Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science

[What if...?]

Diversity improves performance.

Could improve performance. Could also introduce "noise".

You should bear in mind that smart conservatives are taught to get dat money. And the social sciences dont pay much. I guess that would be self selecting, though.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. The first source I posted said, "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide" endorsed the position that global warming is due to human activity (and that global warming exists in the first place). The endorsements came from statements issued by the organizations not surveys so they were not subject to such liberal bias.

2. I've posted the questions and categories for each of the 4 surveys I referenced above. Could you please quote the words that you believe to be liberal bias and explain why you see them that way?

STUDY ON GLOBAL WARMING REFERENCED BY NASA

(Asked of climate scientists) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

PEW STUDY ON EVOLUTION

Which comes closer to your view?
1) Humans and other living things have evolved over time.
[If answer to one is "yes" => 1A) Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection. 1B) A supreme being guided
the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. 1C) Don't know/Refused]
2) Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
3) Don't know/Refused.

GALLUP STUDY ON TAKING BIBLE LITERALLY

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?

GALLUP STUDY ON HUMANS BEING CREATED WITHIN 10,000 YEARS

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?​

In the same way that network news bias is expressed in story selection, survey bias (or bias in citation of survey results) is expressed in question selection. The questions you have highlighted are those most likely to showcase faith-based or irrational (choose your descriptor) beliefs on the right, although focusing on that end of the spectrum leaves out of account the considerable presence of those beliefs beyond the right as well. More tellingly, questions not asked are what reveal bias. There is, for example, no statement in the survey like: "The United States is responsible for more of the world's problems than any other country." Which end of the spectrum do you think would run up big, irrational numbers in response? Or in the area of religion: "Karma in the universe tends to reward good acts over a lifetime." Again, irrational views toward the left end of the spectrum would likely surface.

In many cases those who exercise the bias cited in the OP research do so without realizing it because the bias has been so ingrained and unchallenged.

 

[Jack Hays]

Could improve performance. Could also introduce "noise".

You should bear in mind that smart conservatives are taught to get dat money. And the social sciences dont pay much. I guess that would be self selecting, though.

And again you would be wrong. Many, many conservatives have turned away from the pursuit of wealth for careers in the military or other public service. Moreover, many have aspired to academia only to become discouraged by discrimination.

 

[What if...?]

And again you would be wrong. Many, many conservatives have turned away from the pursuit of wealth for careers in the military or other public service. Moreover, many have aspired to academia only to become discouraged by discrimination.

There has to be some of the other kind of discrimination as well. I imagine the guy who thinks the solution to high unemployment is for lazy asses to get a job (common response here) is gonna have a long row to hoe.

I guess if they resist current conservative dogma they'd be OK.

 

[Jack Hays]

There has to be some of the other kind of discrimination as well. I imagine the guy who thinks the solution to high unemployment is for lazy asses to get a job (common response here) is gonna have a long row to hoe.

I guess if they resist current conservative dogma they'd be OK.

And again you illustrate the problem. Why do you think "current conservative dogma" would be a problem? Can you define that?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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.

All of which pretty much backs up what I said, doesn't it? But as long as the Religious Right has such a chokehold on the modern conservatism, as long as strict adherence to religious dogma is a requirement to be a successful conservative politician, true political diversity in scientific academia is an impossibility.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

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

Really? Then why was evolution - evolution! - a matter of contention among the 2012 GOP presidential candidates?

 

[Jack Hays]

All of which pretty much backs up what I said, doesn't it? But as long as the Religious Right has such a chokehold on the modern conservatism, as long as strict adherence to religious dogma is a requirement to be a successful conservative politician, true political diversity in scientific academia is an impossibility.

No, it does not back up what you said, it destroys what you said. And your claim that the "Religious Right" has a "chokehold" on modern conservatism is an example of the bias that is hurting social science.

 

[Jack Hays]

Really? Then why was evolution - evolution! - a matter of contention among the 2012 GOP presidential candidates?

It wasn't.

 

[Fiddytree]

All of which pretty much backs up what I said, doesn't it? But as long as the Religious Right has such a chokehold on the modern conservatism, as long as strict adherence to religious dogma is a requirement to be a successful conservative politician, true political diversity in scientific academia is an impossibility.

That will only address a limited number of differences between the academic left and conservatives (largely outside academia). Do you think accepting Darwin will help with understanding what aids the homeless or proper police procedures?

Academia has a different perception of social reality from both the average person and conservatism.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It wasn't.

Um, yeah, it was.

 

[Jack Hays]

Um, yeah, it was.

None with "doubts" was a serious candidate with a following worth thinking about. Your deflection to this side track is just another example of bias in play. And all that aside, views on evolution are actually irrelevant to much of social science.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You've used the word bias a few times here. Thoughts on what is good for society are bias. Data to back up those thoughts are usually objective and based on some kind of mathematical formula.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No, it does not back up what you said, it destroys what you said. And your claim that the "Religious Right" has a "chokehold" on modern conservatism is an example of the bias that is hurting social science.

Then why was evolution even discussed in the GOP presidential debate? Sorry, Jack, but you really are in denial. What's more, it's pretty much required among conservatives that Thou Shalt Not Ever admit that global warming is caused by humans and is happening...whereas the vast majority of scientists worldwide can plainly see it happening in their own fields of study. You want them to deny what they see for themselves in their own fields of study?

You - and every other conservative who seems to think that scientists can be told what to think and what not to think - are in denial.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then why was evolution even discussed in the GOP presidential debate? Sorry, Jack, but you really are in denial. What's more, it's pretty much required among conservatives that Thou Shalt Not Ever admit that global warming is caused by humans and is happening...whereas the vast majority of scientists worldwide can plainly see it happening in their own fields of study. You want them to deny what they see for themselves in their own fields of study?

You - and every other conservative who seems to think that scientists can be told what to think and what not to think - are in denial.

You are missing the entire point of the thread. Whether evolution was or was not a marginal issue among GOP presidential candidates in 2012 does not bear the slightest relevance to this discussion. Nor does global warming have anything to do with this discussion. This is about social science; I suggest that a researcher's view on climate questions is irrelevant. Here's a hypothetical: Hindus believe in reincarnation while most scientists do not. Is it your claim that there can be no Hindu scientists? How about Hindu social scientists?

 

[Fiddytree]

Could improve performance. Could also introduce "noise".

You should bear in mind that smart conservatives are taught to get dat money. And the social sciences dont pay much. I guess that would be self selecting, though.

To an extent, yes. There has been an increased acceptance in the idea that academia was a wasteful pursuit. Both the average person as well as the conservative intelligentsia have grabbed onto that message. If they weren't becoming involved in business, private consultation and think tanks is where the more intellectual conservatives have moved.

A substantial side narrative has been the growth of think tanks and their hirings since the 1960s. Conservatives have argued that the culture of academia has shifted Left since those undergraduate and graduate students of the early 1960s took tenured positions in the nation's colleges and universities and their research looked down on. They moved on to think tanks, which brought comfortable wages, full time research and no students.

Consider that over the course of 40 years the humanities had drifted further into poststructuralist evaluations of public policy. Poststructuralists even made Marxists cringe. It became rather fashionable to make the literary turn rather than work with existing structures of power. The writing became more abstract, more esoteric, and less directly applicable for policymakers.

All of this adds to the perception from conservatives that academia has been wasting away and had become more irrelevant.

 

[Jack Hays]

You've used the word bias a few times here. Thoughts on what is good for society are bias. Data to back up those thoughts are usually objective and based on some kind of mathematical formula.

You are confusing discrimination with bias. We discriminate all the time based on evidence. Bias requires no evidence, and is present before the question is asked.

 

[Fiddytree]

You are confusing discrimination with bias. We discriminate all the time based on evidence. Bias requires no evidence, and is present before the question is asked.

I think they are wanting some studies which provide ammunition for a Left-wing bias in the population of traditional research academic and the products of their research.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think they are wanting some studies which provide ammunition for a Left-wing bias in the population of traditional research academic and the products of their research.

I'm not sure that's the context of the post to which I replied, but it's a fair comment otherwise.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You are confusing discrimination with bias. We discriminate all the time based on evidence. Bias requires no evidence, and is present before the question is asked.

No, I'm not. People's vision/views of a good society are subjective. The economic model to support it is based on formulas and empirical evidence.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I'm not. People's vision/views of a good society are subjective. The economic model to support it is based on formulas and empirical evidence.

So, your claim is that people's subjective views are supported by formulas and empirical evidence? Then in what way are they subjective?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I think they are wanting some studies which provide ammunition for a Left-wing bias in the population of traditional research academic and the products of their research.

Ironically, most economic classes in colleges are no longer based on economic liberal theory such as Keynesian.

 

[Fiddytree]

No, I'm not. People's vision/views of a good society are subjective. The economic model to support it is based on formulas and empirical evidence.

If there is one thing that the structuralist and poststructuralists taught us, it is that empirical evidence is highly influenced by our understandings of the world. They are a lot more fragile than we'd otherwise think.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

So, your claim is that people's subjective views are supported by formulas and empirical evidence? Then in what way are they subjective?

They are subjective in the way that some people view top down policy better than bottom up.

 

[Jack Hays]

They are subjective in the way that some people view top down policy better than bottom up.

I suggest you spend some time sorting out your thoughts.