Cory Clark

1. What happens when women, for the first time in history, gain real cultural power? I explore this question in “From Worriers to Warriors: The Cultural Rise of Women,” now in press at @JConIdeas: researchgate.net/publication/39…

@tomstello_ @aaas @ScienceMagazine Woo!! Congrats fellas🔥🔥🔥

Honored (and genuinely, wildly grateful and -- even more than I am grateful -- surprised) to share that our paper "Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI" received the @aaas Newcomb-Cleveland Prize (for the "most outstanding" paper in @ScienceMagazine last year). The last social science paper to win this prize was in 1981 (!!!) for Axelrod and Hamilton's "The Evolution of Cooperation" (!!!!!!!!!!!!) Huge thanks (thanks is not the word, or close) to my mentors+collaborators+coauthors @GordPennycook and @DG_Rand and to the many colleagues whose field-extending parallel research are helping this work flourish in, well, dialogue.

Maja Graso & I argue that U.S. academia has imposed its DEI agenda on academia globally, leading to the misallocation of scholarly resources in countries with bigger problems than a handful of disciplines still attracting more males than females: journals.sagepub.com/eprint/8V3UNIC…

Intellectual humility predicts forecasting performance. Fascinating paper by Igor Grossman et al., incl. @ImHardcory and @PTetlock. Another cool result that resonates: "accurate forecasters focused on base rates and uncertainty, whereas inaccurate ones defaulted to generalized pessimism". Something to keep in mind when reading expert predictions in the media! osf.io/preprints/psya…

Cognitive chicanery: Five ways that people downplay or dismiss scientific claims they find unpleasant. [Link below.]

@JamesLNuzzo @JaniceFiamengo @SwipeWright @LocasaleLab @herandrews Thanks, James :)

In my Yearly Roundup, I mention, amongst other things, my five favourite articles from other writers in 2025. Here are those writers: @JaniceFiamengo @ImHardcory @SwipeWright @LocasaleLab @herandrews

@StefanFSchubert @JaredOliphint Yes, if I remember correctly, my third explanation was the distance from solving real problems/directly helping people. Theoretical philosophy would likely fall into that category. But I was mostly speculating here.

@JaredOliphint @ImHardcory Interesting discussion. Fwiw I'm not super-sure of the "morally reprehensible thought-experiments" hypothesis. In Sweden ethics is separated from "theoretical philosophy" (metaphysics, epistemology, etc) and the latter has fewer women even while lacking such thought-experiments.

Far more women attend and graduate college than men. More women getting master's than men. More women earning PhDs than men. More women professors than men. @ImHardcory and I talk about trends in academia, truth vs. harm prevention, what men have to offer, etc. Link below.

@ImHardcory Why aren't more women interested in a career in philosophy? I think Cory Clark's answer is compelling. Full conversation in the link above.

"we speak with @ImHardcory... we discuss her paper, 'Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors'" iheart.com/podcast/269-no…

Given how absolutely essential adversarial collaborations are to a healthy social science, consider giving this important paper another look (by @ImHardcory @PTetlock @calvinisch2), it's open access!: link.springer.com/article/10.100…

This week on the Lean Out podcast, the excellent @ImHardcory and I set out to have a calm, reasonable, noninflammatory conversation about one of the most divisive & controversial stories of 2025: the Great Feminization theory. Wish us luck! (Link to that episode in the reply.)

6. My own view is that our results and the results of similar high quality investigations are very misaligned with the way implicit racial bias is marketed to the public. And I expect that soon enough implicit bias will exist primarily in the history of social psychology.

5. Our adversarial team, led by phenoms, @jordanaxt @SuzHoogeveen & @paulrconnor, all agree that this study provided a valid and fair test of our competing predictions--no easy feat in an adcollab! But our interpretations of the practical significance vary (see discussion).

1. New adversarial collaboration on implicit racial bias and racial discrimination including >2k White American subjects, four measures of implicit bias, four measures of explicit attitudes, and four measures of racial discrimination, now in press at JPSP: osf.io/preprints/psya…

People care about women more than they do about men. As @ImHardcory says here, studies from @SteveStuWill and others show that when scientific findings favor men, people tend to label the findings sexist. When they favor women? No pushback. Much more on this in the link above.

Are institutions overly feminized? "A woman in a male-dominated industry who doesn’t like the pinup calendar on her boss’s wall can sue him for creating a 'hostile environment,' and win...whereas a man in a female-dominated workplace who doesn’t like the 'Male Tears' mug on his boss’s desk can just go cry about it." Contributions from @katrosenfield,☝️🏽@BetsyDeVos, @larissaphillip, me & more. thefp.com/p/have-america… @LHSummers @herandrews @ImHardcory @EPoe187 @TheFP @AEI

3. These findings suggest that although people will give resources to victim signalers and defer to their perspectives, they do not want to affiliate with victim signalers. Thus victim signaling might feel advantageous, but it comes at a social cost: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S01…

2. Past work has found that victim signalers are higher in entitlement, vengefulness, & Dark Triad traits (e.g., narcissism, Machiavellianism). Our paper finds that people detect this: victim signalers are viewed as higher in dark traits and as undesirable social partners.

1. Recent work suggests that signaling victimhood is a route to status: people excuse the bad behavior of victim signalers, defer to them, and share resources with them. In a new paper, we find that the victim signaling approach to status comes at a reputational cost.