Really interesting and thought-provoking thread. Thanks for writing it

In any event, this is the point of the preprint below. The asymmetry here makes it all too easy to distract, delay and bias science without even needing to corrupt a single scientist.

arxiv.org/abs/2510.19894

not that economics is great at this -- or social anthropology for that matter. but for a science that brands itself as uncovering the universals of human behavior, psych really does only care about *certain* humans

psychology is notably worse in its national diversity than economics; compare the national origin of first authored papers over time in psych (left) and economics (right)

(from the missing majority dashboard)

remi-theriault.com/dashboards/m...

This is absolutely right, and you can see the disingenuousness of the “it’s too hard!” objection by noting that there absolutely are disciplines adjacent to psychology that do take sampling diversity more seriously, such as development economics and social anthropology

It still comes down to the matter of wanting to do it. We will do hard work when it aligns with our values and priorities, and then throw up our hands and say "too hard!" when it doesn't. This, from my "Slow Progress towards Diversification in Psychological Research" paper osf.io/preprints/ps...

Generally in Busara’s projects we try to ensure that people understand the materials through pilots and initial qualitative work rather than attention checks for this reason

We have some unpublished data where we find that pretty much all the attention checks we tried filter out people with lower incomes