Originally published: . Volume 10, No. 4. Source pages: 2.
H. L. Mencken, the famous journalist, humorist and political critic of the 1930s wrote, "The believing mind reaches its perihelion in the so called Liberals. They believe in each and every quack who sets up his booth on the fair-grounds, including the Communists. The Communists have some talents too, but they always fall short of believing in the Liberals." I wonder what he'd say about politics today.
The Mueller report, with the likely final conclusion that Trump did not, after all, collude with the Russians, winds up causing a shift in the perceptual frame for many in the progressive mindset, including a goodly number of psychologists, a group that has been shown to be not at all diverse. Rather, 94% of us sit firmly on the political Left.
A lack of Left–Right diversity, like all other types of group homogeneity, restricts problem-solving and innovation. Left leaning people, according to Eysenck, are tender-minded, and I've wondered if this accounts for the conflict avoidance that seems to plague us. (Bill McCown will straighten me out at the LPA convention if so–– he's speaking on political hyper-polarization.)
Mueller surprised both the Right and the Left. The Right suspiciously expected fabrications. The Left expected hard evidence for impeachment. Mueller causes both sides to rethink, an unusual and lucky intervention if it holds. The FBI has egg all over its faceless actors and some in the media will have to cope with being preserved for posterity sounding like imbeciles. But all in all, a lucky intervention, I think.
None of this back and forth should be a concern to psychology. We are watching Rattlers vs Eagles, from Sherif's Robbers Cave, the normal functioning of a system. Trump, as much as one may dislike him and his style, is a change agent. The system put him there, just like it put President Obama there. This time, with Mueller's Report, the chips look like they will fall to the Right. But either kind of Kool-Aid is not good for psychology to be drinking.
Psychology's job is to get the best grip we can on a social process and climb up the mountain to the highest perch possible and have a good look around. But to gain this kind of objectivity we still need a good scrubbing.
In the March issue of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Malte Elson and others found that professional advocacy associations, including APA, put out policy statements that are suspect. They looked at policy statements about the effect of media on the public and found 91% lacked clarity and transparency, 62% overgeneralized, 79% exaggerated, 96% ignored diverse viewpoints, and 29% had non-credible sources.
Mencken also said, "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."
Psychology is dangerous like that––in a good way. But we've got a lot of our own business to be minding, so that the public receives good advice and looks to us with trust. And, so that trust is deserved.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.