The welfare trait by Adam Perkins

[doddles]

I saw this on FB earlier today. So I spent 10 minutes looking into it. First, I read the first page of the book. On it there are at least two glaring misrepresentations of study results that are described in definitive terms, but in reality are anything but. Misrepresentations so bad that they could only be the result of an inability to understand the cited research (which wasn't all that complex) or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent. Doesn't lead to much faith in the quality of the rest of the work.

I then took a look at a single published article of Perkins on the topic:
Google Scholar Citations

It's a terrible piece of work, that selectively cherrypicks results from a lit of correlations, does not statistically correct for the number of correlations, misinterprets the few, very weak correlations that exist, and then embarks on a long-winding discussion full of speculation, none of which is justified by the meagre results obtained. It is a truly terrible article.

People like this would give science a bad name, were it not for the number of scientists and others who have pointed out how baseless his ideas are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I saw this on FB earlier today. So I spent 10 minutes looking into it. First, I read the first page of the book. On it there are at least two glaring misrepresentations of study results that are described in definitive terms, but in reality are anything but. Misrepresentations so bad that they could only be the result of an inability to understand the cited research (which wasn't all that complex) or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent. Doesn't lead to much faith in the quality of the rest of the work.

I then took a look at a single published article of Perkins on the topic:
Google Scholar Citations

It's a terrible piece of work, that selectively cherrypicks results from a lit of correlations, does not statistically correct for the number of correlations, misinterprets the few, very weak correlations that exist, and then embarks on a long-winding discussion full of speculation, none of which is justified by the meagre results obtained. It is a truly terrible article.

People like this would give science a bad name, were it not for the number of scientists and others who have pointed out how baseless his ideas are.

Same with Murray and Herrnstein back in the day. Easily-deconstructed and rebutted poorly and/or falsely-supported tosh bought wholesale by the media as some sort of authoritative comment on the basis that it reflected editorial prejudices/proprietorial lines.
That hasn't stopped "The Bell Curve" being cited by the racist right, and it won't stop "The Welfare Trait" being cited by the anti-welfare right, either. Both books serving the same ultimate purpose - a war against the working class.

 

[KittyJ]

Same with Murray and Herrnstein back in the day. Easily-deconstructed and rebutted poorly and/or falsely-supported tosh bought wholesale by the media as some sort of authoritative comment on the basis that it reflected editorial prejudices/proprietorial lines.
That hasn't stopped "The Bell Curve" being cited by the racist right, and it won't stop "The Welfare Trait" being cited by the anti-welfare right, either. Both books serving the same ultimate purpose - a war against the working class.

Curiously, Perkins has just started to follow Murray on twitter. Talk about birds of a feather...

 

[nino_savatte]

Curiously, Perkins has just started to follow Murray on twitter. Talk about birds of a feather...

Quite.

 

[smokedout]

best bit is when he starts going on about how the benefits system is responsible for murders, he admits he can't show causation between the murder rate and troduction of social security, but says that doesn't matter cos someone wrote a book once that vaguely agrees with him and if researchers in similar fields are thinking along the same lines its probably true. problem is he can't even demonstrate correlation because the murder rates been dropping for the last 30 years so he just makes something up about how the police take this sort of thing more seriously these days and hospitals are better at saving people (despite violent crime also falling in that period).

then he goes off on one about how people on the dole get to stay up all night and this makes them criminals, saying this:

 

[BigTom]

 

[DotCommunist]

if you measure the dimensions of a dole claimants head and observe his physiognomy certain things become startlingly clear etc

 

[smokedout]

if you measure the dimensions of a dole claimants head and observe his physiognomy certain things become startlingly clear etc

its all the chocolate they eat

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quite.

A flock of shitbirds.

 

[DotCommunist]

ok smokedout that vile cunt doesn't even get a trial come the day. Hats off to you for enduring the read of it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

its all the chocolate they eat

When you're reaching back 40 years for material on which to base your theses, then you know you're fucked, unless you're a historian.

 

[smokedout]

the research actually took place in 1965 and 69, was published in 75 as far as i can tell. involved 33 families from sheffield.

 

[doddles]

best bit is when he starts going on about how the benefits system is responsible for murders, he admits he can't show causation between the murder rate and troduction of social security, but says that doesn't matter cos someone wrote a book once that vaguely agrees with him and if researchers in similar fields are thinking along the same lines its probably true. problem is he can't even demonstrate correlation because the murder rates been dropping for the last 30 years so he just makes something up about how the police take this sort of thing more seriously these days and hospitals are better at saving people (despite violent crime also falling in that period).

then he goes off on one about how people on the dole get to stay up all night and this makes them criminals, saying this:

 

[smokedout]

his repeated claim that people on benefits 'barely speak to their children' and speak to them less than people in work despite being with them all day is based on discredited research into just 5 families in Kansas 20 years ago

 

[smokedout]

much of his thinking is based on this nonsense which he cites reguarly (including the murder justification): A Farewell to Alms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doddles]

OK. Hang on. This must be a hoax, right? I mean, Kings College couldn't hire a person who truly was this shit an academic, could they?

No - I'm waiting for the big reveal, when it all becomes clear that he's been writing undercover for The Onion.

 

[smokedout]

ok smokedout that vile cunt doesn't even get a trial come the day. Hats off to you for enduring the read of it.

i havent made it through the whole thing, skipped the bits where he apparently tries to prove unemployed people are workshy by using mice

 

[doddles]

he apparently tries to prove unemployed people are workshy by using mice

TBH, trying to avoid work by using mice is not going to work very well, especially if you're job requires uniquely human skills like writing and stuff.

 

[smokedout]

sorry got that wrong way round, perkins uses experiments with mice to prove unemployed people are workshy, apparently, I havent read that bit

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

its all the chocolate they eat

That has got to be parody.

 

[Cid]

OK. Hang on. This must be a hoax, right? I mean, Kings College couldn't hire a person who truly was this shit an academic, could they?

No - I'm waiting for the big reveal, when it all becomes clear that he's been writing undercover for The Onion.

Adam Perkins - Research Portal, King's College, London

He was touting himself as 'King's College Professor of Neurobiology' on wikipedia for a while, fortunately someone's corrected it to 'lecturer'.

It (the Personality and occupation etc... paper) was published in 'Personality and Individual Differences' (Elsevier). Didn't get any further than that.

 

[existentialist]

best bit is when he starts going on about how the benefits system is responsible for murders, he admits he can't show causation between the murder rate and troduction of social security, but says that doesn't matter cos someone wrote a book once that vaguely agrees with him and if researchers in similar fields are thinking along the same lines its probably true. problem is he can't even demonstrate correlation because the murder rates been dropping for the last 30 years so he just makes something up about how the police take this sort of thing more seriously these days and hospitals are better at saving people (despite violent crime also falling in that period).

then he goes off on one about how people on the dole get to stay up all night and this makes them criminals, saying this:

Jesus fucking Christ

 

[Louis MacNeice]

1/2 Includes Social Workers, CPNs, Psychiatrists

3 Their SUs.

I recall criticising the former a few months ago. Went down a treat.

It's certainly true that that the decision makers about and explainers of behaviours include social workers, CPNs and psychiatrists. But while they do have some input into setting the frameworks within which they operate, those frameworks are not something they have control over. There is a whole panoply of researchers, policy advisers, lobbyists, legislators, legal professionals and administrators who produce and maintain those frameworks.

However, in this instance where the 'wrong behaviour' is not working, then it is ultimately the demand to work (the demand to sell your labour power in order to create value and reporduce yourself on the part of that value you are allowed to keep) that drives the impressive collection of researchers, policy advisors and all the rest. It is capital, those voracious and inhuman relations, which demand that inability and unwillingness to work are both wrong and that they both need punishing.

Louis MacNeice

 

[malatesta32]

yes i spend most of my dole on 'luxury chocolates' then stay up all night plotting crimes. poor hating should be a hate crime!

 

[malatesta32]

sorry got that wrong way round, perkins uses experiments with mice to prove unemployed people are workshy, apparently, I havent read that bit

the experiment was that they put 12 mice in council housing with just enough cheese to last a week and by the end of it, not 1 single MOUSE had a job, but they had millions of co-dependent kids! the experiment was conducted by the Royal Institute of Made-Up Science. FACT!

 

[trabuquera]

... he goes off on one about how people on the dole get to stay up all night and this makes them criminals, saying this:

OMG, so benefits claimants are like Gremlins! Feed after midnight and they run amok! What sort of social chaos ensues if they get wet?

 

[Shechemite]

OMG, so benefits claimants are like Gremlins! Feed after midnight and they run amok! What sort of social chaos ensues if they get wet?

Then they breed don't they (sniggers) the feckless gits.

 

[Dogsauce]

 

[smokedout]

good summary of errors etc in his research at: Criticisms of Adam Perkins and 'The Welfare Trait' (with images, tweets) · PsychologyBrief

he's over now

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

good summary of errors etc in his research at: Criticisms of Adam Perkins and 'The Welfare Trait' (with images, tweets) · PsychologyBrief

he's over now

That's fantastic.