News Feeds

In my last post, I looked at how 1920’s quantum physics (“Quantum Mechanics”, or QM) conceives of a particle with definite momentum and completely uncertain position. I also began the process of exploring how Quantum Field Theory (QFT) views the same object. I’m going to assume you’ve read that post, though I’ll quickly review some of its main points.

In that post, I invented a simple type of particle called a Bohron that moves around in a physical space in the shape of a one-dimensional line, the x-axis.

• I discussed the wave function in QM corresponding to a Bohron of definite momentum P1, and depicted that function Ψ(x1) (where x1 is the Bohron’s position) in last post’s Fig. 3.
• In QFT, on the other hand, the Bohron is a ripple in the Bohron field, which is a function B(x) that gives a real number for each point x in physical space. That function has the form shown in last post’s Fig. 4.

We then looked at the broad implications of these differences between QM and QFT. But one thing is glaringly missing: we haven’t yet discussed the wave function in QFT for a Bohron of definite momentum P1. That’s what we’ll do today.

The QFT Wave Function

Wave functions tell us the probabilities for various possibilities — specifically, for all the possible ways in which a physical system can be arranged. (That set of all possibilities is called “the space of possibilities“.)

This is a tricky enough idea even when we just have a system of a few particles; for example, if we have N particles moving on a line, then the space of possibilities is an N-dimensional space. In QFT, wave functions can be extremely complicated, because the space of possibilities for a field is infinite dimensional, even when physical space is just a one-dimensional line. Specifically, for any particular shape s(x) that we choose, the wave function for the field is Ψ[s(x)] — a complex number for every function s(x). Its absolute-value-squared is proportional to the probability that the field B(x) takes on that particular shape s(x).

Since there are an infinite number of classes of possible shapes, Ψ in QFT is a function of an infinite number of variables. Said another way, the space of possibilities has an infinite number of dimensions. Ugh! That’s both impossible to draw and impossible to visualize. What are we to do?

Simplifying the Question

By restricting our attention dramatically, we can make some progress. Instead of trying to find the wave function for all possible shapes, let’s try to understand a simplified wave function that ignores most possible shapes but gives us the probabilities for shapes that look like those in Fig. 5 (a variant of Fig. 4 of the last post). This is the simple wavy shape that corresponds to the fixed momentum P1:

where A, the amplitude for this simple wave, can be anything we like. Here’s what that shape looks like for A=1:

Figure 5: The shape A cos(P1 x) for A=1.

If we do this, the wave function for this set of possible shapes is just a function of A; it tells us the probability that A=1 vs. A=-2 vs. A=3.2 vs. A=-4.57, etc. In other words, we’re going to write a restricted wave function Ψ[A] that doesn’t give us all the information we could possibly want about the field, but does tell us the probability for the Bohron field B(x) to take on the shape A cos(P1 x).

This restriction to Ψ[A] is surprisingly useful. That’s because, in comparing the state containing one Bohron with momentum P1 to a state with no Bohrons anywhere — the “vacuum state”, as it is called — the only thing that changes in the wave function is the part of the wave function that is proportional to Ψ[A].

In other words, if we tried to keep all the other information in the wave function, involving all the other possible shapes, we’d be wasting time, because all of that stuff is going to be the same whether there’s a Bohron with momentum P1 present or not.

To properly understand and appreciate Ψ[A] in the presence of a Bohron with momentum P1, we should first explore Ψ[A] in the vacuum state. Once we know the probabilities for A in the absence of a Bohron, we’ll be able to recognize what has changed in the presence of a Bohron.

The Zero Bohron (“Vacuum”) State

In the last post, we examined what the QM wave function looks like that describes a single Bohron with definite momentum (see Fig. 3 of that post). But what is the QM wave function for the vacuum state, the state that has no Bohrons in it?

The answer: it’s a meaningless question. QM is a theory of objects that have positions in space (or other simple properties.) If there are no objects in the theory, then there’s… well… no QM, no wave function, and nothing to discuss.

[You might complain that the Bohron field itself should be thought of as an “object” — but aside from the fact that this is questionable (is air pressure an object?), the QM of a field is QFT, so taking this route would just prove my point.]

In QFT, by contrast, the “vacuum state” is perfectly meaningful and has a wave function. The full vacuum state wave function Ψ[s(x)] is too complicated for us to talk about today. But again, if we keep our focus on the special shapes that look like cos[P1 x], we can easily write the vacuum state’s wave function for that shape’s amplitude, Ψ[A].

Understanding the Vacuum State’s Wave Function

You might have thought, naively, that if a field contains no “particles”, then the field would just be zero; that is, it would have 100% probability to take the form B(x)=0, and 0% probability to have any other shape. This would mean that Ψ[A] would be non-zero only for A=0, forming a spike as shown in Fig. 6. Here, employing a visualization method I use often, I’m showing the wave function’s real part in red and its imaginary part in blue; its absolute-value squared, in black, is mostly hidden behind the red curve.

Figure 6: A naive guess for the vacuum state of the Bohron field would have B(x) = 0 and therefore A=0. But this state would have enormously high energy and would rapidly spread to large values of A.

We’ve seen a similar-looking wave function before in the context of QM. A particle with a definite position also has a wave function in the form of a spike. But as we saw, it doesn’t stay that way: thanks to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the spike instantly spreads out with a speed that reflects the state’s very high energy.

The same issue would afflict the vacuum state of a QFT if its wave function looked like Fig. 6. Just as there’s an uncertainty principle in QM that relates position and motion (changes in position), there’s an uncertainty principle in QFT that relates A and changes in A (and more generally relates B(x) and changes in B(x).) A state with a definite value of position immediately spreads out with a huge amount of energy, and the same is true for a state with a definite value of A; the shape of Ψ[A] in Fig. 6 will immediately spread out dramatically.

In short, a state that momentarily has B(x) = 0, and in particular A=0, won’t remain in this form. Not only will it change rapidly, it will do so with enormous energy. That does not sound healthy for a supposed vacuum state — the state with no Bohrons in it — which ought to be stable and have low energy.

The field’s actual vacuum state therefore has a spread of values for A — and in fact it is a Gaussian wave packet centered around A=0. In QM we have encountered Gaussian wave packets that give a spread-out position; here, in QFT, we need a packet for a spread-out amplitude, shown in Fig. 7 using the representation in which we show the real part, imaginary part, and absolute-value squared of the wave function. In Fig. 7a I’ve made the A-axis horizontal; I’ve then replotted exactly the same thing in Fig. 7b with the A axis vertical, which turns out to be useful as we’ll see in just a moment.

Figure 7a: The real part (red), imaginary part (blue, and zero) and absolute-value-squared of Ψ[A] (the wave function for the amplitude of the shape in Fig. 5) for the vacuum state. Figure 7b: Same as Fig. 7a, turned sideways for better intuition.

Another way to represent this same wave function involves plotting points at a grid of values for A, with each point drawn in gray-scale that reflects the square of the wave function |Ψ(A)|2, as in Fig. 8. Note that the most probable value for A is zero, but it’s also quite likely to be somewhat away from zero.

Figure 8: The value of |Ψ(A)|2 for the vacuum state, expressed in gray-scale, for a grid of choices of A. Note the most probable value of A is zero.

But now we’re going to go a step further, because what we’re really interested in is not the wave function for A but the wave function for the Bohron field. We want to know how that field B(x) is behaving in the vacuum state. To gain intuition for the vacuum state wave function in terms of the Bohron field (remembering that we’ve restricted ourselves to the shape cos[P1 x] shown in Fig. 5), we’ll generalize Fig. 8: instead of one dot for each value of A, we’ll plot the whole shape A cos[P1 x] for a grid of choices of A, using gray-scale that’s proportional to |Ψ(A)|2. This is shown in Fig. 9; in a sense, it is a combination of Fig. 8 with Fig. 5.

Figure 9: For a grid of values of A, the shape Acos[P1 x] is drawn in gray-scale that reflects the magnitude of |Ψ(A)|2, and thus the probability for that value of A. This picture gives us intuition for the probabilities for the shape of the field B(x) in the vacuum state. The Bohron field is generally not zero in this state, even though the possible shapes of B(x) are centered around B(x) = 0.

Remember, this is not showing the probability for the position of a particle, or even that of a “particle”. It is showing the probability in the vacuum state for the field B(x) to take on a certain shape, albeit restricted to shapes proportional to cos[P1 x]. We can see that the most likely value of A is zero, but there is a substantial spread around zero that causes the field’s value to be uncertain.

In the vacuum state, what’s true for a shape with momentum P1 would be true also for any and all shapes of the form cos[P x] for any possible momentum P. In principle, we could combine all of those shapes, for all of the different momenta, together in a much more complicated version of Fig. 9. However, that would make the picture completely unreadable, so I won’t try to do that — although I’ll do something intermediate, with multiple values of P, in later posts.

Oh, and I mustn’t forget to flash a warning: everything I’ve just told you and will tell you for the rest of this post is limited to a child’s version of QFT. I’m only describing what the vacuum state looks like for a “free” (i.e. non-interacting) Bohron field. This field doesn’t do anything except send individual “particles” around that never change or interact with each other. If you want to know more about truly interesting QFTs, such as the ones in the real world — well, expect some things to be recognizable from today’s post, but much of this will, yet again, have to be revisited.

The One-Bohron State

Now that we know the nature of the wave function for the vacuum state, at least when restricted to shapes proportional to cos[P1 x], how does this change in the presence of a single Bohron of momentum P1?

The answer is quite simple: the wave function Ψ(A) changes from to (up to an overall constant of no interest to us here.) Depicting this state in analogy to what we did for the vacuum state in Figs. 7b, 8 and 9, we find Figs. 10, 11 and 12.

Figure 10: As in Fig. 7, but for the one-Bohron state. Note the probability for A=0 is now zero, and the probability (black curve) peaks at non-zero positive and negative values of A. Figure 10: As in Fig. 8, but for the one-Bohron state. Figure 10: As in Fig. 9, but for the one-Bohron state. Note the probability for B(x)=0 is zero in the one-Bohron state with momentum P1, in contrast to the vacuum state.

Notice that the one-Bohron state is clearly distinguishable from the vacuum state; most notably the probability for A=0 is now zero, and its spread is larger, with the most likely values for A now non-zero.

There’s one more difference between these states, which I won’t attempt to prove to you at the moment. The vacuum state doesn’t show any motion; that’s not surprising, because there are no Bohrons there to do any moving. But the one-Bohron state, with its Bohron of definite momentum, will display signs of a definite speed and direction. You should imagine all the wiggles in Fig. 12 moving steadily to the right as time goes by, whereas Fig. 9 is static.

Well, that’s it. That’s what the QFT wave function for a one-Bohron state of definite momentum P1 looks like — when we ignore the additional complexity that comes from the shapes for other possible momenta P, on the grounds that their behavior is the same in this state as it is in the vacuum state.

A Summary of Today’s Steps

That’s more than enough for today, so let me emphasize some key points here. Compare and contrast:

• In QM:
  • The Bohron with definite momentum is a particle with a position, though that position is unknown.
  • The wave function for the Bohron, spread out across the space of the Bohron’s possible positions x1, has a wavelength with respect to x1.
• In QFT:
  • The Bohron “particle” (i.e. wavicle) is intrinsically spread out across physical space [the horizontal x-axis in Figs. 9 and 12] and the Bohron itself has a wavelength with respect to x.
  • Meanwhile the wave function, spread out across the space of possible amplitudes A (the vertical axis in Figs. 7a, 8, 10 and 11) does not contain simply packaged information about how the activity in the Bohron field is spread out across physical space x; both the vacuum state and one-Bohron states are spread out, but you can’t just read off that fact from Figs. 8 and 11.
  • And note that the wave function has nothing simple to say about the position of the Bohron; after all the spread-out “particle” doesn’t even have a clearly defined position!

Just to make sure this is clear, let me say this again slightly differently. While in QM, the Bohron particle with definite momentum has an unknown position, in QFT, the Bohron “particle” with definite momentum does not even have a position, because it is intrinsically spread out. The QFT wave function says nothing about our uncertainty about the Bohron’s location; that uncertainty is already captured in the fact that the real (not complex!) function B(x) is proportional to a cosine function. Indeed physical space, and its coordinate x, don’t even appear directly in Ψ(A). Instead the QFT wave function, in the restricted form we’ve considered, only tells us the probability that B(x) = A cos[P1 x] for a particular value of A — and that those probabilities are different when there is a single Bohron present (Fig. 12) compared to when there is none (Fig. 9).

I hope you can now start to see why I don’t find the word particle helpful in describing a QFT Bohron. The Bohron does have some limited particle-like qualities, most notably its indivisibility, and we’ll explore those soon. But you might already understand why I prefer wavicle.

We are far from done with QFT; this is just the beginning of our explorations. There are many follow-up questions to address, such as

• Can we put our QFT Bohron into a wave packet state similar to last post’s Fig. 2? What would that look like?
• Do these differences between QM and QFT have implications for how we think about experiments, such as the double-slit experiment or Bell’s particle-pair experiment?
• What do QFT wave functions look like if there are two “particles” rather than just one? There are several cases, all of them interesting.
• How do measurements work, and how are they different, in QM versus QFT?
• What about fields more complicated than the Bohron field, such as the electron field or the electromagnetic field?

We’ll deal with these one by one over the coming days and weeks; stay tuned.

This catchphrase has become popular with comedians. Is that in line with its true origin?

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The chaos and cruelty of its abrupt deconstruction are self-evident and already demonstrable

The post Indiscriminate, Cruel, and Wasteful: Abandoning USAID clinical trials first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Around the world, the earliest buildings are typically round while later ones are rectangular – but 12,000-year-old buildings with corners don’t fit the pattern

A team has used a process known as DNA origami to make electrochemical sensors that can quickly detect and measure biomarkers.

A computer science team has developed a sensor-based technology that could revolutionize commercial beekeeping by reducing colony losses and lowering labor costs. The technology uses low-cost heat sensors and forecasting models to predict when hive temperatures may reach dangerous levels. The system provides remote beekeepers with early warnings, allowing them to take preventive action before their colonies collapse during extreme hot or cold weather or when the bees cannot regulate their hive temperature because of disease, pesticide exposure, food shortages, or other stressors.

Researchers demonstrated that brewing tea naturally adsorbs heavy metals like lead and cadmium, effectively filtering dangerous contaminants out of drinks. Researchers tested different types of tea, tea bags and brewing methods. Finely ground black tea leaves performed best at removing toxic heavy metals. Longer steeping times helped tea remove larger amounts of contaminants.

Mars may have once been home to sun-soaked, sandy beaches with gentle, lapping waves according to a new study.

A new artificial intelligence model measures how fast a patient's brain is aging and could be a powerful new tool for understanding, preventing and treating cognitive decline and dementia.

A comparison of 263 species supports the idea that large animals have higher rates of cancer than smaller ones. But the increase is less than expected, suggesting they have evolved ways to lower their risk

In 2007, astronomers discovered the Cosmic Horseshoe, a gravitationally lensed system of galaxies about five-and-a-half billion light-years away. The foreground galaxy’s mass magnifies and distorts the image of a distant background galaxy whose light has travelled for billions of years before reaching us. The foreground and background galaxies are in such perfect alignment that they create an Einstein Ring.

New research into the Cosmic Horseshoe reveals the presence of an Ultra-Massive Black Hole (UMBH) in the foreground galaxy with a staggering 36 billion solar masses.

There’s no strict definition of a UMBH, but the term is often used to describe a supermassive black hole (SMBH) with more than 5 billion solar masses. SMBHs weren’t “discovered” in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, over time, their existence became clear. Also, over time, more and more massive ones were measured. There’s a growing need for a name for the most massive ones, and that’s how the term “Ultra-Massive Black Hole” originated.

The discovery of the enormously massive black hole in the Cosmic Horseshoe is presented in new research. It’s titled “Unveiling a 36 Billion Solar Mass Black Hole at the Centre of the Cosmic
Horseshoe Gravitational Lens,” and the lead author is Carlos Melo-Carneiro from the Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. The paper is available at arxiv.org.

There was a revolution in physics in the late 19th/early 20th century as relativity superseded Newtonian physics and propelled our understanding of the Universe to the next level. It became clear that space and time were intertwined rather than separate and that massive objects could warp spacetime. Even light wasn’t immune, and Einstein gave the idea of black holes—which dated back to John Michell’s ‘dark stars’—a coherent mathematical foundation. In 1936, Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, though he didn’t live long enough to enjoy the visual proof we enjoy today.

Now, we know of thousands of gravitational lenses, and they’ve become one of astronomers’ naturally occurring tools. They exist because of their enormous black holes.

The lensing foreground galaxy in the Cosmic Horseshoe is named LRG 3-757. It’s a particular type of rare galaxy called a Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG), which are extremely bright in infrared. LRG 3-757 is also extremely massive, about 100 times more massive than the Milky Way and is one of the most massive galaxies ever observed. Now we know that one of the most massive black holes ever detected occupies the center of this enormous galaxy.

“Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) are found at the centre of every massive galaxy, with their masses tightly connected to their host galaxies through a co-evolution over cosmic time,” the authors write in their paper.

Astronomers don’t find stellar-mass black holes at the heart of massive galaxies and they don’t find SMBHs at the heart of dwarf galaxies. There’s an established link between SMBHs and their host galaxies, especially massive ellipticals like LRG 3-757. This study strengthens that link.

The research focuses on what’s called the MBH-sigmae Relation. It’s the relationship between an SMBH’s mass and the velocity dispersion of the stars in the galactic bulge. Velocity dispersion (sigmae) is a measurement of the speed of the stars and how much they vary around the average speed. The higher the velocity dispersion, the faster and more randomly the stars move.

When astronomers examine galaxies, they find that the more massive the SMBH, the greater the velocity dispersion. The relationship suggests a deep link between the evolution of galaxies and the growth of SMBHs. The correlation between an SMBH’s mass and its galaxy’s velocity dispersion is so tight that astronomers can get a good estimate of the SMBH’s mass by measuring the velocity dispersion.

However, the UMBH in the Cosmic Horseshoe is more massive than the MBH-sigma e Relation suggests.

“It is expected that the most massive galaxies in the Universe, such as brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), host the most massive SMBHs,” the authors write. Astronomers have found many UMBHs in these galaxies, including LRG 3-757. “Nonetheless, the significance of these UMBHs lies in the fact that
many of them deviate from the standard linear MBH?sigmae relation” the researchers explain.

LRG 3-757 deviates significantly from the correlation. “Our findings place the Cosmic Horseshoe ~1.5 sigma above the MBH?sigmae relation, supporting an emerging trend observed in BGCs and other massive galaxies,” the authors write. “This suggests a steeper MBH?sigmae relationship at the highest masses, potentially driven by a different co-evolution of SMBHs and their host galaxies.”

This figure from the research shows the relationship between the SMBH mass and the host effective
velocity dispersion. The black solid line represents the relation from previous research in 2016, with dashed and dotted lines showing the 1 sigma and 3 sigma scatter, respectively. Horseshoe is labelled and clearly deviates from established relationship. The other galaxies labelled nearby also contain UMBHs that deviate significantly. Image Credit: Melo-Carneiro et al. 2025.

What’s behind this decoupling of the MBH?sigmae relation in massive galaxies? Some stars might have been removed from the galaxy in past mergers, affecting the velocity dispersion.

LRG 3-757 could be part of a fossil group, according to the authors. “The lens of the Horseshoe is unique in that is at ? = 0.44 and that has no comparably massive companion galaxies — it is likely a fossil group,” they write.

Fossil groups are large galaxy groups that feature extremely large galaxies in their centers, often LRGs. Fossil groups and LRGs represent a late stage of evolution in galaxies where activity has slowed. Few stars form in LRGs so they’re “red and dead.” There’s also little to no interaction between galaxies.

“Fossil groups, as remnants of early galaxy mergers, may follow distinct evolutionary pathways compared to local galaxies, potentially explaining the high BH mass,” the authors write.

LRG 3-757 could’ve experienced what’s called “scouring.” Scouring can occur when two extremely massive galaxies merge and affects the velocity dispersion of stars in the galaxy’s center. “In this process, the
binary SMBHs dynamically expel stars from the central regions of the merged galaxy, effectively reducing the stellar velocity dispersion while leaving the SMBH mass largely unchanged,” the authors explain.

Another possibility is black hole/AGN feedback. When black holes are actively feeding they’re called Active Galactic Nuclei. Powerful jets and outflows from AGN can quench star formation and possibly alter the central structure of the galaxy. That could decouple the growth of the SMBH from the velocity dispersion.

Artist view of an active supermassive black hole and its powerful jets. Image Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

“A third scenario posits that such UMBH could be remnants of extremely luminous quasars, which experienced rapid SMBH accretion episodes in the early Universe,” the authors write.

The researchers say that more observations and better models are needed “to explain the scatter in the ?BH ? sigma e relation at its upper end.”

More observations are on the way thanks to the Euclid mission. “The Euclid mission is expected to discover hundreds of thousands of lenses over the next five years,” the authors write in their conclusion. The Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will also contribute by allowing more detailed dynamical studies of the velocity dispersion.

“This new era of discovery promises to deepen our understanding of galaxy evolution and the interplay between baryonic and DM components,” the authors conclude.

The post One of the Most Massive Black Holes in the Universe Lurks at the Center of the Cosmic Horsehoe appeared first on Universe Today.

In the summer of 2022, the journal Nature Human Behavior put out a notice that it could reject articles that were “stigmatizing” or “harmful” to different groups, regardless of the scientific content. The problems with this stand, which were immediately called out by Steve Pinker, Michael Shermer, and others, is that what is seen as stigmatizing or harmful is pretty much a subjective matter, and, as Pinker tweeted:

I think the journal and its editor were taken aback by this and similar reactions to their statements, and on Day 2 of our USC conference on Science and Ideology in January, the Chief Editor of the journal, Stavroula Kousta, walked back their statement a bit in here 24-minute talk (go here to here her talk; it’s the first one on the video).

But the walking-back didn’t mean that Nature Human Behavior was becoming less woke. Indeed, it just published a ridiculously repetitive and trite paper about how science needs “allyship” to produce a “diverse, equitable, and inclusive academia.” It’s not that STEM isn’t seeking a diversity of groups and viewpoints—though, inevitably, “diversity” in their sense means “diversity of race or sex”—but that this article says absolutely nothing new about the issue. What the journal published now is a prime example of virtue-flaunting that, in the end accomplish nothing.  You can read it by clicking on the screenshot below (it should be free with the legal Unpaywall app), and you can get the pdf here.

The piece begins with the usual claim of “harm”: the same issue that the same journal discussed before:

In academia, despite recent progress towards diversity, biases and microaggressions can still exclude and harm members of disadvantaged social groups.

The person who sent me this article wrote “No citations are given for this claim about bigotry and discrimination at the most liberal, open, welcoming institutions that have ever existed in human history. Amazing.”

The article then gives these figures, which are baffling because one would expect younger women to drop out more rather than less frequently. But they may be correct; I am just not sure that they reflect misogyny:

Such patterns of marginalization are not specific to students. Among US faculty members, for example, women are 6%, 10% and 19% more likely to leave each year than their men counterparts as assistant, associate and full professors, respectively.

I suspect that these departures have little to do with ongoing “structural bias” against women academics, not only because no instances of inbuilt structural bias are actually given, but also, at least for women, a big and recent review by Ceci et al. found either no bias against women’s achievements in academic science or a female advantage—save for teaching evaluations and a slight difference in salary, about 3.6% lower salary for women.   However, the authors do not dismiss the possibility and importance of bias against women.

At any rate, if you haven’t heard come across this advice about “allyship” before, and are an academic, you must be blind and deaf. I’m not going to reprise the paper for you, as you’ve heard it all before.

I’m assuming that well-meaning people agree with me that marginalized scientists should be treated just like everyone else.  But how many times do we need to hear that? At any rate, this paper rings the chimes again, singling out six areas where we’re told how to behave. These are direct quotes.

1.) Listen to and centre marginalized voices.

2.) Reflect on and challenge your own biases (I guess you determine them by taking an “implicit bias” test, a procedure that’s been severely criticized

3.)  Speak up to include and support disadvantaged groups

4.)  Speak out against bias when it happens

5.)  Advocate for institutional initiatives to promote equity and inclusion

6.)  Dismantle institutional policies and procedures of exclusion

#4 and #6 are no-brainers, though, speaking personally, I don’t know of any institutional policies and procedures of exclusion in biology.  The rest are ideological statements assuming that everyone except for the marginalized is biased, and that the way to achieve inclusion is to promote “equity” (do they even know what “equity” means?) And, of course, the entire program reflects the tenets of DEI, which are on the chopping block in the U.S.

Now this article isn’t as bad as ones on feminist glaciology or ones maintaining that Einstein’s principle of covariance supports the view that minorities have an equal claim to objectivity..  No, it’s just superfluous, a farrago of what decent human beings already do, misleading assertions about bias, mixed with patronizing advice that we already follow. It accomplishes nothing save further erode the credibility of editor Kousta.

Here’s the conclusion:

For allyship to be effective in academia, it must be grounded in a deep commitment to DEI. This means recognizing that allyship is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process of learning, reflection and action. Moreover, it needs to go above and beyond symbolic or superficial acts (performative allyship) to demonstrate substantial and meaningful support that is recognized as beneficial by those it is meant to serve (substantive allyship). It is noteworthy to understand and accept that we will make mistakes along the way. No one is perfect, and as explained above, allyship requires a willingness to engage in humility and self-reflection. When mistakes are made, it is important to listen to feedback from disadvantaged groups, take responsibility for any harm caused, and commit to doing better in the future.

In conclusion, everyone can engage in allyship and work to challenge and dismantle systemic bias, creating a more just, equitable and inclusive academic community for all.

At least they used “equitable” properly, meaning “treating people fairly.”  But couldn’t the whole article have consisted of just that sentence?

Preserved wooden spears from hundreds of thousands of years ago seem to have been suitable for throwing, not just close-range attacks

The site of a deep-sea mining test in 1979 had lower levels of biodiversity when researchers revisited it in 2023 compared with undisturbed areas nearby

When I first investigated the sharp rise in human deaths due to dogs in the UK, I did not expect the fast-paced chain of events it would spur. A month after publishing a blog post on the dramatic rise in maimings and deaths due to dogs and the single breed that accounted for this unprecedented change, I was asked by the head of a victims’ group to run a campaign to ban the American Bully XL breed in England. From the outset, I was told that such action, from an inactive government, was essentially impossible—one person involved in politics told me I would need to “make it a national issue” before the government would ever consider hearing our concerns, let alone acting on them. Thanks to a small group of dedicated people, relentless persistence and focus on our goal, just 77 days after starting the campaign, the British Prime Minister announced the implementation of our policy to the nation.

The ban was overwhelmingly popular with the public and remains so to this day. Indeed, in recent polling on the chief achievements of the now ex-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the American Bully XL ban was ranked by the public tied for 4th place—higher than a significant tax cut and above increased childcare provision. Why? The British public is known for its love of dogs. Indeed, I have a dog and have grown up with dogs. Why would I spearhead such a campaign?

The Horrifying Problem

It is common to start these kinds of articles with a kind of emotive, engaging story designed to appeal to the reader. I have tried writing such an introduction, but the stories are so horrifying I cannot begin to describe them. Whether it’s the 10-year-old Jack Lis, mauled to death and having injuries so horrific that his mother cannot shake the image from her mind at every moment she closes her eyes, or a 17-month-old girl that lost her life in the most unimaginably terrible circumstances, the stories, the pain of the parents, and the horrifying last moments of those children’s lives are beyond comprehension.

In the past three years, the number of fatal dog attacks in the UK has increased dramatically.1 Between 2001 and 2021 there were an average of 3.3 fatalities per year—with no year reaching above 6. In 2022, 10 people were killed, including 4 children. Optimistic assumptions that 2022 was an outlier did not last and by the summer of 2023, there had already been 5 fatalities. This pattern continued throughout the year. A day before the ban was announced, a man lost his life to two dogs. He had been defending his mother from an attack, and was torn apart in his garden, defending her. A video surfaced online showing people attempting to throw bricks at the animals, but they continued to tear him apart, undaunted. Later in 2023, after the ban was announced, another man was killed by a Bully XL while walking his own dog. In 2024, even after the ban, the owners that have chosen to keep Bully XLs under the strict new conditions, face the threat within their home. As of this writing, two people have died: one, an elderly woman looking after the dogs for her son; the other an owner torn to pieces by the dogs she had raised from puppies.

These are “just” fatalities. Non-lethal dog attacks on humans, often resulting in life-changing injuries, are also on the rise, increasing from 16,000 in 2018, to 22,000 in 2022, and hospitalizations have almost doubled from 4,699 in 2007 to 8,819 in 2021/22, a trend that continued in 2022/23 with 9,342 hospitalizations.2, 3 These cases make for difficult reading. Seventy percent of injuries on children were to the head; nearly 1 in 3 required an overnight stay. In Liverpool (a city of 500,000), there are 4–7 dog bites a week, with most injuries to the face. One doctor recounted dealing with a “near-decapitation.” In 2023 in London, the police were dealing with one dangerous dog incident per day.4 We do not have reliable data on dogs attacking other dogs and pets, but I would wager those have increased as well.

Yet, despite an increase in both the human and dog populations of the UK over the past four decades, fatalities have remained consistently low until just a few short years ago.

What’s going on?

Looking through the list of fatal dog attacks in the UK, a pattern becomes clear.5, 6 In 2021, 2 of the 4 UK fatalities were from a breed known as the American Bully XL. In 2022, 5 out of 10 were American Bullies.7 In 2023, 5 fatalities of 9 were from American Bullies. In 2024, 2 of 3 deaths so far are from American Bully XLs kept by owners after the ban. In other words, without American Bullies, the dog fatalities list would drop to 5 for 2022 (within the usual consistent range we’ve seen for the past four decades), 4 for 2023 and 1 for 2024 so far.

Hospitalizations have almost doubled from 4,699 in 2007 to 8,819 in 2021/22, a trend that continued in 2022/23 with 9,342 hospitalizations. Seventy percent of injuries on children were to the head.

Again, this is “just” fatalities. We do not have accurate recordings of all attacks, but a concerning indication arises from Freedom of Information requests to police forces from across the UK. In August of 2023, 30 percent of all dogs seized by police—often due to violent attacks—were American Bullies. To put this in context, the similarly large Rottweiler breed accounted for just 2 percent.

This pattern is seen elsewhere, in one other breed, the Pitbull—a very, very close relative of the American Bully. In the U.S., for example, 60–70 percent of dog fatalities are caused by Pitbulls and Pitbull crosses.8 The very recent relatives of the American Bully are also responsible for the vast majority of dog-on-dog aggression (including bites, fatalities, etc.).9 In the Netherlands, the majority of dogs seized by police for dog attacks on other dogs were Pitbull types.10 The same is true nearly anywhere you look. In New York City, Pitbulls were responsible for the highest number of bites in 2022.11

Despite these figures, both in the UK and internationally, and the recent media attention dog attacks have received, if you were to argue that a breed was dangerous, you would receive significant pushback from owners, activists, and even animal charity organizations stating that it is the owner’s fault. But this is wrong. While many would contend that “it’s the owner, not the breed,” the reality is different.

Designing Our Best Friend

Dogs—unlike humans—have been bred for various, very specific traits. Their traits, appearance, and behavior has been directed in a way comparable to how we’ve molded plant and other animal life over thousands of years. Watermelons and bananas used to be mostly seed; now they’re mostly flesh. Chickens were not always raised for their meat; now they are. These weren’t the natural course of evolution, but the result of humans intentionally directing evolution through deliberate cultivation or breeding. Modern-day dogs are very clearly also a result of such directed breeding.

Broadly speaking, we selected dogs for traits that are very much unlike those of wolves. Unlike their wolf ancestors, dogs are, broadly, naturally loyal to humans, even beyond preserving their own lives and those of other dogs. Indeed, a trait such as this in dogs might actually have caused some of the original aesthetic changes to their original wolf-like appearance. When Russian scientists bred foxes over generations for “tameness” to humans, they found the foxes began to have different colored fur, floppy ears, and to look, well, more like domestic dogs (though there is some debate on this).

Each dog breed has deep underlying propensities, desires, and drives for which we have selected them for generations. A key responsibility of dog ownership is to know your dog’s breed, understand its typical traits, and prepare for them. Not all individual dogs will exhibit these breed-specific traits, but most do, to varying degrees. Some hound breeds (Whippets, Greyhounds, etc.) have a prey drive and will chase or even try to kill small animals such as rabbits, even if those animals are kept as pets. Some breed-specific behavior can be trained out, but much of it can’t. Form follows function—breed-specific behavior has driven physical adaptations. Relative to other breeds, they have great vision (aptly, Greyhounds and Whippets belong to the type of dogs called “sighthounds”) and bodies that are lean and aerodynamic, with a higher ratio of muscle to fat relative to most other breeds, making them among the fastest animals on the planet, with racing Greyhounds reaching speeds up to 45 mph (72 km/h). Like many other hound breeds, they are ancient, bred for centuries to seek comfort in humans and to hunt only very specific animals, whether small vermin for Whippets and Greyhounds, or deer and wolves for the, well, Deerhounds and Wolfhounds. Hounds make fine family pets, having been bred to be highly affectionate to humans, as after all, you don’t want your hunting dog attacking you or your family.

Labradors love to retrieve—especially in water, much to the displeasure of their owners who all too often find them diving into every puddle they encounter on their daily walks. Pointers point. Border Collies herd, and as many owners would note, their instinct can be so strong that they often herd children in their human family. Cocker Spaniels will run through bushes, nose to the ground, looking as if they are tracking or hunting even when just playing—even when they have never been on a hunt of any kind. Dogs are not the way they are by accident but, quite literally, by design.

Designing Bully-type Dogs

Bulldogs were originally bred to be set on a bull, and indiscriminately injure and maim the much larger animal until it died. (These dogs were longer-legged and much more agile and healthier than today’s English Bulldog breed—bred specifically for their now nonfunctional squat appearance.) After the “sport” of bull baiting was banned, some of these dogs were instead locked in a pen with large numbers of rats and scored on how many they could kill in a specified time, with often significant wagers placed on picking the winners. This newer “sport” required greater speed and agility, so the bulldogs of that time were interbred with various terriers to produce what were originally called, naturally, “Bull and Terriers.” From these would eventually come today’s Pitbull Terriers.

In addition to this, some of the early Bull and Terriers began to be used for yet another “sport,” and one on which significant amounts of money were wagered—dog fighting. These were bred specifically for aggression. Two of these dogs would be put together in a closed pit to fight until only one came out alive. During their off hours, these fighting dogs were mostly kept in cages, away from humans. The winners, often seriously wounded themselves, were bred for their ability to kill the other dog before it could kill them. They were not bred for loyalty to humans—these were dogs bred for indiscriminate, sustained, and brutal violence in the confined quarters of the dog pit (hence the name, Pitbull Terrier).

This explains why Pitbulls are responsible for 60–70 percent of deaths to dogs in the U.S. It is not—as some advocates state—a function of size. There are many larger and stronger breeds. Pitbulls are not the largest or the strongest dog breed, but—combined with their unique behavioral traits—they are large enough and strong enough to be the deadliest.

While Pitbull and some Pitbull-type breeds have been banned in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the American Bully XL was permitted due to a loophole in the law—simply put, this new breed exceeded physical characteristics of the banned breeds to the point they no longer applied under the law. It is that loophole that resulted in the recent rise of the American Bully XL, and the violence attendant to it.

(In)Breeding the American Bully XL

American Bully XLs are the heavyweight result of breeds born out of brutal human practices that sculpted generations of dogs. The foundational stock for American Bully XLs were bred for terrifying violence and we should not be surprised to find that this new, more muscular and larger version still exhibits this same propensity. It is not the dogs’ fault any more than it is the fault of sighthounds to chase squirrels, or pointers to point. But that does not change the reality.

The American Bully began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At least one line started from champion “game dogs,” bred to endure repeated severe maiming and still continue to fight to the deadly end. To be a champion they must have killed at least one other dog in brutal combat. To further increase their size and strength, these game dogs were then bred with each other and with other Pitbulls.

The UK original breeding stock that produced Bully XLs is extremely small. An investigation from one member of our campaign uncovered an absurd, awful reality: that at least 50 percent of American Bullies advertised for sale in the UK could trace their immediate or close lineage to one line and one single dog: Killer Kimbo.12, 13

Killer Kimbo was infamous in Bully breeding circles. He was a huge animal and the result of extreme levels of inbreeding to create his mammoth size. He was so inbred that he had the same great grandfather four times over. It is this dog that has given rise to one of the most popular bloodlines within the UK.

And what has been the result of heavily inbreeding dogs originating from fighting stock? While precise data are difficult to collect, at least one of Killer Kimbo’s offspring is known to have killed someone; other breeders recount stories of his offspring trying to attack people in front of them. At least one death in the UK is a second-generation dog from Killer Kimbo stock. These are the dogs that were advertised and promoted as if they just looked large but had been bred responsibly for temperament.

Indeed, many families bought these dogs thinking these were gentle giants—many have kept them even after the impositions of the ban, believing that a dog’s behavior is set only by their owners. After his own mother was killed by the Bullies he had kept, one owner in 2024 said:14

I did not know bullys were aggressive, I didn’t believe all this stuff about the bullys [being dangerous]. But now I’ve learned the hard way and I wish I’d never had nothing to do with bullys, they’ve ruined my life and my son’s life.I honestly thought the ban was a stupid government plan to wipe out a breed which I had never seen anything but softness and love from … Now I think they need to be wiped out.

In fact, the breed was genetically constructed from fighting stock, inbred repeatedly for greater size and strength, shipped over to the UK skirting the Pitbull ban, and then advertised to families as if these dogs were the result of years of good breeding.

The Nanny Dog

In the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has argued that no breeds are more inherently dangerous than others and leads a coalition to stop any breed bans, including the campaign to “Ban the Bully.” This is despite the fact that the RSPCA itself would not insure American Bullies on their own insurance policies, and that they separately advocate for the banning of cat breeds they consider to be too dangerous.

The UK Bully Kennel Club (not to be confused with the similar sounding UK Kennel Club) describes the American Bully XL as having a “gentle personality and loving nature.” While the United Kennel Club does not recognize the American Bully XL breed, it describes the wider breed (i.e., not the XL variant) as “gentle and friendly,” and goes even a step further, recommending that the breed “makes an excellent family dog.” Again, the XL variant of this breed is responsible for the most fatalities of any dog breed in the UK in recent years, including for killing several children.

Even more troubling is the fact that well-intentioned and potentially good owners are left at a severe disadvantage by the statements of advocates for Pitbulls and American Bullies. If an owner is aware of the breed’s past and the risks in their behaviors, they are far more likely to be able to anticipate issues and control the dog. For example, hound owners are generally aware that they will often have to emphasize recall in their dogs or keep them on a lead in non-fenced areas to prevent them from running off to chase squirrels or other small animals—it is a well-advertised trait. These preventive measures are taken very early, far before the dog may even be interested in chasing. However, owners of American Bullies would not be aware of the breed’s past were they to rely on the supportive advertising descriptions. They were actively told, from sources all over, that American Bullies are naturally good with kids and family, that they are naturally non-violent, and don’t pose any risk. Positive descriptions of American Bullies (and their XL variety) de-emphasized their violent tendencies and ran the very real risk of obfuscating future owners as to the aggressive traits of this breed and so prevented owners from correctly understanding and therefore controlling their dog appropriately.

This encouraged ignorance from owners who are ill-equipped to handle their dog, such as the owner that saw her dog “Cookie-Doe” (related to Killer Kimbo) kill her father-in-law by ripping apart his leg. Her response? It wasn’t an aggressive dog, it just liked to “play too rough.” But for every owner like this, there are other experienced, diligent owners that nevertheless find themselves, or their children, under attack from one of these dogs.

Worse still is the nickname of “nanny dog.” There is a myth among advocates for the breed that Pitbulls were once known as “nanny dogs” for their loyalty to children in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this isn’t true. The name originates from Staffordshire Bull Terriers (not Pitbulls) that were named “nursemaid dogs” in a 1971 New York Times piece. There is no evidence of “nanny dog” or similar descriptions before this. Stories of 19th or early 20th century origins for the nickname are likely the result of advocates wanting to believe in a more family-oriented origin for the breed, rather than the cruel reality.

We should not blame the dog breed for how they were bred, maintained, and for what they were selected for. They were bred out of cruel origins, inbred repeatedly, still face ear cropping, and some find themselves owned by individuals who select dogs for their ability to intimidate and attack. Nevertheless, none of this changes that violent, aggressive nature that has resulted from generations of breeding specifically for it.

(Some) Owners Bear Blame Too

American Bully XLs were not cheap, and this only began to change when our campaign started in full. At the lower end, they cost about the same as other dogs, but at the very higher end of the price range they were some of the most expensive dogs you could buy. Golden Retrievers, the archetypical family dog, are so desired that it is common for breeders to have long waiting lists for litters yet to be conceived. A typical cost for a Golden Retriever in the UK is around $2,600. American Bullies, at the height of their popularity, cost as much as $4,000 per puppy. The higher-end puppies were often accompanied by graphics involving violent metaphors and text written in horror movie-type “blood” fonts.

Given this kind of marketing, what did some prospective owners think they were purchasing? Indeed, it bears asking what kind of owners were prepared to pay vast sums for a dog advertised in such a way. These dogs were clearly a status symbol for many—a large, aggressive, powerful animal to be used either for intimidation or self-defense. It is for this reason that many owners have their dog’s ears cropped to look yet more aggressive, a practice illegal under UK law, but still nonetheless practiced. Cropping ears and tails actually serves a purpose—though a brutal one. The other dog cannot bite on to the ear or tail and so gain control of its rival. The old bull baiting dogs used to go after the bull’s ears and noses. Cropping also prevents a human, engaged in defending themselves from a dog attack, from grabbing the tail or ears and using them to sling the dog off or up against a wall. This explains the popularity of these dogs, altered in such a way, amongst drug dealers and others involved in crime.

Opposition

The politics of banning the American Bully proved difficult. It took a public campaign both to convince a government that was generally averse to actions of any kind; as well as to stop the continued influence of a coalition of charities that was opposing any and all breed bans. These charities included the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, the UK Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and others.

It might seem strange that these charities could argue against any breed bans, given the figures in fatalities from Bullies. Not only this, but these same charities supported the return of the Pitbull to the UK, even despite the decades of startling figures on their dramatic overrepresentation in fatalities.

The reason for this is simple. There is no way to split fatality data so that it is favorable to Pitbulls (or, recently, XL Bullies). Instead, the charities focus chiefly on a different measure: bites.15 This measure enables charities to claim that there is a problem with a great many dog breeds such as Labradors—which, in some calculations, bite the most people. On this measure, a mauling from a Bully XL that rips a child’s throat, or tears away an adult’s arm, and a bite on the hand from a chihuahua count the same: they are each one bite.

It isn’t necessary to outline how inadequate and bankrupt this measure is. It is a shame on this entire sector that this was considered anything more than a smokescreen. It is, in my view, a true scandal that has provided a great deal of unintended cover for horrifying breeding practices, which in turn resulted in the horrific deaths of pets, adults, and children. Dog bites are not the public’s (or owners) chief concern: it is maulings, hospitalizations, and deaths. That is what we should focus on, and until the advocacy sector does so, it does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Banning the Breed

England and Wales have banned several breeds since the early 1990s. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 first banned Pitbulls, and then was amended to ban a further three breeds. The Act required little more than the signature of the relevant Secretary of State to add a new breed to the banned list. This Act prohibits the buying, selling, breeding, gifting, or otherwise transferring the ownership of any dog of a banned breed. All dogs in that breed are to be registered, neutered, as well as leashed and muzzled at all times in public. Not doing so or failing to register a dog of a banned breed, is a criminal offense.

When the XL Bully ban was announced, all owners were given a few months to register their dogs, neuter them, and then muzzle and leash them in public. They were forbidden to sell them, give them away or abandon them. Scotland—as a devolved nation within the United Kingdom—announced they would not ban the American Bully, and this resulted in a great many Bullies being sent to Scotland to escape the ban. Within two weeks, and after a couple of prominent attacks, the Scottish government made a legal U-turn and announced a ban. When the new Northern Ireland government formed, their first act was to ban the American Bully.

The Effects of the Ban

The strength of the ban is twofold. On one hand, Bullies are less of a danger to pets and people than they were previously. They must now be muzzled and leashed in public—or owners face seizure of the dog by police and criminal sentences for themselves. However, as has been seen in recent months, this does not change the risk to owners or those that visit their homes. Allowing registered dogs to be kept by their owners means that this risk persists. It is a risk from which the public is shielded, however, it remains one that owners and those that visit them choose to take upon themselves.

The other and key strength of the ban is in the future. Stopping the breeding and trading of Bullies means that there is a timer on their threat within Britain. They will not continue to future generations. We will not have to see more and more Bully variants, and yet worse breeding practices as breeders chase the latest trend, inbreeding for a particular coat color, the ever-increasing sizes, or the propensity for violence. Children will not have to be mauled; other dogs will not have to be ripped apart. We chose to stop this.

From the perspective of complex systems, the study reveals the universality, specificity, and explanatory power of underlying rules governing urban system evolution.

Scientists have developed an AI-powered tool that detects 64% of brain abnormalities linked to epilepsy that human radiologists miss.

For as long as I can remember, espionage has fascinated me. Over the years, I’ve developed a certain expertise—at least in the pop culture sense—interviewing former spies for publications ranging from The Washington Post to, well, Playboy. I even once worked as a researcher at an international investigative firm, a job that, regrettably, involved fewer trench coats and shadowy rendezvous than one might hope. But I did walk away with a highly marketable skill: knowing how to conduct a proper background check (one never knows when that might prove useful).

Spies have long been the pillars of Hollywood storytelling, woven into thrilling tales of intrigue, and deception. But what is it about them that keeps us so enthralled? I’d argue that our obsession stems from an innate desire to know what is hidden from us. Secrets are power, and in a world increasingly shaped by information, nothing is more seductive than the idea of being the one in the know.

Secrets are power, and in a world increasingly shaped by information, nothing is more seductive than the idea of being the one in the know.

But while James Bond is synonymous with adrenaline filled action and shaken-but-not-stirred glamour, in real life, intelligence work is usually rather mundane and bureaucratic. More along the lines of painstaking, systematic data gathering and staring for hours at your screen, rather than the dramatic fight sequences we’ve been conditioned to associate with spycraft through the media. In other words, making sense of what’s going on is often hard, dull work.

Making sense of what’s going on is often hard, dull work.

We have never had more access to information, yet somehow, we understand less. The sheer volume of data is overwhelming—no single person can process even a fraction of it—so we outsource the task to algorithms, aggregators, and search engines with their own opaque filtration systems. In theory, social media should expose us to a diversity of perspectives, but in practice, its algorithms ensure we’re served more of what we already believe, cocooning us in ideological comfort.

We like to think of Google, X, Facebook, and even ChatGPT as neutral tools, but neutrality is an illusion. These platforms, intentionally or not, prioritize engagement over accuracy, outrage over nuance, and emotional provocation over intellectual depth. Further, the speed at which information spreads tends to outpace our ability to critically analyze it. Misinformation, half-truths, and emotionally charged narratives circulate rapidly, shaping perceptions before facts can be verified. In this landscape, false stories are 70 percent more likely to be shared than true ones and travel six times faster. Eager to engage in the conversation as it happens, we jump in before having even had sufficient time to process the “latest thing.” Our public discourse is shaped not by careful reasoning but by knee-jerk reactions.

Social media should expose us to a diversity of perspectives, but in practice, its algorithms ensure we’re served more of what we already believe.

Then there’s the growing crisis of trust in media. As per Gallup, Americans’ trust in mass media remains at a record low, with only 31% expressing confidence in its accuracy and fairness in 2024. Trust first dropped to 32% in 2016 and has remained low. For the third year in a row, more Americans (36%) have no trust at all in the media than those who trust it. Another 33% have little confidence. Contrast this with 72% of Americans trusting newspapers in 1976, after Watergate.

Trust in mass media remains at a record low. What is behind this erosion? A cocktail of inaccuracies, overt ideological bias, viewpoint discrimination, the weaponization of fact-checking, and outright censorship.

What is behind this erosion? A cocktail of inaccuracies, overt ideological bias, viewpoint discrimination, the weaponization of fact-checking, and outright censorship has pushed many toward alternatives: independent media, podcasters, influencers, social media, and, naturally, grifters. Yet rejecting legacy media in favor of these alternatives is often a case of leaping from the frying pan into the fire. There’s a common misconception that because something isn’t mainstream, it must be more truthful—but plenty of these new voices are just as ideologically captured, if not more so, with even fewer guardrails against deception and little investment in accuracy. Many embrace them because they mistake truthfulness for ideological alignment. Paradoxically, many have embraced the idea that “we are the media now,” a phrase frequently echoed by Elon Musk and his admirers on X—even as they repost news from the very mainstream outlets they claim are now irrelevant, and even, “dead.”

Rejecting legacy media in favor of these alternatives is often a case of leaping from the frying pan into the fire.

We are living in the middle of an information battlefield, where reality itself feels up for debate. What’s legitimate news, and what’s an AI-generated psyop? Who’s a real person, and who’s a bot designed to amplify division? How much of what we read is organic, and how much is algorithmically nudged into our feeds? And then there are also state-sponsored disinformation campaigns added to the mix—with countries like Russia, Iran, China, and yes, even the United States deploying fake news sites, deepfakes, and coordinated social media operations to manipulate global narratives.

Russia, Iran, China, and yes, even the United States deploy fake news sites and coordinated social media operations to manipulate global narratives.

In this environment, conspiracy theories thrive. People don’t fall down rabbit holes at random—there are certain preconditions that make them susceptible. Institutional distrust is a major factor, and right now, faith in institutions is in free fall, whether it’s the government, the courts, or the medical establishment. Many people feel betrayed. Add in alienation and social disconnection, and you have the perfect recipe for radicalization. The irony, of course, is that while conspiracy thinking is often framed as a form of skepticism about official narratives, it frequently results in an even greater willingness to believe in something—just not the official story.

Faith in institutions is in free fall, whether it’s the government, the courts, or the medical establishment. Many people feel betrayed.

Not all people become full blown conspiracy theorists, of course, but we can see how conspiratorial thinking has taken root. But then again, perhaps we are simply seeing this phenomenon because social media lets us see people we might have otherwise never come in contact with? What we do know is that people have a high need for certainty and control when times are uncertain, so they become more prone towards believing false things because they no longer trust institutions that they once might have.

The fragmentation of media consumption means that reaching people with authoritative information has never been more difficult. Everyone is living in a slightly different version of reality, dictated by the platforms they frequent and the sources they trust. And because attention spans have collapsed, many don’t even make it past the headlines before forming an opinion. When everything is engineered to make us feel angry, polarized, scared, and reactionary, how can we stay nuanced, critical, open-minded, and objective? How can we be more truth-seeking in a world where everyone seems to have their own version of the truth on tap?

Everyone is living in a slightly different version of reality, dictated by the platforms they frequent and the sources they trust.

A recent controversy over a certain billionaire’s hand gesture provided a perfect case study in perception bias. We all saw the same video. To some, Elon Musk’s movement was undeniably a Nazi salute. To others, it was merely an overzealous gesture made to express “my heart goes out to you.” Few people remained undecided. The fact that two groups could witness the exact same footage and walk away with diametrically opposed conclusions is a testament to how much our prior beliefs shape our perception of reality and speaks to the difficulty of uniting people behind a single understanding of reality. Psychologists call this phenomenon, “motivated perception.” We often see what we expect to see, rather than what’s actually there.

So in this landscape, what is it that grounds me? It all comes down to a simple question: How much of what I believe is based on evidence, and how much is just my own emotions, assumptions, and attempts to connect the dots? What is it that I really know? Very often in life, we imagine what something might be, rather than seeing it for what it is.

In a world where narratives compete for dominance, my goal is not to add another, but to cut to the core of what is verifiable and likely to be true.

With this new column at Skeptic, my aim is to strip away the noise in front of the headlines and get to the core of what is verifiable and true. I have no interest in reinforcing anyone’s preconceived notions—including my own. The only way to do that is through curiosity rather than confirmation. In a world where narratives compete for dominance, my goal is not to add another, but to cut to the core of what is verifiable and likely to be true. It’s easy to be swayed by emotion, to see what we expect rather than what’s in front of us. But the only way forward—the only way to make sense of this fractured information landscape—is to remain committed to facts, no matter where they lead.

I would like to keep my door open to topics you’d like to see me cover, or just feedback and thoughts. Comment below, and feel free to reach out anytime: mysteriouskat[at]protonmail.com

Over the past decade behavioral science, particularly psychology, has come under fire from critics for being fixated on progressive political ideology, most notably Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The critics’ evidence is, unfortunately, quite strong. For example, a recent volume, Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology,1 recounts many incidents of scholarly censorship and personal attacks that a decade ago might have only been conceivable as satire.

We believe that many problems plaguing contemporary behavioral science, especially for issues 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 scientific 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 violates those principles, and offer suggestions for getting behavioral science back on track. “Getting back to the basics” may not sound exciting but, as athletes, musicians, and other performers have long recognized, reinforcing the fundamentals is often the best way to eliminate bad habits in order to then move forward.

The Failure to Adhere to Basic Scientific Principles
Principle #1: Prioritize Objective Data Over Lived Experience

A foundational assumption of science is that objective truth exists and that humans can discover it.2, 3, 4, 5 We do this most effectively by proposing testable ideas about the world, making systematic observations to test the ideas, and revising our ideas based on those observations. A crucial point is that this process of proposing and testing ideas is open to everyone. A fifth grader in Timbuktu, with the right training and equipment, should be able to take atmospheric observations that are as valuable as those of a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from MIT. If the fifth grader’s observations are discounted, this should only occur because their measurement methods were poor, not because of their nationality, gender, age, family name, or any other personal attribute.

A corollary of science being equally open to all is that an individual’s personal experience or “lived experience” carries no inherent weight in claims about objective reality. It is not that lived experience doesn’t have value; indeed, it has tremendous value in that it provides a window into individuals’ perceptions of reality. However, perception can be wildly inaccurate and does not necessarily equate to reality. If that Nobel Prizewinning scientist vehemently disputed global warming because his personal experience was that temperatures have not changed over time, yet he provided no atmospheric measurements or systematic tests of his claim, other scientists would rightly ignore his statements—at least as regards the question of climate change.

The limited utility of a person’s lived experience seems obvious in most scientific disciplines, such as in the study of rocks and wind patterns, but less so in psychology. After all, psychological science involves the study of people—and they think and have feelings about their lived experiences. However, what is the case in other scientific disciplines is also the case in psychological science: lived experience does not provide a foolproof guide to objective reality.

To take an example from the behavioral sciences, consider the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study.6 At-risk boys were mentored for five years, from the ages of 10 to 15. They participated in a host of programs, including tutoring, sports, and community groups, and were given medical and psychiatric care. Decades later, most of those who participated claimed the program had been helpful. Put differently, their lived experience was that the program had a positive impact on their life. However, these boys were not any better in important outcomes relative to a matched group of at-risk boys who were not provided mentoring or extra support. In fact, boys in the program ended up more likely to engage in serious street crimes and, on average, they died at a younger age. The critical point is that giving epistemic authority to lived experience would have resulted in making inaccurate conclusions. And the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study is not an isolated example. There are many programs that people feel are effective, but when tested systematically turn out to be ineffective, at best. These include programs like DARE,7 school-wide mental health interventions,8 and—of course—many diversity training programs.9

DEI over-reach in behavioral science is intimately related to a failure within the scientific community to adhere to basic principles of science and appreciate important findings from the behavioral science literature.

Indeed, when it comes to concerns related to DEI, the scientific tenet of prioritizing testable truth claims over lived experience has often fallen to the wayside. Members of specific identity groups are given privilege to speak about things that cannot be contested by those from other groups. In other words, in direct contradiction of the scientific method, some people are granted epistemic authority based solely on their lived experience.10

Consider gender dysphoria. In the past decade, there has been a drastic increase in the number of people, particularly children and adolescents, identifying as transgender. Those who express the desire to biologically transition often describe their lived experience as feeling “born in the wrong body,” and express confidence that transition will dramatically improve their lives. We argue while these feelings must be acknowledged, they should not be taken as objective truth; instead, such feelings should be weighed against objective data on life outcomes of others who have considered gender transition and/or transitioned. And those data, while limited, suggest that many individuals who identify as transgender during childhood, but who do not medically transition, eventually identify again with the gender associated with their birth sex.11, 12 Although these are small, imperfect studies, they underscore that medical transition is not always the best option.

Photo by Delia Giandeini / Unsplash

Caution in automatically acceding to a client’s preference to transition is particularly important among minors. Few parents and health care professionals would affirm a severely underweight 13-year-old’s claim that, based on their lived experience, they are fat and will only be happy if they lose weight. Nevertheless, many psychologists and psychiatrists make a similar mistake when they affirm a transgender child’s desire to transition without carefully weighing the risks. In one study, 65 percent of people who had detransitioned reported that their clinician, who often was a psychologist, “did not evaluate whether their desire to transition was secondary to trauma or a mental health condition.”13 The concern, in other words, is that lived experience is being given too much weight. How patients feel is important, but their feelings should be only one factor among many, especially if they are minors. Mental health professionals should know this, and parents should be able to trust them to act accordingly.

Principle #2: Measure Well

Another basic principle of behavioral science is that anything being measured must be measured reliably and validly. Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement; validity refers to whether the instrument is truly measuring what it claims to measure. For example, a triple beam balance is reliable if it yields the same value when repeatedly measuring the same object. The balance is valid if it yields a value of exactly 1 kg when measuring the reference kilogram (i.e., the International Prototype of the Kilogram), a platinum-iridium cylinder housed in a French vault under standardized conditions.

Behavioral scientists’ understanding of any concept is constrained by the degree to which they can measure it consistently and accurately. Thus, to make a claim about a concept, whether about its prevalence in a population or its relation to another concept, scientists must first demonstrate both the reliability and the validity of the measure being used. For some measures of human behavior, such as time spent listening to podcasts or number of steps taken each day, achieving good reliability and validity is reasonably straightforward. Things are generally more challenging for the self-report measures that psychologists often use.

Nevertheless, good measurement can sometimes be achieved, and the study of personality provides a nice model. In psychology, there are several excellent measures of the Big Five personality factors (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness).14 Individuals’ responses are highly reliable: people who rate themselves as highly extraverted as young adults rate themselves similarly years later. Moreover, personality assessments are valid: individuals’ responses correlate with their actual day-to-day behaviors, as reported by themselves and as observed by others.15 In other words, people who rate themselves as high (versus low) in extroversion on psychological questionnaires, for example, really do spend more time socializing.

Credit: Simply Psychology

However, not all psychological measures turn out to have solid reliability and validity. These include the popular Myers Briggs Type Indicator personality test and projective tests such as the Rorschach. Unfortunately, in the quest to support DEI, some concepts that fail the requirements of good measurement are used widely and without reservation. The concept of microaggressions, for example, has gained enormous traction despite its having fundamental measurement issues.

“Microaggressions” were brought to psychologists’ attention by Derald Wing Sue and colleagues.16 Originally described as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color” (p. 271),17 the concept has since expanded in use to describe brief, verbal or nonverbal, indignities directed toward a different “other.”18, 19

In 2017, Scott Lilienfeld discussed how the failure to adhere to the principles of good measurement has rendered the concept of microaggression “wide open,” without any clear anchors to reality.20 The primary weakness for establishing validity, that is, for establishing evidence of truly measuring what scientists claim to be measuring, is that “microaggression” is defined in the eye of the beholder.21 Thus, any person at any point can say they have been “microaggressed” against, and no one can test, let alone refute, the claim because it is defined solely by the claimant’s subjective appraisal—their lived experience.

Our criticism of microaggressions, then, spans concerns related to both weak measurement and an undue reliance on lived experience.

As Scott Lilienfeld explained, the end result is that essentially anything, including opposing behaviors (such as calling on a student in class or not calling on a student in class) can be labeled a microaggression. A question such as, “Do you feel like you belong here?” could be perceived as a microaggression by one person but not by someone else; in fact, even the same person can perceive the same comment differently depending on their mood or on who asks the question (which would indicate poor reliability). Our criticism of microaggressions, then, spans concerns related to both weak measurement and an undue reliance on lived experience.

Another of psychology’s most famous recent topics is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which supposedly reveals implicit, or subconscious, bias. The IAT measures an individual’s reaction times when asked to classify pictures or text spatially. A video22 may be the best way to appreciate what is happening in the IAT, but the basic idea is that if a person more quickly pairs pictures of a Black person than those of a White person with a negative word (for example, “lazy” or “stupid”) then they have demonstrated their unconscious bias against Black people. The IAT was introduced by Anthony Greenwald and colleagues in the 1990s.23 They announced that their newly developed instrument, the race IAT, measures unconscious racial prejudice or bias and that 90 to 95 percent of Americans, including many racial minorities, demonstrated such bias. Since then, these scholars and their collaborators (plus others such as DEI administrators) have enjoyed tremendous success advancing the claim that the race IAT reveals pervasive unconscious bias that contributes to society-wide discrimination.

Screenshot from Harvard’s Project Implicit Skin Type Test

Despite its immense influence, the IAT is a flawed measure. Regarding reliability, the correlation between a person’s response when taking the test at two different times hovers around 0.5.24 This is well below conventionally acceptable levels in psychology, and far below the test-retest reliabilities for accepted personality and cognitive ability measures, which can reach around .8, even when a person takes the tests decades later.25, 26

The best path forward is to get back to the basics: understand the serious limitations of lived experience, focus on quality measurement, and be mindful of the distinction between correlation and causation.

As for the IAT’s validity, nobody has convincingly shown that patterns of reaction times actually reflect “unconscious bias” (or “implicit prejudice”) as opposed to cultural stereotypes.27 Moreover, in systematic syntheses of published studies, the association between scores on the race IAT and observations or measurements of real-world biased behavior is inconsistent and weak.28, 29 In other words, scores on the IAT do not meaningfully correlate with other ways of measuring racial bias or real life manifestations of it.

Principle #3: Distinguish Appropriately Between Correlation and Causation

“Correlation does not equal causation” is another basic principle of behavioral science (indeed, all science). Although human brains seem built to readily notice and even anticipate causal connections, a valid claim that “X” has a causal effect on “Y” needs to meet three criteria, and a correlation between X and Y is only the first. The second criterion is that X precedes Y in time. The third and final criterion is the link between X and Y is not actually due to some other variable that influences both X and Y (“confounders”). To test this final point, researchers typically need to show that when X is manipulated in an experiment, Y also changes.

Imagine, for instance, that a researcher asks students about their caffeine intake and sleep schedule, and upon analyzing the data finds that students’ caffeine consumption is negatively correlated with how much they sleep—those who report consuming more caffeine tend to report sleeping less. This is what many psychologists call correlational research (or associational or observational research). These correlational data could mean that caffeine consumption reduces sleep time, but the data could also mean that a lack of sleep causes an increase in caffeine consumption, or that working long hours causes both a decrease in sleep and an increase in caffeine. To make the case that caffeine causes poor sleep, the researcher must impose, by random assignment, different amounts of caffeine on students to determine how sleep is affected by varying doses. That is, the researcher would conduct a true experiment.

Distinguishing between correlation and causation is easier said in the abstract than practiced in reality, even for psychological scientists who are specifically trained to make the distinction.30 Part of the difficulty is that in behavioral science, many variables that are generally thought of as causal cannot be manipulated for ethical or practical reasons. For example, researchers cannot impose neglect (or abuse, corporal punishment, parental divorce, etc.) on some children and not others to study how children are affected by the experience. Still, absent experiments, psychologists bear the responsibility of providing converging, independent lines of evidence that indicate causality before they draw a causal conclusion. Indeed, scientists did this when it came to claiming that smoking causes cancer: they amassed evidence from national datasets with controls, discordant twin designs, correlational studies of exposure to second-hand smoke, non-human experiments, and so on—everything but experiments on humans—before coming to a consensus view that smoking causes cancer in humans. Our point is that investigating causal claims without true experiments is possible, but extremely difficult and time consuming.

The conflation of correlation with causation seems especially prevalent when it comes to DEI issues.

That said, the conflation of correlation with causation seems especially prevalent when it comes to DEI issues. In the context of microaggressions, for example, a Google search quickly reveals many scholars claiming that microaggressions cause psychological harm. Lilienfeld has been a rare voice suggesting that it is dangerous to claim that microaggressions cause mental health issues when there are no experimental data to support such a claim. Moreover, there is a confounding variable that predicts both (1) perceiving oneself as having been “microaggressed” against and (2) struggling with one’s mental health—namely, the well-documented personality trait of neuroticism. In other words, individuals who are prone to experience negative emotions (those who are high in neuroticism) often perceive that more people try to inflict harm on them than actually do, and these same individuals also struggle with mental health.

Assuming we were able to develop a workable definition of “microaggressions,” what would a true experiment look like? An experiment would require that participants be exposed to microaggressions (or not), and then be measured or observed for indications of psychological harm. There are valid ethical concerns for such a study, but we believe it can be done. There is a lengthy precedent in psychological research where temporary discomfort can be inflicted with appropriate safeguards. For instance, a procedure called the “trier social stress test” (TSST) is widely used, where participants make a speech with little preparation time in front of judges who purposefully avoid any non-verbal reaction. This is followed by a mental arithmetic task.31 If the TSST is acceptable for use in research, then it should also be acceptable to expose study participants to subtle slights.

This fallacy of equating correlation with causation also arises in the context of gender transitioning and suicide. To make the point that not being able to transition is deeply damaging, transgender individuals, and sometimes their professional supporters, may ask parents something such as, “would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?” One logical flaw here is in assuming that because gender distress is associated with suicidal ideation, then the gender distress must be causing the suicidal ideation. However, other psychological concerns, such as depression, anxiety, trauma, eating disorders, ADHD, and autism, could be causing both the gender distress and the suicidal ideation—another case of confounding variables. Indeed, these disorders occur more frequently in individuals who identify as transgender. Thus, it is quite possible that someone may suffer from depression, and this simultaneously raises their likelihood of identifying as transgender and of expressing suicidal ideation.

Photo by Uday Mittal / Unsplash

It is not possible (nor would it be ethical if possible) to impose gender identity concerns on some children and not others to study the effect of gender dysphoria on suicidality. However, at this point, the correlational research that does exist has not offered compelling evidence that gender dysphoria causes increased suicidality. Studies have rarely attempted to rule out third variables, such as other mental health diagnoses. The few studies that have tried to control for other variables have yielded mixed results.32, 33 Until researchers have consistently isolated gender dysphoria as playing an independent role in suicidality, they should not claim that gender dysphoria increases suicide risk.

Over three decades ago, the psychologist David Lykken wrote, “Psychology isn’t doing very well as a scientific discipline and something seems to be wrong somewhere” (p. 3).34 Sadly, psychology continues to falter; in fact, we think it has gotten worse. The emotional and moral pull of DEI concerns are understandable but they may have short-circuited critical thinking about the limitations of lived experience, the requirement of using only reliable and valid measurement instruments, and the need to meet strict criteria before claiming that one variable has a causal influence on another variable.

DEI Concepts Contradict Known Findings About Human Cognition

The empirical bases for some DEI concepts contradict social scientific principles. Additionally, certain DEI ideas run counter to important findings about human nature that scientists have established by following the required scientific principles. We discuss three examples below.

1) Out-Group Antipathy

Humans are tribal by nature. We have a long history of living in stable groups and competing against other groups. Thus, it’s no surprise that one of social psychology’s most robust findings is that in-group preferences are powerful and easy to evoke. For example, in studies where psychologists create in-groups and out-groups using arbitrary criteria such as shirt color, adults and children alike have a large preference for their group members.35, 36 Even infants prefer those who are similar to themselves37 and respond preferentially to those who punish dissimilar others.38

Constructive disagreement about ideas should be encouraged rather than leveraged as an excuse to silence those who may see the world differently.

DEI, although generally well-intentioned, often overlooks this tribal aspect of our psychology. In particular, in the quest to confront the historical mistreatment of certain identity groups, it often instigates zero-sum thinking (i.e., that one group owes a debt to another; that one group cannot gain unless another loses). This type of thinking will exacerbate, rather than mitigate, animosity. A more fruitful approach would emphasize individual characteristics over group identity, and the common benefits that can arise when all individuals are treated fairly.

2) Expectancies

When people expect to feel a certain way, they are more likely to experience that feeling.39, 40 Thus, when someone, especially an impressionable teenager or young adult, is told that they are a victim, the statement (even if true) is not merely a neutral descriptor. It can also set up the expectation of victimhood with the downstream consequence of making one feel themselves to be even more of a victim. DEI microaggression workshops may do exactly this—they prime individuals to perceive hostility and negative intent in ambiguous words and actions.41 The same logic applies to more pronounced forms of bigotry. For instance, when Robin DiAngelo describes “uniquely anti-black sentiment integral to white identity” (p. 95),42 the suggestion that White people are all anti-Black might have the effect of exacerbating both actual and perceived racism. Of course, we need to deal honestly with any and all racism when it does exist, but it is also important to understand potential costs of exaggerating such claims. Expectancy effects might interact with the “virtuous victim effect,” wherein individuals perceive victims as being more moral than non-victims.43, 44 Thus, there can be a social value gained simply in presenting oneself as a victim.

3) Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases are one of the most important and well-replicated discoveries of the behavioral sciences. It is therefore troubling that, in the discussion of DEI topics, psychologists often fall victim to those very biases. (If you’re reading this on a desktop computer, be sure to explore the interactive version of the comprehensive chart shown below.)

Credit: Design by John Manoogian III; Categories & Descriptions by Buster Benson; Implementation by TilmannR (CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

A striking example is the American Psychological Association’s (APA) statement shortly after the death of George Floyd, which provides a textbook illustration of the availability bias, the tendency to overvalue evidence that easily comes to mind. The APA, the largest psychological organization in the world, asserted after Floyd’s death that “The deaths of innocent black people targeted specifically because of their race—often by police officers—are both deeply shocking and shockingly routine.”45 How “shockingly routine” are they? According to the Washington Post database of police killings, in 2020 there were 248 Black people killed by police. By comparison, over 6,500 Black people were killed in traffic fatalities that year—a 26-fold difference.46 Also, some portion of those 248 victims were not innocent—given that 216 were armed, some killings would probably have been an appropriate use of force by the police to defend themselves or others. Some portion was also not killed specifically because of their race. So why would the APA describe a relatively rare event as “shockingly routine”? This statement came in the aftermath of the widely publicized police killings of Floyd and those of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. In other words, these rare events were seen as common likely because widespread media coverage made them readily available in our minds.

Unfortunately, the APA also recently fell prey to another well-known bias, the base rate fallacy, where relevant population sizes are ignored. In this case, the APA described new research that found “The typical woman was considered to be much more similar to a typical White woman than a typical Black woman.”47 Although not stated explicitly, the implication seems to be that, absent racism, the typical woman would be roughly midway between typical White woman and typical Black woman. That is an illogical conclusion given base rates. In the U.S., White people outnumber Black people by roughly 5 to 1; hence the typical woman should be perceived as more similar to a typical White woman than to a typical Black woman.

What Happened? Some Possible Causes

At this stage, we expect that many readers may be wondering how it can be that social scientists regularly violate basic scientific principles—principles that are so fundamental that these same social scientists routinely teach them in introductory courses. One possible reason is myside bias, wherein individuals process information in a way that favors their own “team.” For example, in the case of the race Implicit Association Test, proponents of the IAT might more heavily scrutinize the methodology of studies that yield negative results compared to those that have yielded their desired results. Similarly, although lived experience is a limited kind of evidence, it certainly is a source of evidence, and thus scholars may elevate its importance and overlook its limitations when doing so bolsters their personal views.

A related challenge facing behavioral scientists is that cognitive biases are universal and ubiquitous—everyone, including professional scientists, is susceptible.48 In fact, one might say that the scientific method, including the three principles we emphasize here, is an algorithm (i.e., a set of rules and processes) designed to overcome our eternally pervasive cognitive biases.

A third challenge confronting behavioral scientists is the current state of the broader scientific community. Scientific inquiry works best when practiced in a community adhering to a suite of norms, including organized skepticism, that incentivize individuals to call out each other’s poor practices.49, 50 In other words, in a healthy scientific community, if a claim becomes widely adopted without sufficient evidence, or if a basic principle is neglected, a maverick scientist would be rewarded for sounding the alarm by gaining respect and opportunities. Unfortunately, the scientific community does not act this way with respect to DEI issues, perhaps because the issues touch widely held personal values (e.g., about equality between different groups of people). If different scientists held different values, there would probably be more healthy skepticism of DEI topics. However, there is little ideological diversity within the academy. In areas such as psychology, for example, liberal-leaning scholars outnumber conservative-leaning scholars by at least 8 to 1, and in some disciplines the ratio is 20 to 1 or even more.51, 52 A related concern is that these values are more than just personal views. They often seem to function as sacred values, non-negotiable principles that cannot be compromised and only questioned at risk to one’s status within the community.

A related challenge facing behavioral scientists is that cognitive biases are universal and ubiquitous—everyone, including professional scientists, is susceptible.

From this perspective,53 it is easy to see how those who question DEI may well face moral outrage, even if (or maybe especially if) their criticisms are well-founded. The fact that this outrage sometimes translates into public cancellations is extremely disheartening. Yet there are likely even more de facto cancellations than it seems. Someone can be cancelled directly or indirectly. Indirect cancellations can take the form of contract nonrenewal, pressure to resign, or having one’s employer dig for another offense to use as the stated grounds of forcing someone out of their job. This latter strategy is a very subtle, yet no less insidious, method of cancellation. As an analogy, it is like a police officer following someone with an out-of-state license plate and then pulling the car over when they fail to use a turn signal. An offense was committed, but the only reason the offense was observed in the first place is because the officer was looking for a reason to make the stop and therefore artificially enhanced the time window in which the driver was being scrutinized. The stated reason for the stop is failure to signal; the real reason is the driver is from out of town. Whether direct or indirect, the key to a cancellation is that holding the same job becomes untenable after failing to toe the party line on DEI topics.

It is against this backdrop that DEI scholarship is conducted. Academics fear punishment (often subtle) for challenging DEI research. 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 is the breeding ground for bad science.

How to Get Behavioral Science Back on Track

We are not the first ones to express concern about the quality of science in our discipline.54, 55 However, to our knowledge, we are the first to discuss how DEI over-reach goes hand-in-hand with the failure to engage in good science. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed. We offer a few suggestions for improvement.

First, disagreement should be normalized. Advisors should model disagreement by presenting an idea and explicitly asking their lab members to talk about its weaknesses. We need to develop a culture where challenging others’ ideas is viewed as an integral (and even enjoyable) part of the scientific process, and not an ad hominem attack.

Second, truth seeking must be re-established as the fundamental goal of behavioral science. Unfortunately, many academics in behavioral science seem now to be more interested in advocacy than science. Of course, as a general principle, faculty and students should not be restricted from engaging in advocacy. However, this advocacy should not mingle with their academic work; it must occur on their own time. The tension between advocacy and truth seeking is that advocates, by definition, have an a priori position and are tasked with convincing others to accept and then act upon that belief. Truth seekers must be open to changing their opinion whenever new evidence or better analyses demand it.

To that end, we need to resurrect guardrails that hold students accountable for demonstrating mastery of important scientific concepts, including those described above, before receiving a PhD. Enforcing high standards may sound obvious, but actually failing students who do not meet those standards is an exclusionary practice that might be met with resistance.

We need to develop a culture where challenging others’ ideas is viewed as an integral (and even enjoyable) part of the scientific process, and not an ad hominem attack.

Another intriguing solution is to conduct “adversarial collaborations,” wherein scholars who disagree work together on a joint project.56 Adversarial collaborators explicitly spell out their competing hypotheses and together develop a method for answering a particular question, including the measures and planned analyses. Stephen Ceci, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy Williams,57 for example, engaged in an adversarial collaboration that synthesized evidence regarding gender bias in six areas of academic science, including hiring, grant funding, and teacher ratings. They found evidence for gender bias in some areas but not others, a finding that should prove valuable in decisions about where to allocate resources.

Illustration by Izhar Cohen

In conclusion, we suggest that DEI over-reach in behavioral science is intimately related to a failure within the scientific community to adhere to basic principles of science and appreciate important findings from the behavioral science literature. The best path forward is to get back to the basics: understand the serious limitations of lived experience, focus on quality measurement, and be mindful of the distinction between correlation and causation. We need to remember that the goal of science is to discover truth. This requires putting ideology and advocacy aside while in the lab or classroom. Constructive disagreement about ideas should be encouraged rather than leveraged as an excuse to silence those who may see the world differently. The scientific method requires us to stay humble and accept that we just might be wrong. That principle applies to all scientists, including the three authors of this article. To that end, readers who disagree with any of our points should let us know! Maybe we can sort out our differences—and find common ground—through an adversarial collaboration.

The views presented in this article are solely those of the authors. They do not represent the views of any author’s employer or affiliation.

Trigger(nometry) warning: semi-conservative video.

I can’t remember who recommended I watch this video, which features satirist, author, and Triggernometry co-host Konstantin Kisin speaking for 15 minutes at a meeting of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). The group is described by Wikipedia as “an international organisation whose aim is to unite conservative voices and propose policy based on traditional Western values.”

The talk is laced with humor, but the message is serious:  Kisin argues that societies based on “Western values” are the most attractive, as shown by the number of potential immigrants; but they are endangered by the negativity and “lies” of those who tell us that “our history is all bad and our country is plagued by prejudice and intolerance.” To that he replies that people espousing such sentiments still prefer to live in the West. (But of course that doesn’t mean that these factors still aren’t at play in the West!)  Kisin then touts both Elon Musk (for “building big things”) and (oy) Jordan Peterson for “reminding us that our lives will improve if we accept that “honesty is better than lies, that responsibility is better than blame, and strength is better than weakness.”

He continues characterizing the West as special: “the most free and prosperous societies in the history of humanity, and we are going to keep them that way.” To accomplish that, he promotes free speech as the highest of Western values, and rejects identity politics, arguing that “multiethnic societies can work; multicultural societies cannot.” Finally, he claims that human beings are good, denying (as he avers) the woke view that “human beings are a pestilence on the planet.”  Kisin calls for more reproduction and making energy “as cheap and abundant as possible.”

The talk finishes with the most inspiring thing Kising says he’s ever heard: that we’re going to die; ergo, we have nothing to lose. “We might as well speak the truth, we might as well reach for the stars, we might as well fight like our lives depended on it—because they do.”  I’m not exactly sure what he means, nor do I feel uplifted or inspired by these words, which don’t really tell us why he thinks the tide is turning. And, at the end, I could see where this optimistic word salad came from: it’s in Wikipedia, too:

[The ARC] is associated with psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson. One Australian journalist identified the purpose of ARC as follows: “to replace a sense of division and drift within conservatism, and Western society at large, with a renewed cohesion and purpose”.

Do any readers get inspired by this kind of chest-pounding?  I have to add that I do like Triggernometry, one of the few podcasts I can listen to, but I’m not especially energized by the co-host’s speech.