On Sunday, October 20 at 3 pm, April Bleske-Rechek, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire will be our guest for a Casual Conversation.
April does really interesting work.
Dartmouth College President Sian Beilock, email to me (AFF), 07/05/2024.
To say the least.
But before I give a preview of some of her works, let’s do the basics. “Her teaching and research efforts focus on scientific reasoning and individual and group differences in cognitive abilities, personality traits, and relationship attributes.” She teaches Introduction to Psychology, Research Methods in Psychology, Personality Psychology, Individual Differences and Behavior Genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, Big Issues in Psychology, Pop Psych: The Latest and Greatest Nonfiction Books on the Science of Human Behavior, Psychology of Language (directed study), and Sport Psychology (directed study). https://bleske-rechek.com/ . You may find her cv here: https://bleske-rechek.com/BLESKE_Full_CV.pdf .
But most interesting is the breadth and depth of her research. Here is her list of publications with links where available: https://bleske-rechek.com/publications.html . (All articles cited to here are linked to on her website, except for the SKEPTIC piece on DEI, discussed below.)
A recent publication, updated June 26, 2024, by Professor Bleske-Rechek, “Promoting Students’ Engagement in Civil Dialogue: A Pilot Study and Randomized Controlled Trial,” stated at 3: “Taken together, these findings (and others from the 2023 report) suggest that civil dialogue among UW students, especially among those who disagree with one another about controversial issues, is unlikely to unfold naturally. (Of course, historical patterns, humans’ tribal nature, and research on deliberative dialogue in the broader community [e.g., Mutz, 2006] all imply the same conclusion).” And at 1 (Abstract):
To effect lasting change in attitudes and behaviors, interventions will need to be designed with multiple goals in mind: (1) address students’ disinterest and fear/anxiety; (2) demonstrate to students the benefits of engaging in civil dialogue, with time to reflect on what civil dialogue looks like in action; (3) develop students’ knowledge of specific personal characteristics and behaviors that enable constructive conversations (e.g., looping for understanding; Duhigg, 2024); and (4) provide safe opportunities both in and outside of the classroom for students to practice engaging in conversations about controversial issues.
“Can men and women be just friends?” It depends on whom you are asking, men or women. “Men perceived sex with their opposite-sex friends as more beneficial than did women. Women reported receiving protection from their opposite-sex friends more often than did men. Both men and women reported receiving information from opposite-sex friends about how to attract mates, and they perceived this information as beneficial.” Why? There are several hypotheses offered as to why, including an evolved opposite-sex friendship psychology. Read the article to find out more. See also “Societies also prioritize female survival” (Because women have highly limited reproductive rates, societies have generally prioritized female survival and regarded males as expendable.).
In her substack.com posting “Offense = Harm = Violence[:] Consequences of Concept Creep for Free Speech on Campus”, Professor Bleske-Rechek wrote:
In the context of free speech, the conflation of expressing offensive views with causing harm and violence is in tension with protecting a culture that supports students as they engage – and allow others to engage – with their First Amendment rights. First Amendment jurisprudence does delineate forms of expression that are not protected – such as libel and slander, incitement, and true threats of physical violence – but views perceived by some people as “offensive” or “harmful” are generally a far cry from legally unprotected speech; indeed, sometimes the views perceived by some people as offensive might be more aptly described as uncomfortable truths uncovered by rigorous scientific studies.
We have discussed the difference between correlation and causation on the Class listserv a number of times. Peter Elias has been the author of several posts warning us not to conflate the two. How about a rigorous experiment to determine the ability of people to keep them separate? Professor Bleske-Rechek offers one, and the results are not heartening: “Participants drew causal inferences from non-experimental vignettes as often as they did from experimental vignettes, and more frequently for causal statements and directions of association that fit with intuitive notions than for those that did not.” “Causal inference from descriptions of experimental and non-experimental research: Public understanding of correlation-versus-causation” at 48 (Abstract). Journal of General Psychology, 142, 48-70.
Nor have we any reason to be optimistic about completely debunked woo-woo. Remember the nonsense known as “Therapeutic Touch.” Emily Rosa, an eleven-year-old used an experiment to demonstrate that TT did not exist (or, rather, that there is no basis to believe that it does). Some people still believe it. See Professor Bleske-Rechek’s essay in SKEPTIC magazine (Spring 2019). Perhaps you also believe in facilitated communication, a thoroughly discredited technique, which nonetheless pops up with new names, but with the same degree of harm to children and parents.
Saving the best for last, and what might especially attract you to attend this Casual Conversation is what first caused me to become aware of her workz: “Behavioral Science Needs to Return to Basics” in the most recent issue of SKEPTIC Magazine (Volume 29, Number 2). She writes:
We believe that many problems plaguing contemporary behavioral science, especially for issue touching upon DEI, can best be understood, at their root, as a failure to adhere to basic scientific principles. In this essay, we will address three fundamental sci9entific principles: (1) Prioritize Objective Data Over Lived Experience; (2) Measure Well; and (3) Distinguish Appropriately Between Correlation and Causation. We will show how DEI scholarship often violated those principles, and offer suggestions for getting behavioral science back on track.
Perhaps you believe that DEI should never be subject to critical analysis. Professor Bleske-Rechek has an answer for you:
Ideas that cannot be freely challenged are unfalsifiable. Those ideas will likely gain popularity because the marketplace of ideas becomes the monopoly of a single idea. An illusory consensus can emerge about a complex area for which reasonable, informed, and qualified individuals have highly differing views. An echo chamber created by forced consensus ius the breeding ground for bad science.
Follow the science? Do you? Can you? Are you willing to challenge your own assumptions and face your own biases? If so, come to this Casual Conversation on Sunday, October 20 at 3 pm Eastern Time.
Please email me if you wish to attend and do so by the close of business this Friday, October 18: arthur.fergenson@ansalaw.com .
Arthur Fergenson
P.S. Her SKEPTIC essay on DEI science is not available online (or, at least I cannot find it). Your library or university account might be a source, or you can buy a single digital issue, which, though, is not easy.
P.P.S. For anyone who has dated or married a narcissist: “The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that narcissists’ positive thoughts about themselves are neither correct nor appropriately censored from others.” “Narcissistic men and women think they are so hot – But they are not.”