个儿子个个又挣来大钱,那么究竟是谁在“掌控着资源”? @能年驼背母猴子的长颈鹿:然而资源的获取是由男性决定的 @whigzhou: 上海丈母娘好像不同意这说法 @whigzhou: 认为女性职业选择比男性更受限是传统农业社会的特点,是又一个流行谬见,实际上,传统社会规范对两性之社会角色所施加的约束同样严格,两性中哪一个职业选择更宽,随分工结构而异,许多社会的女性职业选择(或经济活动类型)比男性更丰富,比如西非和东南亚,出入本地市场做小生意的,大部分是女性。 @whigzhou: 在铁路之前早期工业时代,欧美工厂大部分雇工是婚前年轻女性,当时的工厂销售半径小,其规模无法提供大批常年全日制职位,多数雇工职位是季节性或高度波动性的,因而作为家庭收入支柱的成年男性不会轻易转去工厂,能够雇到的,大多是在婚前为自己攒点嫁妆的年轻女孩。 @whigzhou: 直到有了铁路电报之后,出现众多面向全国性市场的规模化连续生产工厂,能够提供大量全日制职位,成年男性才大批成为工厂雇工,等到他们成了雇工市场主力之后,便开始组织工会,用劳工法和最低工资法努力将女性驱赶出雇工市场 @whigzhou: 西非约鲁巴人是典型的父权社会,但其贸易活动几乎完全由女性包办
亲爱的这条内裤好看吗?

【2016-03-06】

@whigzhou: 可以将所有可能被谈论的话题按这样一个维度(p)排列,p=n的意思是只有交谈者少于或等于n时该话题才会被谈论,于是每个话题都有了个p值,一个p值为n的话题可称为n-p话题,比如“亲爱的你觉得这条内裤好看吗?”显然是个2-p话题;

@whigzhou: 一个猜想:一个参加人数为n的聚会,其主导话题的p值将介于n和n+2之间。

 

标签: |
7044
【2016-03-06】 @whigzhou: 可以将所有可能被谈论的话题按这样一个维度(p)排列,p=n的意思是只有交谈者少于或等于n时该话题才会被谈论,于是每个话题都有了个p值,一个p值为n的话题可称为n-p话题,比如“亲爱的你觉得这条内裤好看吗?”显然是个2-p话题; @whigzhou: 一个猜想:一个参加人数为n的聚会,其主导话题的p值将介于n和n+2之间。  
奶嘴与拳头

【2016-03-05】

@whigzhou: 1)越来越多人已经被左派那些腌臜货烦透了,2)这些腌臜货背后其实有个共同倾向:文化气质的全面阴柔化,3)这一点很少人清晰意识到,虽然不少人可能隐约感觉到,4)但这个火山口迟早会被找到

@whigzhou: 政治学家迄今好像还很少用阳刚-阴柔这个维度来分析政治光谱,其实这个维度很有用,对解释政治倾向中的先天成分尤其管用,天生保守派的深层心理基础无非就是阳刚气质:规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责,命苦别怪人,唾弃福利主义奶嘴,碰到坏人一拳打回去,尊严重于生命,安全主要靠自己……

@whigzhou: 这事情我想了很久了,越来越觉得就这么回事。

@whigzhou: 但阳刚倾向也分两种,一种是集体主义的,他们心目中的理想国家或领袖是阳刚的,自己却未必阳刚,法西斯就是这种,另一种是个人主义的,要的是自己(more...)

标签: | | |
7042
【2016-03-05】 @whigzhou: 1)越来越多人已经被左派那些腌臜货烦透了,2)这些腌臜货背后其实有个共同倾向:文化气质的全面阴柔化,3)这一点很少人清晰意识到,虽然不少人可能隐约感觉到,4)但这个火山口迟早会被找到 @whigzhou: 政治学家迄今好像还很少用阳刚-阴柔这个维度来分析政治光谱,其实这个维度很有用,对解释政治倾向中的先天成分尤其管用,天生保守派的深层心理基础无非就是阳刚气质:规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责,命苦别怪人,唾弃福利主义奶嘴,碰到坏人一拳打回去,尊严重于生命,安全主要靠自己…… @whigzhou: 这事情我想了很久了,越来越觉得就这么回事。 @whigzhou: 但阳刚倾向也分两种,一种是集体主义的,他们心目中的理想国家或领袖是阳刚的,自己却未必阳刚,法西斯就是这种,另一种是个人主义的,要的是自己阳刚,国家靠边,红脖是也。 @whigzhou: 同样,阴柔倾向也分两种,集体主义的要的是nanny state,个人主义的就是老派liberal @whigzhou: Game of Thrones为啥这么火?久违的阳刚之气,第一集里Ned砍下逃兵Will头颅的一幕,可谓阳刚之至。 @寄生草的空间:辉总的阳刚阴柔的定义和常规稍有差异。忽略这一点而做的批评并无意义。 @whigzhou: 我确实不知道常规定义是什么,我的用法大致和[[Geert Hofstede]]在《文化与组织》里的用法差不多 @溪月寒星:我不觉得你说的这些倾向和"阳刚"这个词相关性很大. 在我看来肌肉男,大胡子与阳刚关系大。但是如果我们统计一下世界上的男性, 能够发现肌肉男大胡子特征和规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责的心理基础存在强相关性吗? @whigzhou: 我们之间在概念上好像有些误解 @whigzhou: Hofstede用阳刚-阴柔这个维度(这是他用的五个维度之一)比较各文化时,看的是一种文化中,在个人的哪些品质/行为值得赞赏的问题上,多大程度上对男女两性区别对待 @whigzhou: Hofstede用这对概念度量群体的文化特质,但依我看,也可以用来度量个人的文化倾向 @whigzhou: 需要强调的是,如此界定的阳刚倾向和“雄性化程度”不一样,比如一位母亲,自己可以是高度女性气质的,但假如她对儿子和女儿的期待截然不同(比如期待儿子面对危险表现勇敢,对女儿却没有同样期待),那她就是亲阳刚文化的 @Ryan_LA2000:呵呵,恐怖分子蛮符合你的“阳刚”的定义的。 @whigzhou: 有可能,他们可能也符合我对“生命、人性、信仰、虔诚、献身精神、活力、……”的定义,嗯,怎么啦? @whigzhou: 我既然认为这是一个能解释政治倾向中先天成分的因素,那么我显然不会同时认为它能单独保证什么好结果——比如自由,否则还要自由就太容易了 @whigzhou: 这个念头果然被很多人呵呵了,不意外,当初刚冒出来时我自己也呵呵过,但越来越觉得其实没那么呵呵