What's new

Social psychologists are almost all liberals—and it’s really hurting the field

Dubious

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
37,717
Reaction score
80
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
In 2011, Prof. Jonathan Haidt, of New York University’s Stern School of Business, asked a gathering of some 1,000 psychologists to raise their hands if they identified as politically conservative. Exactly three people did.

In a study published this week in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Haidt and his co-authors argue that this lack of political diversity—specifically, the near-absence of conservative viewpoints—is hurting social psychology, allowing biased language to creep into experiments and promoting findings advancing liberal narratives while ignoring those at odds with them.

The effect was most pronounced in research on issues of greatest concern to leftwing politics, like race, gender, power, inequality, and environmentalism. (None of the authors identify as conservative or Republican.)

A field whose practitioners cluster at one end of the political spectrum is more susceptible to the trap of confirmation bias—which means seeking out data that supports existing beliefs and discounting data that doesn’t—and less amenable to the intellectual sparring that leads to deeper, stronger research, the study’s authors wrote.

In response, they suggest that scholars tackle anti-liberal discrimination as they have bias against other demographic groups: expanding diversity statements to cover political orientation, being alert to double standards, seeking out cross-partisan research collaborations.

Sixty-five percent of scientists self-identified as liberal or very liberal in a 2009 Pew Research Center poll. Only 9% called themselves conservative, compared to 25% and 37%, respectively, in the general US population. Among US psychologists, the ratio of political liberals to conservatives is 10.5-to-1.

That number has crept up over the last four decades. Graduate students are even more likely to identify as liberal than existing professors, suggesting that the leftward march will continue. (In a comment appended to the article, psychology professor Lee Ross, of Stanford University, suggested that academics’ increasing self-identification as Democrats was a result of the Republican Party’s move to the right, particularly on social issues.)

Self-selection plays a part in the preponderance of liberal attitudes in the ivory tower, the authors found. But worrisomely, a hostile climate sometimes factors in as well.

In 2012, two Tilburg University researchers followed up with the subjects of Haidt’s informal political poll. They found that while many conservative respondents personally experienced hostility at work as a result of their politics, liberals claimed to be blithely unaware that any such discrimination occurred. Yet almost 40% of liberal respondents said they would be willing to discriminate against a conservative job applicant.

And none of this is at all academic.

Research into social psychology can have major implications for policy and society. On Tuesday, US president Barack Obama issued an executive order compelling government agencies to incorporate behavioral science findings into their programs.


Social psychologists are almost all liberals—and it’s really hurting the field - Quartz

The research for those who want to read: Behavioral and Brain Sciences - Abstract - Recognizing and coping with our own prejudices: Fighting liberal bias without conservative input
 
You can't be a planetary geophysicist or atmospheric scientist if your religious beliefs limit the earth's age to 6000 years or you discount the arguments for climate change that literally 96% of atmospheric scientists found evidence for.

You can't be a computational biologist working in genomics if you disregard evidence for evolution in disease organisms.
 
You can't be a planetary geophysicist or atmospheric scientist if your religious beliefs limit the earth's age to 6000 years or you discount the arguments for climate change that literally 96% of atmospheric scientists found evidence for.

You can't be a computational biologist working in genomics if you disregard evidence for evolution in disease organisms.
not true....

You can be coz belief - as in religion- rarely gets in the way of study research UNLESS you are sponsored by such an organization!

However, political belief easily does:

40% of liberal respondents said they would be willing to discriminate against a conservative job applicant.
 
not true....

You can be coz belief - as in religion- rarely gets in the way of study research UNLESS you are sponsored by such an organization!

However, political belief easily does:

If you believe the earth is 6000 years old there is no way, as a geophysicist, to logically combine that with radioisotope evidence setting the earth at 4 billion years old. It's one or the other. If you don't accept evolution and think that dinosaur fossils were planted, as a petroleum geophysicist you have no way of identifying rock strata that might contain oil and to locate test sites.
 
If you believe the earth is 6000 years old there is no way, as a geophysicist, to logically combine that with radioisotope evidence setting the earth at 4 billion years old. It's one or the other. If you don't accept evolution and think that dinosaur fossils were planted, as a petroleum geophysicist you have no way of identifying rock strata that might contain oil and to locate test sites.
Well I have never had my religious views interfering with my biology classes! So I cant really understand from my point of view...You maybe right
 
Well I have never had my religious views interfering with my biology classes! So I cant really understand from my point of view...You maybe right
If I may ask, what is the status of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in Pakistan?
 
I wouldnt know...Never studied in Pakistan...

How is that related to the thread?
Oh, I thought you did. I was just curious on that topic regarding Muslim majority countries. As this problem of political is mostly associated with the US, I was wondering how religious views affected countries like ours.
 
Oh, I thought you did. I was just curious on that topic regarding Muslim majority countries. As this problem of political is mostly associated with the US, I was wondering how religious views affected countries like ours.
Depends...Most students dont actually relate the two (religion and evolution)
btw, religious topics are not allowed on the forum because any explanation will invite people to solely talk about religion and not the topic at hand which has nothing to do with either evolution nor religion!
 
Depends...Most students dont actually relate the two (religion and evolution)
btw, religious topics are not allowed on the forum because any explanation will invite people to solely talk about religion and not the topic at hand which has nothing to do with either evolution nor religion!
Yeah I can see that. There was topic about it in the members club and luckily it didn't turn into a religious topic. Didn't mean to change the main discussion point of a thread just asking a curious question. Carry on!
 
A proof of this was in the recent set of "Open Letters" for and against the visti of Modi in the Silicon Valley

The Against letter was written exclusively by the people from arts background. There was no one from STEM background (Science, Technology, Engineering or Medicine). Needless to say they were all Left Liberals

The For letter was written by people from STEM background

Full text: Second group of US professors issues letter backing Modi's Silicon Valley trip

Full text: Leading US academics urge Silicon Valley to be cautious in dealing with Modi government
 
You can't be a planetary geophysicist or atmospheric scientist if your religious beliefs limit the earth's age to 6000 years or you discount the arguments for climate change that literally 96% of atmospheric scientists found evidence for.

You can't be a computational biologist working in genomics if you disregard evidence for evolution in disease organisms.

Wrong. The earth is 6000 years old, no consensus on human impact on climate change, and evolution hasn't been proven.

QED.
 
Back
Top Bottom