The slight weakness of this argument is that if psychologists keep going back to the *same* subset of humanity for multiple studies (which they do) then they do build up a complex and interrelated theory of human psychology which consistently assumes everyone behaves like second-year psych students. After the third, fourth or fifth study on undergrads produces the same or compatible results, researchers do treat it as settled science about everybody, which they wouldn't if equal proportions of research were done on undergrads/ at bustops / in Fijian villages
However, continually testing the same parameters of diversity (white undergrads vs black undergrads) probably doesn't add much
The slight weakness of this argument is that if psychologists keep going back to the *same* subset of humanity for multiple studies (which they do) then they do build up a complex and interrelated theory of human psychology which consistently assumes everyone behaves like second-year psych students. After the third, fourth or fifth study on undergrads produces the same or compatible results, researchers do treat it as settled science about everybody, which they wouldn't if equal proportions of research were done on undergrads/ at bustops / in Fijian villages
However, continually testing the same parameters of diversity (white undergrads vs black undergrads) probably doesn't add much
I think the underlying premise of this piece is that opposition wants to adhere to reciprocity and logical arguments.
Look how little effort they have holding two opposite positions: No differences between races/sexes implies that calling for diversity is irrational.
Psychology and many other areas have been thoroughly feminised and I fail to see how logic can be used to oppose toxic empathy.
Convinced - The author is very likely correct.