5 Topics In Psychology That We’re Not Allowed To Talk About - Dr Cory Clark

is pervasive misogyny a myth? I've claimed that it is. Yeah. I think before we got on here, I was talking about how I was treated in Cairo. Yeah, tell that story. And I was getting onto an elevator. I was there first. I hit the button. I started to step on, and these two guys walk up and they're like, "No, no," and they waved to me to get off. And then I got off, and they got on, and they went up, and I had to take the next one. Um, so that kind of thing exists in places in the world still in 2023. Um, but in the U.S., uh, you're not getting much of that anymore. And in fact, you're getting quite a bit of the opposite. So I wrote this paper. I think this is a quote article. I think yeah, yeah, a year or two ago, um, that reviewed a lot of the recent, uh, research on looking at gender biases in psychology. And a lot of the time, you see exactly the opposite. So people are biased in favor of women across a lot of different domains. They often treat women better than men. They like women better than they like men. Women get punished less than men for the same things. Um, when there's a scientific finding that portrays men better than women, people are biased against it in relation to scientific evidence that portrays women better than men. So people want women to be better than men. Um, and so this idea that society is sexist against women and we have to be vigilant about potential harm to women, um, I think potentially actually stems from the very fact that we care so much more about women than we do about men. And when we discover these biases against men, no one really cares, and they don't make the headlines. Um, so yeah, I would say it is largely a myth in modern Western societies. Yes.

Is it really possible to answer this question about whether society is more biased against men than women? That's a good question. And I would say probably no. Like, practically it would be really hard to measure all of the different contexts where people potentially could be biased. Uh, so like some scholars have looked at potential bias against men and women in academia, and they see, for example, it's possible students are slightly biased against women in their teaching evaluations, although hard to know because a lot of these are real evaluations, so it could just be that what maybe women aren't as nice? T-shirts? I don't know. Um, um, so people have tried to like look at which domains do people have a bias against women or against men. It would be hard to look at everything all at once and say, uh, which direction. But one thing that's been happening that I've seen across a few papers now, including one of my own papers that's coming out, is that a lot of these biases actually used to favor men. Like, for example, in hiring for male stereotypical jobs, it really was the case that people used to be discriminating against women in those jobs. Um, and a lot of these things seem to have flipped around 2009. So a lot of the biases that used to favor men now favor women, and a lot of the biases that always favor women still favor women. So I do think, uh, I don't know if we can say on whole who gets treated worse relative to the other gender. Um, but certainly it seems to be the trajectory that biases are increasingly in favor of favoring women, and then people just don't seem to care as much about that as when they seem to go against women.

There was that Steve Stuart Williams study about fake articles favoring women or men and people's judgments of it, right? Yeah. They had one on I think it was "men or women lie more," maybe, and then they did "men or women are more intelligent" or "men and women better drawers." I think there were like three domains, and yeah, they always found that when the evidence said that women have a worse quality than men, people are like, "This is sexist, this is bad research." But when women are portrayed as better, people like, "Oh, it's even pretty good," same as when it was equal. Right? So women are better and men and women are equal was seen as um a similar level. I think so. I have studies where I've looked at something very similar that I have struggled to publish for like seven years, uh, where we did that. We had "men or..." I think we did it with intelligence: "men or women are equally intelligent," "women are more intelligent than men," "men are more intelligent than women." And people like the "men and women are equally intelligent" or "women are more intelligent than men" more than they like "men are more intelligent than women." So that's the one that really irritates people. Yeah.

Why do you think this is the case? Like, why is it... well, actually first, no, why do mainstream narratives focus so much on the possibility of anti-female biases if it seems, you know, pretty robust that men even have an anti-men bias? Like the call is coming from inside the house with regards to some of the sort of anti-male sentiments. Yeah. So both men and women will show this pro-female bias. It is larger for females usually, but men too have these pro-woman biases. Um, what was your question? Why do mainstream narratives focus on it so much? Oh, um, yeah. I think I think it's potentially just because we care more. But so, okay, so there are two things going on, I think. Uh, and one I think has been sort of forwarded as the explanation, but I think it might be a little bit simplistic. So, um, just the idea that men and women... you know, women have more like value essentially from an evolutionary perspective. If you have a hundred women and one man, you can have a hundred babies. But if you have one woman and a hundred men, you gotta have... you know, you have a very... disgusting woman? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Um, so so women are the sort of limited resource, and so scholars have argued, and it seems to be uh very plausible, that you know we care more about harm to women because they are essentially setting the limit on our success as a species. So that's one piece of it. The reason that I don't think that's necessarily all of it is what we briefly touched on at the start of this conversation, which is that you do see these big cross-cultural differences, and you do see these big differences over time. So if I were to run this study where say like "men are smarter than women" or "women are smarter than men" in like 1920, would I see the same thing? I highly doubt it. Um, so I don't think that's all of it. I think that's part of it. And then on top of it, we have this sort of cultural narrative that you know women have been disadvantaged for x amount of time, um, and that is a huge problem, and now the corrective measures have gone so far that they've fully reversed things, and a lot of time men are being disadvantaged for the sake of women. So I think those are both what's happening. So you see that in society: when you get any of these effects where you're like, "Look, people are sexist against women," everyone loves it, you know, goes viral, it's covered by the New York Times. Uh, I don't think anybody will be... well, I don't want to say anybody, but I don't know if Steve Stuart Williams's findings are going to make it to the front page of New York Times. I guess we'll see.

Are you, uh, are you familiar with gamma bias? Have you learned about this? I don't know. No, I don't think so. So this is a Dr. John Barry from the Center for Male Psychology. This is a concept that he at least has popularized. I don't know whether he was the one that came up with it, and it basically talks about how especially in popular news, uh, media articles, if the article is pro-women, then they will sex the headline; if it's anti-men, then it will sex the headline. But if it's the reverse, it will be gender neutral. Uh, so basically, the successes of women and the failings of men both end up getting... so like "white male shooter" would be put as the headline for something, or like "female CEO" would be putting as a headline for something, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. Uh, it seems to be less true, and this causes a skew in the way that people see the world. You know, more people are spending time inside rather than outside now, which means that their genuine day-to-day experience of the world is limited, so most of them live their life vicariously through the news stories that they read and the social media that they follow, which means that this very much is shaping our experience of the world. Yeah. I think Q1 2023 saw the highest ever number of female CEOs in history happen. It was over a third of all CEOs were women. Remembering that this isn't just like "finally women have got the opportunity to do this," this is like "finally we have found enough women that want to become CEO" or for all that it sounds great and like 50/50. The reality on the ground probably sucks a lot more dick than you think. So, um, you also found looking at this issue that psychology academics also have this bias too? Um, yeah, wasn't it that people have like a stronger desire to censor science that favors women? Oh, um, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's in my... yeah, where I surveyed psychology professors. Well, first I interviewed them, um, and I asked them... this was from forever ago. This was I think he must have found the teaser that maybe got you onto this track originally, because this was way before you started this study unless you were doing that study like two or three years ago when you wrote that Colette article. I probably was, or I possibly was. Yeah, was it my own research or was it someone else's research? I'm not sure what you had was an inclination. I think that both the um way that the general public and the way that the people doing the science that the general public sees... everybody is kind of aware of this, like you know both men and women seem to have a pro-female bias when it comes to the way they interpret stuff. That boundary doesn't stop outside of academia; that seeps into academia too. The difference being that academia is upstream of these realizations, so there are academics who are concerned about that.

Okay, so we've like danced around what's going on. What is your explanation for why this is happening? Not why mainstream media focuses on it. Like why is it the case that this is the interpretation, that the interpretation is that the world is sexist against women? Yeah. Um, um, motivated reasoning? I don't know. There are a couple things. I mean, one is just what I mentioned before: that we do have this greater concern for women. There's this cultural shift, and part of that cultural shift is driven by the fact that women now, as you mentioned, like they're more in positions of power, and so their interests... um, the interests of women have more power in institutions. They probably... I mean, if women are taking over the media, they're taking over science, they're taking over all of these positions, and they're particularly concerned about their own interests, um, they're going to focus on that even as the problem disappears over time. But as you said, there's also this actual, I think sincere but incorrect belief about the problem. So in this paper that we should have hopefully getting accepted any day now, um, we had academics and everyday people estimate discrimination against men and women in hiring contexts in these audit studies where you know you're randomly um uh sending in apple job applications to real jobs with like a female or a male name. Um, and as I said, we see this flip around 2009 where all of a sudden um even for male stereotypical jobs the biases favor women. They've always favored women for female stereotypical jobs. But among everyday people and academics alike, everyone assumes it's the opposite. They assume that there's this huge bias against women in hiring for male stereotypical jobs. Um, so they think like they look at just the underrepresentation of women in STEM and say, "Well, there can be only one explanation: obviously we're discriminating against women in STEM." And it's not oh, maybe maybe women don't want to go into STEM, maybe they like other things more. Um, so you know, there's that tendency to see if there's a disparity and we know that historically women have been discriminated against, then that must be the best and the only explanation. In fact, um, and so it's this combination of like who's in power, so those people's interests are like starting to have a greater impact on public narratives in the media and academia. Um, but also I just think there's this misperception about what's actually happening, uh, that maybe it's driven by what you say what the media are covering. Um, maybe it's willful ignorance. I don't know. I think that definitely a part of it is there's no associated social renown or goodwill for anybody that starts really uploading men doing well as CEOs, you know. There's no um victimhood card carrying points available for somebody that decides to do that, because [ __ ] you, this is no surprise to anybody. Like you know, even taking it from a straight up structural perspective, headlines that are counter-intuitive, or at least sound counter-intuitive, are the ones that are the most interesting. So why are we going to report on a news story that most people already thought was happening? So you kind of have this public conceptual inertia that most people think the world is one particular way. That means that when stories appear that confirm the worldview that they thought they had, they get brushed under the rug. Why should we be bothered about celebrating the number of men becoming CEOs or guys doing whatever whatever? Because this is the way it's always been. Because they don't know that there may be some shift in the other direction which would make now the intuitive counter-intuitive again. So it's almost like there's a mismatch between what's actually happening and what the press is uh releasing and what the public believes. But you know, and this is not to castigate women. It's not like women are choosing to make this misunderstand. I don't think almost any women... well, what do you think? I can see why some women would maybe have this sort of misandrous or desire to be um to continue to castigate men. You had this quote: a Google Scholar search for "misogyny" yielded 114,000 results, whereas a search for "misandry" yielded only 2,340. So people are not studying or really concerned about anti-male bias, especially from women. And it's the same as the like "can black people be racist?" question. It's like, "No, of course they can't. Racism is power plus privilege." Given that women are the ones who have been out of power for so long, there is no way that they could be... I bet that if you did on-street interviews or you surveyed people saying like "can women be sexist?" that it would yield very very similar results. I think that's probably there's actually an even better Google result that I think I didn't find until after I wrote that paper, but I Google imaged "men are stronger than women," which is just empirically correct on average, and not even on average it's like it's just yeah, almost exclusively yeah. Um, barely an overlap. Um, but of the like 41 images that popped up on the screen, I think like one of them was yes confirming that, and then there were like two neutral, and all the rest were images of women being stronger than men. So women running faster than men, women like you know raising a man over her head, you know. Um, and so even when you Google this fact, "men are stronger than women," everyone's like, "No, women are stronger than men." There was a football game that happened a couple of weeks ago in the UK. I can't remember the team, but they got like the B squad of some fourth division... oh yeah, British team to play I think the US Women's team, and they beat them I want to say like 12 nil or 14 nil in the space of 25 minutes. And then the best uh presentation I think of speed and power, the disparity between men and women is the women's hundred meter record. So the women's hundred meter record that hasn't been beaten in I want to say 20 or 30 years is held by like a hundred or two hundred under-18 males, like high school level males hit that that female number. But that's because of socialization, as we all know. Um, but yeah, there have been a couple of cases where they try to get these professional female athletes to play yeah like low tier men's teams, and it doesn't go well. It's embarrassing. It's not embarrassing like necessarily, but it is just because we're in denial of this reality, uh, for whatever reason. Yeah, if you were to do a game of uh lie detection or um turning over cards on a table and having to remember the position of them all, if that had happened to become a globally recognized sport for some reason, women would wipe the floor with men. We would be like, "This is completely unfair, we can't have a mixed co-ed uh team of this," because you know for some reason all of the top players happen to be women because they are we better at that game. Yeah, I thought what's it called? Local station? Local memorization or local spatialization or something like that? I've heard that, but I didn't know it translated to that game, but I guess that makes sense. That's the only thing that I can think of that's like a modern equivalent of it, either that or losing your keys in the kitchen. You know, like every guy loses the keys, but every woman knows exactly where they are. But if the guy then went to throw the keys to the woman, like she's not catching them. Men can be like looking at an odd object and be like, "Where's my..." yeah, precisely correct. Yeah, precisely correct.

Okay, so we've kind of got a bit of a story going on here. We've set up this um disparity between what people think is happening in the world and what might actually be happening. Some anti-female, anti-male, pro-male, anti-female bias. There's also moving into higher education a lot more women who are going into higher education, not only as students but also as academics too. How has this changed academic culture? Women look at men. It's I think it actually goes ever so slightly up, but for women it's like huge. You know, they were a very very small minority um decades ago, not even all that long ago. But in the past few years, women are dominating at the undergraduate level, way more women than men. There are more women in graduate school, and now there are actually more women who are faculty as well. So you went from an institution that was run almost entirely by men, and the people in the institution were almost all men too because the students were meant to um, and now it's a majority of women. And I think, I don't want to say it's the only cause, I don't think it is the only cause, but I do think it is probably a primary contributor to a lot of the cultural shifts that have been happening in the past 10 years because they all prioritize the values of women. So if you look at stuff, for example, you know people wanting to do these trigger warnings when they're teaching topics in class. If you look at the cases of scholars getting attacked or fired or harassed on social media for studying you know potentially controversial topics, those are skyrocketing. If you look at these editorial changes in academic journals, which maybe some of your listeners won't be familiar with, but there have been some of the most prominent or most prestigious journals in all of science, the Nature Springer family of journals, that have put out a series of editorials over these past few years saying that they would not publish and potentially would retract science that has like potential to... I think one of the phrasings was "undermine the dignity of human social groups," uh, whatever that means. Um, and so it's all of these like harm concerns and these concerns about protecting vulnerable people um that are starting to interfere with a process that at least at one point was supposed to be: well, we're going to pursue the truth, you know, if it hurts some people's feelings, you know, that so be it. That's not what we're concerned with. We're concerned with um you know finding out what is empirically correct about the world and sharing that information with our students. Um, and so if you look at all each and then the growing, the bloated uh DEI um uh what do you call it? Initiative initiative divisions, whatever they have at these universities, all of these things are uh they all kind of concern the things that women would be worried about. And so you're getting this exact pattern happening at the same time women are essentially taking over academia, and now they're probably holding more positions of power. They're the editors at these journals, they're the presidents of the professional societies, um they're the administration. Um, it's kind of like exactly what you would expect if you changed the gender composition of academia, and people are so uh perplexed by it, but it seems like a pretty simple straightforward uh solution. I'm not saying that's the only thing; maybe social media has something to do with it. You know, scientists are directly at like interacting with the public, so maybe the public gets pissed about a scientific finding whereas 15 years ago they probably didn't even know we had academic journals. Um, so that could be part of it. But yeah, I think the changing composition, the gender composition of academia, um, I think pretty much has inevitable consequences that are going to prioritize the interests of women, which are to protect the vulnerable from harm. Um, and they're also way more egalitarian, so they want everyone to kind of have the same outcomes, whereas men are more hierarchical, they're more comfortable with like some people are going to be better at things than other people and those people are going to get um benefits for that. Um, I've known women who... you know, I know a lot of women in academia, and a lot of them are like pained by the process of grading. Like they don't want to give anyone a D, which I get, like it's not fun um failing a student, but that's kind of part of the process. If you just give everyone an A, it sort of loses its meaning. But that's painful to women to not have everyone be thriving equally all the time.

Can you explain for the people who are uninitiated the driver evolutionarily about why women have this more egalitarian, more sort of cloak and dagger behind closed doors approach to things, and the opposite for men? Yeah. So women essentially were having children and raising them to be successful adults that have children of their own, um, whereas men were often working in coalitions to protect the group. So men are used to uh creating coalitions, figuring out who's a good leader, who's good at what, giving that person status to make sure the group works really well together. Um, so they're very comfortable with the fact that some men are going to rise to the top, because that benefits the whole group. If we have a strong leader, we all live. Um, women were not participating in that so much. They were being protected by the men, and their primary job was to care for offspring and keep offspring alive. So they have this concern for things that are vulnerable, and they want to protect them and help them. Um, the... I think it's actually sort of an interesting discussion about like is it that men are hierarchical or women egalitarian, because it might just be that the egalitarian thing could have been the default, but men are the ones that had to change because they had to coordinate and cooperate in this way in order... who's the operation? Who's the dude? I don't know. So like I think and I think that explanation, it's almost like the absence of women participating in that potentially made them more egalitarian, but it also could have been because you know their sharing resources with other women and helping other women take care of their children too, um, where you wouldn't necessarily need... they tend to be in small groups, um, prefer you know a few close friends rather than being in this huge group of people that's really coordinated and trying to out-compete other groups. Joyce Beninson has done so much good work on this where she looked at uh is it female basketball teams, and I think male opponents on a basketball court show more goodwill physically to each other than female compatriots. So like enemies on the men's teams show more love to each other than the same team members for women. And tell me if I'm wrong here. I'm pretty sure that another contributing reason is that women physically are more fragile, which means that becoming the enemy of anybody has higher consequences, and you are physically less capable of defending yourself, plus you potentially have dependence on you children, so on and so forth. So the externality of you dying: man dies, not good, but like things can continue because he's been gored by a [ __ ] mammoth or something. Woman gets too high above her station, she pisses off the wrong other woman, and that woman poisons her in her sleep or takes a child away from her or does something else to cause her to um lower down in status. Which means that women seem to hide their own successes. I think this is born out of um the way that girls in school talk about achieving A grades and B grades and C grades, that they're much more disparaging of their own achievements, they will underplay their own achievements a lot more. It's the same thing of um if a girl thinks that her results are going to be viewed by other people, she's much more likely to downplay her successes, whereas if she thinks that they're going to be kept private, they'll be a little bit more um accurate or full of themselves in their assessments. Uh, so that's another sort of contributing factor too. I wasn't aware of that last one, but yeah, there are pretty consistent gender differences where like men have more self-esteem than women, women tend to underestimate how well they're doing at things, and men tend to overestimate how well they're doing. Well, how beneficial is it? And yeah, as you said, I mean I don't even necessarily think it's just women on women. Women are vulnerable around men too. And so I think that there's more pressure to be a conformist when you're a woman, because as you said, you don't want to piss anyone off because you're not particularly uh strong, and so if someone attacks you, there's a good chance you're gonna get injured or die. Um, whereas men are more capable of you know defending themselves, and they're completely capable of defending themselves against almost all women, and so their enemies are cut in half, or rather the threats are cut in half, as it were. Um, so so yeah, there are a lot of these like correlated gender differences that if you look at them like on their own, the differences don't appear huge when it comes to personality, but the fact that you get them across all of these different kinds of things, like the egalitarianism and the harm concern that I think the pressure to conform to your social group when all of those things are correlated, you end up with these pretty big differences. And then we see these differences in the priorities of men and women. So among psychology professors, men are more supportive of pursuit of truth as like the purpose of science than women are. They're more supportive of academic freedom than women are, whereas women think we need to be balancing these things with moral concerns and harm concerns. Um, so you get these you know evolved gender differences between men and women, their personality, and then you change the gender composition of an institution, and it can fundamentally change the goal of what that institution is trying to accomplish. In the case of science, like truth, so long as it doesn't cause any mean stereotypes to be spread about it.

I've got some of my favorite stats that you found during your research. 56 percent of men said that colleges should not protect students from offensive ideas. 64 percent of women said that they should. 51 percent of men said colleges should not disinvite speakers if students threaten violent protest. 67 percent of women said that they should. 58 percent of men opposed a confidential reporting system at colleges which students could use to report offensive comments. 54 percent of women supported it. 50... 63 percent of men thought controversial news stories in student newspapers should not need administrator's approval before publication. 51 percent women thought that they should. And it just continues down, whether it's about willingness to report male counterparts for dismissal campaigns. 71 percent of men reported that protecting free speech is more important than promoting an inclusive society. 60 percent of women said that promoting an inclusive society is more important than protecting free speech. All the way down. Then you summarize it really really nicely here: put simply, men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable. Yeah. What I love about all of those numbers too is because they so clearly show what happens when you change the majority representation in an institution, because in all of those cases, it's the majority of men hold view A and the majority of women hold view B. So whichever group has more people, they're going to be the ones whose priorities... we call it the academic ratio hypothesis. Yeah, we could. And I mean I haven't actually gotten much pushback on it, which I really thought I would at one point. And I think part of the reason I haven't gotten as much pushback as I would expect um for such a claim... oh, awesome. Everybody um is because women actually think that it's good that they're like that, right? So to people who think academic freedom is obviously this really important thing and obviously science should be pursuing truth, we look at these statistics and we're like, "Well [ __ ], like this is really bad. Women are potentially causing problems in science and academia." But when women see these statistics, they're like, "Finally, like we're saving it. We're making it a safe place for everyone, and we're making sure that science does good, it doesn't do harm." Um, and there's another paper that looked at this, like the priorities of scientists. Men have this sort of basic interest in understanding the world and like figuring out what's true and figuring out how things work, whereas women do science because they want to cause good in the world. So their motivation is: I want to know the truth, but I only want to know the truth if it's going to help me help other people. Which means that any truth that doesn't help me help other people, and especially any truth that potentially could harm other people, is not valuable and we should not be pursuing it in science and academia. Um, which is you know very fundamentally different from what I think a lot of people thought we were doing for a long time with science.

The thing that I tried to get at earlier on, um, before you sideswiped me with your misogyny, was that I don't want this to come across like women haven't got their heads on straight, men you should treat them like they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. The point is, if you were convinced of these viewpoints, you would be convinced of them too. Like for the most part, people are supporting things that they believe. Now they might believe them erroneously. It might be motivated reasoning. It might be because of societal pressure. It might be because they want to morally grandstand and look like they're really cool and important and empathetic and all this stuff. All of these reasons contribute. But like if I convince you that two plus two equals four, you can't unconvince yourself of something that you're convinced of up until the point at which you are unconvinced, at which point you have a new set of views, right? So it's like if you felt this way, if you had this biological predisposition plus this sort of cultural uh imposition on you from all the girlfriends that you'd spend time with, and the same for men too. Like for the women in academia who say, "I can't believe that men don't care about harms and blah blah blah," it's like the reason that they're convinced is because they're convinced. And being able to hold two conflicting viewpoints in your mind at one time is really important. Like look, women can hold this view and to them it is the truth. Men can hold this view, unto them it is the truth, right? Like it's a case of trying to bridge that divide. I think to help people understand, okay, from first principles, what are we trying to achieve right with academia? Like what's the goal here? What are we actually trying to get ourselves toward? And I do think that it would lean more toward the male side of this. It's going to be toward the... it's going to be truth. But do you... so the one thing that I thought about is like how do you just like why? Like how do you justify why science should be pursuing truth? Is it just uh is it just itself a good, or is there a reason that we care about the truth or we should pursue truth? To me, the goal of science would be to accurately represent what is going on in the world. And why is that good? Why is that better? Because that can inform decisions moving forward accurately. If you do it based on some predisposition, some sort of uh predetermination or some motivated reasoning, you're going to encounter a situation in which the world doesn't reflect what your research has supposedly shown or what missed research would have shown because you haven't been trying to represent what the world is. But why is that bad? Because you're going to end up with massive errors. You're going to end up with people predicting things that don't come true or not predicting things that do come true that could have been discovered had the research been done. But why are errors bad? Why are errors bad? I guess that's a good question. Because downstream from errors, you would end up with a world that isn't able... you would end up with a society and a civilization that isn't able to accurately perceive what is going on. That to me just seems like... like what is science if science isn't understanding what's happening in the world and downstream from that being able to accurately make predictions? I don't understand what we're doing here. Like we why don't we just write fiction if that's... I was trying to lead you down a path and you didn't take the bait. Okay, bait me. What should I have said? Well, where I was gonna try to get... like I've seen myself do. I'm a person who thinks science should be pursuing truth first and foremost, and I don't think other moral concerns should interfere with that unless they're like catastrophic and definitely going to happen. Um, but I find myself justifying that with consequences, which is: if we don't have the truth, we're going to waste all this time on these [ __ ] interventions that aren't going to accomplish anything. They're not going to deliver on their promises. You know, they might actually cause harm to people. And so I'm like bringing in the harm element to justify why we should be pursuing the truth. Um, but it sounds like you think truth is maybe just like in itself a good, which I would like to argue that, but I'm like well where does that value come from? Is it just like that's just something humans think because truth tends to be useful and so we've come to sort of worship the truth? Yeah. And when I try to justify it, I go "prevent harm," and then I'm doing the same thing, which is oddly what a lot of people are trying to do. But you're right, they're going through a less circuitous route. They're just saying, "Okay, we won't ever talk about anything that could harm somebody." And you're like, "That's the first order effect. The second order effect might be that they end up being harmed because the thing that you've researched or not researched is the thing that could have protected them from the harm in the end." Yeah, I think exactly. I think I was um really really poorly talking about the implications downstream. Um, but it is it is interesting because, as I assume you know, of that Al-Shabli paper on the female mentors that got... uh, the authors are connected so it's like two, two, three, three summers ago maybe right around now, um you know during that summer, first summer of COVID when everyone was going crazy. Uh, this young female scholar published this paper with a couple of colleagues, and they found that um that uh female mentees of female mentors uh had less impactful careers later down uh later down their careers than male mentees that were mentored by male mentors. So essentially this male-male combo of mentor-mentee led to more successful outcomes than this female-female. People hated that, obviously, because it makes women look like they're not good mentors or something or women aren't cooperating well together. Um, and they retracted the paper. And this is one of the... and there was all of this talk about how this is gonna harm women in science and it's going to cause all these like negative consequences. And what ended up happening is like the journal was like, "We're gonna launch initiatives to help women in science." So if anything, it was like helpful to women that this paper got published. But then on the other side of it, I'm thinking: no scholar, let's imagine this effect is real, which I don't think we have a good reason to doubt it. No one like really criticized the finding; they criticized like the operationalizations and stuff. Um, let's assume it's a true effect. Well, no scholar in their right mind is ever going to try to study it and figure out why this happened, which means we'll never try to solve a problem because we don't acknowledge that the problem exists in the first place. If there is a problem, um, and so yeah, like these concerns about harms to women in science, they definitely have potential to actually cause harm to women in science because we're ignoring uh potential disparity that potentially could be fixed by something, and we'll just never look for the thing that could fix it. You know, it's uh two studies that come to mind for me: that one being about uh women with female bosses reporting lower levels of job satisfaction, and then a second one that looked at uh male academics being more reticent to collaborate with female academics post Me Too. Yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, it's that's another thing is like it's hard to anticipate what the consequences of any one thing are going to be, of any one scientific finding or any one social movement. You know, so like even if you think you're avoiding harm, you might also be creating harm, and truth has taken a hit. You know, so like these aren't questions that are being studied empirically; these are just assumptions people have. People just assume this is going to be bad. Um, but they don't bother to actually figure out if it's going to be bad, and if it is going to be bad, is that the only way it's going to be bad, or is it going to be bad if you suppress the science? Uh, like my big concern is I'm like people shouldn't trust science anymore. Like there's so much political [ __ ] going on, um, that even if we thought it was for the right reasons, for whatever progressive values scholars care about, if they're successfully pursuing those, well they've undermined the institution of science and no one trusts us anymore because we look like a bunch of political hacks. And it's true. Like I don't even think we can deny that that's what's happening. So I mean some people try to, but uh you know you can look at our shitty track record. If you look at like the replication crisis and all of the contradictions just being pumped out into the world day after day, it's a sad state of affairs.

I think there's a really lovely framing generally for a lot of things that are going on within media, um, that are pushing uh purposefully obfuscated truths or like outright lying about certain things. That downstream from that, there are second, third, fourth order effects that people aren't aware of that can be more harmful than an uncomfortable tasting medicine with a spoon of sugar to take it down type thing. I remember the uh Chelsea Conaboy article from The New York Times, "Maternal Instinct Is a Myth That Men Created." It's like okay, that's sure, that's an opinion I suppose. That was backed up by some really shitty, very... is it like they created it so that they wouldn't have to do parenting? Uh, it was to keep women under the thumb. I think to keep them sort of as domestic prostitutes might have been one of the lines that was used. Um, but my point being that like okay, so maybe that is uh comforting to women who are from a particular cohort, the you know career women who are doing these things. But it's very damaging to women who have a maternal instinct, and now they think, "Oh right, I've been [ __ ] rubbed by the patriarchy and being marionetted by like [ __ ] Andrew Tate, Dan Bilzerian have got a hold of like what it is that like the way that I show up in the world?" So the actual real world harm of trying to be overly sympathetic or empathetic towards disadvantaged groups... yeah, I think it's a really really nice framing that harm in the immediate, avoiding immediate harm, can cause much worse harm down the road. And doing that also destroys truth and also kind of wrecks the entire scientific process. But what do you say to the people who would push back and say men and women are psychologically different because of patriarchy and social expectations and stuff, we just need to nudge those, change those in some way? Yeah. I mean, some people try to claim that it's all environmental or cultural, and some people try to claim that you know there aren't even men and women in the first place, or this is just humans or something. Um, yeah. I think some of the most compelling data there are that when you look in more egalitarian countries, um, you often see that actually these gender differences get bigger. So when men and women are given like more freedom to flourish and pursue what they want to pursue, um, you can see even bigger... like women a lot of... and this is related to what you were just saying: like a lot of women really like being a mom and staying home and taking care of their kids is the most meaningful thing to them. And then you get these like scholarly career women who like look down on them and and shame them for making that choice. But when women have you know a partner who can support them because they're getting paid enough, they've got their like health care needs taken care of, they're more likely to choose to stay home and be a mom. And it's in some of these really poor countries or countries where women are treated really terribly where the women are like going into STEM. It really irks you, you know. So uh if it were gonna... if it were caused by these like really destructive social expectations that aim to hold women down, I think we would see that places like Sweden and stuff, you know women are becoming uh engineers at the same rate as men. Um, but that's just not the case. And there's evidence that it's precisely the opposite of that: that when women get to choose, um, they choose things that women would be interested in doing because they like evolved to be good at those things, and it's really important for them.

Does a interesting lesson I learned from Mary Harrington, where the um especially women at the top, the ones who create the culture of feminism in particular...

don't have the interests of the women at the bottom in mind, so she used the example of reducing chivalry, like, "I don't need to be sort of protected by a man. I don't need him to hold the door open for me. I don't need him to pull my chair out. I don't need him to pay for the first date," etc., etc. Like, you know, this is the egalitar and it's a again your um holding up your morally grandstanding for a disadvantaged group, and you're almost presuming that hoping that they can take care of themselves, they're you're reducing dependency. But what those women at the top, the Bourgeois sort of feminist Believers, don't realize is that there are women at the bottom for whom their partner might not have had, might have grown up in a single parent household, might have been abused by a father. Like they could do with understanding, protecting women, which is really what opening the door and pulling the chair out is about. It's like treating them in a more a less robust way is Upstream from "don't hit your wife," yeah right, just a little bit.

Yeah, but the the point of women is something that require protecting and providing for is something that can be dispensed with if you are part of some like high for leading class, but necessarily doesn't work down at the bottom. And it feels a little bit right the same as what you're talking about here. There was this really really great study that uh Alexander Date Sykes just put out; I'm going to bring him on to talk about in a couple of weeks. Uh, 55% of single men haven't approached a woman in the last year. 77% of women say that they were approached more, but that is in the 18 to 30 age bracket. At 41 plus, the trend flips, and 55% of women said that they didn't want to be approached. Question being: who is writing all of the op-eds saying men stop approaching women? It's the women that are in that age bracket. So it's in there. You're... are you saying so it's the older women who are saying stop approaching women, and it's the women who aren't getting approached, and so they're like taking out competition. Stop hitting on the 20 year old homosexual women, and intersectional competition is killing ladies, perhaps. Yeah, and they're there. I'm wondering that a lot with them.

So one finding we see is uh that there was I asked a question of psychology professors like, "Should professors be fired for having sex with their students?" and you see that men are more likely to say no, this should be, and women are like, "Yeah, they should be fired." And it's like, okay, on the one hand, like maybe women are looking out for their uh own interests, they don't you know, or maybe they're looking out for young women, they're like, "Don't want women being harassed by these older professors." But also, maybe these older professors are like, "We don't want our mating pool hooking up with the 24 year old grad students." Um, so it's hard to tease these things apart. But yeah, a lot of the time there's this, and I'm I'm sort of torn. Like I I think there's probably some validity to both perspectives. Like on the one hand, women do have, especially women who are older and who have kids, they have these like maternal instincts and these desire to protect young people. At the same time, young women are also often their competitors for mates, so um you know, if you can prevent the the 45 year old professor in their Department, you're a 40 year old female professor and you're single, you don't want him dating the the 28 year old grad student, you know?

Yeah, there was two, there's two examples that I think about. One is a Bill Burr bit, uh, where he says um the reason that girls on average that women are more uh body positive is because they want their fat friends to not get skinny, so that it's intersexual competition all over again. "I know you're beautiful as you are, loser. Toe you fat [ __ ]!" Like that's his, that's this bit that he does about this like diabetic diabetic woman. Yeah. And then I saw a study that suggested um women are more they're more disparaging of like relaxed sexual standards if they have sons, and the most sons that they have, the more that that increases. Hmm, uh they're more disparaging of relaxed sections and for men or for women if they have for women for women um I'm not sure. I thought I just thought that was really interesting. I'm gonna say you might want the girls to be because then your son can have a lot of kids if the women are just handing it out. But I wonder whether if you did do that, the man is going to need to work harder to try and hold on to his partner. He's basically got a less secure mate. That's true. So like the a woman who wouldn't necessarily be a good mom and help take care of the the grandkids. Yeah, that's that's an interesting perspective that I find the whole like I often wonder why Society doesn't shame men more often, because it seems like it would be really important to control males' sexual behavior because they can do so much damage. Like as we were saying, a woman can only have a handful of babies in her lifetime, a men can father hundreds of children uh and not take care of any of them, at least like now you know depending where you live you have to pay some pretty steep child support, but that wasn't always the case. And so I find it quite perplexing. Um, if there's anyone who studies this topic, you should bring them on because I'm really curious too. You'll put your bro signs hat on and and explain why you think there's this disparity in [ __ ] shaming. Um, it could be because [ __ ] shaming is mainly happening for women against other women, and men don't care that much about other men's sexual behavior because you know they they're only going to monopolize a woman for like 10 minutes or whatever. Um, so it might be that it's really and it might be that men only [ __ ] shame women a little bit because women do, but women such shame them more. So it could just be a female intersexual competition thing. And and but I also think women could such shame men but maybe they don't um because men don't care about being slut-shamed, so there's no more people about all of the women that I'm sleeping with. Oh, so okay, so pre-selection. The fact that a man who is designed by multiple women is seen as desirable on average by more women, it's the reason why guys should have photos on their Tinder profile with them with other women, because it shows that you're not like a total basement dweller. Some women think I'm cool. Yeah, exactly, exactly. I'm not totally repulsive to women. Um, and because of that, if a woman does start trying to call out a man's sexual exploits, because it is probably positive expected value on his status, it's a pointless thing. Like if you think about what it only makes them look better. Yeah, exactly. But think about think about like the insults that get thrown around on the internet. The first one from any woman or man to a woman is [ __ ], and the first one from any man or woman to a man is cuck or soy boy or incel, right? So it's disparaging a lack of sexual Chastity on one side and the lack of sexual experience on the other, because those are the most valuable things that they have to offer. So yeah, that's really interesting. But it is it's strange to me that we haven't somehow as a society managed to make it an insult to a man to call him a man [ __ ] but we haven't. Uh, because I really do think like I'm like one or two percent Mongolian, which I think must mean that Genghis Khan was my great great great grandmother, and he raped everybody in like the whole world. Uh, like why wouldn't we want to handle discourage uh someone from monopolizing that much of the uh The Mating pool? But well, you wouldn't exist if that was the case, I guess. I wouldn't, I guess I wouldn't. So thank God. Yeah, this is the oddest type of euthanasia desire that I've ever heard in my entire life. I wanted my genetic line to have ended 50 Generations ago. Please. I guess a lot of us wouldn't be here. What percentage of us are related? Some insane percentages. Wasn't there a point you might know this, I don't know whether it's your field of expertise, wasn't there a point where there was like 8,000 Homo sapiens left on the planet and we were all in Indonesia or some [ __ ]? We've gone, we've gone through I don't know all the specifics of it, but we have gone through some points where things were getting a little precarious and bounced back apparently. So that's good. Is maybe good for all the people who are paranoid about AI killing us all. Like if at least you know a few hundred of a hundred of us can survive, maybe we'll fight the road. It's a few hundreds. A few hundred sufficiently sociosexual. If you pick like the the 200 at least sociosexual people here, everyone's just gonna you know, I'm gonna go and Whittle myself something out of this tree and die. I want it to be like a bunch of elderly people. That would do us no good. Yeah, it would not be that would not be good.

Evolutionary psychology, one of your areas of expertise. One of my areas of obsession. Why do you think it is that evolutionary psychology is so detested? Um, yeah, so this is the talk I give at H Fest, and it was it was definitely not something that I was trying to to uh discover. My purpose wasn't to know why people hate evolutionary psychology or behavioral genetics, which is the other one that people hate. Um, but pretty much all of the controversial conclusions in Psychology, um the ones that will get you in trouble, they all kind of come from evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. And it's because people dislike conclusions um that regard group differences, so gender differences or race differences specifically, and they especially don't like those conclusions if they're supported by an evolutionary explanation or a behavioral genetic explanation. And those two kind of go hand in hand because you know Evolution works on uh our genes. So I keep ripping out my earbuds. Um, so when it comes to the kinds of conclusions that are going to really irritate people, people are gonna they're gonna tend to be in evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics, and the kind they're really going to love are going to be in like social psychology. So it's all these every group difference is caused by discrimination. Um, every group differences is caused by like cultural expectations of people. You know, men and women are no different if it weren't for the fact that we make girls wear pink and make them take ballet class. Um, whereas evolutionary psychologists are like, "No, there are very good reasons to expect that men and women would evolved throughout different bodies which they do have and different brains which they do have that lead to different you know General personality differences." Um, and then and then people specifically are like especially hate these differences if, as we were talking about at the start of this conversation, if the differences favor men over women, or if they favor like specifically white people over black people. So if there's anything where white people are outperforming black people or women or men are outperforming women, and then you provide an evolutionary or genetic explanation for that, those are the kinds of things I didn't get you fired. Uh, they're gonna get your paper retracted. Um, and people are going to call you all kinds of names. So yeah, evolutionary psychology is kind of screwed, I think. Uh, especially as things move toward this "let's be careful and avoid the potentially harmful topics" as women take over Academia. I you would think that people are going to become more accepting of evolutionary psychology because they kind of have been for a little while, but we might be at a turning point. I think it's actually quite likely to. Yeah, wouldn't that be a shame if there's been all of this time time spent with behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology kind of dispensing some of the uh slime that maybe it had accumulated or was thrown at it, and slowly over time you know if you if you want to avoid the replication crisis, two places in one three or an evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. That's so true. Yeah, the two places that haven't been slammed in a place you don't want to be is social psychology. So it's the least reliable of all of the different psychology disciplines has been the one which is currently the most On The Rise, the one that is politically emotionally the most upheld in order to be able to support um yeah it's very very backward. But it would be a shame if we've done all of that work you know you and your field have done all of this work to get it to the stage where it's regarded in relatively neutral light for a uh what did we call it the academics uh the academic this academic sex ratio hypothesis, what the [ __ ] did we call it? Yeah, whatever ratio gender ratio hypothesis whatever. Yeah, um, so you you tried to work this out, you tried to do a study about taboos and censorship, and for this you tried to recruit every psychology professor in the U.S. at the top 130 institutions. Yeah, okay. I tried, I only got like 10 or 11 of them, but so I was like about 500 people. Quite a lot, yeah. Kind of quite a lot. Um, and we see these. My favorite one so I I so after I interviewed I interviewed around 40 or so, and I sound like "What are the most controversial conclusions?" and that's how I discovered it's these types of conclusions with these differences. Um, and if they have evolved, people really don't like those conclusions. But then I asked a follow-up sample of these like around 500 people um their views about these conclusions, and one of them is that men and women evolve different psychological characteristics. And a finding we see across all of the conclusions, but this one it's the most entertaining, is that men are pretty sure that that conclusion is true, and women are like very on the fence about it. So the mean for women is closer to like the midpoint um whereas men are sort of clustered toward the top of the scale. And so we see across all controversial conclusions that men think they're more likely to be empirically correct, whereas women are more likely to think that they're false. Um, and then we see that the people who think that they're true are self-censoring more, which inevitably means that what we hear publicly about controversial conclusions is systematically distorted, and the impression is that these bad controversial conclusions are false and they're Fringe and No One Believes they're true. People believe they're true, it's just they won't talk about it out loud. Um, so it it really distorts the perception of scientific consensus anytime you get like one of these one of these conclusions that has potential to get you in trouble. Um, and then we looked at like all these kinds of things. For example, I asked um professors, "Imagine a scholar who forwards an evolutionary or genetic explanation for a group difference that favors men over women or white people over black people. What should happen to a scholar who would forward such a conclusion?" And across the board we see gender differences here, whereas female psychology professors are more likely to support ostracizing them, calling them racist or sexist or bigoted, shaming them on social media, not publishing their work even if it has Merit, not hiring them even if they meet typical standards. And so women like their their moral concerns will uh makes them which is sort of strange. So I think men might be slightly more punitive than women in general, but in this particular context women are more punitive across the board um toward their peers who forward controversial conclusions or conclusions that they don't like because they perceive them as potentially like morally bad. Um, so yeah, I'm quite I'm quite worried for the future of science, uh at least at least the version of it that that I thought was what we were doing. Um, but it just might completely transform into something quite different. Um, maybe that'll be good. I don't know.

Have you got any idea how um supporting or not supporting groups are if you were to give a behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology explanation for racial or sex differences between groups that favored women or favored minorities? So I didn't ask that one because it was not so actually it was specifically engine does not controversial. So when I interviewed uh uh the first round of psychology professors, there were they were like, "Well, it's only controversial if the conclusion favors men over women. It's only controversial if it favors white people over black people." And so it's really this like particular kind. It's it's conclusions that have potential to portray groups that are perceived as vulnerable or disadvantaged. Um, if you portray them more negatively than the group that is perceived as you know powerful or Advantage. So it's essentially white men. Um, so you can publish things about white men being bad at something, but you can't publish uh things about other groups. Would they be happy with that being a behavioral genetics or evolutionary psychology explanation, do you think? Yeah, that's a good question. I reckon they wouldn't. I reckon they wouldn't for the reason that that opens the door to a different piece of research. Like what the easiest way to do this is to delegitimize all of behavioral genetics and all of evolutionary psychology carte blanche because Downstream like the presumption is that this has been used previously in a nefarious way or this could be used in a politically uh inconvenient way even if it's real. Uh, so if we just say that this is off the table, I would guess that on average you're going to find that basic behavioral genetic and evolutionary psychology explanations, even if they do favor underrepresented groups, are going to be pushed away. I think those would be less less controversial, but I think you're right that they still would be somewhat controversial because people would fear um the legitimizing the the approach to the question. Um, so for example, some people seem to not like that um you know if you look at the NBA in the United States, that's overwhelmingly uh African-Americans playing in the NBA in the United States. They're vastly disproportionately represented. Um, and so some people said, well you know because of different evolutionary pressures a group in different or you know evolved in different environments has caused different body structures. Um, and so you provide an evolutionary explanation while black men are better at basketball than white men uh on average, and there is some resistance to that. And I think it's because of the implication that there are differences right, and that it makes sense that there would be differences given that different populations evolved in different climates. Um, so yeah, I think it would be less controversial but it still would be controversial, and especially for people who are like sort of Savvy and know like, "Well, if I commit to this, what else am I potentially committing to?" Yeah.

Okay, so you found there was four of these most taboo conclusions that you found. Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution. Biological sex is a binary for the majority of people. The tendency to engage in sexually coercive Behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such Behavior. Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the underrepresentation of women in STEM Fields. So like those that's like that's all headlines that I've read for the last two years have fallen to one of those buckets. Those are four of the ten. There were other ones related to uh race as well. And then there are other ones related to politics. So just even the idea that psychology discriminates against conservatives, some people mentioned. Um, or the idea that Academia you know if it doesn't discriminate against black people, what does that say? So sorry that's that's an interesting one. I didn't know about the conservative side, but what's interesting there is that conservatives aren't an underrepresented group. Oh, they are in Psychology. Not in not in the world. Yeah, but that's the point, right? So um in the world, it's not like it's not like conservatives are some maligned group that have needed to be upheld morally. So that one to me screams much more about motivated reasoning. That if you pull academics on average, especially now modern Academia, they're leaning pretty hard left. So that that's just like out group tribal bias. Hmm. Yeah, people have been debating that when some people say that it's that it's just conservatives aren't good at science or they just don't like science. Um, but there have been other studies like in in bar and lambers and they like academics will straight up say that they would discriminate against conservatives in hiring and talk invites and things like that. So there's good reason to believe people are just discriminating against conservatives. Uh, Scott Galloway taught me maybe it's a third or fifty percent of democrat parents fear that their child will marry a Republican. Really huge, and people just admit it, they don't even feel ashamed. Right, if you track if you track um political bias against uh racism. Yeah, like people are way more politically racist than they are racially racist by a huge, it's like by lots of lots of multiples. Yeah, it's true, it's true. And and yet we don't care as much about that one for some reason. What's because the interesting thing there is that like your politics tell me a lot more about you than your race, right? They tell me more about your world view, at least how you show up in the world, probably than your race. It's the same reason in the UK that again people are more prejudiced against those with different accents than those with different skin colors. This is a study that was done that was really interesting. And quite rightly, like somebody walks into a room that is of A different race to you but speaks in a similar accent, you have an awful lot more in common with that person than someone who walks into the room with the same skin color as you but a different accent, right? Because especially especially especially in the UK, and I learned this from someone who was British, um the UK's got such a rigid class system, and accent denotes an awful lot of that class, right? So I can tell is somebody from an area that's similar to me or different than me. So we played this game. I went to a retreat a couple of weeks ago in LA, and there was one other British guy there, and we were talking about like a similar sort of thing. This guy had like he had quite a nice it's Ed from uh like he's a YouTuber and uh he's got a nice British accent. I think he grew up in the Cotswolds which is like quite a fancy sort of Countryside place, and the guys are like, "What class do you think he is? Like tell me what you know about him just based on the way he speaks." I hadn't met this guy before, and I was able to pin him down to pretty much the region he was in, the uh class that he grew up in. I knew that he went to private school, I knew that he was University educated, I knew this this or this and this and this just from the way that he spoke. So again with this like you're there are many things that are more um informative about who somebody is than this in color. And yet that was originally 50 years ago one of the goals of the sort of racial Justice movement to try and get us to the stage where skin color kind of was dispensed and moved to the side, and now it's been put front and center again, and despite the fact that it is not a particularly reliable signal of lots and lots of things about the way that people show show up in the world. Yeah, it is it is interesting. We appear to have gone like a little bit like there are even some people advocating for like racial segregation on both sides. Like well on both sides, like some uh I think it was NYU was considering having all black dorms, which is one thing. But then there was another one where this group of white people were like, "No black people can attend this meeting about racism because they've had to put up with our [ __ ] too much as it is, and like we can't subject them to us." Surely not, and you're like, "What? You do realize how this sounds." Awkward. Yeah, uh yeah, it is strange. I I I lived in England for two years and um I was very surprised by how front and center class is there in a way that it's not so much. Like when people describe people they often will like and oh they're very Posh or whatever, and like in the US it would be really off-putting to be like, "Oh they're like super rich and they have a great house," you know like you wouldn't say that. Yeah, yeah, the um that that's but I think it might be because you guys don't have as much racial diversity, so this is like more of a defining thing for you guys. Not many black people, lots of Indian people, lots of Pakistani people, like some Chinese people, but not uh we just don't have that same that same sort of uh split. I remember this was a little while ago now that they were trying to do graduation ceremonies and they timetabled the graduation ceremonies. It's like, "This is the Hispanic ceremony and this is the black ceremony and this is the one ceremony." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh gosh, I had no high school or something. Have you seen Ryan Long? He's a Canadian comedian, and he did a famous video about three years ago that was "Racists and Anti-Racists" early on everything, and him and his friend Danny wore the same t-shirt and it was like, "We believe that the most important thing is your skin color. Yes!" High five. They go, "We believe that black children and white children should not be educated together. Yes!" And they keep on agreeing on [ __ ]! So good. Yeah, I did see that. That was really funny. And it is strange that it's slightly accurate, at least in some groups of people. Yeah, unfortunately.

Okay, so going back to your study, this one where you tried to get every [ __ ] psychology professor in all of the US. What did the professors say about how to handle potentially harmful conclusions? So that one so I I have princess but I should say like if I look across all of my data, mostly people do support academic freedom, and mostly people are against taking these moral concerns into consideration when deciding whether to publish something. So I had a question um how certain yeah how certain should it be that a finding is going to cause harm before it was suppressed? And I think the most common response was we should never suppress scientific findings. And then there was like a little bit for like high tiers, like there should be evidence that the only way to prevent the harm is to suppress the finding, and you get almost nobody down at the bottom which is like um something like there should be it should seem like it could cause harm or something like that. And the reason to me that is semi-puzzling is because those nature Springer guidelines I was talking about earlier that very much seems to be their threshold. Their threshold seems to be like if it seems like it could cause harm, then we will reject or retract papers. But but almost no psychology professors think that that is the appropriate place to draw the line. Like a few people in my whole entire sample. And so that makes me wonder like how is it that the perception of where the field is going and what people want is actually what the extremists want? Um, and is it that the extremists are like trying to get these positions of power to influence policy, which seems quite possible to me? Like if you're really motivated, maybe you're like, "I'll do that job even though I don't think being an editor would be all that much fun, but you got a lot of power." Um, is that happening or disproportionate representation in terms of just how loud they are online? Yes, so that's another thing is I think that because we have this relationship with self-censorship, it's the people who support academic freedom and pursuit of Truth and who think controversial conclusions might be true and we should publish them, those are the ones who are self-censoring. And it's the ones who are really concerned about the harms and think that you know we should be firing people and retracting papers, um they're very willing to say what they think out loud and on social media. So I think there's just this Distortion of what people want um because so many of us are too scared to say anything. Um, and and it allows people who are in this vocal minority, and that's a small minority, a small minority uh they can make these bold policy changes and not that many people put up a fight. A few people have complained, but a lot of people who disagree with them aren't saying anything because they're staying out of it because they're scared, because they don't want to be the next one with the Target on their back.

What's the implication of this? Like we've got you know this milieu of hypersensitivity. Um, I've always wanted to drop that into it. Watch me in front of you. Um, yeah, like you you so there's this ambient background. We are concerned about these kinds of Harms. Two pretty reliably robust areas of research that are being you know thrown to the side and maligned. Um, what's the yeah what are the implications of this? Or what did you after having conducted the study and then looked at the data and realized holy [ __ ] what's going on? Like what did it make you reflect on and what did it make you think? Well, part of my motivation for running the study in the first place was just because I had the strong suspicion that this was exactly what was happening, because I because I'm sort of like I'll talk openly about these issues at least more openly than a lot of people will. Most people will um people will come to me and like complain to me about stuff, but they don't say anything out loud. So I know all of these people who don't like the way things are headed, they think these new policy changes that are prioritizing harms over science are [ __ ], and they won't say it to each other, but they'll say it to me. You're a safe space for bigotry, that's what you're saying. I understand. Let's make that the the clip safe space the biggest dream. Corey Clark, PhD. Thank you. Um, so I I knew all these people were afraid, but I was like, "I actually I'm kind of curious: what is the true majority perspective? Or rather how off am I in relation to other people?" And then once I saw the results, I was like, "Wow, that's even more than I expected." I didn't realize like this many people were this against what's happening. Like we had a question, this was my favorite question I think on the um the whole survey, which was: how much uh contempt versus admiration and respect do you have toward professors Who start petitions or social media campaigns to attract papers for moral reasons? And on a zero to 100 scale, zero being maximum contempt to 100 maximum admiration respect, the modal response was Zero. So like people really hate these people. And I wouldn't know it from hanging out on Twitter. Like a lot of them are signing the petitions, and they're certainly not like shaming the people. I mean some people are, but most people aren't. Most people are just staying quiet or even participating. Um, so I was quite surprised at how One Direction how cowardly how cowardly everyone's being. But what I think is potentially interesting about that is it suggests there's a lot of preference falsification going on, which is I think Turmer career on I'm probably pronouncing that name wrong his concept. But let's just explain that. So preference falsification is essentially when people publicly are are saying that they believe or support something that they don't actually truly believe or support. Um, and when you have that, when you have all these people essentially lying to protect themselves, to protect their jobs or their reputations or whatever, you create a situation that's really precarious. Because if people get information and and specifically it's that they think their views are the minority and so they don't say anything, if those people find out that their views aren't the minority, that their views are actually the majority, all of a sudden they might be more willing to speak out. Um, so I do think it creates this possibility that if I ever get this paper published, we'll see then suddenly all of these psychology professors are going to be like, "Oh, a lot of people feel the way I feel. Maybe it's okay for me to say this thing at this faculty meeting. Maybe it's okay for me to say this thing on Twitter or you know at the business meetings at these professional conferences because a lot more people are on their side than they previously thought." So so yes, people are being cowardly and that irritates me a little bit because sometimes I feel like like people will thank me for saying stuff and I'm like, "Will you say it? Like don't free ride on my uh you know reputational risk taking." Um, but at the same time, those people potentially under the right circumstances could get a little bit more courage and speak up, and things actually could change quite rapidly if they did. Um, I don't know if that will happen again. I have these conflicting views where I'm like a mine Optimist or a pessimist. I'm I'm an optimist because I think so many people are lying essentially about what they think is best for Science, and if I could give them courage and speak up and they all spoke up at once, then that could have a huge impact. Um, on the other hand, because we see all these gender differences and women are taking over Academia, it the the numbers are only going to be shifting that way for the foreseeable future. There's no hope I think at this point or no reason to believe anyway that things are going to be shifting. Um uh you know back toward male. Males males aren't even going to undergrad that much anymore, so the pool of potential men that could become professors is getting smaller and smaller by the day. That's uh what's that quote about demography is Destiny? It's like uh University intake is Destiny. You know, you're not going to create male professors out of a non-male undergraduate pool. And especially because in the fields that are dominated by women, people aren't particularly concerned about getting more men in, whereas in the fields that are dominated by men, like some of the hard stem fields and then like philosophy, they're desperately trying to get more women. So there's all the social pressures are still pulling that way. Um, so you know the the male academic is going to be a rare breed in maybe like 20 years. I think so. The sex ratio hypothesis, I'm telling you, gonna get intense. You're gonna be swimming in it.

So the two the two main takeaways from the presentation that I watched you give at it at Palm Springs a couple of months ago: Should Scholars be completely free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment for their conclusions? 60% of women said it's complicated. 60% of men said yes. And if Pursuit Of Truth and social Equity goals appear to come into conflict, which should scientists prioritize? 50% of women said it's complicated, and 70% of men said yes. Those were the two uh ones that stood out for me. Um, yeah, that's again it's the same thing. It's used majorities right, like whichever group is in the majority is going to get their thing. I mean it so one thing is women won't say, well for the most part women don't say social Equity should take priority over truth or uh you know Scholars should be pun punished, but they say it's complicated. Um, which just indicates that they have this like trade-off that they think they're making between well yeah we want truth a lot of the time, but not in these cases, not in the when when results potentially could um cause harm to a group or it could spread. I mean one concern that a lot of people have is just spread negative stereotypes. It's like how bad it is that is the spreading of a negative stereotype? Like if there are no actual consequences, like do we know for sure that spreading negative stereotypes causes people to do horrible things to other people? Like is it okay if people have slightly negative stereotypes? Like the the magnitude of the harm we're talking about, it's not you know it's not like gain of function research, we're like well if we if we do this we might kill all of the humans or you know research on nuclear warheads or something. Like if we do this we might blow up the world. It's like we might like make some people have slightly more negative attitudes towards certain people. It's just the the magnitude of the harm that's being considered to me feels uh minuscule, like potentially not even harmful in the first place. Like like give me something concrete, you know, and give me some proof. Show me like that publishing this paper that you know men Mentor male students better than women Mentor female students, like show me the harm there. There wasn't any. And also incorporate the downstream consequences of not accurately identifying it. Didn't you say that you got reported for doing this study? I did. Uh, so I did this study. I got IRB approval, you always have to get IRB approval, so that's just and there was a consent form. Um, people knew what I was asking. I said I'm asking about the most controversial conclusions in Psychology that were nominated by your peers in this other survey. Um, and uh one of the so my IRB emailed me and they're like, "We received a complaint from one of your participants. Um, you don't have to do anything, you didn't do anything wrong, you did have IRB approval, but we are obligated to share the complaint, this anonymous complaint with you." And she said, and I'm assuming it's a she I don't know for sure and this is based on accurate base rates, um but she said that the questions were like jarring to her, and then she thought they would be even more jarring to like underrepresented groups in Psychology, and that this was not my first offense. Cereal business. I've got I've got some enemies out there. Um, but fortunately I followed the procedure, so she didn't get to shut me down, but she tried to.

Well, what's really fascinating there and I think this I was I've been trying to weave together a single thread between all the stuff that we've gone through today, which I think is a it's a single narrative, right? Everything that we've spoken about this um gamma bias or or as you called it the lack of uh prescience of of um patriarchal misogyny, then this change in Academia skewing toward women and the downstream implications, and then finally what this means that the academics how it's influencing academic research itself too. The single thread between it all and it really gets shown up in that potential ladies uh concern is a supposed sort of parochialness and and concern for underrepresented groups. It's almost like everybody is Shadow Boxing against an imaginary hegemon that like do you know what I mean? It's like it's not for me. I am okay with this. Probably what I'm doing is I'm going to step out and I'm going to be the benevolent uh uh uh uh sort of counter weight against this thing that I presume. So it is it's a very overbearing, very sort of but it's not caring, right? It's it's not the firm sort of mother. It's the overbearing hypersympathetic um helicopter snowplow apparent mother. Um, but yeah, it's it's really seeing people, especially disadvantaged groups, in just such a unrobust fragile way that they they and it's if you actually think about it, that's really really like [ __ ] prejudiced to go, "You know these these poor black people, they can't handle it, yeah? They're not gonna be these poor women, these poor minorities, these poor gays, they're not going to be able to handle this. Like don't you worry. Allow me, white 48 year old woman who hasn't left Academia in three decades, allow me to step in. You don't know what's right for you. You don't know what should be done. I I will be your savior." Right. I I tend to see that the people who are the most forceful on the other side of things, the ones who are trying to you know take these harm concerns more seriously, Infuse Academia with all these moral values, they do and this is not based on my research although possibly I could look at it, I should do that, but it it seems to be driven by uh Progressive white women who grew up like wealthy. They grew up they were very well off. They never suffered in their life. Uh, and well I shouldn't say that, I don't know what their personal backstory is, but you know it's these upper middle class white Highly Educated Progressive women and they yeah they think they're protecting other people. It's not about them. It's about these other vulnerable groups. And it is it is quite strange. So there there are a couple papers that actually look at very similar things. Like for example, um there are these papers that find that progressives essentially like talk down to black people. They present less self-confidence when they're talking to black people, whereas conservatives will treat black and white people more similarly. There's this other paper that uh was looking at I think it was looking at like what jokes are funny or offensive or something, and you see that conservatives are like make fun of everyone, they're all funny, like we're all Targets of these things, whereas progressives are like can't make fun of uh minority groups. You know, make fun of everyone else but don't make fun of them. And it is like depending on your perspective, you can view this as like pretty uh uh infantilizing, right? It's uh essentially implying that these people are so weak that they can't handle the same kind of um you know I don't want to call it abuse but like poking fun that other people can, or that they can't handle like getting criticism or whatever it is. Uh, it it it it does look a little bit like precisely what we were trying to avoid. Like at one point we thought we were working toward, "Well let's try to treat people equally." And now it's like, "No, let's we have to treat certain people better than other people because they can't handle what other people are getting." Um, yeah. So I personally find it a little bit off-putting, but I assume some people think that that is the kind thing to do. Um, we need to come up with a a name for it. It's it's like a fake sympathy or fake virtue. Um, because it's not it it seems to me to be primarily done to make the person bestowing The Virtue look good, not to have genuine impact. Because if it was built to have genuine impact, you would just look at what is the impact of this thing. You would look at the consequences or the implications of doing this thing. "Oh well you know the first order harm is X, but the second order and third order harms are 10 and 100x, so we need to actually do things in this way." Maybe it's a prioritization of like immediate emotions in a world where people's opinions and beliefs are more important than like real world arms and facts. Yeah, exactly. Oh, is this um a friend of mine, Maya Grass, so she's telling me about a paper. I was just at a conference in Poland, and she has this really interesting finding where she finds that, and I forget how she measured it, but it was men are the protector of external harm or physical harm, and women are the Protectors of internal harm. So like men will step up when they see someone else suffering physical uh damage, whereas women are particularly compelled to stand up to protect someone who is suffering like psychological or emotional damage. Um, which is really I think kind of profound in what we see to be happening is like in fact it's almost happening at the expense of potential physical harms. Is like women are so protecting of people's feelings that they don't necessarily seem to consider all of these other as you're saying second order third order, what are the real things that can actually happen in the world? Um, because there's this deep concern with people's like psychological well-being. Um, foreign my current um world view when it comes to self-improvement uh marries exactly with this, I think. Which is that male self-improvement sees the person as mutable and the world is immutable. So you

need to be the best person possible, and you need to accept the rules and the environment that you're in. It's in contrast to female self-improvement, which sees the person as immutable and the world as mutable. So, women are taught to accept yourself and to try and change these support structures in the society that you're in, which is just fundamentally patronizing, right?

It's that you see this in Mulan, uh, the two versions of Mulan. I like, like, we get Disney app, Disney reference. Um, when Mulan was first done, the protagonist is a smaller girl who needs to be smarter and work harder and do all of this. Is the animated version, like 20 years ago? Um, she needs to do all of these things to be able to compensate for her size, and because she works really, really hard and is innovative, she can use her lack of size to her advantage, and she's quicker and trained, and she overcomes challenges, and hooray, she's brilliant.

Contrast that with the most recent version of Mulan, where this protagonist doesn't have to do anything. She is patronized by all of the men that are there. She's naturally better than all of the men. She doesn't have to overcome any challenges. She's got this like magical feminine, she, estrogen chi, or whatever, that allows her to be more talented than all of the men, and all of the men are blundering and patronizing and blah, blah. And that is the, it tracks the trajectory. The same with that. Did you watch the first one? Was probably directed by a man, and the second one was probably directed by a woman? You think? I don't know. He's throwing out a hypothesis. Mulan director, or would it be a writer? Would it be the writer who has more people? Oh my God, directed by Nikki Caro. If Nani, Nikki Caro, is that it's a woman, New Zealand film director. Was the first one a man? Let me, let me see. Uh, yes, directed by Barry Cook and Tony Bancroft version. Thus, it has been proved. Wow, wow, that's accurate and terrifying. Yeah, well, they've, they've got different priorities, and this is gonna, this is going to reveal itself and kind of whatever they do. It's really sort of interesting. Uh, I should be making predictions about other disciplines. You really should. Uh, just FYI, Mulan, the 2020 film, the budget was 200 million and the box office was 70 million. So that's a, a heavy, heavy price to 130 million to uphold women's fragility. There. That's so funny.

But look, so here's a perfect example of that, right? Because of some of the evolutionary psychology underpinnings and the research that you've done, you have been able to accurately predict what's going on in the world, right? That is a useful skill to be able to have, right? Had we have not been able to learn about some of the predispositions that men and women have, you wouldn't have been so accurate. So what we're doing is we're expediting our progress towards something which is useful. And yeah, basically, you're like a, you're a clairvoyant savant. Uh, you should try and have more of you. Corey Clark, ladies and gentlemen, Corey. I love your work. I think that all the stuff you're doing is fascinating. What should people expect next? What are you working on now that you can talk about?

Um, a lot of things. Let's see. I have a paper on politicization coming out, which is another one that slightly surprised me because we see that everyone hates when institutions get politicized, even people who share the values of the institution. So like liberals don't want science, which leans left, to be politicized. Um, so that's fun. I'm trying to get adversarial collaborations popularized in science, trying to get scientists to work with their enemies. Um, another one where there's been a gender difference. I've most men I've approached have said yes, and most women I've approached have said no. And I think it's because women are more averse to like interpersonal conflict. And so, um, there, but, but maybe if they become a norm, then women will. And also I'm trying to be like, they're not as scary as scary there because they're really not. They tend to go really well. Um, so those are, yeah, those are two things.

I don't know why should people go? They want to check out more of the things that you do, read your stuff. Yeah, I have a website, coreyjayclark.com. I'm on Twitter and Instagram. I'm hardcore, which was a pun that no one gets. I got it. Did you? You got it. Okay. Yep. Okay, maybe if people don't know my name's Corey, so that's probably a really key component. Yeah.

Perhaps look, Corey, I really appreciate you. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me on. This was a lot of fun. If you enjoyed that episode, then press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few weeks, and don't forget to subscribe.