Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View How Do We Fix the Liberal Slant in Social Psychology?
2 years ago  ::  Sep 05, 2015 - 9:55PM #1
3neez
Posts: 15,196


Or, why the Left isn't fooling anyone....

This little ditty is an interesting read and may/should put some light on why most Conservatives look at most Liberals as a bit over-bearing, loud and obnoxious. It appears most of it stems from lack of information ans narcissism to make up for it as a means of self-preservation.


Here's one thing on which everyone agrees: social psychology is overwhelmingly composed of liberals—around 85 percent, according to a 2012 survey by researchers at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. The question of why this is the case, and whether it presents a problem, is more controversial. The topic has exploded over the past several years, with claims of both overt hostility and subtle bias against conservative students, colleagues and their publications being met with reactions ranging from knee-jerk dismissal to sincere self-reflection and measured methodological critique.


A paper published online last year in Behavioral and Brain Sciences by José L. Duarte of Arizona State University and his colleagues attempts to organize the existing research relevant to this debate. Two central questions arise: Is the ideological imbalance the result of true bias against conservatives or some more benign cause, such as self-selection into the field? And regardless, would more political diversity improve the validity of our science?


Duarte and his colleagues provide evidence suggesting that social psychology is not a welcoming environment for conservatives. Several studies have shown that papers are reviewed less favorably if they support conservative positions, and anonymous surveys reveal a considerable percentage of social psychologists willing to report negative attitudes toward conservatives. This should not surprise us. Everything social psychologists know about group behavior suggests that overwhelming homogeneity, especially when defined through an important component of one's identity such as political ideology, will lead to negativity toward an out-group. We also know a thing or two about confirmation bias—the tendency to view new information as supporting one's preexisting beliefs. So it would be odd to think it might not affect judgments in our own field.


Now there's a bit more to read and anyone that isn't low info and isn't a narcissist seeking relevance, try to to read it before your knees start flailing around like a helicopter and and control yourselves.....


www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-d... 


enjoy

All Lives Matter

Keep Voting Democrat
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 06, 2015 - 10:21AM #2
Druac
Posts: 14,509

I read the whole thing, well, I think I did...the font faded to gray at the end, with a "sign in" link at the bottom, so not 100% sure, but I read what was available at the link.


I agree with the ending statements:



These questions are central to justifying the Duarte paper's claim that adding researchers who would “seek to explain the motivations, foibles, and strengths of liberals as well as conservatives” is the best way “for social psychology to correct longstanding errors on politicized topics,” as Duarte and his colleagues assert. Correcting old errors by adding different errors is a tough sell.


I prefer a different solution. Let's improve the validity of our science by trying to reduce error, not by introducing new kinds of it. The authors dismiss this as an impossibility; they feel that, as an ideologically homogeneous group, we are bound to repeat our mistakes. But although no silver bullet exists, researchers have indeed identified beneficial interventions to combat bias in decision making, and papers such as that from Duarte and his colleagues can be seen as a strong reminder that social psychology should make this work a priority. For example, this research emphasizes the crucial importance of instilling “an awareness of one's fallibilities and a sense of humility concerning the limits of one's knowledge,” as Scientific American Mind advisory board member Scott O. Lilienfeld and his colleagues at Emory University write in a 2009 paper.


Duarte and his colleagues provide evidence of one way in which our professional decisions might systematically deviate from an appropriate application of the scientific method. Let's be open to this possibility, address this concern and fulfill our responsibility as scientists. And if more conservatives, or libertarians, or Greens, or independents, or Whigs, or Californians, or art history majors, or single parents, or whoever are more attracted to the field as a result, then fine. We do not need more ideology in social psychology; we need less. That is the best way to discover more truth.



Jesus Is My Savior...He Saves Me From REALITY!
---------------------------------------------
We created god in our own image and likeness!
[George Carlin]
---------------------------------------------
"Reason & Logic" - A Damn Good Slogan!
---------------------------------------------
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, an American physicist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 06, 2015 - 11:41AM #3
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

One would have to know more about what was meant by "conservative" in this context.


Certainly there is are justifiable negative opinions throughout the scientific community as to whether, say, you can "pray away the gay" or whether the Earth is 6000 years old. 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 06, 2015 - 1:11PM #4
Aka_me
Posts: 14,464

both liberal and conservative ideologies have advantages and disadvantages, and I don't think it fair to say either needs to be fixed or somehow eliminated.


perhaps just "kept in check".


we'd still be owning slaves, or segregated, if not for the liberal slant.


and we'd be in worse financial shape than greece, if not for the conservative slant.



if I was king I'd let the conservatives control the spending and the liberals control the social issues


while I go spend my time flying, scuba diving, bungee jumping, yaghting, hangin with geniuses, and stuff like that because as king I could do anything I damn well please.

I dream in my lifetime uhmericans will come to realize hezbollah, hamas, and isis gain followers by helping society AND the only way to defeat them is to perform greater good.

the average person is 8 times more likely to be murdered by a cop than a radical terrorist
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 08, 2015 - 7:35PM #5
3neez
Posts: 15,196

Sep 6, 2015 -- 10:21AM, Druac wrote:


I read the whole thing, well, I think I did...the font faded to gray at the end, with a "sign in" link at the bottom, so not 100% sure, but I read what was available at the link.


I agree with the ending statements:



These questions are central to justifying the Duarte paper's claim that adding researchers who would “seek to explain the motivations, foibles, and strengths of liberals as well as conservatives” is the best way “for social psychology to correct longstanding errors on politicized topics,” as Duarte and his colleagues assert. Correcting old errors by adding different errors is a tough sell.


I prefer a different solution. Let's improve the validity of our science by trying to reduce error, not by introducing new kinds of it. The authors dismiss this as an impossibility; they feel that, as an ideologically homogeneous group, we are bound to repeat our mistakes. But although no silver bullet exists, researchers have indeed identified beneficial interventions to combat bias in decision making, and papers such as that from Duarte and his colleagues can be seen as a strong reminder that social psychology should make this work a priority. For example, this research emphasizes the crucial importance of instilling “an awareness of one's fallibilities and a sense of humility concerning the limits of one's knowledge,” as Scientific American Mind advisory board member Scott O. Lilienfeld and his colleagues at Emory University write in a 2009 paper.


Duarte and his colleagues provide evidence of one way in which our professional decisions might systematically deviate from an appropriate application of the scientific method. Let's be open to this possibility, address this concern and fulfill our responsibility as scientists. And if more conservatives, or libertarians, or Greens, or independents, or Whigs, or Californians, or art history majors, or single parents, or whoever are more attracted to the field as a result, then fine. We do not need more ideology in social psychology; we need less. That is the best way to discover more truth.







Exactly. But how do we fix the Liberal slant?


This is how, but the Liberals want no part of this. 


And if more conservatives, or libertarians, or Greens, or independents, or Whigs, or Californians, or art history majors, or single parents, or whoever are more attracted to the field as a result, then fine. We do not need more ideology in social psychology; we need less. That is the best way to discover more truth.




I'm an optimist, but I don't see Liberals accepting this.

All Lives Matter

Keep Voting Democrat
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 08, 2015 - 7:49PM #6
3neez
Posts: 15,196

Sep 6, 2015 -- 11:41AM, amcolph wrote:


One would have to know more about what was meant by "conservative" in this context.


Certainly there is are justifiable negative opinions throughout the scientific community as to whether, say, you can "pray away the gay" or whether the Earth is 6000 years old. 





The question isn't about about the meaning of conservative.


It's about the Left's Slant in society. They have no room for other ideas and aren't willing to negotiate and be inclusive. They're on the attack somewhere about something every single day. There's always someone left to hang. If it isn't an honest hunter then let's get a Christian. And let's destroy them and everyone and everything associated with it. 


I mean, what the hell is that? Keep the media ultra-filled with what really isn't the Huge Bullshit Bomb the Left wants it to be and no, let's not start shooting and burning and rock-throwing either. If the Left lives on Drama, then turn on the Soaps and have a beer, but don't go outside and carry some sign around made by a communist organization.


Since the article asks how do we fix it..... How do we fix it?


 

All Lives Matter

Keep Voting Democrat
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 08, 2015 - 7:57PM #7
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

Sep 8, 2015 -- 7:49PM, 3neez wrote:


  If the Left lives on Drama, then turn on the Soaps and have a beer, but don't go outside and carry some sign around made by a communist organization.


 


 




Why not?  This is America, a guy wants to express his political opinions, he gets to--even if you don't like them.


Who are you, anyway?


You carry on as if if your opinions about politics, economics and religion should be normative for the rest of us.


Why so?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 08, 2015 - 10:46PM #8
3neez
Posts: 15,196

Sep 8, 2015 -- 7:57PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 8, 2015 -- 7:49PM, 3neez wrote:


  If the Left lives on Drama, then turn on the Soaps and have a beer, but don't go outside and carry some sign around made by a communist organization.


 


 




Why not?  This is America, a guy wants to express his political opinions, he gets to--even if you don't like them.


Who are you, anyway?


You carry on as if if your opinions about politics, economics and religion should be normative for the rest of us.


Why so?





Brilliant answer and just what I expected.


Why be so predictable?


Apparently you have no ideas. 

All Lives Matter

Keep Voting Democrat
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2015 - 1:32AM #9
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

Definition of a liberal:


adjective:


1 - 'Willing to accept or respect behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.'


2 - (of education) 'Concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.'


3 - Favourable to progress or reform.


4 - Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.


5 - Not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.


noun:


A person of liberal views who favours a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.


A liberal attitude for anything means more tolerance for change.


***********


Sounds good to me.


How could anybody be against such a philosophy?




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Sep 09, 2015 - 1:53AM #10
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,506

Sep 9, 2015 -- 1:32AM, solfeggio wrote:


Definition of a liberal:


adjective:


1 - 'Willing to accept or respect behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.'


2 - (of education) 'Concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.'


3 - Favourable to progress or reform.


4 - Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.


5 - Not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.


noun:


A person of liberal views who favours a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.


A liberal attitude for anything means more tolerance for change.


***********


Sounds good to me.


How could anybody be against such a philosophy?







+1

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 10  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook