The Egalitarian Fallacy: Are Group Differences Compatible with Political Liberalism?

Anomaly, Jonathan; Winegard, Bo

doi:10.1007/s11406-019-00129-w

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in a moral dilemma forcing a participant to sacrifice an individual for the greater good, White liberals (but not conservatives) were significantly more likely to sacrifice an individual with a stereotypically White name than one with a stereotypically African American name (Uhlmann et al, 2009). Desires to rectify social injustice may also motivate liberals to discount evidence of innate group differences because of their perceived moral implications (Anomaly & Winegard, 2020), elevating subordinate groups.…”

Section: Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Power Politics: How Ideology Motivates Threat Perception—and International Relations

Gries

2022

International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing literature demonstrates that ideology shapes international relations. But just how does ideology have its effect? This article develops an integrated model of mediators and moderators of the impact of ideology on foreign policy. Specifically, it hypothesizes that ideologically motivated perceptions of threat and national power sequentially mediate the impact of individual-level ideologies on foreign policy preferences, and that in/out-group social categorization processes moderate the relationship. We interrogate these propositions with three plausibility probe case studies. The conclusion discusses which aspects of the model were best supported by the plausibility probes—and suggests hypotheses for future causal testing.

show abstract

Section: Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Power Politics: How Ideology Motivates Threat Perception—and International Relations

Gries

2022

International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of our social system is founded on the scientific premise that all groups (if not all individuals) are basically the same. The possibility that they are not the same raises difficult moral and political challenges (Anomaly and Winegard 2020;Gottfredson 2005;Sesardić 2005: chapter 6; Warne 2020). The long-term success of humanity will depend on our ability to come to terms with reality, including controversial facts about group differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Anti-Jewish Narrative

Cofnas

2021

Philosophia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the mainstream narrative about race, all groups have the same innate dispositions and potential, and all disparities—at least those favoring whites—are due to past or present racism. Some people who reject this narrative gravitate toward an alternative, anti-Jewish narrative, which sees recent history in terms of a Jewish/gentile conflict. The most sophisticated promoter of the anti-Jewish narrative is the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald argues that Jews have a suite of genetic adaptations—including high intelligence and ethnocentrism—and cultural practices that lead them to undermine gentile society to advance their own evolutionary interests. He says that Jewish-designed intellectual movements have weakened gentile identity and culture while preserving Jewish identity and separatism. Cofnas recently argued that MacDonald’s theory is based on “systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” However, Cofnas gave short shrift to at least three key claims: (a) Jews are highly ethnocentric, (b) liberal Jews hypocritically advocate liberal multiculturalism for gentiles/gentile countries but racial purity and separatism for Jews/Israel, and (c) Jews are responsible for liberalism and mass immigration to the United States. The present paper examines these claims and concludes that MacDonald’s views are not supported.

show abstract

“…This has contributed to an increasing level of political and ideological polarization at the social and cultural level (see Keeter, 2015). Examples of this trend in polarization were provided earlier in this paper, and include the denial of the biological nature of sex or racial differences (e.g., Anomaly & Winegard, 2019), the endorsement of groups involved in aggressive acts in response to perceptions of systemic racial inequality (Hunter & Polk, 2016), and online disparagement of those voting for opposing political candidates using emotional rhetoric (Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018).…”

Section: Social Dominance Orientationmentioning

confidence: 92%

Ideological measurement in social and political psychology

Ca¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the domains of social and personality psychological science undergo marked changes in their approach to research (e.g., open science practices, and addressing the replication crisis), it is important to undertake a full review of the tools and measures that we have at our disposal.In addition, the growing sense of political and ideological polarization in contemporary western democracies necessitates a coherent and internally consistent approach to studying politically and ideologically sensitive topics. This paper explores the measurement and study of such topics, and posits that claims about (a)symmetries between ideological partisans may be rooted in different measurement approaches. A more consistent and ecologically valid approach to studying partisan engagement with political topics is advocated, focusing on situational responses to ideologically salient scenarios, rather than placing our focus on results from decontextualized self-report individual difference measures. Suggestions for broader debiasing research reforms are also explored. Ideological measurement in social and political psychologyThe landscape of social psychology is currently undergoing some stark changes.Emerging practices to address the 'replication crisis' (Brandt et al., 2014;Lindsay, 2015) and the advent of increasingly open research practices, such as data-and materials-sharing, protocol and analytic pre-registration, and the peer-review of research plans before data are collected and results are known (Chambers, 2018;van't Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; have led the field to consider some of the questionable research practices that have historically persisted in some spheres .Although these movements are clearly positive for the state of our science, they focus only on the higher-level processes associated with potential biases in research design and execution. This paper begins by looking at the 'nuts and bolts' of social and personality psychological research, as applied in the political domain, to explore potential sources of ideological bias in the conceptualization and interpretation of ideologies. That is, there is an argument to be made that our current approaches to studying similarities and differences between those from competing political or ideological persuasions (from here, these similarities and differences are referred to as 'political/ideological (a)symmetries') may contain epistemic biases on the part of the field in the aggregate. In doing so, a critique of commonly used measurement tools in the political psychology domain is offered, and further suggestions for alternative approaches to researching ideological (a)symmetries are offered that are consistent with the continuing the recent advances in social psychological research.

show abstract

The Egalitarian Fallacy: Are Group Differences Compatible with Political Liberalism?

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Beyond Power Politics: How Ideology Motivates Threat Perception—and International Relations

Beyond Power Politics: How Ideology Motivates Threat Perception—and International Relations

The Anti-Jewish Narrative

Ideological measurement in social and political psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About