Verified by 
©Copyright 2011 by Paula J. Caplan All rights reserved
What the public doesn't know about the racist/sexist Psychology Today essay
It's clear from the public outcry about the racist and sexist essay posted on Psychology Today - later removed by the editors - that a big part of what motivates the rage is the mistaken assumption that the editors see the essays we PT bloggers write before we post them.
This is not true. When I write an essay for this blog, I post it directly on the PT site. I think that at least one PT editor reads every essay at some point, though I am not sure when they read them. But they do not read them before the essays go "live."
I would have been livid if in fact the editors had read that terrible essay and allowed it to be posted anyway, but that is not what happened.
I've been immersed in other work in recent weeks - some of it related to sexism and/or racism - and had no idea that objectionable essay had been posted or that it had then been taken down, and I do not know how long it was up.
I am writing this now for two reasons. One is that I want people to know that the editors did not see the article and choose to allow it to be publicly seen. The other is that I am sure that some people who know my work must have wondered why I have been silent about the issue.
I have been silent partly because, even now, I know nothing about why the editors made their decision or how much time passed before they made it, so I am in no position to comment on it, except to say that I am glad they took it down. It was quite awhile before I even looked at the essay, because I find it so disturbing to read such writing. There is so much of it out there that one could spend endless amounts of time informing oneself about such vile spewings. And by the time I even heard about the existence of that post, it seemed that many other bloggers were already writing essays about it. I have not read those all of those essays, because it was so disturbing finally to read the original post that I was just happy they took it down, I had other work commitments to meet, and I found it hard to think of writing a critique of it that would be less than book-length. (I mean that literally. My son and I wrote an entire book about thinking critically about research on sex and gender, and many chapters and sections of the book would apply to the essay in question, in addition to having to write equivalent critiques of the racism in it.)
When I read the essay, it seemed to me that, from what I saw, that a lot of criticism of every aspect of it - the racism, sexism, and appallingly poor use (misuse) of research - had already gone online and was written about in other media.
No doubt the evolutionary psychologists or biologists who are irresponsible and oppressive (as opposed to the others in those categories who put forward more responsible theories) will always be with us. So, too, will still others who make sloppy or irresponsible use of research in damaging ways. Those who believe in total freedom of speech, even for nongovernmental entities like PT which are not legally bound by the First Amendment, will argue that the essay should have been allowed to stand. Others will disagree. In my previous essay, I have to some extent addressed that conflict.
Another question to which I have no easy answer gets to the heart of online writing in contrast to printed work. The essay that the editors removed led many people to say that they will never again read PT, because poor-quality science and even abusive uses of research are allowed. I think that people tend to assume that what is published in professional journals is high-quality research, but I have spent a great deal of time becoming familiar with research in numerous arenas that appears in such journals, and it is an understatement to say that I am not impressed with the quality of a great deal of it. The fact that it has gone through one or more levels of review does not necessarily raise its quality, and often I wonder, "How in the world did the reviewers and editors decide to publish that?" One answer is that the reviewers and editors are often so delighted by the conclusions the authors drew about the data that they do not begin to ask the questions about methodology and conclusions that any intelligent undergraduate could raise.
So in the first place, those who assumed that scholarly journals' editors only or primarily publish top-quality research that is responsibly interpreted and that, by contrast, PT online is shoddy are just plain wrong. But in addition, PT online's bloggers are allowed but not required to provide evidence, never mind solid evidence, for claims they make. The good side of this is that as a blogger, I have the freedom to write about my perspectives, guesses, feelings, and opinions without claiming that they are objectively right or backed up by good research. The bad side is that each of us bloggers gets to choose to what extent to make it clear when an essay's content is not research-based. In my view, that makes it all the more important that when we do cite research or make assertions based on research, we have ascertained that that research is well done and even provide footnotes for readers who want to read the research reports and judge their quality for themselves. But whether or not to do that is up to each blogger.
Perhaps part of the problem is that the appearance of the very word "psychology" in the title of PT implies to some that all of its content is characterized by a solid research base and objectivity. It's been a long time since I regarded the field as characterized by terrific research and objectivity. Ever since Bruce L. Baker as a young faculty member at Harvard gave our class what we had learned were "classic" research papers and asked us to write about all of the conceptual, methodological, and interpretive problems therein, the height of the pedestal on which had rested my idealized view of psychology has gradually lowered.
Many laypeople have believed the assertions or implications by many psychologists - and many psychiatrists -that research about human behavior and writing about clinical matters are all about science. Because that belief is so widespread, perhaps the home page of PT online could include a statement that claims made on the site may or may not be based in good research.
NOTE: On May 31, 2011, several days after I wrote the above essay, I saw the following that the PT editors posted on the home page. I copy it here, because it speaks directly to some of the concerns that had been expressed, although the matter one of my readers raised in a comment -- about why someone with a history of this kind of writing was invited to blog for PT at all -- has not yet been addressed. I know that these matters are complicated as people try to balance issues of freedom of speech with issues of whether readers can assume that bloggers claims about research are well-founded.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201105/apology-psycholog…
An Apology from Psychology Today Statement from the Editor Published on May 27, 2011 by PT Editors in Brainstorm Last week, a blog post about race and appearance by Satoshi Kanazawa was published--and promptly removed--from this site. We deeply apologize for the pain and offense that this post caused. Psychology Today's mission is to inform the public, not to provide a platform for inflammatory and offensive material. Psychology Today does not tolerate racism or prejudice of any sort. The post was not approved by Psychology Today, but we take full responsibility for its publication on our site. We have taken measures to ensure that such an incident does not occur again. Again, we are deeply sorry for the hurt that this post caused.
~Kaja Perina, Editor in Chief
