Lessons from Implicit Bias Research

Overall, I really enjoyed this talk by Dr. Ian Hussey on theory building not only due to the theoretical points and its relation to things I have worked on, but also due to the practicality of the talk and the often not talked about influence of business in research. Toward the end of the talk, the moderator made a point that maybe this idea is not applicable to theories that never leave the university. However, I would disagree because escaping grant funding and the need for new and cool insights, just because it is less obvious, does not mean it does not exist. For example, professors and students face promotions or new opportunities that require grant funding (which require novel and hot-topic ideas), presenting at conferences (which incentivize new and exciting ideas and give awards for them), publications (which require an adherence to a theory and the field and its new interests), and the recruitment of undergraduate students (which requires some level of interest). In these ways, the idea of a promotion of theory because it in fact is interesting, talked about, and promotes research and controversy is embedded in academia. In addition, the interviewer at the end posed a "how did we get here" type question referring to the idea of theory building that works more for itself and simply requires people because it necessitates it. I think how the field came to this point has to do with the idea that 50 years ago, discussion and journal publishing was the only way to get out ideas. Without the internet, academic needed structures such as journals and conferences and press in order to become a science itself. Therefore, these economic principles are inherent to the way the science was structured. 

In addition, the interviewer talked about how psychology does not have a gauge to truth like many other sciences. For example, in chemistry, their products and discoveries have to work to some level, because other companies with their own budgets must invest. However, if the currency of scientific success is public opinion, then why shouldn't psychology's goal to be to reach as many people as possible? In a Minnesota chemistry lab, scientists from Mayo Clinic work on platelet generation from expired blood samples and turn them into $400 bottles of serum for skin care fanatics to buy. Does peptide bonding from blood platelets really reduce aging?  Who cares? The company just celebrated their millionth product sold, and it has created many jobs. In this sense, the argument boils down to if we truly care how far truth proliferates. If we care enough to make money and be seen as "cool" with the only gauge we have (politics, social media, etc.), then a good theory as defined by Dr. Ian Hussey is the perfect way to go. 

Looking forward, not to get too crises- centered, but if science continues on this path of funding and rewarding cool, new, controversial, and talked about ideas, how likely is it that we will work ourselves out of a job? This seems counterintuitive, for the more science works toward truth and helping people, the less there would be for us to do (in a far-off end scenario where we have discovered all truths). However, from a company standpoint, the proliferation of psychology into the public media would be much easier if there were not a bunch of pesky scientists working to disprove a theory or create their own entity. For example, if a lab could somehow produce studies from previously collected data and generate conclusions that are controversial and risky, it would be very economically beneficial. If a lab, a political campaign, or a company could use AI to actually run the data analyses and collection and publications of psychology to support the influx of business or votes, there would be almost no use for psychologists at all. My point is that if we are not careful with establishing some type of mechanism to understand truth and reward truth generation, when we promote proliferation of new and cool ideas that the public and companies find useful, beneficial, or cool, we are inherently reducing our utility. Anyone can make a half claim that sounds cool and people talk about. Any company could fabricate studies in such a way where their product seems like the best on the market. With AI, this process becomes seamless, and if project funding and grants continue to go to flashy new ideas that cater to business and the public. The best case scenario for a company is to create a great amount of income and revenue by consumers and the market while paying workers the least amount of money possible. With the combination of AI technology and the interest in "talked about" and "business centered" science, psychology is working itself out of job. 

Getting away from the theoretical future, this talk about "we are only N years away" did remind me a bit of RDoc and the biological model. In addition, I worked on a few studies that used the IAT and I remember us having issues with some of the papers. This was an interesting refresher of the topic. 

Overall, a theory is good in this way if it is proliferated in the public, generates jobs and money and journal spots, is talked about, and does not die. This is a very interesting contrast to Meehl's definition that emphasizes falsifiability and asking continuously "why". 

Grade 25/25