Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science

[Jack Hays]

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. . . ."

 

[Brochacholomigo]

An interesting article. Thank you.

 

[Thom Paine]

Thanks Jack

Thom Paine

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Let me get this straight. Many conservatives believe that global warming is a conspiracy, evolution is a myth, the Earth is 6000 years old, racism is not a pervasive issue, trickle-down economics works, starting wars in other countries increases our safety and host of other theories that the scientific method has firmly rejected and ACADEMIA is the problem?

I think the problem is the anti-intellectual road that conservatism has taken, particularly since Reagan was elected. Fortunately, some conservatives have not taken this road including several of the conservative professors in college that I had. With that in mind, I would suggest that conservatives who actually want to become academics (it's been my impression that conservatives generally do NOT want to enter academia) put down their Bill O'Reilly supplied tin foil hats and follow their lead.

That said, I'm open to more research on the subject. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something and that true anti-conservative bias is a problem in academia, but I'm going to need more than one study in a single discipline to believe that conservatives aren't doing it to themselves.

 

[Fiddytree]

That said, I'm open to more research on the subject. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something and that true anti-conservative bias is a problem in academia, but I'm going to need more than one study in a single discipline to believe that conservatives aren't doing it to themselves.

It's both a problem and not a problem. The problem part of it is that conservative ideas are often so readily dismissed in their circles that it can guide and reinforce their interpretations of reality. The non-problem is that academia goes through periods of conservatism (though I doubt it's likely we will see a return to the 1950s) or a reconciliation of conservative ideas by politely forgetting some of the excesses of the previous decades.

As far as anti-intellectualism among conservatives is concerned, you have to understand that this was a fairly popular belief among the liberal intelligentsia for generations. If you want maybe a generation before Reagan, I'd suggest picking up Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in the United States and The Paranoid Style of American Politics for his evaluation of populist conservatism of both the McCarthy era and the Goldwater era.

We can discuss whether good research tends to be rejected by conservatives more often or not (an accusation that I hold is a mixed truth), but the social atmosphere of academia does kind of promote an limiting view of the world.

 

[Jack Hays]

Let me get this straight. Many conservatives believe that global warming is a conspiracy, evolution is a myth, the Earth is 6000 years old, racism is not a pervasive issue, trickle-down economics works, starting wars in other countries increases our safety and host of other theories that the scientific method has firmly rejected and ACADEMIA is the problem?

I think the problem is the anti-intellectual road that conservatism has taken, particularly since Reagan was elected. Fortunately, some conservatives have not taken this road including several of the conservative professors in college that I had. With that in mind, I would suggest that conservatives who actually want to become academics (it's been my impression that conservatives generally do NOT want to enter academia) put down their Bill O'Reilly supplied tin foil hats and follow their lead.

That said, I'm open to more research on the subject. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something and that true anti-conservative bias is a problem in academia, but I'm going to need more than one study in a single discipline to believe that conservatives aren't doing it to themselves.

Thank you for illustrating the problem.

 

[joG]

Very interesting. I loaded the study on Kindle to read this evening.

 

[cpwill]

Let me get this straight. Many conservatives believe that global warming is a conspiracy, evolution is a myth, the Earth is 6000 years old, racism is not a pervasive issue, trickle-down economics works, starting wars in other countries increases our safety and host of other theories that the scientific method has firmly rejected and ACADEMIA is the problem?

I think the problem is the anti-intellectual road that conservatism has taken, particularly since Reagan was elected. Fortunately, some conservatives have not taken this road including several of the conservative professors in college that I had. With that in mind, I would suggest that conservatives who actually want to become academics (it's been my impression that conservatives generally do NOT want to enter academia) put down their Bill O'Reilly supplied tin foil hats and follow their lead.

That said, I'm open to more research on the subject. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something

That is correct, you are.

Interestingly, the authors actually highlighted precisely what you were missing:

... 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....

You are doing the same - confusing Liberal Beliefs with "reality".

 

[Fruityfact]

Let me get this straight. Many conservatives believe that global warming is a conspiracy, evolution is a myth, the Earth is 6000 years old, racism is not a pervasive issue, trickle-down economics works, starting wars in other countries increases our safety and host of other theories that the scientific method has firmly rejected and ACADEMIA is the problem?

I think the problem is the anti-intellectual road that conservatism has taken, particularly since Reagan was elected. Fortunately, some conservatives have not taken this road including several of the conservative professors in college that I had. With that in mind, I would suggest that conservatives who actually want to become academics (it's been my impression that conservatives generally do NOT want to enter academia) put down their Bill O'Reilly supplied tin foil hats and follow their lead.

That said, I'm open to more research on the subject. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something and that true anti-conservative bias is a problem in academia, but I'm going to need more than one study in a single discipline to believe that conservatives aren't doing it to themselves.

Liberals are playing chess, Conservatives are playing 3D chess.
:roll:

 

[whysoserious]

Thank you for illustrating the problem.

Don't bother addressing the post or anything...

 

[whysoserious]

That is correct, you are.

Interestingly, the authors actually highlighted precisely what you were missing:

You are doing the same - confusing Liberal Beliefs with "reality".

Those aren't really beliefs... (apart from the wars in other countries). There is nothing partisan about global warming, evolution, the age of earth, or racism. All of these can and have been proven though science and reason.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

That is correct, you are.

Interestingly, the authors actually highlighted precisely what you were missing:

You are doing the same - confusing Liberal Beliefs with "reality".

I read that part of the article. If I had claimed that the erroneous liberal belief that gun control is the root of crime prevention was "reality", then your accusation that I have confused liberal beliefs with reality would have been correct. However, I did make such a biased claim. Instead, I purposely referenced phenomena that have been demonstrated or backed by extensive peer-reviewed research in order to avoid such bias. That you think the issues I references are merely "liberal beliefs" mean that you are part of the problem I mentioned.

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't bother addressing the post or anything...

In #8 cpwill did explicitly what I did by implication. He has it exactly right.

 

[whysoserious]

In #8 cpwill did explicitly what I did by implication. He has it exactly right.

And he had it wrong. Almost everything TPD posted was non-partisan:

Global warming
Evolution
Age of Earth
Racism

These are not partisan issues. They can be shown empirically with evidence - that's not what this article is about.

 

[Declan]

How does one scientifically quantify morality? It is not real. It is, by its very nature, subjective.

 

[Jack Hays]

And he had it wrong. Almost everything TPD posted was non-partisan:

Global warming
Evolution
Age of Earth
Racism

These are not partisan issues. They can be shown empirically with evidence - that's not what this article is about.

No. Global warming remains contentious, but the imputation to conservatives of widespread disbelief in evolution, or confusion about the age of the Earth, or racism at a level beyond that of the general population is a liberal trope.

 

[whysoserious]

No. Global warming remains contentious, but the imputation to conservatives of widespread disbelief in evolution, or confusion about the age of the Earth, or racism at a level beyond that of the general population is a liberal trope.

No, global warming is not contentious. Anyone with a brain would know that pumping a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, while cutting down the living things that use that gas also at an unprecedented rate would result in warming.

The science on global warming has spoken. There can be arguing over the models (how long until Florida is under water), how we can fix it, etc... but AGW? No, it's not a ****ing discussion so quit saying it is. Rush Limbaugh isn't the authority on global warming - climatologists are and they have spoken.

*Edit: Regarding the other issues... ok then.

I would also add, that bias in any subject can be a bad thing. And there are going to be inherent biases. I am not opposed to stamping out as much bias as possible, especially in the realm of sciences.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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. . . ."

Jack, there's a whole host of problems with your source's claims and conclusions. First off, it's as if he's pointing the finger at liberal groupthink, as if there's no such groupthink on the conservative side. Is there bias by liberals against conservatives? Sure. And there's every bit as much bias by conservatives against liberals. I've personally seen both sides of this particular coin.

But when it comes to scientific topics, the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have changed from what they once were. Back in the day - as you well know - there was no rejection of science by conservatives. However, thanks to the rise of the Religious Right, and the polarization of the political parties into one being liberal and the other being conservative, it's now become dogma among much of the Right that one must believe, among other things, that the universe is only a bit over 6000 years old and that homosexuality is a choice...

...and such expectations drive away those with truly scientific mindsets. That's why only 6% of scientists are conservatives, and the remaining 94% are either independent or liberal.

What your source did was to read what he wanted in the study, but he did not grok the deeper meanings, the implications of the study within the context of relatively recent social and political history...and because of this he presented a strongly skewed article. He's not a good source for you to reference.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, global warming is not contentious. Anyone with a brain would know that pumping a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, while cutting down the living things that use that gas also at an unprecedented rate would result in warming.

The science on global warming has spoken. There can be arguing over the models (how long until Florida is under water), how we can fix it, etc... but AGW? No, it's not a ****ing discussion so quit saying it is. Rush Limbaugh isn't the authority on global warming - climatologists are and they have spoken.

*Edit: Regarding the other issues... ok then.

I would also add, that bias in any subject can be a bad thing. And there are going to be inherent biases. I am not opposed to stamping out as much bias as possible, especially in the realm of sciences.

Sorry, but the idea of a climate science "consensus" on AGW is another trope, and it has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, there's a whole host of problems with your source's claims and conclusions. First off, it's as if he's pointing the finger at liberal groupthink, as if there's no such groupthink on the conservative side. Is there bias by liberals against conservatives? Sure. And there's every bit as much bias by conservatives against liberals. I've personally seen both sides of this particular coin.

But when it comes to scientific topics, the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have changed from what they once were. Back in the day - as you well know - there was no rejection of science by conservatives. However, thanks to the rise of the Religious Right, and the polarization of the political parties into one being liberal and the other being conservative, it's now become dogma among much of the Right that one must believe, among other things, that the universe is only a bit over 6000 years old and that homosexuality is a choice...

...and such expectations drive away those with truly scientific mindsets. That's why only 6% of scientists are conservatives, and the remaining 94% are either independent or liberal.

What your source did was to read what he wanted in the study, but he did not grok the deeper meanings, the implications of the study within the context of relatively recent social and political history...and because of this he presented a strongly skewed article. He's not a good source for you to reference.

This is from the research abstract itself, not from the article. It makes the point powerfully.

Abstract:
Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of
viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key
type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social
psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence
and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable
political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political
diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such
as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering
researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and
producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased
political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of
bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to
improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals
in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile
climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political
diversity in social psychology.

 

[Jack Hays]

However, thanks to the rise of the Religious Right, and the polarization of the political parties into one being liberal and the other being conservative, it's now become dogma among much of the Right that one must believe, among other things, that the universe is only a bit over 6000 years old and that homosexuality is a choice...

These are simply false assertions which illustrate the point the authors made.

 

[whysoserious]

Sorry, but the idea of a climate science "consensus" on AGW is another trope, and it has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

How is it a trope? I've never seen it disproven.

 

[Jack Hays]

How is it a trope? I've never seen it disproven.

Professor Judith Curry is a prominent climate scientist at Georgia Tech. She is deeply concerned by overconfidence and false consensus in climate science.

[h=2]Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC[/h] Posted on November 25, 2014 | 404 comments
by Judith Curry
Group failures often have disastrous consequences—not merely for businesses, nonprofits, and governments, but for all those affected by them. – Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie
Continue reading →

404 Comments
Posted in Consensus, IPCC, Sociology of science



[h=2]We are all confident idiots[/h] Posted on November 13, 2014 | 725 comments
by Judith Curry
Stumbling through all our cognitive clutter just to recognize a true “I don’t know” may not constitute failure as much as it does an enviable success, a crucial signpost that shows us we are traveling in the right direction toward the truth. – David Dunning
Continue reading →

725 Comments
Posted in Sociology of science, Uncertainty

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Global warming remains contentious

No, it does not.

From NASA : "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

but the imputation to conservatives of widespread disbelief in evolution,

53% of "steadfast conservatives" and 36% of "business conservatives" do not believe in evolution (Public Opinion on Religion, the Bible, Evolution and Social Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press).

or confusion about the age of the Earth,

42% of Republicans believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
41% of Republicans think God created people within the last 10,000 years.

or racism at a level beyond that of the general population is a liberal trope.

I didn't argue that conservatives were racist "at a level beyond that of the general population." I said that many conservatives don't believe that racism is a pervasive issue. This is accurate.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it does not.

From NASA : "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."


53% of "steadfast conservatives" and 36% of "business conservatives" do not believe in evolution (Public Opinion on Religion, the Bible, Evolution and Social Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press).


42% of Republicans believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
41% of Republicans think God created people within the last 10,000 years.


I didn't argue that conservatives were racist "at a level beyond that of the general population." I said that many conservatives don't believe that racism is a pervasive issue. This is accurate.

And the categories and questions of those surveys are themselves the product of the liberal bias the authors pointed to. They are the problem, not the solution. And what is missing from your presentation is that the conservative numbers are not much different from the general population.