Back to Podcasts
September 5, 2017
Episode 10: Scott Lilienfeld, Microaggressions, Trump and the Goldwater Rule
Scott Lilienfeld is professor of psychology at Emory University. Here, he talks about his 2016 article evaluating the psychological literature on microaggressions and his 2017 article about revoking the Goldwater rule. Scott is an Association for Psychological Science fellow, and he has published numerous studies in personality psychology, social psychology, political psychology, and clinical psychology. He also has an interest in debunking popular myths. His popular books include Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience and 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology.
Timeline:
1:06 The history behind Scott’s micro-aggressions critique
7:01 Two big weaknesses in research studies
15:23 Real-world implications
20:05 Reactions to the article
26:05 The Goldwater Rule, and revoking it in 2017
You can learn more Scott Lilienfeld at his website.
A gated copy of his paper on micro-aggressions, entitled “Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence” is here.
And it is summarized in this blog post by Musa Al-Gharbi.
His paper on the Goldwater Rule is here.
Selected Quote:
“One big criticism concerns the nature of the construct of micro-aggressions itself. Do we understand what it is? And one of the points I raise is that even though there’s something there, it’s so vague and so nebulous, it could, in principle, include almost anything that could offend almost anyone. And I think that’s part of the problem. It lends itself to too much abuse, too much misunderstanding.“Other episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy.
Related Podcasts
June 16, 2025+Jonathan Rauch
+Viewpoint Diversity+Constructive Disagreement+Open Inquiry+Academic Freedom
June 2, 2025+Michael Roth
+Viewpoint Diversity+Constructive Disagreement+Open Inquiry+Academic Freedom
great minds don't
always think alike
Make a Donation
Your generosity supports our non-partisan efforts to advance the principles of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement to improve higher education and academic research.