Psychological science already has had a left wing bias in the social and cultural branches of the profession. Saying that it needs to be decolonized is an Orwellian absurdity.
I would put a bit of criticism and correction of your writing here:
"Decolonize psychology" if anything is just written as something to piss off people because of clickbait. These people who write that in reality would be REALLY angry beyond recognition if they truly did "decolonize" because how dare someone has completely different mindset.
Why? Thing is I see their point - Let's face it, most psychology research objects are coming from college students (the researcher researches the college students). This is not representative of general population let alone human population.
However, why I say "decolonize psychology" is just buzzword to offend people is because culture is not just food and taco clog dancing.
Do you really think these people who wrote "decolonize psychology" would tolerate having to go within 10 feet of a genuinely devout Muslim populace who justifies breaking into the house of a suspected cohabitating couple because they genuinely believe that if they don't do that the entire community would be punished by God? Let alone RESEARCH them as someone to be taken seriously and not repeating 19th century anthropologists?
it is indeed a buzzword rather than a serious specific idea. Psychological science already had the concept and practice of thinking about and testing generalizability and external validity--and understood it better than these pseudoscientists. The literature is massive, including many studies with non-students done many years ago and since.
The critique needs to be specific: e.g., "I think the misinformation effect will not replicate in non-students." Or "I don't think non-Western people have the same confirmation biases as Western sample?" Then we can then give the lazy non-reading half-scientists links to lots of studies or real life cases. Or if the critique is actually well informed, we can test it in a new study.
Otherwise, these pseudoscientists need to not bring their politics and greivance studies into the field, or leave the field.
I would put a bit of criticism and correction of your writing here:
"Decolonize psychology" if anything is just written as something to piss off people because of clickbait. These people who write that in reality would be REALLY angry beyond recognition if they truly did "decolonize" because how dare someone has completely different mindset.
Why? Thing is I see their point - Let's face it, most psychology research objects are coming from college students (the researcher researches the college students). This is not representative of general population let alone human population.
However, why I say "decolonize psychology" is just buzzword to offend people is because culture is not just food and taco clog dancing.
Do you really think these people who wrote "decolonize psychology" would tolerate having to go within 10 feet of a genuinely devout Muslim populace who justifies breaking into the house of a suspected cohabitating couple because they genuinely believe that if they don't do that the entire community would be punished by God? Let alone RESEARCH them as someone to be taken seriously and not repeating 19th century anthropologists?
They won't.
it is indeed a buzzword rather than a serious specific idea. Psychological science already had the concept and practice of thinking about and testing generalizability and external validity--and understood it better than these pseudoscientists. The literature is massive, including many studies with non-students done many years ago and since.
The critique needs to be specific: e.g., "I think the misinformation effect will not replicate in non-students." Or "I don't think non-Western people have the same confirmation biases as Western sample?" Then we can then give the lazy non-reading half-scientists links to lots of studies or real life cases. Or if the critique is actually well informed, we can test it in a new study.
Otherwise, these pseudoscientists need to not bring their politics and greivance studies into the field, or leave the field.