CounterCurrent: Week of 10/21/24
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has published the fourth and final report in the Shifting Sands project, Unsound Science and Unsafe Regulation, Zombie Psychology, Implicit Association Test. Through statistical analyses, this report finds that the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test which is used as a metric in the implicit bias theory—and utilized by scientists, government, researchers, and others—has no scientific foundation.
For years, NAS has warned of the dangers of the irreproducibility crisis and its bearing on the spread of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and other race-based ideologies throughout higher education, science, and even government. Each of the four reports in the Shifting Sands project address the effects of the irreproducibility crisis on public policy, specifically “how flawed science has underwritten costly policies that undermine liberty.” But what exactly is the “irreproducibility crisis”? For those unfamiliar, irreproducible science occurs when an original study cannot be reproduced with the same results. The irreproducibility crisis occurs when regulations and public policy are swayed or influenced by science and studies which cannot be reproduced with statistically significant results.
Logically, government policies should be guided by sound science, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects like race, sex, and gender. But logic has taken a proverbial hike.
For all four Shifting Sands reports, the authors utilized p-value plotting to demonstrate the weaknesses in government use of meta-analyses. Policymakers and scientists alike use statistical analyses as a means to an end—achieving statistically significant results are useful when arguing for changes to policy and regulation. Oftentimes, these analyses are skewed. False-positive, statistically significant results abound. Why are these results so common? Why is unsound science pervading policy, especially antidiscrimination law? And why should we care?
In Zombie Psychology, the report’s authors narrow their focus on implicit bias theory. For context, implicit bias theory is used by activists to justify so called “positive” discriminatory processes and policies (i.e., DEI) in government and the private sector. More specifically,
‘Implicit bias,’ or ‘unconscious bias,’ is partly a product of psychological science and partly a product of ‘antidiscrimination’ advocates seeking a work-around on existing constitutional law. The Constitution prohibits individual discrimination; ‘implicit bias’ provides a putatively scientific loophole to justify and to allow American institutions to discriminate.
Implicit bias psychology was drawn from a series of psychological articles written in the 1990s. It was argued that an individual's behavior is determined, regardless of intent, by “implicit bias.” The report’s authors explain, “These biases were significant in their effects on individuals’ actions, pervasive, and irremovable, or very difficult to remove, by conscious intent. Significantly, researchers measured such biases in terms of race and sex—the categories of identity politics that fit with radical ideology and that were at issue in contemporary antidiscrimination law.” Then and now, implicit bias theory, along with its progeny the IAT, have been criticized by some scientists for lack of validity and reliability.
If unfamiliar, the IAT “is a visual and speed-reaction test taken on a computer in which a subject associates words and pictures.” This test is used for training purposes by federal agencies, the private sector, and even by many universities. If the IAT is a valid measure, implicit bias should correlate with explicit, real world behaviors that display bias. In the first technical study of the report, the analyzed p-value plots revealed randomness between all IAT-real-world behavior and explicit bias-real-world behavior correlations.
The findings of the p-value plots were consistent with the case study research claim that the IAT provides little insight into who will discriminate against whom. It was also observed that the amount of real-world micro-behavior variance explained by the IAT and explicit bias measurements was small, less than 1%.
The rest of the findings uncovered by the case studies can be found in the report and the data can speak for itself.
Real world implications of implicit bias theory are beginning to be seen in antidiscrimination law—or at least what activists are pushing for in antidiscrimination law. According to some, we live in a nation where being white makes you “inherently racist,” and racism is woven into the fabric of society, preventing minority groups from reaching their potential. With the use of implicit bias theory, lawmakers can skirt Constitutional protections against discrimination through “science.”
Take heart, readers, prevailing ideologies and false science surrounding race should and are being challenged. Not only by reports like Zombie Psychology, but also by books, like Minding the Campus’s Social Justice versus Social Science: White Fragility, Implicit Bias, and Diversity Training. From criticizing the narrow focus on racism perpetrated by the left—including implicit bias theory—and emphasizing open, honest dialogue in the race conversation, the book’s authors wrote a worthy read.
Heightened awareness to the irreproducibility crisis and anti-Constitutional race ideology will hopefully stem from such works.
Pervasive and faulty, irreproducible science undermines trust in both sound and unsound science, and by extension, the government policies they influence. Policy should be based in the best available science, not most of the current science that is not held to a high standard of rigor. It is the hope that scientific inquiry and analyses will once again be a pinnacle of truth guiding policy and American institutions.
Until next week.
CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, written by the NAS Staff. To subscribe, update your email preferences here.
Photo by Beck & Stone
