"Racism" is Love 
Psychology research all wrong
Little is known that almost all psychology research results are wrong.
Dogmatical ignorance of genetics is the main reason, followed by finagling results until they conform to PC beliefs.
All of social science research is wrong, because the researchers tacitly assume that only nurture counts. Social sciences presume there is no genetic inborn hereditary behavior component.
Environmental determinists ignore hereditary genetic effects. Leftist social scientists credulously accept research outcomes that yield the desired politically correct results or fiddle until they get the results they wish.
These flawed research results have led to faulty educational policies and unjustified legislation, world wide.
1) Environmental Determinism
Psychology, Anthropology, social sciences in general are guided and distorted by anti-racist ideology. Social sciences subscribe to environmental determinism and are in denial of genetics.
More in Nurture Assumption Judith Rich Harris
Example:
2) Bias
3) PC manipulation and falsification
Gould, Mead,
Statistics:
Black crime much worse than statistics
4) repression persecution of racist undesirable outcomes
See also James Watson Racist Nobel Laureate
PC research does NOT replicate
Of 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test
[Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results]
Anti-PC racist research replicates
(By the way, some fields in psychology, most notably psychometrics, don’t seem to have a replication crisis. Their PR problem is the opposite one: they keep making the same old predictions, which keep coming true, and everybody who is anybody therefore hates them for it, kill-the-messenger style. For example, around the turn of the century, Ian Deary’s team tracked down a large number of elderly individuals who had taken the IQ test given to every 11-year-old in Scotland in 1932 to see how their lives had turned out. They found that their 1932 IQ score was a fairly good predictor.) .[Continue at The Replication Crisis: Is Psychology More Like Astronomy or Marketing Research? ]
Hundreds of Psychology Studies are Wrong
One hidden factor means that hundreds of studies are completely useless Posted May 01, 2017
This might sound like nothing new if you’ve kept up with the replication crisis, but I’m referring to a completely different issue – one that is all too often overlooked. [...]
In another instance, the New York Times published an article titled, ‘Yes, It’s Your Parents’ Fault’ in which they quote research from the last 50 years to argue that if you have intimacy problems then your parents are to blame because of their attachment behavior. They’re right, just for the wrong reasons. Attachment styles are genetically conferred from parent to child meaning it’s just as likely the genes you have inherited from your parents as their behavior that make you insecure as an adult. Consequently, genes confound any study correlating parents’ behavior with their child’s attachment, even in adulthood, making this data essentially useless in understanding how parenting affects our development.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Sure, genes are important, but the environment is too and you’re not wrong. The problem is that without measuring the impact of genes first, it’s impossible to say how important the environment is, or even which bits of it are responsible (e.g. parents, school, diet, learning). This is because the genes that influence our parents’ behavior, and therefore our environment, can be passed to us. We can inherit the same genes that make our parents aggressive, rash, or impulsive and the influence of these genes can be easily confused with the environment that we’re reared in. Without taking genes into account, it is impossible to determine if the environment is doing anything at all.
This is quite simply a problem of correlation being mistaken with causation.
For example, it was long thought that the absence of a father could cause daughters to become sexually promiscuous at an earlier age. However, using a genetically informative sample, researchers have now shown that the same genes that influence fathers’ tendency to leave the home also predispose their daughters’ to early promiscuity, perhaps via a trait like novelty seeking. Conversely, the influence of the family environment is far less important than previously thought. [[Continue at Hundreds of Psychology Studies are Wrong]]
- Replicability crisis: most classical experiments, staple of introductory psychology classes are false. They can not be replicated, that means: other scientists who try the same experiments can not reach the same results nature.com
- SSM sex differences evol psych
- The SSSM, the standard social science model does not control for genetic inheritance of traits, because it believes in the blank slate model: people are formed by environment, education, social influence. A simplified example: Spanked children do not become violent adults because they were spanked, but because they inherited the genetic propensity for violence from the spanking father.
The Long Shadow of the Nurture Assumption | American Renaissance www.amren.com/news/2016/09/the-long-shadow-of-the-nurture-assumption/ 16 Sep 2016 - It was no surprise that The Nurture Assumption was in the back of my .... but good parenting can help a person achieve the upper end of their potential. ... default programming, to this level of detail, is too stupid to describe
SSSM
Replicability crisis
The Replication Crisis: Is Psychology More Like Astronomy or Marketing Research?
There has been much discussion lately of the “Replication Crisis” in psychology, especially since the publication of a recent study attempting to replicate 100 well-known psychology experiments. From The Guardian:
Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment resultsOf 100 studies published in top-ranking journals in 2008, 75% of social psychology experiments and half of cognitive studies failed the replication test
For more analysis, see Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex: “If you can’t make predictions, you’re still in a crisis.”
(By the way, some fields in psychology, most notably psychometrics, don’t seem to have a replication crisis. Their PR problem is the opposite one: they keep making the same old predictions, which keep coming true, and everybody who is anybody therefore hates them for it, kill-the-messenger style. For example, around the turn of the century, Ian Deary’s team tracked down a large number of elderly individuals who had taken the IQ test given to every 11-year-old in Scotland in 1932 to see how their lives had turned out. They found that their 1932 IQ score was a fairly good predictor.)
Now there are a lot of reasons for these embarrassing failures, but I’d like to emphasize a fairly fundamental one that will continue to plague fields like social psychology even if most of the needed methodological reforms are enacted.
Consider the distinction between short-term and long-term predictions by pointing out two different fields that use scientific methods but come up with very different types of results.
At one end of the continuum are physics and astronomy. They tend to be useful at making very long term predictions: we know to the minute when the sun will come up tomorrow and when it will come up in a million years. The predictions of physics tend to work over very large spatial ranges, as well. As our astronomical instruments improve, we’ll be able to make similarly long term sunrise forecasts for other planetary systems.
Why? Because physicists really have discovered some Laws of the Universe.[Continue at The Replication Crisis: Is Psychology More Like Astronomy or Marketing Research? ]
Plaques for Blacks
Last week, I pointed out that the social sciences were suffering from mirror-image problems: the much-publicized Replication Crisis, in which academics announce trivial findings that turn out to be not reproducible, and the less-discussed Repetition Crisis, in which the only explanations for serious phenomena that researchers are allowed to offer are the same old same old: white racism, male chauvinism, white male racist chauvinism, and so forth and so on.
Calling either problem a “crisis” is, of course, journalistic hyperbole intended to dramatize situations that are likely to bump along deleteriously, but not quite self-destructively, for years.
This week, however, Brian Nosek, a psychologist who as cofounder of the Center for Open Science has been a leader in exposing the Replication Crisis by encouraging 100 attempts to reproduce popular studies (only 36 came up with statistically significant results), has published a report in Social Cognition that grapples productively with both the Replication and Repetition Crises.
The paper by Nosek and two colleagues at the U. of Virginia (Jordan R. Axt and Charles R. Ebersole) is entitled: An Unintentional, Robust, and Replicable Pro-Black Bias in Social Judgment.
Nosek begins with yet another repetition of the scores of social science papers finding that whites discriminate against blacks (versus the tiny number reporting that whites favor blacks).
After all, everybody knows that blacks suffer under the pervasive burden of white racism. But, Nosek admits, “We began the present research sharing this presumption and were surprised to find contrary evidence.” [Sailer]
Jordan R. Axt · Charles R. Ebersole · Brian A. Nosek Abstract: Empirical evidence and social commentary demonstrate favoring of Whites over Blacks in attitudes, social judgment, and social behavior. In 6 studies (N > 4,000), we provide evidence for a pro-Black bias in academic decision making. When making multiple admissions decisions for an academic honor society, participants from undergraduate and online samples had a more relaxed acceptance criterion for Black than White candidates, even though participants possessed implicit and explicit preferences for Whites over Blacks. This pro-Black criterion bias persisted among subsamples that wanted to be unbiased and believed they were unbiased. It also persisted even when participants were given warning of the bias or incentives to perform accurately. These results suggest opportunity for theoretical and empirical innovation on the conditions under which biases in social judgment favor and disfavor different social groups, and how those biases manifest outside of awareness or control. Show less Article · Feb 2016 · Social Cognition
Why parenting may not matter and why most social science is wrong
Dec 1, 2015 - written by Brian Boutwell .... What we found was that much of the association between the two variables (spanking and behavior) was attributable to genetic effects that they had in common. .... Wright, J. P., Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., Schwartz, J. A., Connolly, E. J., Nedelec, J. L., & Beaver, K. M. (2015).
