joG
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 43,839
- Reaction score
- 9,656
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well, they won't be the ones to breed the new tulip I guess.
But many evangelical "Christians" believe precisely that - and they are what comprise the base of the Religious Right which wields such an influence on the GOP.
The paper causing all the fuss is linked within the OP article. It will be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Cambridge University Press.
Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science - Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, The Week
". . . That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform. For those who have the time and care about academia, the whole thing truly makes for enlightening reading. The main author of the paper is Jonathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory (and a self-described liberal, if you care to know).
Although the paper focuses on the field of social psychology, its introduction as well as its overall logic make many of its points applicable to disciplines beyond social psychology.
The authors first note the well-known problems of groupthink in any collection of people engaged in a quest for the truth: uncomfortable questions get suppressed, confirmation bias runs amok, and so on.
But it is when the authors move to specific examples that the paper is most enlightening.
They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality — and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed. . . ."
Science is science is science. The scientific method is every bit as important in the social sciences as it is in astronomy.
Jack, I am a very strong Christian. I put the word "Christian" into quotes when I refer to the Evangelicals because they are not in my opinion truly Christian. I hold no "special animus" towards them, but I cannot call them truly Christian. If you want to discuss religion and why I believe as I do, we can do that. But that belongs in a different thread.
And I think you're going to have a very difficult time showing that there's a greater percentage of Hindu or Muslim politicians who disavow evolution than their are of evangelical "Christian" politicians who disavow evolution.
I think Muslim evolution deniers exceed Christians. Hindus maybe not.
I suspect the best way to form an opinion is to look up the numbers...
...which show that the percentage of Muslims who deny evolution is generally lower than the percentage of Americans who deny evolution.
Social scientists would certainly like people to believe that. How do you suppose it is that Dr. Roy Spencer, a proponent of intelligent design, is one of our leading climate scientists? Regardless, there's no question on this survey or any other that would impede work in the social sciences. It's the kind of irrelevance that's always been used to enforce bias without admitting it.
Sorry, but I don't buy the Muslim survey for the same reason the author of the article is skeptical. I've lived among Muslim-majority populations. Most of them had never heard of evolution, let alone believed in it.
It would be wise, when referring to the population or a sizable segment thereof, to refrain from referring to one person as an example - for as you know, such is known as "cherry-picking".
Perhaps you're confusing social workers with social scientists. For if you'll check peer-reviewed social science papers on, say, ArXiv, you'll find that yes, there's a whole heck of a lot of hard science that go into the social sciences, including physiology, environmental and chemical effects, genetics, heredity, and much, much more.
I know the difference, thanks, and this tangent is also a diversion from the point of the OP, which was social scientists bemoaning the lack of diversity among social scientists, and suggesting their discipline would be improved by inclusion of more conservatives.
Hm. In other words, "Affirmative Action" in order to "include" more conservatives in the community of social scientists. Of course, AA was meant to help minorities just go to college, with few if any requirements as to what could be studied or not studied. Unlike the real AA, however, the profession of "social scientist" is a choice...and if I were a betting man, I'd bet a whole bunch of money that if you gather together a thousand conservative college students, you'd wouldn't find very many at all who wanted to be social scientists at all (except for those going into teaching, of course). It's not like the dean can look at that group of students and say, "Okay, we need more conservatives in the social scientists, so we're going to *ahem* encourage at least forty of you to take majors in the social sciences."
What a fine example of partisan hackery and the hypocrisy of "cherry picking" accusation.Global Warming: is a partisan issue. Conservatives understand that global warming is a natural occurrence. Liberals feel that out of all the warming cycles this planet has gone through in it's history, just this one is man-made. They are afraid that if they question that conclusion they will lose their political correctness credentials.
Evolution The liberals play a game of cherry picking a handful of conservatives who do not believe in evolution at any level and using that to label conservatives in general.
Age of Earth: Another example of leftwing cherry picking. Rank and file conservatives do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
Racism Where do we start? The KKK was founded by democrats. Jim Crow Laws were written, passed and enforced by democrats. The modern version of racism on the left is for all practical purposes claiming ownership of minorities they have bought with entitlements....then if for instance an African American walks off the plantation and joins the conservative side, they hurl insults such as "uncle tom", "aunt jemima", "Oreo Cookie", and "strawberry" etc.
Yet it does not even take so much intellect to conclude that the inordinate quantity of polluants we are pumping into the atmosphere is not a good thing, nor is the other types of polluants we dump and their ill effects are not nil or insignificant. So just where would you draw the line and for what reason?I have a brain, my head isn't up my ass, and I don't listen to Limbaugh. The extent to which humankind is responsible for "progressing" global warming is, in fact, contentious.
No affirmative action would be needed, only the cessation of discrimination.
What do you find NOT compassionate about 'hey bum get a job' or taking a private jet to Washington to beg for money?Yes, conservatives... so compassionate.
Who's stopping them from becoming social scientists? If you'll read the study, one of the causes is the simple fact that the social sciences is not something that conservative students often consider. From pages 27 and 28 of the study:
Even if differences in intelligence are small or nonexistent, might liberals simply find a
career in social psychology (or the academy more broadly) more appealing? Yes, for several POLITICAL DIVERSITY -- 28
reasons. The Big-5 trait that correlates most strongly with political liberalism is openness to
experience (r = .32 in Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloways’s 2003 meta-analysis), and people
high in that trait are more likely to pursue careers that will let them indulge their curiosity and
desire to learn, such as a career in the academy (McCrae, 1996). An academic career requires a
Ph.D., and liberals enter (and graduate) college more interested in pursuing Ph.D.s than do
conservatives (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009). Furthermore, the personal and intellectual
priorities of liberals may predispose them to an academic career: relative to conservatives, they
are less interested in financial success and more interested in writing original works and making
a theoretical contribution to science (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009).
Such intrinsic variations in interest may be amplified by a “birds of a feather” or
“homophile” effect. “Similarity attracts” is one of the most well-established findings in social
psychology (Byrne, 1969). As a field begins to lean a certain way, the field will likely become
increasingly attractive to people suited to that leaning. Over time the group itself may become
characterized by its group members. Professors and scientists may come to be seen as liberal
just as nurses are typically thought of as being female. Once that happens, conservatives may
disproportionately self-select out of joining the dissimilar group, based on a realistic perception that they “do not fit well.” Gross (2013) draws on interviews with and surveys of social science
academics to argue that this sort of self-selection is the main reason why the professoriate has
grown more liberal in recent decades.
This doesn't excuse the discrimination that is received by those few conservatives who actually do choose such a field, but this is enough to show that the liberal nature of the social sciences isn't just due to liberal bias, but also due to the choices made by conservatives.
What's more, when a certain segment of people are drawn to a certain field, it becomes a bit of a 'vicious circle'. The same kind of effect can be seen in conservative politics i.e. "I'm more conservative than the other guy!" It's "simple" human psychology at work.
There's one more thing I think you should consider: can you think of any instance in the past twenty years where those in a conservative organization or field of study ever castigated themselves for being discriminatory or otherwise unwelcoming towards liberals? I can't. And please don't claim that there aren't such instances. Anyway, the point is, it's normal for liberals to say "hey, we should be more inclusive with this group even if we don't like them", whereas that's not a common sentiment among liberals. In fact, if you'll recall, I started a thread here that asked which was more important, freedom to discriminate or freedom from discrimination...and without exception, the ones who said that the freedom TO discriminate was more important...were conservatives.
Graduate business schools were once bastions of conservatism but have made a concerted effort to broaden their appeal. As for the rest, are you really going to claim conservatives don't enter the field because they don't like it? Did black baseball players just not want to play in the major leagues before Jackie Robinson? Did African Americans just not want to move into nice neighborhoods?
That's a fair retort when it comes to the business schools - I'll give you that one. But yes, as I showed you in the section I pasted, the studies DID show that conservatives are significantly less likely to want to become social scientists. Not only that, but you canNOT compare the desire of those few conservatives who want to become social scientists to the civil rights struggles of blacks. Why? You can hide your political belief, but you can't hide your race. That, and - correct me if I'm wrong - I don't recall any conservative social scientists being beaten, burned, dog-bitten, bombed, or lynched for being conservative in a largely liberal field.
Merely ostracized and kept from publishing. Wouldn't it be great if the field were open and free to the best talent so we could get a definitive answer?
Thank you for agreeing that the discrimination that conservative social scientists face cannot by any stretch of rational thought be compared to the experiences of blacks during the Civil Rights struggle.
Again, I remind you of the thread I posted on here asking which was more important - freedom from discrimination or the freedom to discriminate. ALL liberals stated that freedom FROM discrimination was more important, whereas about half (give or take a few percentage points) of conservatives who were posting on the thread said that freedom TO discriminate was more important.
Perhaps that in a nutshell is why the social sciences are dominated by liberals. Perhaps it's better for all of us that they are.
And before you slam me for that last sentence, bear in mind that the military is dominated by conservatives...and perhaps it's better for all of us that they are. And considering the backlash that's going on to this day about gays in the military, I think we can safely say that the conservatives in the military often did discriminate against liberals - including ruining their careers. I've seen that happen several times myself. And I really don't think you'll disagree with me on this point about the military.
So...what do you think of that? Might it be normal and natural for different professions to be dominated by those of a certain mindset? Not of race, religion, ethnicity, but mindset?
This has gone ridiculously far afield. I have zero recollection your thread you keep citing. I'd argue that both freedoms are important. And I'm not so sure the military is without liberals.
Here's the thread. I thought you'd seen it since it had over 2200 comments.
And yes, the military does have liberals - I was one of 'em. But liberals in the military face a hard row to hoe - but it's not quite as bad now that gays can serve openly...the key words being "not quite as bad". In any case, the military is dominated by conservatives - I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. But just as the social sciences are a nice fit for the liberal mindset, the military is a nice fit for the conservative mindset.
And is that really a bad thing?
I've often compared the liberal/conservative dichotomy to H.G. Wells' Morlocks and Eloi in his "The Time Machine" - both look down upon (and even despise) the other, but both need the other in a very real - if unwilling - symbiotic relationship. If conservatives would learn just how greatly they benefit from what liberals do for them, and if liberals would learn the same lesson of conservatives, the world would be a much nicer place.
Early on in the paper it says "Psychology professors were as likely to report voting Republican as Democrat in presidential contests in the 1920s. From the 1930s through 1960, they were more likely to report voting for Democrats, but substantial minorities voted for Wilkie, Eisenhower, and Nixon (in 1960). By 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1"Who's stopping them from becoming social scientists? If you'll read the study, one of the causes is the simple fact that the social sciences is not something that conservative students often consider. From pages 27 and 28 of the study:
Even if differences in intelligence are small or nonexistent, might liberals simply find a
career in social psychology (or the academy more broadly) more appealing? Yes, for several POLITICAL DIVERSITY -- 28
reasons. The Big-5 trait that correlates most strongly with political liberalism is openness to
experience (r = .32 in Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloways’s 2003 meta-analysis), and people
high in that trait are more likely to pursue careers that will let them indulge their curiosity and
desire to learn, such as a career in the academy (McCrae, 1996). An academic career requires a
Ph.D., and liberals enter (and graduate) college more interested in pursuing Ph.D.s than do
conservatives (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009). Furthermore, the personal and intellectual
priorities of liberals may predispose them to an academic career: relative to conservatives, they
are less interested in financial success and more interested in writing original works and making
a theoretical contribution to science (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009).
Such intrinsic variations in interest may be amplified by a “birds of a feather” or
“homophile” effect. “Similarity attracts” is one of the most well-established findings in social
psychology (Byrne, 1969). As a field begins to lean a certain way, the field will likely become
increasingly attractive to people suited to that leaning. Over time the group itself may become
characterized by its group members. Professors and scientists may come to be seen as liberal
just as nurses are typically thought of as being female. Once that happens, conservatives may
disproportionately self-select out of joining the dissimilar group, based on a realistic perception that they “do not fit well.” Gross (2013) draws on interviews with and surveys of social science
academics to argue that this sort of self-selection is the main reason why the professoriate has
grown more liberal in recent decades.
This doesn't excuse the discrimination that is received by those few conservatives who actually do choose such a field, but this is enough to show that the liberal nature of the social sciences isn't just due to liberal bias, but also due to the choices made by conservatives.
What's more, when a certain segment of people are drawn to a certain field, it becomes a bit of a 'vicious circle'. The same kind of effect can be seen in conservative politics i.e. "I'm more conservative than the other guy!" It's "simple" human psychology at work.
There's one more thing I think you should consider: can you think of any instance in the past twenty years where those in a conservative organization or field of study ever castigated themselves for being discriminatory or otherwise unwelcoming towards liberals? I can't. And please don't claim that there aren't such instances. Anyway, the point is, it's normal for liberals to say "hey, we should be more inclusive with this group even if we don't like them", whereas that's not a common sentiment among liberals. In fact, if you'll recall, I started a thread here that asked which was more important, freedom to discriminate or freedom from discrimination...and without exception, the ones who said that the freedom TO discriminate was more important...were conservatives.
Early on in the paper it says "Psychology professors were as likely to report voting Republican as Democrat in presidential contests in the 1920s. From the 1930s through 1960, they were more likely to report voting for Democrats, but substantial minorities voted for Wilkie, Eisenhower, and Nixon (in 1960). By 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1"
This 11 to one ratio is fairly reflected in the education system today where diversity of opinion is suffering and PC rules have become well established throughout academia. It is all too similar to inbreeding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?