In January 2011, I gave a talk at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology titled “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology.” I made the case that the field of social psychology had become a politically homogeneous “tribal moral community.” I drew on Phil Tetlock’s work on the Sacred Value Protection Model (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000) to show how tribal communities rally to protect their sacred and unifying values, in part by punishing heretics and blasphemers who dare to question dogmas and doctrines. In one part of my talk I set out find conservatives. I showed that a Google search for the phrase “conservative social psychologist” returned exactly three hits, none of which suggested the existence of an actual living conservative social psychologist (compared to 1274 hits for “liberal social psychologist”). I then showed the results of an email survey I had sent to 30 social psychologists of varying ages and specialties, asking them to identify a conservative within our ranks. The survey yielded only one verifiable hit: Rick McCauley, at Bryn Mawr College. I talked about how much I had learned—how much my thinking had been improved—from working with McCauley in the 1990s while I was a left-leaning grad student at the University of Pennsylvania. I urged my colleagues to acknowledge that we had a diversity problem. I raised moral arguments by quoting from emails I had been sent by graduate students who talked about the indignities, marginalization, and hostile climate they were frequently subjected to in a field where everyone assumes that everyone else is on the same team, politically. To illustrate this point, I quoted the speaker who had immediately preceded me at the podium, who had said, as an aside, “I’m a good liberal Democrat, just like every other social psychologist I know.” But after briefly raising the moral argument that we should not shame and exclude members of our community, I focused the rest of my talk on the dangers posed by political homogeneity to the quality of our science. I said that “We are hurting ourselves when we deprive ourselves of critics, of people who are as committed to science as we are, but who ask different questions, and make different background assumptions.” I urged my colleagues to change our norms and change our ways, for the good of our field. (You can view a video recreation of the talk at https:// vimeo.com/19822295, and you can find a transcript of it at https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-postpartisan-social-psychology) What a pleasure, then, to read Clark and Winegard’s (this issue) target article, with its analysis of the “BIASS moment.” The term refers essentially to the 2010s—the period “during which some researchers sounded an alarm about the dangers of ideological homogeneity in academia, compelling many social scientists (both conservatives and liberals) to question and challenge many politically relevant assumptions and findings in the social sciences.” Clark and Winegard present a theory of “ideological epistemology” and show why an ideologically homogeneous field is likely to have difficulty finding the truth. In my response to Clark and Winegard, I’d like to make just two points about the state of affairs in social psychology, one optimistic and praising, the other pessimistic and concerned.

中文翻译：

---

部落主义、被禁止的贱民和社会科学的终极目标

2011年1月，我在人格与社会心理学学会年会上做了题为“后党派社会心理学的光明未来”的演讲。我论证了社会心理学领域已经成为一个政治上同质的“部落道德共同体”。我借鉴了 Phil Tetlock 在神圣价值保护模型（Tetlock、Kristel、Elson、Green 和 Lerner，2000 年）方面的工作，以展示部落社区如何团结起来保护他们神圣和统一的价值观，部分是通过惩罚敢于挑战的异端和亵渎者质疑教条和教义。在我演讲的一部分中，我开始寻找保守派。我展示了在谷歌搜索“保守社会心理学家”这个词组准确地返回了三个点击，这些都没有表明存在真正在世的保守社会心理学家（相比之下，“自由社会心理学家”有 1274 次点击）。然后我展示了我发送给 30 位不同年龄和专业的社会心理学家的电子邮件调查结果，要求他们在我们的队伍中确定一个保守派。该调查仅产生了一个可验证的成功：布林莫尔学院的 Rick McCauley。我谈到了我在 1990 年代与麦考利一起工作时学到了多少——我的思想得到了多少提升，当时我还是宾夕法尼亚大学的左倾研究生。我敦促我的同事承认我们存在多样性问题。我引用了研究生发给我的电子邮件，提出了道德论据，他们谈到了侮辱、边缘化、在一个每个人都认为其他人在政治上都在同一个团队中的领域中，他们经常遭受敌对的气氛。为了说明这一点，我引用了在讲台上紧跟在我前面的演讲者的话，作为旁白，他说：“我是一名优秀的自由民主党，就像我认识的其他所有社会心理学家一样。” 但是，在简短地提出我们不应羞辱和排斥社区成员的道德论点之后，我接下来的谈话将重点放在政治同质化对我们科学质量构成的危险上。我说：“当我们剥夺自己的批评者，剥夺像我们一样致力于科学但提出不同问题并做出不同背景假设的人时，我们是在伤害自己。” 我敦促我的同事为了我们领域的利益而改变我们的规范和方式。（你可以在 https://vimeo.com/19822295 上观看演讲的视频娱乐，你可以在 https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of- postpartisan-social-psychology）那么，阅读克拉克和温加德（本期）的目标文章，对“偏见时刻”的分析真是太高兴了。该术语主要指的是 2010 年代——“在此期间，一些研究人员对学术界意识形态同质化的危险发出警告，迫使许多社会科学家（保守派和自由派）质疑和挑战社会科学领域中许多与政治相关的假设和发现。科学。” 克拉克和温加德提出了“意识形态认识论”的理论，并说明了为什么意识形态同质的领域可能难以找到真相。在我对克拉克和温加德的回应中，