The Problem of Liberal Bias in Social Psychology

[Jack Hays]

If most or all of those in a given research program are liberal, how can any such compensation be at all possible without ensuring the inclusion of those who are of conservative bent in the entire process? Such might be earnestly discussed over a beer or six, but when it comes to the practical implementation of such compensation...that's a real can of worms, and one that I doubt that any but the most politically zealous would deem worth the effort.

it's not a political question. It's an academic procedure question.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

it's not a political question. It's an academic procedure question.

Um, no. I disagree. This whole thing is very political.

 

[Jack Hays]

Um, no. I disagree. This whole thing is very political.

But how does a field with an acknowledged bias critique and police its product?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

But how does a field with an acknowledged bias critique and police its product?

To claim a political bias is a cop out as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jack Hays]

To claim a political bias is a cop out as far as I'm concerned.

The political bias was already documented in the Scientific American article.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The political bias was already documented in the Scientific American article.

Or so is the claim. Just the run of the mill right vs left horsesh*t rather than any real stated issue.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

it's not a political question. It's an academic procedure question.

And that's why I said, "But when it comes to the practical implementation of such compensation...that's a real can of worms, and one that I doubt that any but the most politically zealous would deem worth the effort."

Jack, you can discuss "academic procedures" all you want...but discussion's one thing, and practical implementation is something else altogether. I don't use the word impossible very often, but it applies here: in a democracy (or a representative democracy like our own) it is impossible to implement practically a means of compensation to adjust for political lean in any field of endeavor. Sure, if we lived in a dictatorship this could indeed be done, but not in a relatively free nation like ours or those in the former British Commonwealth.

Remember the Serenity Prayer, Jack - it applies here.

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

 

[Jack Hays]

And that's why I said, "But when it comes to the practical implementation of such compensation...that's a real can of worms, and one that I doubt that any but the most politically zealous would deem worth the effort."

Jack, you can discuss "academic procedures" all you want...but discussion's one thing, and practical implementation is something else altogether. I don't use the word impossible very often, but it applies here: in a democracy (or a representative democracy like our own) it is impossible to implement practically a means of compensation to adjust for political lean in any field of endeavor. Sure, if we lived in a dictatorship this could indeed be done, but not in a relatively free nation like ours or those in the former British Commonwealth.

Remember the Serenity Prayer, Jack - it applies here.

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

I was wondering whether practitioners themselves, acknowledging their bias, could rise above it and voluntarily adopt measures to raise their level of objectivity.

 

[LowDown]

As I've pointed out so many times, I grew up racist and strongly conservative. A career in the Navy helped me unlearn that crap that I'd been taught since youth. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear you had the same opportunity.

If any honest criticism is to be dismissed out of hand as racist then serious problems will never be addressed.

 

[bg85]

You're trying to parry a sword that's already been run through your thorax.

Of course it's meaningful. It means "ability to think logically" = "more conservative". In a general sense, anyway.

I just don't buy it. I might argue that "more creative" = "more liberal" so you might see less conservatives in areas that require more creative thinking, but certainly not "more logical" = "more conservative". conservativism and liberalism ideologies have nothing to do with one's ability to think logically. they're based on our experiences and our perception of the world we live in.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I was wondering whether practitioners themselves, acknowledging their bias, could rise above it and voluntarily adopt measures to raise their level of objectivity.

Jack, you're asking for the professionals in a field to voluntarily adjust for a perceived political bias within their field? Again, that's nice to talk about over a beer or six, but when it comes to the practical implementation of such...

...that's impossible.

Think about it. Your references state that there is a strong possibility of bias...but where has the bias manifested itself? How can it be identified? Even worse, how can such be compensated for ahead of time, before studies are initiated, before policies are developed?

You're asking for a group of people to compensate for their political lean...but can you think of any time in American - heck, human - history where a group of professional people who are NOT in government implemented policies to compensate for that group's political lean without intervention from the government forcing it to do so? I can't.

Of course, just because something's never been done before doesn't mean it can be done...but then, just because you yourself think that something should be done doesn't automatically mean that thing is actually possible.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

If any honest criticism is to be dismissed out of hand as racist then serious problems will never be addressed.

There's a Michael Jackson song: "Man in the Mirror". I looked in the mirror and made that change - and it was a very radical change indeed. The very fact that you made this statement in #73: "Sorry, but I have no fear of stating the obvious about the proportion of certain minorities in a region and the crime rates there." shows that you have not made that same change. You have not come to the understanding that it's not the race/culture/ethnicity/religion, but it's the levels of poverty and of education.

If you don't fix the root problems - the education and the poverty - then all the increased police presence and all the increased jail sentences are just band-aids.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, you're asking for the professionals in a field to voluntarily adjust for a perceived political bias within their field? Again, that's nice to talk about over a beer or six, but when it comes to the practical implementation of such...

...that's impossible.

Think about it. Your references state that there is a strong possibility of bias...but where has the bias manifested itself? How can it be identified? Even worse, how can such be compensated for ahead of time, before studies are initiated, before policies are developed?

You're asking for a group of people to compensate for their political lean...but can you think of any time in American - heck, human - history where a group of professional people who are NOT in government implemented policies to compensate for that group's political lean without intervention from the government forcing it to do so? I can't.

Of course, just because something's never been done before doesn't mean it can be done...but then, just because you yourself think that something should be done doesn't automatically mean that thing is actually possible.

All of which is precisely why I thought it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[tomkat364]

I debated something very similar with my wife yesterday about this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/u...n-of-working-mothers.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0
An 'unpublished' study from a liberal institution that is starting a new gender based research effort. Not only does the data presented (which is very incomplete due to it being reported in the media, rather than even trying to appear scientific) show a minimal change in behavior (66% to 69%), but it does not address a huge host of variables, such as full time/part time, type of work the mother did, age of the child when the mom worked, or whether the mom was adding a second salary or a single mom working to support the family completely, or if these 'advantages' had any negative consequences on the children as well. To even call these findings 'science' is a disgrace. It is propaganda that does nothing but try to make the ideology of the 'researchers' appear more legitimate.

I suggested that we write a similarly groundbreaking article entitled "Mounting harms to children from playing outside" due to the fact that my four year old sustains more minor scrapes and bruises outside than in. Ignore all the benefits of outside play, and simply report a sliver of the big picture.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

All of which is precisely why I thought it would be an interesting discussion.

But there's no real indication that what you want is actually possible. Why discuss the impossible?

 

[Jack Hays]

But there's no real indication that what you want is actually possible. Why discuss the impossible?

Because I was interested in the idea.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Because I was interested in the idea.

So what's your ideas on how to make it happen?

 

[Jack Hays]

So what's your ideas on how to make it happen?

Sorry, but after all your work to derail the discussion I don't think you have the right to ask.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Sorry, but after all your work to derail the discussion I don't think you have the right to ask.

Let me get this straight - you asked a question, I gave an answer - and apparently you didn't like that answer because it wasn't what you expected even though your reference itself addressed that same answer...and now you claim I worked to derail the discussion????

And last I remember, I am an American - I sure as heck have the right to ask.

 

[Jack Hays]

Let me get this straight - you asked a question, I gave an answer - and apparently you didn't like that answer because it wasn't what you expected even though your reference itself addressed that same answer...and now you claim I worked to derail the discussion????

And last I remember, I am an American - I sure as heck have the right to ask.

You do. But I'm no longer interested in the discussion.

 

[d0gbreath]

Social psychology requires empathy. Can you imagine pouring out your soul to a highly conservative psychologist just to have him/her say:

"Better you than me".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Social psychology requires empathy. Can you imagine pouring out your soul to a highly conservative psychologist just to have him/her say:

"Better you than me".

No, they'd say, "well, it's your fault for getting raped - you wore those sexy outfits, y'know!"

 

[Jack Hays]

Social psychology requires empathy. Can you imagine pouring out your soul to a highly conservative psychologist just to have him/her say:

"Better you than me".

No, they'd say, "well, it's your fault for getting raped - you wore those sexy outfits, y'know!"

Thank you both for providing examples of the problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Yet another investigation casts doubt on Förster’s findings; he responds with “outrage”[/h] with 7 comments
Jens Förster

A new group of experts is suggesting there’s something fishy in the body of work of social psychologist Jens Förster.
The University of Amsterdam, Förster’s former employer, commissioned three statistical experts to examine his publication record, looking for signs that the data are not authentic.
Well, they found some signs:
Read the rest of this entry »