Back in 2010, Joe Henrich, Steve Heine, and Ara Norenzayan dropped a bomb[1] on psychology with their paper “The WEIRDest people in the world?” They argued that most psychology studies rely on Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) populations. These samples, they warned, are about as representative of humanity as Walter Sobchak is of a calm, reasonable human being. I should mention that I deeply respect all three scholars and even consider them friends.
Since then, their critique has dominated psychology. Every editor, reviewer, and funding agency now fixates on sample composition. It's become the go-to critique that even first-year undergrads can confidently make: "But professor, isn't that sample just WEIRD?"
But here's where it gets interesting. What if relying on WEIRD samples isn't always a problem? What if, for some areas of psychology, it doesn't matter much at all?
I'm more open to this idea after reading a brilliant new paper by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone th…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Speak Now Regret Later to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.