EDITORnThomas FlemingnMANAGING EDITORnKatherine DaltonnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, Jr.nASSISTANT EDITORnTheodore PappasnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinCONTRIBUTING EDITORSnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.J.nBrown, Samuel Francis, GeorgenGarrett, Russell Kirk, E. ChristiannKopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDING EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton Reed,nGary VasilashnEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnASSOCIATE PUBLISHERnMichael WardernPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuy C. RejfettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices: 934 NorthnMain Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.nSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800, MountnMorris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-435-0715.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Cathy Corson at (815) 964-5811.nU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1991 by The Rockford Institute.nAll rights reserved.nChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, ILn61103-7061. Second-class postage paid atnRockford, IL and additional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, ILn61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect thenviews of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesnt HtGlZINE OF iHEIICAN CUltUIEnVol. 15. No. 7 July 1991n4/CHRONICLESnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnOn ‘Common-SensenSociology’nSteven Goldberg’s !’Sociology andnCommon Sense” (March 1991) containsnsome bits of wisdom, but its centralnpremise is badly flawed. I first encounterednthe “Common-Sense SociologynTest” as a graduate student in the earlyn1960’s, and by then it was at least andecade or two old, so its ancestry isnconsiderably older than Goldbergnclaims. Like Professor Goldberg, I havenfelt uncomfortable when reading manynsuch quizzes, particularly those thatnappear in sociology texts. Yes, many ofnthem are questionable or just plainnwrong, and the examples he presentsnoffer eloquent testimony to that fact.nOne of the main problems with suchnquizzes is that they fail on the criterionnof specificity: the generalizations theynmake are so broad the student sensesnthat one question is being asked while,nin fact, a very different one is addressed.nTo be effective, such questionsnmust be worded in such a way that theynare specific, concrete, and permit onlynone possible interpretation. In the secondnedition of my introductory sociologyntextbook (l988), I included justnsuch a “common-sense” quiz. Arenthese statements true or false? ThenSouth has the highest homicide ornmurder rate of all regions in the country.n(True.) Blacks have a higher suicidenrate than whites. (False.) Thenhigher the social class, the higher thenlikelihood that someone will drink alcohol.n(True.) The divorced have anlower likelihood of getting married innthe future than someone of the samenage who has never been married.n(False.) Here, there is no possibility ofnmisinterpretation, as there is in Goldberg’snexamples. And the answers to allnthe questions I asked about, again,nunlike some of those Professor Goldbergncites, are solidly established empirically.nThe last time I gave such anquiz, the class as a whole got the rightnanswer 48 percent of the time. Thus,nwhile I agree with Goldberg’s pointnthat many such quizzes ask poor questions,nthey can nevertheless be effectivelynworded and used as instrumentsnto argue against relying on commonnnnsense.nHowever, my objection to Goldberg’snargument runs far deeper thannthis. His main point — that commonnsense is accurate with respect to observationsnbut wrong with respect to explanations—nis egregiously wrong, asnmy common-sense quiz shows. Thenfact is, many — most — undergraduatesndo not notice a great many thingsnthat take place around them; they havenan extremely mistaken view of the sizenand shape of the social worid. Theirnpreconceptions lead them to use theirnobservations to make erroneous generalizationsnabout who does what, how,nunder what circumstances, and — asnGoldberg agrees — why. Permit me tonsubmit two exhibits in support of mynposition, both taken from social psychology,nnot sociology.nExhibit A: Eyewitness Testimony. Asnresearch on eyewitness testimony hasnshown — overwhelmingly and convincingly—npeople are extremely poornobservers of what takes place right innfront of them. Moreover, individualsnlistening to eyewitness testimony havena great deal of confidence that whatnthey are being told is accurate andnvalid. Again and again, we see thatneyewitnesses mistakenly identify perpetrators,nrecall details of events thatndon’t exist, introduce nonexistent objects,nforget crucial details, and areninfluenced by erroneous post-eventncues. Research does not say that eyewitnessntestimony is sometimes wrongnwith respect to major details — it isnusually wrong with respect to mostnmajor details. On the most basic level,ncontrary to Goldberg’s assertion, peoplenare extremely poor observers; humannobservation is deeply flawed, unreliable,nand often inaccurate.nExhibit B: Judgmental Heuristics.nMuch of what people “know” to bentrue is wrong, fundamentally distortednby invalid inferential strategies, as annentire school of social psychologists hasnshown. The commonsensical techniquesnof reasoning of the so-calledn”common man” and “common woman”nfail to yield correct answers whennapplied to realms other than the mundane,nquotidian world. People tend tonbe far more influenced by what theyn