Burying inconvenient findings (another example of Maier's Law)

One thing you will probably notice as you look through this blog is that I am no fan of burying inconvenient findings. It doesn't matter if it is the state or federal governments doing it or fellow researchers. The bottom line remains the same: the intended audience gets a distorted and one-sided view of the phenomenon under consideration, losing out on often important and crucial information in the process. The US federal government recently removed a thorough narrative review of research on terrorism. You can see the archived report for yourself here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine. I also made a pdf file of the archived document and will at some point upload it to my personal website, just in case the Wayback Machine ever goes away. I figure my tax dollars were used to generate the report, along with the data analyzed in the studies reviewed in that report. Why was it pulled? Its findings did not go along with the current government narrative that instructs us that all terrorism and politically motivated violence comes from left-wing groups. It turns out that the most common culprits when it comes to terrorism are tied to right-wing militias, followed by Islamist groups. Left-wing terrorism is barely existent in the US. To paraphrase N.R.F. Maier, "if the facts don't conform to the theory, ignore them." The consequences to me are obvious: by ignoring the facts, the federal government will be responsible for law enforcement failing to detect an imminent terrorist attack, or to go down blind alleys looking for non-existent left-wing terrorist. Those consequences could be devastating for lives and livelihoods. 

Now, remember: I was once an early career researcher. I know what it is like when those who have more power over me make decisions to bury the findings of experiments I had run because the findings did not fit an advisor's pet theory. I found that upsetting back in the late 1990s (even if the stakes in that particular line of research are fairly low), and I still do today. In the sciences we are supposed to be truth-seekers and truth tellers. To do so successfully means reporting findings that don't mesh with our preferred worldview. I don't have high expectations when it comes to truthfulness from elected officials (politicians tend to be generally useless in that regard to varying degrees), but I do hold out high expectations for the federal agencies that are supposed to be staffed by career professionals who can report their findings independently of the current dominant party line at any given time. When those professionals are prevented from reporting their work, we should all be worried. 

Update: I failed to mention that the report the government buried in this instance is one that would be of some professional interest to me, insofar as there is some evidence that individuals with authoritarian attitudes (as is the case with our own homegrown terrorists) tend to show greater acceptance of any of a number of authority-sanctioned acts of aggression and violence. I am basing that assessment on much of Bob Altemeyer's work when he was still an active researcher and some of the work I published in the aughts and last decade.  

Welcome, new readers

I logged off for a couple months, come back to post a couple new entries, and realize that suddenly the readership numbers are well above anything I've experienced. It took this blog about 13 years to notch its first 250,000 unique visitors, and it may take less than a few months to have 250,000 more. That's an unexpected and hopefully pleasant surprise.

I don't know how much word of my working on a book has spread, but if so, the secret's out. It's still very much in the beginning stages. I still have a little more groundwork to complete before I really get rolling, of course. And naturally, I am going to need a bit of release time and a sabbatical to really get the book to completion. Maybe it'll be a pretty good story. We'll see. If nothing else, I think it might be a bit of a cautionary tale about one facet of the social psychology literature. And cautionary tales tend to be the best ones to learn from, at least in my experience. I will share more about that project in due time.

I suppose I will feel more obligated to add content here. I have posted irregularly for the existence of this blog, and I've always been surprised that it had any readership. I suppose I only post when I believe I have something to say, and I do go through long stretches where my muse is nowhere to be found. I doubt that will change too much. In that sense, I am very much set in my ways at this final phase of my career. The one thing that has changed is that I went from accepting the orthodoxy in my area of specialization to questioning that orthodoxy, to ultimately striking out on a different path altogether (that's the phase you have stumbled upon). 

Anyway, I've always been a bit reclusive and not much one for the spotlight, so bear with me as I try to get used to a bit more attention than I have had before. Perhaps what I have to say going forward will keep you sticking around. Perhaps not. We shall see. There may still be some value left to being one of a small handful of psychologists who have studied the weapons effect (something Berkowitz and LePage pioneered around the time I was born), and arguably one of the last who still actively contributes to that specific research area. I've certainly had a few things to say on the matter in the past, and have more to share in the future. It was, after all, the phenomenon that shaped the most significant moments of my career, and it has consumed my time, energy, and almost my spirit. Pull up a chair. I'll be around.

Postscript to the preceding

 Per my last post: not only were there plenty of unsubstantiated assertions throughout this latest MAHA report, but this especially caught my eye:

 Asked about rising gun deaths in children, Kennedy called it “a complex question” and claimed — without evidence — that psychiatric drugs and video games could be among the reasons for gun violence.

That bit caught my eye since it truly stuck out like a sore thumb. The video game and aggression assertion is one with which I have long been familiar. I may be a minor player in the media violence research space, but I do keep up with the literature (and I do still occasional publish new work on the weapons effect or weapons priming effect, which is at least adjacent to research on video games and other media). There is no evidence that violent video games have any connection to gun violence. Markey and Ferguson spend some time debunking that claim in their book Moral Combat, and although published several years ago, is still current enough for me to cite it. It's unclear even if there is all that much of a causal link between playing violent video games and the sorts of mild aggression we can ethically measure in your typical psychology lab. 

Unfortunately, this is apparently the best the US federal government can do at this point in time. That does not bode well for policy decisions nor does it bode well for the trustworthiness of its assertions regarding any social science claim. At this point, my recommendation is that we can safely dismiss claims about video games, for example, made by the US federal government, as they will likely be made up without any supporting empirical evidence, and given this government's lack of transparency, I would not even trust any alleged empirical evidence I could attempt to concoct. This is the sad state of science in the US. It did not have to be this way.

As an aside, I will note that much of the media violence research space is and has been needlessly politicized for a very long time. Those responsible for politicizing that research know who they are. What has been accomplished, as near as I can tell, is that policymakers will simply cherry-pick the studies that fit their preconceived conclusions. We have a responsibility now more than ever as scientists to follow the data where it leads us and to accept the findings we obtain, whether or not they fit our particular pet theories. I'm just some obscure social psychologist. I don't have the platform nor do I have the sort of editorial power to make sure that media violence research is done competently and honestly, but I hope those who do have that sort of influence use that influence wisely. If nothing else, we can be there as truth seekers and truth tellers to point to the facts when our government has given up on the truth. Hey, but on the bright side, at least the latest MAHA report didn't have fake citations and might have been cobbled together by actual persons instead of relying entirely on AI (yes, I know - gallows humor).

PS: Here is a screenshot that summarizes the state of research on media violence from FORRT's website:

 

Yet another MAHA report and yet another fail

Let's call this a follow-up post to the AI-garbled mess of a report RFK Jr. put out this past spring. That one included fake citations. The good news is that RFK Jr. has learned his lesson. The most recent report with a plethora of recommendations supposedly based in sound science includes no citations at all. I guess that solves the problem, eh? This is what happens when political appointees who have no idea what they are doing try to generate papers to argue their positions. The AI-generated report from May would be eventually flagged as fraudulent and retracted, assuming it survived the peer-review process (there's always a chance it would have). This new report would not even receive a passing grade in a freshman-level course. It turns out that professors and instructors want to see claims and recommendations backed up with evidence, including citations. Editors would want that too - and whatever RFK Jr. and his band of idiots churned out this time would have received a desk rejection in all likelihood. Anyway, this is another example of our tax dollars at work. Sigh.

Postscript to the preceding

This deserves a proper quote, regarding the decline of US academia:

Some of this was foreseeable. The high school graduate demographic is shrinking, and college and university tuition rates were growing unsustainably. But Trump’s personal attacks on Harvard and other elite universities are erasing the old social contract between the government and academia. On top of that, Trump’s attack on immigration is discouraging foreign student enrollment, and these students were paying full tuition, subsidizing tuition for domestic students. The US higher education brand is tarnished by Trump policies and may never recover. US talent—graduate students, postdocs, faculty—are looking abroad and will take their intellectual capital with them.

Not much can be done about the decreased number of available high school grads (still our major source of students at most universities and colleges). The same thing occurred after the Baby Boom generation reached their college years. Give it a generation and there will be another increase in available potential traditional students, assuming there are sufficient colleges and universities left in the US by then. The unsustainable tuition rates are definitely an own-goal by our politicians starting approximately during the Reagan era onward. Don't even get me started on the student loan bubble. Trump does manage to make things worse, and I say that knowing that some of my readership will be offended. So it goes. The reputational damage is something that I am not sure can be undone. I am usually optimistic, but I don't really see how US higher ed comes back from what will be a catastrophic four years. Once universities begin obeying in advance, allowing a White House occupant (of any party, but for now since it's Trump we'll keep our focus there) to extort them, they simply become institutions that are not to be trusted. Fear and expedience are not acceptable excuses, and those administering these once-fine institutions will not be remembered fondly, to put it politely.  

The end of the golden age of higher ed...some thoughts

Joel Eissenberg, who is one of several writers for the Angry Bear blog, posted today on the end of the golden age of academia. The trigger for the post was undoubtedly an article on academic layoffs at colleges and universities that appeared in the Boston Globe (Joel links to that article if you are interested - I usually don't bother with the Boston Globe due to paywall, and my own paycheck can only sustain a small handful of subscriptions). 

Joel is a professor emeritus, and his experiences are worth reading about. To an extent, what he experienced as a student tracks with my own. Going to Cal State Fullerton was dirt cheap when I was an undergraduate. In-state students paid some nominal fees, but no tuition, although those fees got steeper around the time I graduated with my BA. Funding for public colleges and universities began to dry up as the 1980s progressed. In California, part of the problem was the passage of a series of initiatives that limited the state's ability to collect revenue, which meant that public education took a hit. You could say that by the time I became a college student, the golden age of academia in the US was already in the rear view mirror. Many of us would not have noticed at the time as facilities were still being maintained, a wide variety of courses and degrees were still being offered - including in the traditional liberal arts that are often derided here in the US. If the student government wanted to fund a Henry Rollins band concert, it could without a problem. Heck, Cal State Fullerton had Olympic-quality men's and women's fencing teams (I was friends with a few members of the women's team). 

Austerity took its toll, and into the 1990s (I stuck around to get my MA in Experimental Psychology) I noticed a decline in maintenance and upkeep (overflowing trash cans became the norm for my last couple years) and a decline in cultural, sports, and academic offerings began. My own funding for my MA degree came from a grant awarded to Ron Riggio, Tom Mayes, and Carolyn Kubiak to study the role of internship experience on managerial skills (individual and group decision-making, interview skills, etc.) above and beyond classroom education. At the time the grant began, there was an understanding that the PIs could apply for an extension beyond the three years they were awarded. That made sense as many of the students that made up Cal State Fullerton's population were non-traditional students who may only have been going to school part-time. In the middle of my second and last year of my MA, we got the bad news that the pot of federal money that made that particular grant possible was going away and that we would have to wrap up sooner than the PIs had hoped. If nothing else, that did motivate me to work around the clock to get my thesis successfully defended. I had good reason to believe there might not be enough money to fund my position much beyond that second year. I managed to get full funding at Mizzou for my PhD, but as we ended the 1990s, the vibe I was getting was that the days of funding students beyond year five were over. Thankfully, I was done with my dissertation before I could find out what no funding looked like. Increasingly, it became difficult to fund doctoral students unless there was grant money to fund them. The US government was no longer interested in funding the land grant institutions and the states weren't necessarily motivated either. We've seen what that means for tuition (my youngest daughter is living that dream right now). But those who advised me were optimistic about higher ed's prospects as the new century approached: surely a boom in student enrollment (which did happen) would lead to an increase in state and federal support. Yeah, that never really happened. 

I've spent my entire career as a full-time professor witnessing the decline of the university as a viable place to study and work. Even the small universities where I've made my living once upon a time offered a full range of degree offerings and handled all custodial and maintenance of the physical plant in-house. Budget cuts led to outsourcing, and layoffs of those staff members, even as student enrollment increased or at least remained steady. I get the feeling that at least on the surface the flagship public universities and elite private universities were able to maintain some semblance of "the golden age" as long as the grant money flowed enough and as long as there were plenty of international students who viewed our graduate and professional degree programs as the gold standard. I'd say those days are truly over. And in reality, the financial pressure for grad students in an era where full funding could not be assured as tuition continued to increase to a greater degree than the inflation rate was taking a toll. Grant funding was getting harder to come by, especially as the Tea Party era took hold in the 2010s. And then came Trump. Now the rule is that funding is only given contingent on being sufficiently "non-woke" (whatever that might mean), and international students are no longer welcome in the eyes of the current federal government. Losing international students will end not only individual research programs, but likely whole degree offerings and the careers those degree offerings sustained. 

I am not optimistic about the prospects for higher ed going forward. Even if the US survives the next few years, the damage to the reputation of our education system will be done. We are already seeing the beginning of a brain drain in the US, and that will likely continue. As someone in the sciences (social sciences specifically), I am still optimistic about how the sciences will progress. The US government can end a lot of the scientific work that universities once did without interference, but there are universities in other nations that will no doubt pick up the slack. It just means that aspiring scientists in the US will want to do their graduate training outside the US and will want to look for career opportunities outside the US. And depending on one's ideological perspective, the response might be "who cares?" By relinquishing its role as a leader in scientific research, US citizens will no longer get to benefit directly from new advances. Their counterparts in China, India, and the EU (which seem well-positioned to hire the very scholars the US no longer wants) are already swooping in to hire scholars who would have otherwise remained in the US. Americans will get used to no longer being first in line. They have no choice. 

A few musings

At some point, I need to re-read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. It was a timely critique of higher education when it was published back in 1987 (that book was a surprise Christmas gift from my parents back in the day), and perhaps is more urgent today. Actually, there are a lot of books that would fall under the "cultural criticism" category that deserve a re-read as time permits.

 I won't try to summarize Allan Bloom's book for this post, as I would be drawing on a nearly 40 year old memory, and that's not something I wish to endeavor, but I can discuss a few things I think need to be reformed if higher education is still going to meet our needs as a society. 

Let's start with one elephant in the room: the K-12 system in the US has been in decline for the duration of my adulthood. Think about this: none of my grandparents ever graduated from high school. They either worked small family farms or did manual labor. And yet, they had a better grasp of the arts, philosophy, and literature than the typical college graduate of today. What happened? Too much to mention in a short blog post. But I have noticed a general trend away from teaching critical thinking and more and more teaching to the test. The George W. Bush era arguably accelerated the descent of K-12 education. Note that I am not saying that our instructors are sub-par or about to make some crackpot claim about schools being too "woke" or any other moral panic verbiage. Our nation simply does not offer the educational opportunities that even my age cohort would have taken for granted. By the time one graduates high school, one likely has never been to an art gallery on field trip, or to a local symphony (assuming one still exists), or to a play put on by a local community theatre company. Maybe the kids get exposed to some Shakespeare, but that's hardly a given. If asked to evaluate the merits of an argument, my impression is today's high school graduate is probably going to parrot talking points from a podcaster, peers, or perhaps extended family rather than independently look at the claims made on each side of the argument and offer an informed evaluation. The sort of reflective thinking that these nascent young adults are perfectly capable of demonstrating has been left to go to seed. 

I used to say that my job was undoing the damage caused by the K-12 system, as that system is overwhelmed with all sorts of metrics and standardized tests - none of which have much of anything to do with the sort of reflective thinking we once expected beginning college students to have. Of course, higher education is also in decline in the US, and is probably going to get worse at least for the short and medium term. I am part of that last generation who went to college not just to learn the ropes before finding that entry level managerial gig, but to actually get a well-rounded education (and yes, of course to party as well - social skills are fundamental). The very degree programs that made all that possible are increasingly on the chopping block. I will accept the claim that getting a philosophy degree is not exactly "practical" in terms of getting that first job after graduation, but the skills learned are crucial on their own merits, and have the fringe benefit of making one a better employee to the extent that a job requires critical thinking skills. Majoring in a language may not seem like the obvious strategy for a job where you will work in a cubicle, but one learns in the process not only a different way of thinking but also a knowledge of a culture or set of cultures one would have been ignorant of otherwise. Faculty in higher education aren't exactly reinforced for educating their charges in critical thinking. We're busier than ever completing paperwork to justify our own existences based on some metrics devised by some political appointees that are tangential to education at best.

Institutions of higher education in the US have turned their backs increasingly on the expectation of excellence. Oh, don't get me wrong. There is tons of lip service given to professional development. Just don't count on support for your efforts if you end up on faculty. You'll be reinforced for looking "good enough" based on whatever metrics are used as evaluation and nothing else. The system reinforces mediocrity, especially for those of us who make our lives nurturing our undergraduate students. I have certainly learned the hard way that the sort of ambition that leads to advances (however minor) in our respective fields is unwelcome. Ambition to become an administrator is possibly more accepted. Ambition that leads to errors and fraud are also apparently okay as long as nobody looks to closely. That's just the way it is anymore, as I see it.

We didn't get to this already low point overnight, and I am not sure I am the best person to talk to regarding how to improve the educational system so that it at least continues to function in the service of further developing our global civilization. Education needs to be valued. It's a fundamental need. That means as a society we need to do something radical: fund education from preschool all the way to colleges and universities. At all levels of education, age-appropriate experiences that foster critical thinking, that provide a basic understanding of how our society works (government, civil society, etc.), and foster a genuine appreciation of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences are a must. A student graduating from high school with some basic knowledge of Plato and Aristotle as well as Lao Tzu and Sun Tzu would be a good start. A student graduating high school who understands that the anime they were watching referenced a specific work of art or a play would be a good start. With more funding comes greater expectations, and we as a society need to be up to the challenge. But to get there, so that I can actually do my job the way I intended when I began teaching full time about a quarter of a century ago, we need a massive cultural shift toward valuing what educators do, encourage educators and students to express independent views (whether popular or not), and funding the institutions charged with that task. W do that and we might just have some hope of surviving as a society for the duration of at least this century. On our current path, we'll be lucky to have taught a generation of students how to craft AI prompts to generate reports that have no substance. I don't see how we survive as a society under that dystopian set of circumstances. I wish I could be more optimistic.