Lee Jussim

Sure. There are probably too many of these attempts for me to go through, so I'm going to pick one. Yeah, pick the cream of the crop. Yeah, this is probably the cream of the crop. Okay. It is... I refer to—so I have a very active sub-stack site, Unsafe Science, and I have several posts on this. You can find it under the Pops Fiasco Racist Mule Trope. There's a whole series on this.

Sure. There are probably too many of these attempts for me to go through, so I'm going to pick one. Yeah, pick the cream of the crop. Yeah, this is probably the cream of the crop. Okay. It is... I refer to—so I have a very active sub-stack site, Unsafe Science, and I have several posts on this. You can find it under the Pops Fiasco Racist Mule Trope. There's a whole series on this.

Okay, so what is Pops? Pops is Perspectives on Psych Science, one of the very prestigious journals within the field of psychology for publishing reviews and commentaries and the like. The short version is that I was invited by the editor to do a commentary on a main paper that was critical.

Okay, so what is Pops? Pops is Perspectives on Psych Science, one of the very prestigious journals within the field of psychology for publishing reviews and commentaries and the like. The short version is that I was invited by the editor to do a commentary on a main paper that was critical.

Okay, so what is Pops? Pops is Perspectives on Psych Science, one of the very prestigious journals within the field of psychology for publishing reviews and commentaries and the like. The short version is that I was invited by the editor to do a commentary on a main paper that was critical.

The main paper by a psychologist named Hummel, Bernard Hummel, was critical of prior work in psychology advocating for diversity in a variety of ways. The nature of his critique was that much of the rhetoric in psychological scholarship around diversity was narrowly focused on—and the terms are constantly changing—underrepresented, minority, minoritized, disadvantaged, oppressed groups.

The main paper by a psychologist named Hummel, Bernard Hummel, was critical of prior work in psychology advocating for diversity in a variety of ways. The nature of his critique was that much of the rhetoric in psychological scholarship around diversity was narrowly focused on—and the terms are constantly changing—underrepresented, minority, minoritized, disadvantaged, oppressed groups.

The main paper by a psychologist named Hummel, Bernard Hummel, was critical of prior work in psychology advocating for diversity in a variety of ways. The nature of his critique was that much of the rhetoric in psychological scholarship around diversity was narrowly focused on—and the terms are constantly changing—underrepresented, minority, minoritized, disadvantaged, oppressed groups.

And that from a scientific... Intersectionally... Yeah, yeah, right, exactly. That's right. And so... Intersectionally deprived. And there was a recent article which argued that on scientific grounds, we need to do exactly that. Hummel's critique was that, was really multiple, but two of his key points were that, well, there are some types of things, it's irrelevant.

And that from a scientific... Intersectionally... Yeah, yeah, right, exactly. That's right. And so... Intersectionally deprived. And there was a recent article which argued that on scientific grounds, we need to do exactly that. Hummel's critique was that, was really multiple, but two of his key points were that, well, there are some types of things, it's irrelevant.

And that from a scientific... Intersectionally... Yeah, yeah, right, exactly. That's right. And so... Intersectionally deprived. And there was a recent article which argued that on scientific grounds, we need to do exactly that. Hummel's critique was that, was really multiple, but two of his key points were that, well, there are some types of things, it's irrelevant.

Diversity is irrelevant for certain kind of theoretical scientific tests.

Diversity is irrelevant for certain kind of theoretical scientific tests.

Diversity is irrelevant for certain kind of theoretical scientific tests.

And then the other point is that if diversity matters, it matters for scientific purposes, it matters extremely broadly, and it's not restricted to underrepresented groups.

And then the other point is that if diversity matters, it matters for scientific purposes, it matters extremely broadly, and it's not restricted to underrepresented groups.

And then the other point is that if diversity matters, it matters for scientific purposes, it matters extremely broadly, and it's not restricted to underrepresented groups.

And a very simple example would be if you would compare a study based on undergraduate psychology students versus one based on a nationally representative sample, the research based on the nationally representative sample is going to be broader and more generalizable and more credible. A nationally representative sample represents the population.

And a very simple example would be if you would compare a study based on undergraduate psychology students versus one based on a nationally representative sample, the research based on the nationally representative sample is going to be broader and more generalizable and more credible. A nationally representative sample represents the population.

And a very simple example would be if you would compare a study based on undergraduate psychology students versus one based on a nationally representative sample, the research based on the nationally representative sample is going to be broader and more generalizable and more credible. A nationally representative sample represents the population.