Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
: “WEIRD societies … are some of thedescriptionpsychologically unusual people on Earth”mostet al 2010b). Why did so many scientists(HenrichWEIRD was normal?assume8.2 shows the distribution of the studiesFigurein Psychological Science in 2017: 93%published2003 and 2007, 96 per cent of experimentalBetweenin the leading psychology journals werevolunteers68 per cent of papers relied exclusively on USWEIRD;and in the prestigious Journal of Personality andsubjects;Psychology, 67 per cent of total subjects were USSocialstudents. ‘Many elds have a model organismpsychologythey study … A lot of medicine is done with mice, athatof genetics is done with fruit ies. And in psychology,lotstudies of children and development are fromMost‘with the time, resources and motivation tofamilieshuman sciences are predicated on theThethat people are similar enoughassumptionallow for generalizations about humantoBut how similar are we? What are thebehaviour.of generalizing and universalizingimplicationsresults of these studies, based on thetheof US undergraduate students, to thebehaviourof humankind? Fortunately, this is not just arestfrom countries coloured blue on the map.cameblue shows the United States; the mid-Darkshade shows Anglophone colonies with abluemajority; light blue is usedEuropean-descentWestern Europe. The regions are sized byfor(data from Hruschka 2018).populationtheir infant to participate in a developmentbringat a university laboratory’, as Anne FernaldstudyStanford University wrote in her response to theofpaper. These are, she pointed out, ‘even lessWEIRDthan the college students who predominatediversestudies with adults’. At the 2010 Internationalinon Infant Studies, less than one per centConferencethe 1,000 presentations included participants fromoffamilies, even though they make updisadvantagedper cent of children in the US.20–40that the answer is “No, WEIRD is weirdevidenceand in fact may “represent the worstindeed”,on which to base our understandingpopulationhomo sapiens” (Henrich et al 2015).ofresults based on this subset toExtrapolatingpopulations around the world is not onlyothersuspect, it can also have damagingscientificallyconsequences, as discussed in III.2.real-worldIII. Methods and toolsIII. Methods and toolsFigure 8.3Distribution of studies published in Psychological Science in 2017. The map is distorted to reect relative population sizes.Source Hruschka (2018).the model organism is the American undergraduate. …’(Colvile 2016)rhetorical knowledge question because we have223
III. Methods and toolslack of diversity in these studies isThebecause Western scientists havesurprisingfor centuries how the environmentwonderedbehaviour. John Locke’s “tabulainfluencesquestion—that human beings are a “blankrasa”at birth and develop almost exclusivelyslate”environmental influences—was posed wayfromin 1690. Victorian polymath Francis Galtonbackadded to that question with naturefamouslynurture, a debate that influenced humanversuswell into the 20th century. If the idea ofscientistshas been examined for so long, how didnurtureanswer requires looking closely at howTheis produced. Research is constrainedknowledgefunding, and the easiest, cheapest and mostbyvolunteer subjects tend to be campuswillingRepeating a study in theundergraduates.world is expensive and more difficult torealand academic life is highly competitive,control;those who publish frequently, quickly,rewardinggeneralizable findings. In contrast, crosscountrywithstudies can take years.The temptation is to generalise andundergraduate.… I don’t think it’s necessarily a problemuniversalisestudy the American undergrad, to the extenttoyou limit your conclusions to the AmericanthatThe problem is when we don’t limit ourundergrad.and start saying: ‘This behaviour isconclusions,of human nature, and evolved on the Africanpartmillions of years ago.’ And that’s wheresavannahWEIRD issue is embedded in a widerThethat includes the replicability crisis,contextin III.4, in which scientists “havediscusseduncomfortably aware that manybecomeresults do not hold up: not just in otherflagshipbut full stop” (Colvile 2016). Therecultures,a need for larger sample sizes and moreisstudies, which in turn requires evenrepeatsubjects, of which the WEIRD campusmoreis certainly the most convenient.undergraduatemay explain why, even though attentionThisfirst drawn to the WEIRD bias in 2008,wassituation as of 2020 has not significantlytheMany studies still do not even includeimproved.about which nation or regioninformationparticipants are from, or, if the subjectstheUS undergraduate students, their ethnicareA 2018 analysis revealed not abackgrounds.study sampled people from Africa, thesingleEast or Latin America, concluding “theMiddleof cultural diversity in psychological sciencelackwell established … however … therehas beenisare also wider, more ideological thrustsTherethe WEIRD bias that do not point totoor carelessness as the main cause.arrogancegave us the idea thatTheEnlightenmentcan be “one great big brotherhoodhumankindman”, while the fallout from eugenics andofviolence committed in theracially-motivatedcentury may have made Western academic20thand institutions less inclined totraditionshuman differences, and more inclinedexplorefocus on (and assume) human similarities.tothere is the broader 20th-centuryFinally,within the sciences to seek simplicity—trendrules, theories of everything—fundamentalfrom the perceived surface-leveldistilledof the cosmos. That complexity maycomplexityfrom across the human sciencesScientistsfound considerable variation both withinhavepopulations and between them. Ithumangenerally misleading and patronizing toisgroups of people “as” something—stereotyperisk averse, as honest, as cooperative, foraswhatever that characteristic is. Is itexample—better, however, to assume that differentanyare highly similar? Experimentalpopulationshave found population-levelfindingsin diverse domains such as visualdifferencesideas of fairness, cooperation,perception,8scientists forget to program it into their research?little action in response” (Rad etal 2018).get publicity, and tenure, for fascinating truthsYouthe human condition, not about the USaboutbe more than skin deep.III.2 Implications of WEIRD researchwe’re making a really big leap.(Colvile 2016)224
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 227 and 228: we look at the simplifications that
- Page 229: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
- Page 237 and 238: III. Methods and toolstheir presenc
- Page 239 and 240: III. Methods and toolstold Mahbub,
- Page 241 and 242: III. Methods and toolsY. Thinley, a
- Page 243 and 244: III. Methods and toolsis the scope
- Page 245 and 246: III. Methods and toolssignificant c
- Page 247 and 248: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics7 d
- Page 249 and 250: IV. Ethicschange … brings togethe
- Page 251 and 252: last example brings together ideas
- Page 253 and 254: to show it how it was.” This was
- Page 255 and 256: I. Scope7 raises the question of wh
- Page 257 and 258: I. Scopeis more than a matter of po
- Page 259 and 260: II. Perspectivesqustion w xplord in
- Page 261 and 262: was not alon in rflting dply aoutCa
- Page 263 and 264: II. Perspectiveshistorial ontxt, ut
- Page 265 and 266: of Yugoslavia and th Sovit Union;ra
- Page 267 and 268: II. Perspectivesor indpndnt shools
- Page 269 and 270: III. Methods and toolswith an intrs
- Page 271 and 272: III. Methods and toolshistorian, jo
- Page 273 and 274: III. Methods and toolsinstad of oth
- Page 275 and 276: III. Methods and toolsmonks and lrg
- Page 277 and 278: III. Methods and toolsh had n ordrd
- Page 279 and 280: III. Methods and toolswould naiv,
III. Methods and tools
lack of diversity in these studies is
The
because Western scientists have
surprising
for centuries how the environment
wondered
behaviour. John Locke’s “tabula
influences
question—that human beings are a “blank
rasa”
at birth and develop almost exclusively
slate”
environmental influences—was posed way
from
in 1690. Victorian polymath Francis Galton
back
added to that question with nature
famously
nurture, a debate that influenced human
versus
well into the 20th century. If the idea of
scientists
has been examined for so long, how did
nurture
answer requires looking closely at how
The
is produced. Research is constrained
knowledge
funding, and the easiest, cheapest and most
by
volunteer subjects tend to be campus
willing
Repeating a study in the
undergraduates.
world is expensive and more difficult to
real
and academic life is highly competitive,
control;
those who publish frequently, quickly,
rewarding
generalizable findings. In contrast, crosscountry
with
studies can take years.
The temptation is to generalise and
undergraduate.
… I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem
universalise
study the American undergrad, to the extent
to
you limit your conclusions to the American
that
The problem is when we don’t limit our
undergrad.
and start saying: ‘This behaviour is
conclusions,
of human nature, and evolved on the African
part
millions of years ago.’ And that’s where
savannah
WEIRD issue is embedded in a wider
The
that includes the replicability crisis,
context
in III.4, in which scientists “have
discussed
uncomfortably aware that many
become
results do not hold up: not just in other
flagship
but full stop” (Colvile 2016). There
cultures,
a need for larger sample sizes and more
is
studies, which in turn requires even
repeat
subjects, of which the WEIRD campus
more
is certainly the most convenient.
undergraduate
may explain why, even though attention
This
first drawn to the WEIRD bias in 2008,
was
situation as of 2020 has not significantly
the
Many studies still do not even include
improved.
about which nation or region
information
participants are from, or, if the subjects
the
US undergraduate students, their ethnic
are
A 2018 analysis revealed not a
backgrounds.
study sampled people from Africa, the
single
East or Latin America, concluding “the
Middle
of cultural diversity in psychological science
lack
well established … however … therehas been
is
are also wider, more ideological thrusts
There
the WEIRD bias that do not point to
to
or carelessness as the main cause.
arrogance
gave us the idea that
TheEnlightenment
can be “one great big brotherhood
humankind
man”, while the fallout from eugenics and
of
violence committed in the
racially-motivated
century may have made Western academic
20th
and institutions less inclined to
traditions
human differences, and more inclined
explore
focus on (and assume) human similarities.
to
there is the broader 20th-century
Finally,
within the sciences to seek simplicity—
trend
rules, theories of everything—
fundamental
from the perceived surface-level
distilled
of the cosmos. That complexity may
complexity
from across the human sciences
Scientists
found considerable variation both within
have
populations and between them. It
human
generally misleading and patronizing to
is
groups of people “as” something—
stereotype
risk averse, as honest, as cooperative, for
as
whatever that characteristic is. Is it
example—
better, however, to assume that different
any
are highly similar? Experimental
populations
have found population-level
findings
in diverse domains such as visual
differences
ideas of fairness, cooperation,
perception,
8
scientists forget to program it into their research?
little action in response” (Rad etal 2018).
get publicity, and tenure, for fascinating truths
You
the human condition, not about the US
about
be more than skin deep.
III.2 Implications of WEIRD research
we’re making a really big leap.
(Colvile 2016)
224