New chef

As I am currently working from home for the most part, I have been cooking much more frequently. A few recent discoveries:

1. Cayenne pepper in your morning eggs is surprisingly good. I dislike the taste of eggs, and find that a good dash of cayenne makes them much more edible. Plus, it's a nice wake-up call for the morning.

2. Salt rubs are amazing. Prior to seasoning chicken, rub it with coarse salt, then rinse and pat dry. This process tenderizes the meat, increases flavor, and decreases dryness without actually increasing the sodium level (much).

3. Sauteeing green beans makes them taste much better than the traditional method of boiling them. They come out much crisper. Add some steak seasoning and they're delicious!

4. White pepper. Look into it. And use sparingly!

*****************

Rahm Emanuel has just been elected mayor of Chicago! Quite a change after 22 years of Daley.

*****************

I find out about internship in three days. THREE. And then I'm moving? Utterly torn between preemptively missing Chicago and absolutely craving the return to the Eastern seaboard. There is so much to do before then!!

Here we go

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

By John Tierney

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

“I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”

Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published.

“Thus,” they conclude, “the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort. Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.” Instead of presuming discrimination in science or expecting the sexes to show equal interest in every discipline, the Cornell researchers say, universities should make it easier for women in any field to combine scholarship with family responsibilities.

Can social scientists open up to outsiders’ ideas? Dr. Haidt was optimistic enough to title his speech “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” urging his colleagues to focus on shared science rather than shared moral values. To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

For a tribal-moral community, the social psychologists in Dr. Haidt’s audience seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument. Some said he overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020. The society’s executive committee didn’t endorse Dr. Haidt’s numerical goal, but it did vote to put a statement on the group’s home page welcoming psychologists with “diverse perspectives.” It also made a change on the “Diversity Initiatives” page — a two-letter correction of what it called a grammatical glitch, although others might see it as more of a Freudian slip.

In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”

As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.

The New York Times, February 7, 2011

**********

Sorry for posting the entire article, but an idiot just attacked my field, and he deserves a full response. Where to begin....

I will start by saying that supposedly, the entire point of Dr. Haidt's argument is that we should "focus on shared science rather than shared moral values." That we shouldn't allow political beliefs or moral leanings to influence the practice of good science. That's cool, I can get behind that idea. Now let's see how well Dr. Haidt followed his own advice.

1. People in social sciences are not a representative sample of the American population. Dr. Haidt came to this conclusion by using the oh-so-scientific method of having people raise their hands at a conference, but I'll concede. I don't doubt for a second that people in social sciences tend to be liberal. Personally, I think it is damn near impossible to study the social sciences and be conservative or right-leaning. Learning this field involves reading hundreds of books and articles fully documenting the massive discrimination built into our every social system. Working in this field involves meeting hundreds of people who have exactly none of the advantages I was simply born into. I myself have become more and more liberal as I've progressed in this field.

But that's not the point, is it. Who cares if the field of social sciences is not representative of the American population? Psychologists are not politicians; we are not representing the people or creating policy. Psychologists (and all others in the social sciences) are members of a private profession, and according to Dr. Haidt's own ramblings, our only goal should be good science. Of course, we should make every effort to include all relevant points of view in our research, but the field of social sciences will never be representative of everyone. Is there a single profession in the United States that is even close to being a representative sample of the American population in terms of every demographic?

2. Considering the inspiration for Dr. Haidt's rantings is that conservatives get their research shunned for no reason other than their political beliefs, he sure had a difficult time coming up with examples.

Daniel Moynihan's report from 1965? That's a nice recent example. His article, however, is not in any way scientific. It is a rambling statement of Mr. Moynihan's personal thoughts, and reads more like a diary entry than a research report. He cites a few statistics about how black families are different from white ones. He then proceeds to cite dozens of writers and politicians' comments on the subject, but again, no facts or scientific studies. After a long while, Mr. Moynihan randomly comes to the conclusion that because black families are different, they are inferior. He clarifies that black people's inferiority is not their fault, instead acknowledging that black people are victims of centuries of slavery and oppression. He makes a few good points that although black people have gained freedom, they have not gained equality (an important argument to make in 1965). Nonetheless, black families are inferior. Why? Because most black families are led by females, rather than males. Why is this a problem? Because "the very essence of a male animal is to strut," and black males' lack of strutting is apparently a sign of deep pathology. (That is a direct quote; read it yourself here.) This is not science, it's silliness. And, Dr. Haidt, if our goal is to share good research, then you need to get me a better example.

Dr. Haidt's second and last example of a poor conservative being shunned for his political beliefs is Larry Summers in 2005. Ignoring several hundred scientific studies contradicting his statement, Mr. Summers mused that women are underrepresented in math and science because they are less intelligent. Well, not exactly... he stated that men have more variability in their IQ scores, demonstrating a larger standard deviation than women. This is plainly false. While I agree that Mr. Summers was unfairly labeled sexist (although, come ON, that story about his daughters and their trucks was ridiculous), I don't think his views were unfairly shunned. Harvard rejected his speech because it was based on crappy science. He ignored hundreds of scientific studies and instead cherry-picked several obscure ones to make his point. He was unable to defend his arguments when challenged. Again, if you want us to share good science Dr. Haidt, find me some!

Dr. Haidt's summarizing statement regarding Larry Summers says it all: "We should have defended his right to think freely." Excuse me? This is not about civil rights, this is about science! Larry Summers is free to believe and think and say whatever he wants, but he is not allowed to stand on an academic stage and fabricate research. I am allowed to believe that all human suffering is caused by our proximity to basketball courts, but if I cannot publish that idea in a scientific journal. And in any case, I thought you wanted to avoid arguments on morality and focus only on good science.

3. This is more of a personal point, but I find the fact he compared being conservative today being a closeted homosexual in the past to be quite offensive. In the past (and currently), closeted homosexual students suffered because they were attacked for their feelings, thoughts, romantic partners, and personal lifestyles. Homosexual students continue to be in real physical danger if they reveal their sexual identity at the wrong time. Republicans are "attacked" for their political beliefs.... and have to suffer through hearing mildly offensive jokes about Republicans? Spare me your whining. I find it very illuminating that the best example Dr. Haidt could find of this was a timid email from a student claiming that although he/she had never tried to publish an article, he/she was pretty sure that it might not get published due to political beliefs, and therefore he/she would never even try to do research. Wow, talk about true suffering!

*****

In short, Dr. Haidt, if you are going to make an argument, why don't you follow your own advice and include at least one example of decent science? Give me one example of a politically conservative scientist being shunned ONLY for his/her political beliefs. Just one! Because I bet you can't do it.

Strange times

2010 passed without a single entry, but here I am again. I am not sure why I write in these things, except for myself.

I have become a hermit, submersed in a world of research, reading, writing, and learning teeny tiny details. It is tiring. There are lots of buzzwords. (Isn't that word fantastic? Because literally, it makes my head buzzzz with meaningless wordage.) I miss real life and especially my work. It has been extraordinarily difficult to maintain concentration and motivation when I don't get to do the work I love.

There is a point to all of this... right? There has to be.

*

I am fascinated by current situations in Tunisia and Egypt. We are living in an interesting, important time. I wonder what will be next for those countries?

*

More later. For now, back to buzzing around research papers.

Clark University

My alma mater is making big news this week for a controversial decision that stirred up debates on freedom of speech.

A few months ago, the Clark University Students for Palestinian Rights (CUSPR) invited Dr. Norman Finkelstein to speak on campus. Dr. Finkelstein is a controversial scholar who asserts, among other things, that Israel purposefully uses the memory of the Holocaust to grant itself immunity from criticism. He believes that Israel is a huge military power that has been allowed to commit human rights violations (specifically against Palestine) without question from the rest of the world.

Dr. Finkelstein, a child of Holocaust survivors, has views that are certainly controversial. He frequently engages in vigorous academic debate with scholars who do not support Palestine, and at times uses language that can be seen as disrespectful (calling the work of some pro-Israel scholars "nonsense" and "fraud"). However, it seems that Dr. Finkelstein's books are meticulously researched and well-written, and have garnered much praise from Noam Chomsky, among others.

In fact, one could argue that he actually honors the memory of the Holocaust by so adamantly arguing against its exploitation.

Apparently, Dr. Finkelstein was scheduled to speak at Clark on April 21. However, Clark's Hillel protested that the speech fell on Holocaust Remembrance Day. CUSPR was open to this comment and promptly tried to move Dr. Finkelstein's speech to April 23. Apparently, this date was still a problem for the University, as it fell too close to a conference being hosted by Clark's Holocaust Studies department. (This was even though Dr. Finkelstein was NOT scheduled to speak about the Holocaust. Rather, his speech was about the recent conflict in Gaza and the importance of a Palestinian state.)

Enter the President's office of Clark University. During a hastily scheduled tiny meeting, attended only by a few members of the President's office and several members of CUSPR, the President cancelled Dr. Finkelstein's speech altogether. According to members of CUSPR, the President of Clark likened Dr. Finkelstein's views to those of a white supremacist. Of course, the public does not know what was actually said during this clandestine meeting. Clark University's official statement was that the timing of Dr. Finkelstein's speech was "unfortunate." Later on, Clark wavered and decided that Dr. Finkelstein could speak at the University, but only months after the conference for Holocaust Studies.

Apparently, Clark is open to opposing viewpoints only if they are presented months apart.

Technically, this is not an issue of free speech, as Clark is a private institution that is allowed to invite whomever it chooses to speak on campus. I can concede that granting someone the honor of speaking on such a huge platform as a University stage should be considered carefully, and granted only to those who will promote thoughtful debate. I agree that we should probably not invite Matthew Shepard's murderers to speak at Clark (Clark University professor of Holocaust history Deborah Dwork made this comparison).

However, I wonder what message we are sending to up and coming Clark grads, as well as the rest of the world. I personally do not want to have my undergraduate degree from a university that is being associated with censorship. Dr. Finkelstein is a well-educated scholar and a thoughtful debater. It is time for America to hear the argument for Palestine. What better place to do this than a liberal university that claims to embrace diversity?

Economics?

Can someone explain to me how Republicans are against this stimulus package, even though many of these same Republicans approved of the last stimulus package? I don't claim to be any sort of economics expert, but it seems to me that the first stimulus bill entailed handing out billions of dollars to private corporations with absolutely no regulations or oversight whatsoever. This bill, on the other hand, outlines specific plans for the money, and allows for the general public to debate how the money should best be spent. How exactly do you support the first without supporting the second? It baffles me.

Unless, of course, I am just missing something. In which case, please, enlighten me!

I support the Jon Stewart stimulus package, which consists of sending the billions of dollars directly to American citizens so they can pay off their debt. It's win-win; citizens get a clean, debt-free slate, and the banks get cash again. A ridiculously simple plan, but doesn't it just make good common sense?

Partisan politics is so tired. Can't we have a real discussion anymore?

*

In other, less important news, have you seen Steve Martin play the banjo? Incredible! The man has infinite talent.

I found Etta James' comments against Beyonce Knowles and President Obama to be in extremely poor taste. The thinly-veiled reference to slavery ("She deserves to have her ass whipped!") was particularly offensive. I know Ms. James is a legend, and that she's getting on in years, but come on! What happened to class?

I am currently in the process of applying to yet another year of externship. Also in the works: two IRB applications and my competency exam. If nothing else, graduate school is a never-ending process of proving, over and over again, that I deserve to be in graduate school.

*

End scene.

Philosophy

Sometimes when clients are starting to get angry at work, I take them for a tour of the hospital, a short walk to calm them down. The other day I was walking an 11-year-old boy around, pointing out the various sites: "There's the lobby... the elevators... the mail room... oh, and there's the doctor's lounge."

"What's that?" he asked.

"The special room where doctors get to go and take a short break during the day."

Then he asked a deeply insightful, probing philosophical question - one that speaks to the very nature of our society: "Where is the janitor's lounge?"

Inauguration

Never before have I watched the Presidential inauguration with the overwhelming feeling of "this is my President. He represents me." Many incredible moments... "Simple Gifts" with Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman, normally unshakable Obama giggling before his oath, Obama instantly erasing the memory of the awkward oath with a breath-taking address, Reverend Lowery ending the ceremony with a prayer and a smile, the Obama girls dancing during the parade, and watching Mr. President and First Lady Obama exude pure class during the Inaugural Ball. A beautiful family, a President of incredible depth, and a country I am finally excited to be a part of.

Truly, a new era has begun. Bitterly partisan arguments and finger-pointing seem archaic. The louder Fox News screams and shouts about Obama, the less they are heard. The reporters who throw tantrums about Timothy Geithner missed the boat. This is a time for action, and the blame game has never seemed quite so petty.

Guantanamo closed. Stem cell research legalized. Missiles sent into Pakistan. An enormous stimulus bill. Obama has been President for less than one week and already things are happening. What a time we live in!