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

Liberal Bias in Social Psychology Taints Research?

Togo said:
Your theory that any theory that can't be empiricaly tied to fundamental physical processes is biased in one sense or another.... which fundamental physical processes is it tied to?

Are you asking whether there are useful groupings of study that can have their own fundamental physical processes?

No, I'm asking whether your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid bias, applies to your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid biases. Or are you saying your own theory is itself biased?

And are you distinguishing between sociology and social psychology? Around here they're very different subjects.
 
The general timeline is that the universe expanded, life happened, with no other goal than to allow the information the replicators represented to proliferate. Then agency with intent represented a positive strategic improvement. And it happens that the strategic factors which are an improvement are markedly liberal. So I'd say various elements of this liberal bias arose from between 14 billion and 250 thousand years ago.

Long story short: reality has a liberal bias.
 
One at a time please or this could get messy :)

So any theory that denotes change is liberal by your definition?

The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction.

What exactly is the change here?

I'm saying 'focus on symbolic meaning' is a change from what meaning is found in the actual transactions. There's denoted meaning, connoted meaning, contextual meaning (related to connoted meaning and formal rather than subjective) and, my view, in the moment meaning one sees in others interactions with themselves. Abstracting to symbols like icons and such for analysis is quite a change from what I just wrote don't you think? Its political too since church and state are strong sources of symbol and symbol making.
 
No, I'm asking whether your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid bias, applies to your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid biases. Or are you saying your own theory is itself biased?

And are you distinguishing between sociology and social psychology? Around here they're very different subjects.

I'm saying that to be unbiased theory, any theory, must tie to cardinal physical processes. No theory other than physics at present even approaches that. Obviously my theory is biased. So all theories outside physics are biased since they depend on human made presumptions about the elements underlying theory. I don't need to distinguish between the two because they are both theories outside physics.

I sibmit that sociology, since it depends on psychology, is likely more biased and it is likely more politically biased since politics is a subset of sociology whereas social psychology need only provide for transactions with politics. For instance social psychology depends directly on psychophycs which is in the process of clinging to physics for theoretical support more directly than does sociology which needs develop constructions about psychophysics that are not proved.
 
One at a time please or this could get messy :)

So any theory that denotes change is liberal by your definition?

The symbolic interaction perspective, also called symbolic interactionism, is a major framework of sociological theory. This perspective relies on the symbolic meaning that people develop and rely upon in the process of social interaction.

What exactly is the change here?

I'm saying 'focus on symbolic meaning' is a change from what meaning is found in the actual transactions.
so you are saying that symbolic meaning isn't real?
There's denoted meaning, connoted meaning, contextual meaning (related to connoted meaning and formal rather than subjective) and, my view, in the moment meaning one sees in others interactions with themselves. Abstracting to symbols like icons and such for analysis is quite a change from what I just wrote don't you think?
not really, but go on.
Its political too since church and state are strong sources of symbol and symbol making.
so because church and state exist, the theory will always be political even if the iconography is question isn't religious or political?

If I may, let me ask again, so I am clear about this.

Is change to single criteria for something to be liberal?
 
No, I'm asking whether your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid bias, applies to your theory that there must be a tie to physical processes to avoid biases. Or are you saying your own theory is itself biased?

And are you distinguishing between sociology and social psychology? Around here they're very different subjects.

I'm saying that to be unbiased theory, any theory, must tie to cardinal physical processes. No theory other than physics at present even approaches that. Obviously my theory is biased. So all theories outside physics are biased since they depend on human made presumptions about the elements underlying theory. I don't need to distinguish between the two because they are both theories outside physics.

I sibmit that sociology, since it depends on psychology, is likely more biased and it is likely more politically biased since politics is a subset of sociology whereas social psychology need only provide for transactions with politics.

I'm inclined to agree. There are certainly fewer controls in sociology, and part of it's job is to wade through formulations of the human condition that are not just biased, but are intended to be perspectives from a certain point of view. But then given that all pronouncements outside physics are biased, it's just a question of degree, isn't it? Is there any reason to suppose that sociology is any more biased, than, say, pronouncements by you?

Is it appropriate to get excited about a warning of bias in sociology, from a source potentially even more biased than sociology itself? Or to put it another way, given that bias is inherent in so many human activities, most of which aren't connected to physics, why would it matter if it was biased? If we were worried about that, we wouldn't be paying any attention to each other. I can enjoy your comments in the knowledge that they aren't entirely objective - that they come from a certain point of view - and I would hope vice versa. So can we just regard sociology in the same way?

For instance social psychology depends directly on psychophycs

eh? How?
 
so you are saying that symbolic meaning isn't real?


Probably not since defining something as symbol is more than just following a single simple set of empirically based rules.

Is change to single criteria for something to be liberal?

Its more restrictive that even that AthenaAwakened.

If there is a chance to a single criteria in the direction of inclusiveness from my perspective (obviating your 'not really') something posited is liberal.

You're gonna love this.
 
I'm saying that to be unbiased theory, any theory, must tie to cardinal physical processes. No theory other than physics at present even approaches that. Obviously my theory is biased. So all theories outside physics are biased since they depend on human made presumptions about the elements underlying theory. I don't need to distinguish between the two because they are both theories outside physics.

I sibmit that sociology, since it depends on psychology, is likely more biased and it is likely more politically biased since politics is a subset of sociology whereas social psychology need only provide for transactions with politics.

Is there any reason to suppose that sociology is any more biased, than, say, pronouncements by you?

No. In fact since sociology is formal and based on more or less consistent antecedents it is much less biased than are comments by me. Being so does not remove it from suffering valid criticisms by me.

Is it appropriate to get excited about a warning of bias in sociology, from a source potentially even more biased than sociology itself? Or to put it another way, given that bias is inherent in so many human activities, most of which aren't connected to physics, why would it matter if it was biased? If we were worried about that, we wouldn't be paying any attention to each other. I can enjoy your comments in the knowledge that they aren't entirely objective - that they come from a certain point of view - and I would hope vice versa. So can we just regard sociology in the same way?

I would include physic as probably biased since we haven't yet, may never, establish stable laws of physical nature.

RE: ... regard sociology the same way. We cannot. We are speaking informally. Sociology is a formal discipline.

RE: ... Why does it matter if I comment about whether it is biased. While I'm not going to present bonafides, here from my perspective, my experience as an expert in the fields of physics, sensory psychology, motivation theory, learning theory, behavioral biolology, engineering, etc., put me in a position as reliable authority on certain topics among which are bias in science. Sure we are speaking informally. However I'm pretty sure the scientific community would back me up on , has published papers supporting, most of what I recently wrote.

For instance social psychology depends directly on psychophycs


Any Social Psychology theory that posits human social interaction is dependent on, or uses, perception depends directly on psychophysics.
 
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree. There are certainly fewer controls in sociology, and part of it's job is to wade through formulations of the human condition that are not just biased, but are intended to be perspectives from a certain point of view. But then given that all pronouncements outside physics are biased, it's just a question of degree, isn't it? Is there any reason to suppose that sociology is any more biased, than, say, pronouncements by you?

Is it appropriate to get excited about a warning of bias in sociology, from a source potentially even more biased than sociology itself? Or to put it another way, given that bias is inherent in so many human activities, most of which aren't connected to physics, why would it matter if it was biased? If we were worried about that, we wouldn't be paying any attention to each other. I can enjoy your comments in the knowledge that they aren't entirely objective - that they come from a certain point of view - and I would hope vice versa. So can we just regard sociology in the same way?

For instance social psychology depends directly on psychophycs

eh? How?

Any Social Psychology theory that posits human social interaction is dependent on, or uses, perception depends directly on psychophysics.

How?
 
For instance social psychology depends directly on psychophycs

eh? How?

Any Social Psychology theory that posits human social interaction is dependent on, or uses, perception depends directly on psychophysics.


You may verify my contention in several ways. Put on sound suppressors, vision inhibitors, sit in a warm tube of water in a dark room all with people about you. Any social activity? Oh, they got your attention? How? Someone touched you? I thought so. That's how.
 
Yeah, I think I get it.

There's a basic assumption among liberals that things tend to change and that change is healthy, normal, and acceptable. This may not necessarily be true in REALITY, as sometimes a field of research may discover something that is reliably true and "new research" that comes up with a contrary result would make things less clear instead of more. In physics especially, the propensity to pursue "the next big discovery" leads some researchers to design some stupendously elaborate experimental setups at such a level of sophistication that the results can be massaged to verify whatever new physics theory is popular at the time.

I don't necessarily agree, but it makes sense.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]Probably not since defining something as symbol is more than just following a single simple set of empirically based rules.

Is change to single criteria for something to be liberal?

Its more restrictive that even that AthenaAwakened.

If there is a chance to a single criteria in the direction of inclusiveness from my perspective (obviating your 'not really') something posited is liberal.

You're gonna love this.

so not any change will do. It must be a move toward inclusiveness?
 
Is there any reason to suppose that sociology is any more biased, than, say, pronouncements by you?

No. In fact since sociology is formal and based on more or less consistent antecedents it is much less biased than are comments by me. Being so does not remove it from suffering valid criticisms by me.

<snip>

I would include physic as probably biased since we haven't yet, may never, establish stable laws of physical nature.

RE: ... regard sociology the same way. We cannot. We are speaking informally. Sociology is a formal discipline.

RE: ... Why does it matter if I comment about whether it is biased. While I'm not going to present bonafides, here from my perspective, my experience as an expert in the fields of physics, sensory psychology, motivation theory, learning theory, behavioral biolology, engineering, etc., put me in a position as reliable authority on certain topics among which are bias in science. Sure we are speaking informally. However I'm pretty sure the scientific community would back me up on , has published papers supporting, most of what I recently wrote.

Sure, I don't disagree with you, and I'm not trying to challenge the veracity of what you've said or anything. It's just.... a bit like commenting that the White House gets rained on. It's true, but it's not particularly a feature of the White House. Sociology is subject to bias, but what isn't? Granted you can argue that sociology is more subject to biases than some other formal disciplines, but I'm not sure anyone really expected otherwise, including sociologists.

Any Social Psychology theory that posits human social interaction is dependent on, or uses, perception depends directly on psychophysics.

This is more dubious. Social interaction depends on perception, yes. But the study of social interaction does not depend on the study of psychophysics, or even the findings of psychophysics. It's like arguing that an artist painting a portrait depends on high energy physics, because he's using sunlight to be able to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom