3 ms·
It's not a conspiracy theory, but an empirically validated fact, as the study in my link showed. It is not the only one with such findings: Ceci et al. (1985)
by car_analogy 4y ago
It's not a conspiracy theory, but an empirically validated fact, as the study in my link showed. It is not the only one with such findings:
Ceci et al. (1985) found a similar pattern. Research proposals hypothesizing either "reverse discrimination" (i.e., against White males) or conventional discrimination (i.e., against ethnic minorities) were submitted to 150 Internal Review Boards. Everything else about the proposals was held constant. The "reverse discrimination" proposals were approved less often than the conventional discrimination proposals. - https://jsis.washington.edu/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2019/07/political_diversity_will_improve_social_psychological_science_1.pdf https://jsis.washington.edu/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
- jakelazaroff 4y agoThis quote has to do with research proposals, not study results.
- abeyer 4y agoBut study results are only published if the study is done, and the study is often only done if it gets institutional approval for the proposal.
- jakelazaroff 4y agoYes, but a study's conclusion isn't preordained. It's entirely possible for authors to end up disproving their hypothesis. So it doesn't follow that, because more research proposals about "reverse discrimination" were rejected, then more studies concluding "reverse racism" (holding all else constant) would be rejected.
- car_analogy 4y agoYes, both are covered. Studies that specifically look for inconvenient facts don't get funded, and studies that accidentally find them don't get published.