Michael Woodley of Menie — Update

Woodley of Menie, M.A., Sarraf, M.A., & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. (2023). Controversies in differential psychology and behavior genetics: A sociological analysis. In, C.L. Frisby., R.E. Redding., W.T. O’Donohue., & S.O. Lilienfeld. (Eds.), Ideological and Political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (pp. 641–692).

Abstract

There is a long history of academic and non-academic activism directed against those areas of social-scientific research, specifically behavior genetics and differential psychology (especially intelligence research) , that seek to understand the determinants of variation in socially significant psychological and behavioral traits and outcomes. This research becomes particularly controversial when it addresses the potential genetic contributions to differences between population groups, e.g. studies of socially important variables such as intelligence and any variation in them between “racial” or “ethnic” groups. . We consider recent controversies related to these areas of inquiry. Crucial among these is an attempt to brand science on population differences as part of a particular form of rightist political activism, aiming to insert justifications for “White nationalism” and related ideologies into scientific, political, and public discourse. Unfortunately, the coherence of this thesis depends heavily on guilt-by-association allegations and suppression of conflicting evidence. We begin with a more general review of controversies in the disciplines at issue and then review, and further challenge, the specific argument concerning such political activism. We subsequently argue that these criticisms might themselves be embedded within a program of egalitarian activism/left-wing activism, which includes certain scholars and scientists working in relevant fields (e.g., sociogenomics), who aim to ensure that science is both conducted and presented to the public in ways that could only further egalitarian moral-political goals. Ultimately, this egalitarian activism is harmful, as it has broader chilling effects on research and science communication (claims for which we offer empirical evidence), and ethics, as it risks fomenting political polarization. To be sure, those on the political right are not innocent either. Many have engaged in behavior that has fanned the flames of controversy in these areas of science and have spread erroneous ideas about findings in them. It would be ideal if efforts were made to depoliticize social science in particular to the greatest extent possible, but a more productive course of action might involve critical introspection and the active pursuit of lines of research that challenge potential misconceptions.

For more of Michael Woodley of Menie’s research please visit www.michaelwoodleyofmenie.com .