Positivist psychology traditions block the study of evil

Evidence

Reflecting on these books, I have been led back to Stanley Milgram’s (1974) book detailing his obedience studies and his final interpretations of them, and to Hannah Arendt’s (1963) seminal and controversial book Eichmann in Jerusalem: Report on the Banality of Evil. Each author has been willing to consider the events or people we label as evil. (Milgram does so somewhat implicitly, the others quite explicitly.) Each author deserves considerable credit for this; evil is not a topic easily accessible within the confines of those psychological movements that are the inheritors of our earlier operationalist, positivist traditions. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3852 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Theory’s proper object is evil and suppression, not the good; Positivist research traditions made the study of evil academically difficult. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3852; Positivist restrictions on thought serve authoritarians by blinding observers to hidden suffering. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 204 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Positivist research traditions made the study of evil academically difficult. #expands (0.97) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3852