Lee Jussim

speaker

183 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Dec 2024 last heard Dec 2024

Lee Jussim’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

No recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast · 507. The Insanity of Woke Psychologists | Lee Jussim · 16 Dec 2024 podcast

You know, sort of mobilize online using memes and catchphrases and, you know, garner adherence, you know, gain adherence and stuff. So they bring me on, we do this thing, and this paper on the far left, which really looks to me, it looked to me like the far left groups were seeking to ignite an actual revolution.

I know, right? Yes, this doesn't seem far-fetched, right?

Yes. I was kind of new to that at the time, but in hindsight, yes, absolutely. Yeah, well, it's a shocking thing to know. The NCRI, to no credit to me, I'm an academic, I'm a professor, I don't do this kind of thing, had access to journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post who ran stories on this report.

And it was the first time there was any acknowledgement in the mainstream media that there was any level of violence and danger in the protests. I felt really good about it. This was like September 2012. We did the work over the summer. But that report is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. NCRI has its own website. And they published these reports kind of like old time.

Yes and no. So as of right now, that's where they are. They're available on the NCRI website. Okay, and who did that? Was it a postdoc, a doctoral student? It was a bunch of all, it was, so... It was me, two of my grad students, although both of my grad students also work closely with the NCRI. And then there were a series of analysts at the NCRI, including their head researcher.

So a bunch of us are co-authors on this. We have this, so I've not been working with them for several years. And it took a while for us to get used to each other. You know, their strength is this online social media, large language model, topic network stuff, right? you know, with an eye towards threats and conspiracy theories and hate. And my strength is conventional social science.

Yeah, that's a nice overlap. It is. Yeah, it's a nice overlap. It is. We needed to figure out the best surges. Yeah, yeah, no doubt. It took a while, but we have this rhythm.

Yeah, so... One of the things—first, let me give context, a little more context. So our rhythm is first we post stuff essentially as a white paper, as a report on the NCRI site. It gets some attention, some public vetting. We get some feedback on it, and then we scale it up for peer review. Well, that's not unlike doing a pre-release in a convention. Yes, okay. Now, it's a little different.

It's different, it is like, I have taken to calling it a homespun preprint. And here's why I call it a homespun preprint. It's like a preprint in that it's a report of empirical studies that is posted online that haven't been peer reviewed. It is unlike a conventional preprint in that it is, and this is the answer to your question, why did we do it this way rather than wait for peer review?

This is part of the answer. It is, even though some of it is highly technical, a lot of the worst of the technical stuff is stripped down so that it is comprehensible to the lay intelligent audience. And... That has a value in and of its own right, because the problem with peer review is that it could ease... Well, there are many problems with peer review, especially now. Many, many.

You're right, there's many. Yeah, right? Okay. But one of them is that it could take a year or two years... Yeah, lagged public... Right, right. It's horrible. Right.

It needs to be upended. Completely.

It's crazy. That's right.

Sure. There are probably too many of these attempts for me to go through, so I'm going to pick one. Yeah, pick the cream of the crop. Yeah, this is probably the cream of the crop. Okay. It is... I refer to—so I have a very active sub-stack site, Unsafe Science, and I have several posts on this. You can find it under the Pops Fiasco Racist Mule Trope. There's a whole series on this.

Okay, so what is Pops? Pops is Perspectives on Psych Science, one of the very prestigious journals within the field of psychology for publishing reviews and commentaries and the like. The short version is that I was invited by the editor to do a commentary on a main paper that was critical.

The main paper by a psychologist named Hummel, Bernard Hummel, was critical of prior work in psychology advocating for diversity in a variety of ways. The nature of his critique was that much of the rhetoric in psychological scholarship around diversity was narrowly focused on—and the terms are constantly changing—underrepresented, minority, minoritized, disadvantaged, oppressed groups.

And that from a scientific... Intersectionally... Yeah, yeah, right, exactly. That's right. And so... Intersectionally deprived. And there was a recent article which argued that on scientific grounds, we need to do exactly that. Hummel's critique was that, was really multiple, but two of his key points were that, well, there are some types of things, it's irrelevant.

Diversity is irrelevant for certain kind of theoretical scientific tests.

And then the other point is that if diversity matters, it matters for scientific purposes, it matters extremely broadly, and it's not restricted to underrepresented groups.

And a very simple example would be if you would compare a study based on undergraduate psychology students versus one based on a nationally representative sample, the research based on the nationally representative sample is going to be broader and more generalizable and more credible. A nationally representative sample represents the population.

Showing 61–80 of 183 · page 4 of 10