source: Henrich, Joe, Heine, Steven J. and Norenzayan, Ara, The Weirdest People in the World? (May 7, 2010). RatSWD Working Paper No. 139. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1601785 pictorial depiction of above thesis: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Comments?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The picture is of something completely different - almost an opposite, or contradiction, of the thesis - from the article. Do you see that?
i would think there'd be far more work on the prisoner's dilemma, rather than the ultimatum game, amongst this "mountain of published, peer-reviewed psychology papers." who knows?
The picture is a commentary on the "mountain of published, peer-reviewed psychology papers." which presume to represent universal "human" traits and apparently only represent a small sliver of outliers with a limited and unique worldview
What is this crap where S.A.M. starts threads on topics that might well be interesting and useful to talk about, but then spikes the OP with a bunch of juvenile "fuk u Amerikkka" provocation?
America is North and South America, so at least be specific in the U.S.-bashing condescensions. That data is "freely available" for perusal from the states, and not from ones own distant "local" institutions, says volumes about the validity of the OP's statements.
That may be technically correct, but in the context of the article and generally speaking, when referring to Americans one does not mean Peruvians, Brazilians or Cubans Besides, its not "U.S.-bashing" to point out that a small non-representative group of people is used to define "standards" of behaviour for the rest of humanity. From the opinion article in Nature: And from here: Interesting commentary on the article here: The graphic is from the second link in the OP but its obviously tongue in cheek. This was one of the top read articles of the week and has run amok on the web, I thought it was quite relevant. About time other people were factored into the equation.
These are the places where it's possible to get funding. Obviously it would take much more money to gather a representation of people from around the world. It's not like those places have funds to spare for similar research.
Quite the reverse, actually. Its cheaper to do research in non-WEIRD countries. But yeah how many grants on behavioural research in the Third World would get funding?
Similar problems in medicine have come from more research done on men. I agree in part with icesura. The map is about other issues. Related ones but it's a map of certain outlooks on the world, rather than conclusions drawn about everyone's psychology from a studying mainly one group.
One reason is that a psychologist at a university has cheap and easy access to students. They do not need to fly to Bolivia. They do not need to make all the complicated arrangements for that. They don't need to know Spanish or have a translator. No need to take a Sabbatical. They can often just hand out forms to their students. Ease is a large factor. Not that this makes it right and the journals should be demanding better samples, which in turn would put pressure on researchers. Then the researchers are developing research relevent to institutions, governments, professionals who are close to home. This raises the relevence of the sample, many of whom will end up being in the professions and social class both affected by any policies or practices based on the research AND having the clout of middle class people and upwards. IOW who may be able to effectively complain if they are marginalized. However, of course, conclusions drawn from such studies should reflect the samples. No conclusions about gender in general - I liked saying that - but rather conclusions about differences, say, between white middle class men and white middle class women living in the US. Ease, money, future and current clients. You know, Smith's utopia.
I get the point about ease. Most subjects in the soft sciences are taken from the easily accessible pool of undergraduate students often for as little as $25 though some longer studies can net a student as much as $200. They are often known to the student collecting the data and while the information may be anonymous to a third party, there is the issue of objectivity when you hand in behavioural information to someone you know who is going to read it. I have personally experienced this when comparing frosting on muffins for taste tests in food science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, while making generalisations based on this limited subset, very few researchers will point out how limited their population group is. The issue is context. I think the map is an accurate representation of a limited worldview which dismisses the contributions of the rest of the world. But I only used it here because I saw it in the second link and because its more representative of the real picture. Its not just that results from a WEIRD group are presented as representing the standard. Its also that the rest of the non-WEIRD group is completely irrelevant to these researchers.
In my day I participated for free, many times. Literally some tests were done in psych classes and then after the test was discussed in class - the excuse now that it was a part of the curriculum. I was not paid and the results were used in published studies. I agree. As far as their intellect is concerned I hope they think it is irrevelent - that is if they are not wishing they could use broader samples. I am afraid some are philosophically inept.
seriously? you can publish without a ref to the method of sampling? perhaps secondary sources are being cited?
Being as I am from the states, and we here have a larger ethnic/cultural mix (we all are here from the "rest of the world"), and have a pretty diverse cross-section of culturally diverse population segments. I takes a generation or three to effect cultural proclivities to the degree suggested by your argument. However, it's examination in a prestigious Journal as "Nature", is likely a positive step to alleviate any perceived inaccuracies in the total world data samplings. I doubt there will be much difference, since the world's mindset has been equally screwed up by T.V., Movies, and the Internet. (I believe the Monty Python people failed in continuance. Certainly they should find some new crop of humorists to fledgling along in the breaking of BBC studio equipment:thumbsupPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, sure, you mention your sample, even up front in the abstract. I should have read more carefully what I was agreeing to. But conclusions are drawn about more than the sampled groups, both in and out of the studies. Caution levels vary. Once you get to textbooks and non-fictions books, we talking bout the trut baby.
Are the standards developed from these studies only applied to the subset of population studied? More often than not the results are discussed as applying to any and everybody. At least that is what I remember from my brief forays into clinical psychology as part of the consulting process. Would you like to offer some insight?