I Read "The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills"
[G]Press is on hiatus* until 2023
In this Issue:
After the Read: “The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills” by Jesse Singal.
Programming Note - [G]Press hiatus Nov.-Dec. 2022
Poem for 2022.10.28
Out and About Photo for 2022.10.28
After The Read: “The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills”
Since at least the mid-late 2000s there seem to have been a collection of essays and books that make reference to what is called the Replication Crisis.1 That phrase has to do with the low percentage of successful reproducibility of studies in various research fields, particularly in certain bio-medical and behavioral sciences. Social psychology in particular has been shown to have extensive issues in this regard. The other weekend I read Jesse Singal’s “The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills,” which focuses in on that area of research, and what happens when it impacts the broader world.
Each chapter looks at studies that became the bases of influential trends in roughly chronological order starting in about the early 1990s. The chapter titles (and conclusion section that explores proposed solutions and ongoing reforms) are listed below:
1. The Selling of Self-Esteem
2. The Superpredators Among Us
3. Of Posing and Power
4. Positive Psychology Goes to War
5. Who has Grit?
6. The Bias Test
7. Non-Replicable
8. Nudging Ahead
Conclusion: Escape from Primeworld
The running theme throughout the book is that public policy solutions based on ‘half-baked’ research may result in harmful lasting impacts to society. On his meaning of calling an idea half-baked:
That is, the idea in question, upon closer inspection, seems to lack clear boundaries and definition. It’s often the case that the idea feels right, especially to nonexperts, and makes enough intuitive sense to spread—especially among lay audiences or those who find the idea ideologically useful—but that if you poke and prod it a little bit, you realize that it isn’t, well, baked all the way through. When handled, pieces break off, or the idea crumbles entirely.
In every chapter Singal provides caveats and conventional explanations and incentives for researcher missteps or shady behavior. For the term half-baked itself he couches:
When one critiques half-baked behavioral science claims, it’s important not to leap too far in the other direction. Half-baked science is often based on at least some truth; the problem is less the kernel than what’s made of.
Relatedly, elsewhere in the book:
The issue, as with so many half-baked behavioral science ideas, is the jump from claims that are empirically defensible but complex and context dependent to claims that are scientifically questionable but sexy and exciting—and simple.
It is a good point to keep in mind when reading ‘debunking’ books like this one. For example, in Chapter 6, The Bias Test, Singal points out that while there may be merit to the psychological research of implicit bias — that does not mean there is a similar level of support for an Implicit Association Test, and its claims as to what it measures, let alone whether it can reliably reveal unconscious thought patterns and/or propensities for behavior.
Most of this research Singal identifies as coming from a research perspective called Primeworld:
Within psychology, particularly social psychology, these tendencies have given rise to what I call Primeworld, a worldview fixated on the idea that people’s behavior is largely driven–and can be altered–by subtle forces.
…
The proponents of Primeworld suggest we can work toward “fixing” individuals by helping them to understand the influence of primes and biases.
…
Their accounts have three main characteristics: big, imposing social structures and systems are invisible, unimportant, or improved fairly easily; primes and biases have an outsize influence on societal outcomes; and these primes and biases can be fixed, to tremendously salubrious effect, thanks to the interventions offered by wise behavior scientists.
However, the results of Primeworld have left a lot to be desired these past decades:
Over and over, it has been shown that the interventions [Primeworld] members favor simply don’t warrant the hype they generate, and there’s strong reason to believe that they fail because they neglect to attend to deeper, more structural factors that are not easily remedied via psychological interventions.
This is part of a pattern of taking the (often cheaper) ‘quick fix’ to the exclusion of other more substantive solutions. For example, in the chapter on self-esteem:
In many cases, advocates focused on self-esteem “rather than hiring better teachers, spending more money on actual schools and instruction. It became a surrogate for the stuff that might actually have done some good.” In future fads, the pattern would repeat: the reforms that ask the least of us are often the ones most apt to go viral.
Additionally, these viral ideas “are often characterized by a certain conceptual fuzziness.” Nowhere did this have more damaging impact to criminal justice policy than in the case of defining what exactly is a “superpredator” aside from “in essence, a young person who does really bad things and who doesn’t appear to exhibit remorse.”
Other commonalities aside from being comparatively cheap to other solutions and almost magically simple:
Fits a preexisting narrative ‘groove.’ The most dramatic being the Department of Defense signing off on hundreds of millions of dollars to ineffectually fight PTSD by choosing a method that conceptually misunderstands PTSD and the trained mindsets of active duty personnel.
Engaging in a kind of science-tization where you basically dress up truisms or bullsh*t with scientific sounding words or contrived mathematical formula.
The findings and data are often so overstated/overextrapolated that they are of very limited application/utility.
Some reliance on theatrical elements or emotional potency when presented.
Money involved. These trends are often ‘self-help’ adjacent and popular enough that some universities have given them their own departments. On top of that are speaking engagements, seminars, and trainings. Some of these spin off from the Universities into their own training/seminar companies.
Minor celebrity/guru-esque behavior. Somewhat related to the point above in terms of speaking engagement fees, but there seems to be a bit of a ‘persona’ built around the person. Singal specifically references the TED-talkification of ideas.
Difference in presenting ideas to the public acting more as marketer than towards those in the know acting more as a scholar. Singal defines this in terms of ‘thought leaders’ vs ‘public intellectual’:
“Thought leaders” are very confident, not particularly analytical or critical, and tend to focus on their “one big idea” that they are convinced can change the world. “Public intellectuals,” on the other hand, see things in a somewhat more nuanced, complex light; they’re more likely to critique ideas they see as lacking, and are generally skeptical of the framework of “This one idea can explain the world.”
Statistical tomfoolery. Singal discusses p-hacking, file drawering, pattern range restriction, and more. This is some of the most important substantive aspects of the book, and the mystique around statistics and numbers is likely a driving force in the credulousness rate at which these ideas spread more broadly.
Message loss/expansion. What I mean by this is that it is common for the original proponent of a half-baked idea to eventually look out on what happens after it has been let loose into the world, with all its vagaries and shoddy research, only to feel that it is being misconstrued, misapplied, or otherwise being misunderstood. Usually it is too late though to define things further, as there are vested interests attached and egos on the line.
Jangle fallacy, or using two different names for the same (typically prior existing) thing.
I think this book helps reinforce that every scientific study is ultimately provisional. The more a study is able to be replicated the greater likelihood it is true. The scientific method offers probabilistic accuracy rather than absolute. Though keep in mind that 99.999 percent likelihood is pretty darn close, and that wisdom and logic would suggest to treat it as though it were a certainty. This is partly why I cringe when people say they “believe the science,” because “science” is not merely a collection of facts that come from the science factory or something. While a nod toward scientific institutional consensus might be meant, I think it subtly degrades the entire enterprise because science is a continuing method that is not static, and does not need anyone’s ‘belief.’ For example, the science on an incoming artillery shell’s trajectory to blow you up is well supported because of numerous replicated, and very loud, studies — based on observation, not mere belief.
Part of living in this era is that people love studies that support their prior convictions. If you can find an on-point study to support whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish then it can feel like you have the Manhattan Project on your side. Studies can give a kind of cognitive relief to people in that the study has taken care of the heavy lifting and you do not have to think any further. After all, they’re professionals, right? This book will make you question such assumptions.
In the brief discussion about proposed solutions (which have been cycling about for years), one that I wanted to add is that maybe people should cling less tightly to their opinions. I’m not saying one should not develop opinions, or that one needs to be extremely insightful even, just tone it down a few notches. Not everyone is actually an expert. Every other attorney I know has had at least one client who thinks they’re the one that went to law school. People over (and under) estimate their competency to evaluate all sorts of topics all the time, especially when they’re new to it, there’s even a name for it: the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Unfortunately, I think these types of studies tend to give a lot of people a false sense of righteousness. This book does not go into it much, but I think there has been a bit of an interplay between these ideas going from the academy to broader society via social media (where it is far cheaper to promote ideas). It made me think of sites like Tumblr, which is what I like to call a “riff” site — as in the musical term (catchy part of a song), and posters take turns playing along/riffing back and forth with eachother. The end result might only be loosely reminiscent of the original form. TikTok is a riff site as well, but is primarily video, whereas Tumblr is text. The studies add anchoring and legitimacy to online back-and-forths that would otherwise just be subjective hot takes.
The final takeaway is that half-baked studies do cause harm even if it is meant with the best of intentions. Money was allocated away from other potentially more worthwhile avenues of research to pursue a kind of ‘junk food’ science. Time and attention is also taken away from other ideas. Misconceptions were created in the public consciousness that exist to this day in public policy. People suffer unnecessarily as a result.
All that being said, the field of social psychology did take notice of these problems — even if the outside world lags behind in many places. Mostly they are centered around incentives, such as pre-registration of studies so that researchers won’t fear their study not being published if it is not exciting enough, as well as opening the study format up for evaluation before it is conducted. I think there may also be cultural issues as well. My recollection of graduate school in 2007-2009, and law school from 2011-2014, involves encountering people I was surprised to find anywhere near a research project. It had nothing to do with their grades, I just found their personal disposition to not at all be one of skeptical discernment that I imagined one would want in conducting studies that cost resources and have a chance at impacting the lives of real people (rather than lab abstractions of people).
The United States is about to have an election. Elections require making decisions, and to quote John F. Kennedy: “The essence of ultimate decision remains impenetrable to the observer - often, indeed, to the decider himself.” For a society that mostly values free speech and freedom of expression, what is the informational decision-making filter that people should be expected to employ when faced with competing claims? Do we even teach this in school? Increasingly, extremists carry out plots and when we look through their mindset we often find passionate or disturbed people with ideologies premised on flimsy bullsh*t regardless of their place on a political spectrum. Hopefully, the institutional research sectors of the United States can help start pulling things away from the abyss with the power of self-knowledge.
Jesse Singal’s Substack can be found here.
Singal co-hosts a podcast with former Seattle area PBS TV presenter Katie Herzog at Blocked and Reported.
Podcast interviews with Singal regarding this book I listened to:
Making Sense/Sam Harris
Programming Note 2022.10.28 - [G]Press Hiatus Nov.-Dec. 2022
Hi Everyone,
Since May 13th I have been posting here on [G]Press every other Friday. This Substack basically came about as a writing side-project while I spend available time working on a primary long-form writing project. I have certain milestones for that writing, which I need to reach in order to keep everything on track (…and the clock is ticking). In light of that, this Substack, for the remainder of 2022 (November and December), will not be going out on its usual publishing schedule of every other Friday.
I think it will be good for [G]Press to have some editorial assessment of format and content, develop further some content ideas, and come back in 2023 to complete my posting goal here. And I think it may be good for the book-length writing because I won’t be getting interrupted to put out a Substack post.
In any event, I wish you all the best this upcoming November and December, and see you all in 2023 (if not sooner).
Regards,
Garrett
Poem for 2022.10.28
Wind trimmed trees teeter
Orange litter swathes under growth
Brisk musty air drifts
Out And About Photo for 2022.10.28
Smoke on the water of Lake Washington looking toward Seattle skyline in mid-October.
I am thinking of works like these three:
2005 Essay: Why Most Published Research Findings
Are False
2009 Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright Sided — NPR radio interview with her here.
2020 Review of Science Fictions in Nature.