“For me, intuition was the most important part of the process” - Albert Einstein. I included this quote when I commented on a previous post of yours Lance, but I don’t know if you saw it- my comment was made quite a while after you posted. My point was not to dispute your position (“hey, the quintessential brilliant thinker made use of intuition- how can you knock it”); to the contrary, I’m in essential agreement with you. Intuition in my view is a form of “right hemispheric” pattern recognition. The intuitive insight may “reveal” something important, but it in no way proves it. Einstein, followed up his intuitions by literally doing the math. The philosopher would need to justify the conclusion beyond simply announcing his intuition. A scientist would need to adduce evidence in support of what could only be taken as a hypothesis, no matter certain he or she is of its truth value.
Or consider the quote: "Testosterone makes people cocky, egocentric, and narcissistic."
He cites a study of 17 pairs of college women who took some testosterone and had to decide when some circle had more contrast than another. After consulting with their partner, each participant could either respond with her own judgment or rely on her partner's judgment. Participants were marginally more likely to rely on their own judgment in the testosterone condition, p=.02.
If someone thinks they saw a circle with slightly darker contrast and they don't defer to someone else about it, does this mean they're "cocky, egocentric, and narcissistic?" I don't think any honest, reasonable person would think so.
In short, Sapolsky tends to wildly extrapolate from the available data.
I can't access the whole article you shared due to the paywall, but it doesn't look like it characterizes his book as blanket unreliable or all of its research shoddy (correct me if I'm wrong). It's also the case that his remark about testosterone does not completely hinge on the one study you mention. However, it's great that you're providing criticism to consider, a move very "on topic" with the goal of this piece.
"Almost every time I looked up a social-psychology study cited uncritically in Behave, the results crumbled to dust at the slightest scrutiny[...] Clearly Sapolsky hasn’t kept up with what psychologists are calling the ‘Replication Crisis’ — the dawning realisation that many of our most exciting, newsworthy findings may have been flukes, and can’t be reproduced in independent labs."
I agree that Sapolsky cites other studies on testosterone. But given his propensity to misinterpret research, I don't have confidence in the rest.
If I had a genie I'd wish for a spreadsheet of Ritchie's findings; I'm finding his article quoted in some other places, and it looks like he has a mix of strong examples (e.g., a study whose findings were not replicated by a bigger study) and debatable ones (e.g., his "almost" hedge you quote, and his complaint of "marginal results").
I'm certainly interested in any studies that would undermine how we used the text in this article, because that would be cause to alter it.
1. I think any researcher who's contributed to solving the replication crisis in psychology would agree with Ritchie. I personally was so put off by the number of bad studies Sapolsky cited that I quit reading his book a quarter of the way through.
2. I think the neuroscience and endocrinology is entirely unnecessary. As one philosopher put it: "If the mind happens in space at all, it happens somewhere north of the neck. What exactly turns on knowing how far north?" I'd say the same here. We know people sometimes form beliefs quickly in a way that's unreliable. What does it matter if it's because the amygdala or thalamus are active vs the ventral tegmental area?
“For me, intuition was the most important part of the process” - Albert Einstein. I included this quote when I commented on a previous post of yours Lance, but I don’t know if you saw it- my comment was made quite a while after you posted. My point was not to dispute your position (“hey, the quintessential brilliant thinker made use of intuition- how can you knock it”); to the contrary, I’m in essential agreement with you. Intuition in my view is a form of “right hemispheric” pattern recognition. The intuitive insight may “reveal” something important, but it in no way proves it. Einstein, followed up his intuitions by literally doing the math. The philosopher would need to justify the conclusion beyond simply announcing his intuition. A scientist would need to adduce evidence in support of what could only be taken as a hypothesis, no matter certain he or she is of its truth value.
It just seems to me that you two are stance-independently obligated to write a book together about metaphilosophy, for my benefit.
The drawings are really nice!
Sapolsky isn't a reliable source. For example, see this review of his book for a discussion of the shoddy research he cites: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rules-of-behaviour/
Or consider the quote: "Testosterone makes people cocky, egocentric, and narcissistic."
He cites a study of 17 pairs of college women who took some testosterone and had to decide when some circle had more contrast than another. After consulting with their partner, each participant could either respond with her own judgment or rely on her partner's judgment. Participants were marginally more likely to rely on their own judgment in the testosterone condition, p=.02.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspb.2011.2523
If someone thinks they saw a circle with slightly darker contrast and they don't defer to someone else about it, does this mean they're "cocky, egocentric, and narcissistic?" I don't think any honest, reasonable person would think so.
In short, Sapolsky tends to wildly extrapolate from the available data.
I can't access the whole article you shared due to the paywall, but it doesn't look like it characterizes his book as blanket unreliable or all of its research shoddy (correct me if I'm wrong). It's also the case that his remark about testosterone does not completely hinge on the one study you mention. However, it's great that you're providing criticism to consider, a move very "on topic" with the goal of this piece.
A quote from the review:
"Almost every time I looked up a social-psychology study cited uncritically in Behave, the results crumbled to dust at the slightest scrutiny[...] Clearly Sapolsky hasn’t kept up with what psychologists are calling the ‘Replication Crisis’ — the dawning realisation that many of our most exciting, newsworthy findings may have been flukes, and can’t be reproduced in independent labs."
I agree that Sapolsky cites other studies on testosterone. But given his propensity to misinterpret research, I don't have confidence in the rest.
If I had a genie I'd wish for a spreadsheet of Ritchie's findings; I'm finding his article quoted in some other places, and it looks like he has a mix of strong examples (e.g., a study whose findings were not replicated by a bigger study) and debatable ones (e.g., his "almost" hedge you quote, and his complaint of "marginal results").
I'm certainly interested in any studies that would undermine how we used the text in this article, because that would be cause to alter it.
1. I think any researcher who's contributed to solving the replication crisis in psychology would agree with Ritchie. I personally was so put off by the number of bad studies Sapolsky cited that I quit reading his book a quarter of the way through.
2. I think the neuroscience and endocrinology is entirely unnecessary. As one philosopher put it: "If the mind happens in space at all, it happens somewhere north of the neck. What exactly turns on knowing how far north?" I'd say the same here. We know people sometimes form beliefs quickly in a way that's unreliable. What does it matter if it's because the amygdala or thalamus are active vs the ventral tegmental area?