• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Liberal Bias in Social Psychology Taints Research?

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
http://chronicle.com/article/Social...rs/147957/?cid=gs&utm_source=gs&utm_medium=en

The Chronicle of Higher Ed said:
During a 2011 talk at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Jonathan Haidt asked the roughly 1,000 researchers gathered how many considered themselves liberal. About 800 hands went up. Twenty identified as "moderate or centrist"; 12 fessed up to libertarianism. The number of self-described conservatives in the room: three.

Out of a thousand.

Now a forthcoming paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, written by Mr. Haidt and several co-authors, makes the case that ideological one-sidedness in social psychology is a genuine problem and offers suggestions for fixing it. The paper also singles out researchers that the authors believe are guilty of letting their leanings undermine the quality of their work.

The paper grew out of an essay by José Duarte that he posted on a social-psychology email list after Mr. Haidt’s impromptu survey of the field’s political loyalties. In the essay, Mr. Duarte, a graduate student at Arizona State University who is one of the new paper’s co-authors, offered the following principle: "If a research question requires that one assume that a particular ideology or value system is factually true, then that research question is invalid."

So what, specifically, does he mean by that? Mr. Duarte and his co-authors point to examples like a 2012 paper titled "Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact." That paper, they argue, assumes that conservatives are indeed prejudiced. They suggest that a fairer way to frame that question would be to ask, "Which groups are targets of prejudice and intolerance across the political spectrum, and why?


The Paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

Discuss.
 
It means that right wingers tend to be more stupid and not understand how research works due to their stupidity, so when research results say something negative about them they figure the problem is the research and not them ... because they're stupid.

One cannot have intelligent discussions with stupid people.
 
Well I do think of the anti-intellectualism in the conservative movement is a factor.
 
Anti-intellectualism among conservatives may very well be a factor... but if the research questions being used in the surveys are implicitly skewed, then that isn't being proven - it's being assumed. Implicit bias and skew in the design of survey questions is a huge problem for research of this nature. I'ts also really, really hard to keep contained. A lot of people don't even know that they're making the assumptions that they make. They've accepted something as a truism without considering it. And because they've accepted it as true, they never even see that it's a bias.
 
Why did this liberal bias happen?

I started scanning the paper and I didn't see an explanation for why the shift happened.

I got to page 16 so maybe I didn't go far enough or I just missed it. If there is a time line, could anyone tell me where it is? I will look again later, but right now I am a little pushed for time this evening.
 
I don't have a definitive answer, but I wouldn't be even a little bit surprised to find that certain types of fields attract different predispositions. At heart, the divide between ideologies I think has more to do with how people think, how they view the world, and how they approach problem-solving than anything else. And that would naturally lend itself to differing interests in different fields.

So it doesn't surprise me that there may be more people who consider themselves liberals in this particular field. That being said, I think they still have a duty to ensure that the research they are doing is unbiased and isn't introducing skew into the questions that they are asking. They should be testing a hypothesis, not confirming an assumption ;)
 
Anti-intellectualism among conservatives may very well be a factor... but if the research questions being used in the surveys are implicitly skewed, then that isn't being proven - it's being assumed. Implicit bias and skew in the design of survey questions is a huge problem for research of this nature. I'ts also really, really hard to keep contained. A lot of people don't even know that they're making the assumptions that they make. They've accepted something as a truism without considering it. And because they've accepted it as true, they never even see that it's a bias.

I don't have a definitive answer, but I wouldn't be even a little bit surprised to find that certain types of fields attract different predispositions. At heart, the divide between ideologies I think has more to do with how people think, how they view the world, and how they approach problem-solving than anything else. And that would naturally lend itself to differing interests in different fields.

So it doesn't surprise me that there may be more people who consider themselves liberals in this particular field. That being said, I think they still have a duty to ensure that the research they are doing is unbiased and isn't introducing skew into the questions that they are asking. They should be testing a hypothesis, not confirming an assumption ;)

I agree. In very broad terms I think liberals tend to think most people are good. Conservatives, tend to think we are all sinners in the eyes of god. Liberal think welfare is a good idea and if it's not working there needs to be more of it. Conservative tend to think people will game the system.
 
It's interesting to see how the liberal side is much more willing to question itself than the conservative side. For all their complaining about people considering themselves victims, conservatives are remarkably big on considering themselves victims.
 
I don't have a definitive answer, but I wouldn't be even a little bit surprised to find that certain types of fields attract different predispositions. At heart, the divide between ideologies I think has more to do with how people think, how they view the world, and how they approach problem-solving than anything else. And that would naturally lend itself to differing interests in different fields.

So it doesn't surprise me that there may be more people who consider themselves liberals in this particular field. That being said, I think they still have a duty to ensure that the research they are doing is unbiased and isn't introducing skew into the questions that they are asking. They should be testing a hypothesis, not confirming an assumption ;)

I agree. In very broad terms I think liberals tend to think most people are good. Conservatives, tend to think we are all sinners in the eyes of god. Liberal think welfare is a good idea and if it's not working there needs to be more of it. Conservative tend to think people will game the system.

I'll take it a bit further.

Liberals tend to think that people are simply a product of their environment. If the environment is good they'll be good, someone who behaves badly is because of a bad childhood somehow due to exploitation by business and needs help, not punishment. Ignore the fact that business is just people, if the people are good there will not be the exploitation.

Conservatives tend to think that people are generally bad unless pushed to be good by religion. Someone who ends up in a bad position is due to their own misdeeds (which may include laziness) and is never a product of their environment. Business is always good, ignore the fact that it's pretty hard for a bad people to create an ethical business.
 
Asking people if they are liberal is not enough.

Liberal has to be defined in detail.

Those 800 people who lumped themselves in this crude category "liberal" most likely have many different opinions.

There is no "liberal" orthodoxy as exists in huge swaths on the right. That's why those mired in religion flock to the right. There minds are already primed for orthodoxy.
 
It's specifically social psychology. Other branches of psychology have their own groups.

The thing is... Brain and Behaviour isn't a social psychology journal. Is the problem that liberal leanings bias research, or is it a problem of conflict between social psychologists and behaviourist/neurophysiologists? Will the author compare to his own group, or to scientists in general.

I don't see that there is necessarily a problem with scientists having a liberal slant, in line with academics in general. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, which is likely to be picked up by people who test against it on a regular basis. :p
 
One question I would have would be, do these people become more liberal as they go further along in the research, or start out that way.

And I agree with others where it can't be assumed, but it needs to be shown that there is a liberal bias.
 
Social Science in particular has a focus on the interactions of people within a society. When much of the Republican/Conservative ideology is centered around the claim that everyone has total free will in a free market that is free of the social factors you are unlikley to pursue research that focuses on causal and correlational connections between individuals of a society. If anything this should show the failure of "Conservatism" to account for the social factors that effect society.

Reality has a well documented Liberal Bias - Stephen Colbert

Furthermore I would argue that Conservatism has an inherant bias against science. The last Republicans in the white house spoke out in mocking tones against the "reality based community". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Conservatism isn't about finding the truth, its about maintaining the status quo. Namely the power of White Christian Men who either are Wealthy or believe they will be some day.
 
Social Science in particular has a focus on the interactions of people within a society. When much of the Republican/Conservative ideology is centered around the claim that everyone has total free will in a free market that is free of the social factors you are unlikley to pursue research that focuses on causal and correlational connections between individuals of a society. If anything this should show the failure of "Conservatism" to account for the social factors that effect society.

Reality has a well documented Liberal Bias - Stephen Colbert

Furthermore I would argue that Conservatism has an inherant bias against science. The last Republicans in the white house spoke out in mocking tones against the "reality based community". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Conservatism isn't about finding the truth, its about maintaining the status quo. Namely the power of White Christian Men who either are Wealthy or believe they will be some day.

The person who came up with this argument would say this is an example of the liberal bias of accepted beliefs in the sociological field.
 
Social Science in particular has a focus on the interactions of people within a society. When much of the Republican/Conservative ideology is centered around the claim that everyone has total free will in a free market that is free of the social factors you are unlikley to pursue research that focuses on causal and correlational connections between individuals of a society. If anything this should show the failure of "Conservatism" to account for the social factors that effect society.

Reality has a well documented Liberal Bias - Stephen Colbert

Furthermore I would argue that Conservatism has an inherant bias against science. The last Republicans in the white house spoke out in mocking tones against the "reality based community". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Conservatism isn't about finding the truth, its about maintaining the status quo. Namely the power of White Christian Men who either are Wealthy or believe they will be some day.

The person who came up with this argument would say this is an example of the liberal bias of accepted beliefs in the sociological field.

That person would probably also argue various other nonsense, and would be wrong.
 
The person who came up with this argument would say this is an example of the liberal bias of accepted beliefs in the sociological field.

That person would probably also argue various other nonsense, and would be wrong.

Coming from someone that made overly broad generalizations that don't apply?
 
Social Science in particular has a focus on the interactions of people within a society. When much of the Republican/Conservative ideology is centered around the claim that everyone has total free will in a free market that is free of the social factors you are unlikley to pursue research that focuses on causal and correlational connections between individuals of a society. If anything this should show the failure of "Conservatism" to account for the social factors that effect society.

Reality has a well documented Liberal Bias - Stephen Colbert

Furthermore I would argue that Conservatism has an inherant bias against science. The last Republicans in the white house spoke out in mocking tones against the "reality based community". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Conservatism isn't about finding the truth, its about maintaining the status quo. Namely the power of White Christian Men who either are Wealthy or believe they will be some day.

Is this a demonstration of the problem or an argument that you actually believe?
 
It means that right wingers tend to be more stupid and not understand how research works due to their stupidity, so when research results say something negative about them they figure the problem is the research and not them ... because they're stupid.

One cannot have intelligent discussions with stupid people.

I don't get why social psychologists are researching taints. I think I have to side with the right wingers on this one- I could see dermatologists researching taints, but the whole "social psychologists are just such nice people that we should allow them to research taints as well" seems a little to liberal in the interdisciplinary studies department.

It's definitely biased towards social psychologists-- are we treating them like polymaths?
 
Back
Top Bottom