Added: Aug 10, 2023
In this podcast episode, the host interviews a psychology researcher named Dr. Cory Clark. They discuss several controversial topics in psychology that are often avoided or ignored in academic and public discourse. The main focus of the conversation revolves around the pervasive misogyny myth, the changing gender composition of academia, and the impact on academic culture and research.Dr. Clark begins by sharing her personal experience of being treated differently as a woman in Cairo, highlighting that misogyny still exists in certain parts of the world. However, she argues that in modern Western societies, pervasive misogyny is largely a myth. She cites research that shows biases in favor of women across various domains, such as women being treated better than men and facing less punishment for the same actions. She also mentions that when scientific findings portray women in a positive light, people tend to be biased in favor of those findings, while findings that portray men positively are often met with bias against them. The conversation then shifts to the question of whether society is more biased against men than women. Dr. Clark acknowledges that it is difficult to measure biases comprehensively across all contexts. However, she points out that biases that used to favor men, such as discrimination against women in male-stereotypical jobs, have flipped in recent years. She suggests that biases are increasingly favoring women, and the fact that biases against men are not given much attention may stem from the societal focus on women's issues. The discussion delves into the influence of the changing gender composition in academia, on academic culture and research. Dr. Clark explains that women now dominate in higher education, both as students and academics. She argues that this shift has led to a change in the priorities and values of academia. Dr. Clark presents various statistics that highlight the differences in priorities between men and women in academia. For example, men are more likely to support protecting free speech and academic freedom, while women prioritize promoting an inclusive society and protecting students from offensive ideas. These differences in priorities are reflected in the decisions made by academic institutions, such as disinviting speakers, implementing confidential reporting systems, and requiring administrative approval for controversial news stories in student newspapers. The conversation continues with a discussion on the implications of these changes in academia. Dr. Clark argues that the increasing focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting inclusivity may hinder the pursuit of truth and scientific progress. She highlights the importance of pursuing truth in science to avoid wasting time on ineffective interventions and to prevent potential harm. However, she acknowledges the complexity of balancing the pursuit of truth with moral concerns and the potential consequences of scientific findings. Dr. Clark goes on to share her personal experience of conducting a study on controversial conclusions in psychology. She obtained IRB approval and informed consent from participants. However, she received a complaint from a participant who found the questions jarring and believed they would be even more jarring for underrepresented groups in psychology. Dr. Clark questions whether it is actually infantilizing and prejudiced to assume that these groups cannot handle certain discussions or criticisms. The conversation then delves into the broader issue of how certain groups, particularly progressive white women from privileged backgrounds, tend to be the most forceful in advocating for harm concerns and infusing academia with moral values. Dr. Clark suggests that this may be driven by a desire to appear virtuous rather than genuinely making a positive impact. She highlights research that shows progressives may talk down to black people and are more cautious about making jokes that could be offensive to minority groups. This behavior can be seen as infantilizing and implies that these groups are too weak to handle the same treatment as others. The discussion also touches on the different approaches to self-improvement between men and women. Male self-improvement focuses on personal growth and accepting the rules of the environment, while female self-improvement emphasizes accepting oneself and changing societal structures. Dr. Clark argues that the latter approach can be patronizing, as it assumes that women need protection and cannot handle certain challenges. The conversation then turns to the example of the movie "Mulan" and how the portrayal of the protagonist has changed over time. In the original animated version, Mulan overcomes challenges through hard work and innovation. However, in the more recent live-action version, Mulan is portrayed as naturally superior to men and does not have to face the same challenges. This change in portrayal aligns with the different priorities and perspectives of male and female directors. Dr. Clark concludes by discussing her current research projects, including a paper on politicization and the negative perception of institutions becoming politicized. She also highlights her efforts to popularize adversarial collaborations in science, where scientists work with their "enemies" to foster better understanding and collaboration. Overall, the podcast explores the avoidance of controversial topics in psychology and the potential harm in not addressing them. It highlights the need for open and honest discussions, even if they may be uncomfortable or challenge prevailing beliefs. The conversation also touches on the role of gender and privilege in shaping perspectives and approaches to these topics.
