Does Psychological Science Need Science or Bullshit?

A comment on Kevin Durrheim’s “Conversational silencing of racism in psychological science: Toward decolonization in practice” published 2023 in Perspectives on Psychological Science

This is a guest post by Heiner Rindermann, who is professor for developmental and educational psychology at Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany. He works on education in families and school, on ability development, intelligence, student achievement, economy and culture and their interplay at the level of individuals and societies.

---

Perspectives on Psychological Science is a renowned flagship journal in psychology. It is known for reviews by leading researchers in a field, for presenting stimulating new developments in research, and for reporting important individual empirical studies that are of interest to a broader audience. However, a few weeks ago I came across a rather strange paper that I would like to draw your attention to:

Kevin Durrheim (2023) recently published in Perspectives a paper dealing with racism and decolonization. As a reader, I would like to cautiously express certain doubts as to whether this paper is a serious, knowledge-producing, scientific contribution. I present my concerns in seven points, some of which describe interrelated problems.

1. Use of Empty Verbiage

A reader finds in Durrheim’s paper several fuzzy buzzwords, empty verbiage and incomprehensible strange terms.

Examples: “Conversational silencing”, “van-guard of liberal scholarship in the discipline”, “hideous cornucopia”, “eliding the reality”, “ironic politics”, “empirical tent cloths” (Durrheim, 2023).

Unfortunately, the way the paper is written reminds a reader, without the author’s intention, of other publications. Such language can elsewhere be found in deliberately created hoax publications, e.g. “The conceptual penis as a social construct” by Lindsay and Boyle (2017) or “Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.” by Sokal (1996). While these two papers were deliberately fabricated in order to show the unscientific nature of certain realms of research, other papers are actually written in such a way that it is difficult for readers to assess whether they are a hoax or actually strange. For instance, regarding the publication of Donald Moss (2022), readers became skeptical whether this was a real article or a satire. The subject of Moss’ work was “On having whiteness” which the author describes as a “malignant, parasitic-like condition” with elucidations like “Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples” (Moss, 2022, p. 356). Readers initially suspected it was a hoax: “Many others even doubted it was a real study until they confirmed that it was officially published.” (Brown, 2021)

With all due respect to the author’s efforts, but how can one avoid the impression that the jingle of words serves to spice up an empty scientific content in a pseudo-intellectual way?

2. Orientation Towards Authority Instead of Empirical Data

Kevin Durrheim uses references to authors rather than empirical evidence to support his claims. The structure of the arguments looks like this: A said B and therefore A is true.

Examples: “Mick Billig’s (1999) account of dialogical repression”, “philosopher Charles Mills’s (2007) memorable term “White ignorance””, “Fanon (1961/1963) told us”, “Fanon reminded us”.

Readers who know texts of this type may be reminded of authoritarian thinking. Is that intentional? A central thrust of the Enlightenment and modern thinking in general is not to follow authorities, traditions or those in power, but to think for yourself and this is based on logic and systematized experience. “Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.” (Kant, 1996/1784, p. 17)

3. Claims are not Substantiated

Assertions are scattered throughout the text “Conversational silencing ...”, but not empirically supported.

Central claim: “White supremacy is maintained by ‘conversational silencing’”. (Durrheim, 2023, p. 1, in the Abstract)

There are no empirical studies, e.g. regarding any “investigations of disciplinary discourse” (Durrheim, 2023, p. 1). Scientific statements – those that attempt to describe and explain reality with the claim to truth – must be formulated with an orientation towards epistemic rationality. Epistemic rationality is understood to mean a truth- and search for knowledge-orientated attitude in thinking guided by logicality, empiricity and argumentativity (Rindermann, 2018, pp. 211ff.).

4. Claims are Smuggled in as Empirically Studied and Confirmed Observations without Empirical Studies or Any Confirmation

Claims are made by Durrheim as if they have been empirically studied and confirmed, but in fact there is no evidence to support them. They are often associated with empty words so that it remains unclear what they actually mean and by what they could be confirmed (or refuted) (see also points 1 and 3).

Examples: “The discourse and practice of psychological science create an absence of belief about racism as well as conjure up threatening fictions, the horrific specters of colonial stereotypes, imperialism, and racism run amok in a psychology in which White supremacy remains undead.” (Durrheim, 2023, p. 3) In the entire text there is no example of any such discourse and there is no discourse analysis.

“Progressive work ... privileges the privileged, recruiting non-WEIRD people into the established enterprise, eliding the persistent reality of racism and racial inequality, and undermining resistance and the project of institutional change. It is easy to misrecognize the ideological functions of progressive psychology precisely because it progressively seeks to challenge inherited privilege, bias, and exclusion.” (Durrheim, 2023, p. 9) Where are the examples for “racism”? In which field and where? Of “ideological functions of progressive psychology”? And what is this?

From The Orwlexicon.

Contrary to what Durrheim maintains (“They showed how open science perpetuates systemic inequalities, closed access, and (racial) exclusions while celebrating the values of transparency, access, and replication (cf. Bahlai et al., 2019).” Durrheim, 2023, p. 3), Bahlai’s source provides no evidence of racist discrimination against non-whites by whites or progressive whites in science: Bahlai et al. did not show, they speculate: “... cultural context (including their race, gender identity, and ethnicity) may all create barriers to specific aspects of open science.” (Bahlai et al., 2019, p. 80) “Forcing transparency in practices ... may exacerbate inherent biases against women and people of color, especially women of color.” (Bahlai et al., 2019, p. 81) Telling “may” (put by me in italics) is no proof. Presenting something like this as quasi-empirical (as by Durrheim) is close to fraudulent.

[Lee here: I had to exert a massive exercise in willpower to not simply repost the Orwell quote from above here].

5. No Arguments and Avoidance of Dealing with the Veracity of Statements

The section on “Stereotypes: Eliding the Reality of Racial Inequality” is particularly revealing. The results of research on stereotype accuracy and political climate analysis in psychology are mentioned. However, it is all written in such a confusing way that someone unfamiliar with this research would not learn or understand anything relevant from these “descriptions”. Accordingly, their central statements are not critically refuted or supported by argumentative-empirical evidence. One gets the impression that the entire issue is being nebulously covered up with politically charged pseudo-intellectual chatter.

Examples: “This heresy targeted precisely the kind of unquestioned, conversationally silenced beliefs of liberalism that are concealed in the ‘assumptions of our time’ (Billig & Marinho, 2019, p. 35).” (Durrheim, 2023, p. 5) “The ‘fact’ is embodied in the unutterable racist stereotype of ‘the Black savage.’ However, fact and stereotypes are neither simple truths nor racist fictions. They are constructed realities (Durrheim, 2022). Fanon (1961/1963) told us how such savagery emerges from its conditions of existence, the colonial ‘native sector’”. (Durrheim, 2023, p. 5)

The way it is written, a reader might get the idea that it sounds like “pre-post-patriarchal societies” or “hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification” (Lindsay & Boyle, 2017, pp. 3, 5). No arguments, just drivel – is this intended to damage the public image of science? The mention of “constructed realities” is misused as a kind of emergency exit to avoid having to deal with the veracity of statements (are they true or not?). Things are just said that way. As Harry G. Frankfurt (1986) provocatively described, statements formulated without concern with truth are bullshit.

6. Incoherent Talk

Many sentences consist of a series of empty but somehow meaningful statements from the author’s point of view. However, no coherent connection can be discerned, of the type: “Because I am eating an ice cream, the sun is shining under the moon on the back side of the mountain. Nevertheless, Anne is wearing a blue shirt.”

Examples: “Demobilizing Resistance by Prejudice Reduction: Prejudice-reduction research has enjoyed ‘rapid growth’ and reached ‘optimistic conclusions’ in the last decade (Paluck et al., 2021, p. 533). The rosy picture is tainted somewhat by questions about the reliability of the results (p-hacking, power, etc.), the strength and durability of its effects, and publication bias (...). However, this work also functions as conversational silencing to preserve racial inequality by undermining resistance and the struggle against systemic White supremacy.” (Durrheim, 2023, p. 6).

This is a book by a Princeton philosopher. I have heard, informally, that it was inspired by the rhetorical style inimical to postmodernism.

This is an incoherent compilation of concepts and statements and observations. Let us quote from the famous Sokal paper (1994, p. 224f., references omitted):

“More recently, Lacan’s topologie du sujet has been applied fruitfully to cinema criticism and to the psychoanalysis of AIDS. In mathematical terms, Lacan is here pointing out that the first homology group of the sphere is trivial, while those of the other surfaces are profound; and this homology is linked with the connectedness or disconnectedness of the surface after one or more cuts. Furthermore, as Lacan suspected, there is an intimate connection between the external structure of the physical world and its inner psychological representation qua knot theory: this hypothesis has recently been confirmed by Witten’s derivation of knot invariants (in particular the Jones polynomial) from three-dimensional Chern-Simons quantum field theory.”

7. Durrheim Ignores the Obvious on His Own Doorstep: Racism and Violence in South Africa

Kevin Durrheim (2023, p. 6) wrote in his article: “How is it possible to miss the glaring reality of racism?” Durrheim works at the Department of Psychology at the University of Johannesburg. His contribution deals with the concealment of racism, oppression and violence. In his text the term “violence” appears eight times. But South Africa in particular is notorious for excessive violence, murders, and racism.

First, the generally high crime rate; second, the often terrible brutality with which people are tortured and killed; third, the notorious crimes against white farmers (about a thousand people or more were killed); fourth, the “Kill the Boer” slogan chanted by leading South African politicians – an official call to commit racist murders against others; and fifth, the riots and lynching against migrants from neighboring African countries that recur every few years. A 5-minute search will reveal information like this from the internet (be careful, violent and shocking content):

“More than 500,000 people have been murdered in South Africa since 1994.”, Crime in South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

“Is necklacing returning to South Africa?”, www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14914526; “Jungle justice: Necklacing, the deadly method of execution in South Africa”, https://thoughtnova.com/jungle-justice-necklacing-the-deadly-method-of-execution-in-south-africa

“South African farm attacks”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks#Statistics

“Kill the Boer”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubul'_ibhunu;

“South African political leader calls for violence against White citizens at rally: ‘Kill the Boer, the farmer’”, https://www.foxnews.com/media/south-african-political-leader-calls-violence-against-white-citizens-rally-kill-boer-farmer

“Xenophobic violence in democratic South Africa.”, www.sahistory.org.za/article/xenophobic-violence-democratic-south-africa

“South Africa: Migrants living ‘in constant fear’ after deadly attacks.”, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/south-africa-migrants-living-in-constant-fear-after-deadly-attacks

“A group of independent UN human rights experts have condemned reports of escalating violence targeting foreign nationals in South Africa, and called for accountability against rising xenophobia, racism and hate speech aimed at migrants, refugees, asylum seekers – and even citizens perceived as outsiders – throughout the country.”, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1122612

To speak of “conversational silencing” and “dialogical repression” while remaining silent about the excessive violence, high murder rates and clearly existing racism on one’s own doorstep is grotesque. I’m almost inclined to believe that the author’s own contribution shows exactly what he assumes about the behavior of others. How would you describe it? Projection? “Screaming silence”? “Loud absence”?

From The Orwelexicon

Welcome to the “New” Psychological “Science”

There is no demand to withdraw this article from Perspectives on Psychological Science; it is too important and informative for that: as an instructive example for the reader of what is possible in “science” today.

I have no idea where I got this and hope I am not violating anyone’s copyright.

References

References that only appear in Durrheim’s publication and are quoted here are marked with “(D)”. The sources are taken from the Durrheim text without further checking.

Bahlai, C. A., Bartlett, L. J., Burgio, K. R., Fournier, A. M. V., Keiser, C. N., Poisot, T., & Whitney, K. S. (2019). Open science isn’t always open to all scientists. American Scientist, 107, 78–82.

Billig, M. (1999). Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge University Press. (D)

Billig, M., & Marinho, C. (2019). Literal and metaphorical silences in rhetoric: Examples from the celebration of the 1974 revolution in the Portuguese parliament. In A. J. Murray & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Qualitative studies of silence: The unsaid as social action (pp. 21–37). Cambridge University Press. (D)

Brown, L. (2021, June 10). NYC psychoanalyst calls whiteness incurable ‘parasitic like condition’. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/06/10/psychoanalyst-calls-whiteness-incurable-parasitic-like-condition

Durrheim, K. (2022). Stereotypes: In the head, in language, and in the wild. In C. Tileaga¢, M. Augoustinos, & K. Durrheim (Eds.), International handbook of discrimination, prejudice, and stereotyping (pp. 184–196). Routledge. (D)

Durrheim, K. (2023). Conversational silencing of racism in psychological science: Toward decolonization in practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916231182922. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231182922

Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published 1961) (D)

Frankfurt, H. G. (1986). Bullshit. Raritan Quarterly Review, 6(2), 81–100.

Kant, I. (1999/1784). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Practical philosophy. (pp. 11–22) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lindsay, J., & Boyle, P. (2017). The conceptual penis as a social construct. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1330439.

Mills, C. (2007). White ignorance. In S. Sullivan & N. Tuana (Eds.), Race and epistemologies of ignorance (pp. 13–37). State University of New York Press. (D)

Moss, D. (2021). On having whiteness. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 69(2), 355–371.

Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., & Green, D. P. (2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619 (D)

Rindermann, H. (2018). Cognitive capitalism: Human capital and the wellbeing of nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 14(46/47 1/2), 217–252.

Shipwreck, Sunset Beach, Cape May, New Jersey