This is consistent with an idea that I have failed to demonstrate experimentally many times: people want answers/solutions to problems that are "controllable." People don't want biological explanations for success because they are (currently) useless for self-improvement.
Five currently popular rosy ideas about boosting your and others' success, all of which are contradicted by good evidence: brain training, grit, growth mindset, deliberate practice, and bilingual advantage. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/boost-your-intelligence/ … orig articlehttps://psyarxiv.com/sv9pz
-
-
-
You failed to demonstrate that people prefer answers that lead to plausible interventions? That would be a surprising null finding. In this case, the situation is fairly obvious: lower tier parents give their kids lower tier names, and others notice this and use as prior.
-
Yes, I thought it would help explain why vaccines are an attractive explanation for autism. Easier to control than genes. Have a few studies where I attempted to manipulate controllability of solution and measure preference for solution with no consistent effect.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Too much multi-tasking. Was thinking it was somehow a thread for this tweet. Oops!https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1027383984291045378 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@KirkegaardEmil 's l[likely] response: and what determines social structure?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.