Liberal Bias in Social Psychology Taints Research?

[SimpleDon]

What is a liberal bias?

Fifty years ago, the idea the blacks should be allowed to vote and attend integrated schools in the American South were liberal positions.

The ideas that women should vote, hold property in our names, and divorce abusive husband were at one time or another not merely liberal but radical beliefs.

Scientific racism held sway in the early social sciences and to say that race did not determine intelligence was heresy or at best hilarity.

Study and experiment lead to changes in theory and perceptions of reality. The truth does more than set you free, it changes how we think and what was radical to say yesterday, may be conventional wisdom today and an eccentric notion tomorrow.

It's a good question and that be answered and addressed by the guy making the charge. But the definition of liberal and conservative don't really describe a situation of political change, but just nomenclature to define groups having certain position rather than having positions that want to change.

The definitions of the words are based on the general reaction to change, not about positions that want to change.

How would you define the political spectrum?

You don't believe that conservatives resist change, want to maintain the status quo, and liberals embrace change as the solution to our problems, want to disrupt the status quo? That reactionaries want to rollback change and radicals want change for change's sake? That moderates believe in measured change?

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that there is a lot to the idea that certain professions tend to self-select based on the nature of the work. I don't believe that many conservatives become sociologists or many liberals become economists or engineers.

In the US I can see that, but do you think that is a worldwide trend?

Pretty much, at least in societies where children are pretty free to pick their areas of study. The Western societies as a minimum.

 

[SimpleDon]

This is nothing new but it has a lot of relevant to the atheist/skeptic movement.

Here some history of why I think there is a strong left leaning bias in the social sciences. I also think there is a publication bias based on the "consensus" of beliefs in sociology circles.

***

I was digging into the the divide between Social Constructivists (SJW types) vs Evolutionary Psychology in the 1970s; basically a nature v nurture debate. This is important because it is also the division between the atheism+ people and the more science oriented skeptic/atheist/secular movement.

What I discovered is that much of this split can be traced back to 1975 with the publication of Sociobiology by E.O. Wilson. In this book Wilson made some very mild claims about genetics influencing behavior in animals but at the time the world of academia, deep in the radicalism of the 60s and civil rights movement, saw any attempt to consider genetic influences on behavior as little more than a Nazi eugenics program.

Into the fray step two atheist biologists: Steven J Gould and Richard Dawkins.

Gould sides up with the FAR political left and uses his influence to discredit anybody who dares suggest that genetics plays a role in behavior. Dawkins is on the other side with his recent publication of the Selfish Gene (1976). Consider at the time our public discourse had everything from the SLA, the Weathermen, Black Panthers to Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand all wrapped up in the fear nuclear war and Armageddon.

The social justice warriors of this time imagined they were fighting against a post-apocalyptic world of eugenics and totalitarian ideologies.

Dawkins and Gould would battle over these issues for decades until Gould died and Dawkins became an icon of the atheist movement.

***

The liberal side tends to hold that human nature is a social construct and that with just the right policies (always dictated by them), then humanity can be perfected (hence the focus on social justice policies) They tend to reject the notion of 'human-nature'. People on the right tend to accept the idea of human nature and see the left's attempt at social engineering as dangerous and wrong headed. Because of this view, they prefer to develop laws and institutions to control or punish the worse of human nature (hence the focus on law enforcement).

I think they are both nuts and that we need to have an evidence based sociology. We need "reals over feels."

I think that it would be hard to have real evidence based sociology as long as the profession has such a strong bent toward liberalism. As you said there is a partisan publication bias, there are questions that you aren't allowed to ask if you want to be published. The peer review is going to be done by liberals.

The same thing exists in economics where the majority of economists are politically conservative. A heterodox economist can't be published in the recognized journals because the peer reviews will be by conservative orthodox economists.

I don't have a feeling for how closely sociologists dedicate themselves to following the scientific method or even how sociology lends itself to it.

I don't have any idea of what a range of ideas and theories are studied in sociology. Is just the orthodoxy taught or is there a heterodoxy? In other research you have to question your work because someone else will. I am not sure that it is the case in sociology, especially from what I am reading here.

We are suffering from the partisan divide not because one side is right and the other is wrong but because each side is made up of combinations of being right and being wrong. It is the same with nature/nurture question.

Anyone who has raised more than one child probably can tell you that the children are different from one another and that the differences were pronounced from early on, at least I can. Nature.

Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that these different personalities can be molded into model of common attitude and behavior needed for the tasks at hand in a surprisingly short time. Or anyone who has lived and work in different countries can tell you that there is some truth to the idea of a national character, that the Germans are taught to be industrious and hardworking. Nurture.

Conservatives and liberals agree that in every person are elements of both nature and nurture, but where they disagree is on is the relative impact that these elements have on society as a whole. Nothing illustrates this as well as their attitudes toward the poor.

To the liberal the poor are made poor in order to provide more money to the rich. Poverty is a result of the class war. That poverty is an economic condition. Nurture.

To the conservative the poor are poor because they are lazy, stupid or both, Poverty is inherited because most likely their parents were also poor and also stupid. That the poor are free to work hard and move out of poverty but they don't, so ultimately it is their fault that they are poor. Nature.

This is what social science is reduced to in the political sphere. Each side picking the parts of science that supports their biases.

 

[SimpleDon]

This thread is an excellent example of the problem described by this thread. We've achieved recursion.

. Yes, this is true. It's a very meta thread.

A self-contained, self-supporting thread. I like it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This is nothing new but it has a lot of relevant to the atheist/skeptic movement.

Here some history of why I think there is a strong left leaning bias in the social sciences. I also think there is a publication bias based on the "consensus" of beliefs in sociology circles.

***

I was digging into the the divide between Social Constructivists (SJW types) vs Evolutionary Psychology in the 1970s; basically a nature v nurture debate. This is important because it is also the division between the atheism+ people and the more science oriented skeptic/atheist/secular movement.

What I discovered is that much of this split can be traced back to 1975 with the publication of Sociobiology by E.O. Wilson. In this book Wilson made some very mild claims about genetics influencing behavior in animals but at the time the world of academia, deep in the radicalism of the 60s and civil rights movement, saw any attempt to consider genetic influences on behavior as little more than a Nazi eugenics program.

Into the fray step two atheist biologists: Steven J Gould and Richard Dawkins.

Gould sides up with the FAR political left and uses his influence to discredit anybody who dares suggest that genetics plays a role in behavior. Dawkins is on the other side with his recent publication of the Selfish Gene (1976). Consider at the time our public discourse had everything from the SLA, the Weathermen, Black Panthers to Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand all wrapped up in the fear nuclear war and Armageddon.

The social justice warriors of this time imagined they were fighting against a post-apocalyptic world of eugenics and totalitarian ideologies.

Dawkins and Gould would battle over these issues for decades until Gould died and Dawkins became an icon of the atheist movement.

***

The liberal side tends to hold that human nature is a social construct and that with just the right policies (always dictated by them), then humanity can be perfected (hence the focus on social justice policies) They tend to reject the notion of 'human-nature'. People on the right tend to accept the idea of human nature and see the left's attempt at social engineering as dangerous and wrong headed. Because of this view, they prefer to develop laws and institutions to control or punish the worse of human nature (hence the focus on law enforcement).

I think they are both nuts and that we need to have an evidence based sociology. We need "reals over feels."

I think that it would be hard to have real evidence based sociology as long as the profession has such a strong bent toward liberalism. As you said there is a partisan publication bias, there are questions that you aren't allowed to ask if you want to be published. The peer review is going to be done by liberals.

The same thing exists in economics where the majority of economists are politically conservative. A heterodox economist can't be published in the recognized journals because the peer reviews will be by conservative orthodox economists.

I don't have a feeling for how closely sociologists dedicate themselves to following the scientific method or even how sociology lends itself to it.

I don't have any idea of what a range of ideas and theories are studied in sociology. Is just the orthodoxy taught or is there a heterodoxy? In other research you have to question your work because someone else will. I am not sure that it is the case in sociology, especially from what I am reading here.

We are suffering from the partisan divide not because one side is right and the other is wrong but because each side is made up of combinations of being right and being wrong. It is the same with nature/nurture question.

Anyone who has raised more than one child probably can tell you that the children are different from one another and that the differences were pronounced from early on, at least I can. Nature.

Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that these different personalities can be molded into model of common attitude and behavior needed for the tasks at hand in a surprisingly short time. Or anyone who has lived and work in different countries can tell you that there is some truth to the idea of a national character, that the Germans are taught to be industrious and hardworking. Nurture.

Conservatives and liberals agree that in every person are elements of both nature and nurture, but where they disagree is on is the relative impact that these elements have on society as a whole. Nothing illustrates this as well as their attitudes toward the poor.

To the liberal the poor are made poor in order to provide more money to the rich. Poverty is a result of the class war. That poverty is an economic condition. Nurture.

To the conservative the poor are poor because they are lazy, stupid or both, Poverty is inherited because most likely their parents were also poor and also stupid. That the poor are free to work hard and move out of poverty but they don't, so ultimately it is their fault that they are poor. Nature.

This is what social science is reduced to in the political sphere. Each side picking the parts of science that supports their biases.

but what of the theories within sociology? Not the interpretations of politicians and moralists, but the actual field itself. What within sociology, theory to findings, is liberally biased?

 

[SimpleDon]

What is a liberal bias?

Fifty years ago, the idea the blacks should be allowed to vote and attend integrated schools in the American South were liberal positions.

The ideas that women should vote, hold property in our names, and divorce abusive husband were at one time or another not merely liberal but radical beliefs.

Scientific racism held sway in the early social sciences and to say that race did not determine intelligence was heresy or at best hilarity.

Study and experiment lead to changes in theory and perceptions of reality. The truth does more than set you free, it changes how we think and what was radical to say yesterday, may be conventional wisdom today and an eccentric notion tomorrow.

AthenaAwakened (awesome name, btw) I think that you've confused liberal positions with liberal biases in the context of research. All of the concepts that you've outlined are positions that were considered liberal at the time they were first introduced. But that's not what the OP was addressing.

The OP is addressing the concept of introducing bias into research. For the moment, let's set aside any particular political affiliation, and approach it from a less sensitive topic. Let's say... Ice cream . Let's say that you like chocolate ice cream, and I like strawberry, and we disagree on which one is the best. So I decide to have a poll of all of our fellow board members. So I ask them to choose from the flowing statements:

• Strawberry is the best ice cream, because the light and refreshing fruit flavor is reminiscent of summer and childhood.
• Chocolate is the best ice cream, because the poop color makes me feel like eating my own feces.

I think you can agree that this is pretty shoddy research, right? What I've done, in a ridiculously blatant way here, is to introduce my own personal bias into my research. I've phrased the poll question in such a way that my beliefs are reflected - and in doing so, there's an emotional content introduced into the questions that is likely to lead the poll takers to respond in a non-neutral fashion. The results of this poll are likely to be skewed because the design of the poll is biased by my belief and my preference.

That's what the OP was addressing. It's not addressing the positions being measured by the research, or the response of the populace to those positions. It's addressing the framing and the assumptions that go into the development of the surveys - The bias in the research itself.

Now, the example that I gave was of course blatant and easy. In reality, it can often be very difficult to keep bias out of survey design. Assumptions and beliefs are very difficult to reign in, especially the kind that underlie how people think about the world, because most of the time we don't even realize those are assumptions. That's just "how it is". But I do agree that in social science, it would behoove the researchers to put a bit more effort into maintaining a neutral approach to their research. Just for the sake of doing better science

Perhaps you can answer my question. Is there a recognized heterodoxy or more than one even, in sociology? I don't see how without one you could overcome the partisan nature of the profession.

I only took one sociology course in college and I did that only to meet women. I was successful at that but little of the sociology stuck with me.

 

[Underseer]

http://chronicle.com/article/Social...rs/147957/?cid=gs&utm_source=gs&utm_medium=en

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.

What do you expect from those running dog intellectuals? Of course they have a liberal bias. They probably believe in evolution and heliocentrism, and not only that, I bet you that they are so unbelievably biased that they don't believe that there was a government conspiracy involved at Waco. Heck, they could be so utterly indoctrinated that they don't even believe in Obama's Secret Weather Machine.

Why is anyone surprised by this, and why are we only talking about the intellectual elites in one particular field when we know that all of them are just as biased? Anyone who doesn't believe in Obama's Secret Weather Machine obviously has an extreme liberal bias. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[fromderinside]

but what of the theories within sociology? Not the interpretations of politicians and moralists, but the actual field itself. What within sociology, theory to findings, is liberally biased?

Here are the set of theories I ripped off from About.com
Sociological Theories: A list of Sociological theories and Frameworks.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/Major-Sociological-Frameworks.01.htm

From which I hi-lighted segments of each which I believe reflect bias.

1. Symbolic Interaction Theory
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.

2. Conflict Theory
Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources.

3. Functionalist Theory
The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable.

4. Feminist Theory
Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.

5. Critical Theory
Critical theory is a type of social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

6. Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions.

7. Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is a theory that attempts to explain socialization and its effect of the development of the self. It looks at the individual learning process, the formation of self, and the influence of society in socializing individuals. Social learning theory is commonly used by sociologists to explain deviance and crime.

8. Structural Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals.

9. Rational Choice Theory
Economics plays a huge role in human behavior. That is, people are often motivated by money and the possibility of making a profit, calculating the likely costs and benefits of any action before deciding what to do. This way of thinking is called rational choice theory.

10. Game Theory
Game theory is a theory of social interaction, which attempts to explain the interaction people have with one another. As the name of the theory suggests, game theory sees human interaction as just that: a game.

12. Social Exchange Theory
One way of analyzing social interaction is through the social exchange theory. This model interprets society as a series of interactions that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or punishments that we receive from others and all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis. The theory has its roots in economics as well as sociology and psychology.

13. Chaos Theory
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, however it has applications in several disciplines, including sociology and other social sciences. In the social sciences, chaos theory is the study of complex non-linear systems of social complexity. It is not about disorder, but rather is about very complicated systems of order.

14. Social Phenomenology
Social phenomenology is an approach within the field of sociology that aims to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of social action, social situations and social worlds. In essence, phenomenology is the belief that society is a human construction.

I guess I need repeat that I think any theory that can't can't be empirically tied to fundamental physical processes (force, motion, etc.) is a theory that places presumptions about what it means as placeholders for such concrete ties. All of those can be seen as biased in once sense or another. So I'm not criticizing sociology as being unscientific I criticizing it for being too immature, too far from physics for it to be unbiased. I see many of of the presumptions, not all, to reflect liberal bias - I'm in concert with AdamWho on what is meant by liberal bias and I tend to agree with a lot of what SimpleDon writes.

AthenaAwakened, if you agree with the snapshots provided by About.com then I have provided a context where we can discuss liberal and conservative bias in Sociology.

http://chronicle.com/article/Social...rs/147957/?cid=gs&utm_source=gs&utm_medium=en

"If a research question requires that one assume that a particular ideology or value system is factually true, then that research question is invalid."

Nice Squirrel the line above implies all theories not directly tied to physics by my understanding of substantive theory (scaled, whatever) is biased. I agree.

So, Underseer, your political hit is wasted.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here are the set of theories I ripped off from About.com
Sociological Theories: A list of Sociological theories and Frameworks.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/Major-Sociological-Frameworks.01.htm

From which I hi-lighted segments of each which I believe reflect bias.

1. Symbolic Interaction Theory
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.

2. Conflict Theory
Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources.

3. Functionalist Theory
The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable.

4. Feminist Theory
Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.

5. Critical Theory
Critical theory is a type of social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

6. Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions.

7. Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is a theory that attempts to explain socialization and its effect of the development of the self. It looks at the individual learning process, the formation of self, and the influence of society in socializing individuals. Social learning theory is commonly used by sociologists to explain deviance and crime.

8. Structural Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals.

9. Rational Choice Theory
Economics plays a huge role in human behavior. That is, people are often motivated by money and the possibility of making a profit, calculating the likely costs and benefits of any action before deciding what to do. This way of thinking is called rational choice theory.

10. Game Theory
Game theory is a theory of social interaction, which attempts to explain the interaction people have with one another. As the name of the theory suggests, game theory sees human interaction as just that: a game.

12. Social Exchange Theory
One way of analyzing social interaction is through the social exchange theory. This model interprets society as a series of interactions that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or punishments that we receive from others and all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis. The theory has its roots in economics as well as sociology and psychology.

13. Chaos Theory
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, however it has applications in several disciplines, including sociology and other social sciences. In the social sciences, chaos theory is the study of complex non-linear systems of social complexity. It is not about disorder, but rather is about very complicated systems of order.

14. Social Phenomenology
Social phenomenology is an approach within the field of sociology that aims to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of social action, social situations and social worlds. In essence, phenomenology is the belief that society is a human construction.

I guess I need repeat that I think any theory that can't can't be empirically tied to fundamental physical processes (force, motion, etc.) is a theory that places presumptions about what it means as placeholders for such concrete ties. All of those can be seen as biased in once sense or another. So I'm not criticizing sociology as being unscientific I criticizing it for being too immature, too far from physics for it to be unbiased. I see many of of the presumptions, not all, to reflect liberal bias - I'm in concert with AdamWho on what is meant by liberal bias and I tend to agree with a lot of what SimpleDon writes.

AthenaAwakened, if you agree with the snapshots provided by About.com then I have provided a context where we can discuss liberal and conservative bias in Sociology.

http://chronicle.com/article/Social...rs/147957/?cid=gs&utm_source=gs&utm_medium=en

"If a research question requires that one assume that a particular ideology or value system is factually true, then that research question is invalid."

Nice Squirrel the line above implies all theories not directly tied to physics by my understanding of substantive theory (scaled, whatever) is biased. I agree.

So, Underseer, your political hit is wasted.

THANK YOU!

fINALLY someone actually defined a term, provided a glossary, and took a stand.

Ok,

Now obviously some of the theories mentioned are biased. This doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean they have a point of view and may not thne see inportment information outside of that view.

Not sure about how some others are biased, that is to say are you saying they are politically biased or in some other way biased.

BTW, until people become robots and beyond the conceits of choice and willl, social sciences will not be like physics, although I do agree with you that social sciences are young and much has yet to be developed.

So, where would you like to begin?

 

[Togo]

I guess I need repeat that I think any theory that can't can't be empirically tied to fundamental physical processes (force, motion, etc.) is a theory that places presumptions about what it means as placeholders for such concrete ties. All of those can be seen as biased in once sense or another.

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?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is anyone surprised by this, and why are we only talking about the intellectual elites in one particular field when we know that all of them are just as biased? Anyone who doesn't believe in Obama's Secret Weather Machine obviously has an extreme liberal bias. [/conservolibertarian]

Secret weather machine?

Does anyone know what the Poe is blathering on about?

 

[fromderinside]

I guess I need repeat that I think any theory that can't can't be empirically tied to fundamental physical processes (force, motion, etc.) is a theory that places presumptions about what it means as placeholders for such concrete ties. All of those can be seen as biased in once sense or another.

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? If so, I am not saying that. I'm saying  Laws of science must be relatable to the most fundamental physical processes that exist which would be those of physics. I accept for purposes of investigation given we don't know the relationships between those processes further away, more complex than can be approached by aggregating fundemental physical processes to 'explain' social processes, that we can usefully develop theories at a more global level presuming they are relatable to basic physical process in the study of a more remotely related study such as sociology.

But this latter is just a convenience, a placeholder based on confidence that connections between sociology and physics can be definitively established at some point if one needs the satisfaction when a valid global model for sociology develops, hopefully, out of micro-sociological theories.

 

[Underseer]

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? If so, I am not saying that. I'm saying  Laws of science must be relatable to the most fundamental physical processes that exist which would be those of physics. I accept for purposes of investigation given we don't know the relationships between those processes further away, more complex than can be approached by aggregating fundemental physical processes to 'explain' social processes, that we can usefully develop theories at a more global level presuming they are relatable to basic physical process in the study of a more remotely related study such as sociology.

But this latter is just a convenience, a placeholder based on confidence that connections between sociology and physics can be definitively established at some point if one needs the satisfaction when a valid global model for sociology develops, hopefully, out of micro-sociological theories.

Really?

Science is pretty simple. Come up with a hypothesis; test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is, as you suggest, untestable and non-scientific, then the results of the test will have an even statistical distribution between the possible conclusions, which means you can statistically prove that social psychology is not a science.

So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and analyze the findings, or are you simply going to continue throwing  just-so stories at the wall and see what sticks?

 

[fromderinside]

Now obviously some of the theories mentioned are biased. This doesn't make them wrong, but it does mean they have a point of view and may not then see important information outside of that view.

Not sure about how some others are biased, that is to say are you saying they are politically biased or in some other way biased.

I responded to Togo with your post in mind. I'm responding to you with the view that you also accept useful micro-theories can be established without having already having the connections with physics established for one reason or another. You must also accept that without fundamental connections to the understood physical laws of nature any social theory construction will reflect bias from one perspective or another. The political perspective is particularly germane for social theory since political theory is a subset of social theory. All social theory must reflect political bias as a presumption therefore. So social theory can be useful in the present and politically biased.

BTW, until people become robots and beyond the conceits of choice and will, social sciences will not be like physics, although I do agree with you that social sciences are young and much has yet to be developed.

This question is related to thee answer I gave you above. How, I think some clarification are in order lest you get the idea I am comparing sociology with physics. I'm saying sociology, ultimately must be a subset of physics, physical theory. Practically it won't be like physical theory in is use, but, it will be explicitly connected to physical theory. I'm a great believer in the ultimate physical explanation for everything

 

[fromderinside]

Really?

Science is pretty simple. Come up with a hypothesis; test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is, as you suggest, untestable and non-scientific, then the results of the test will have an even statistical distribution between the possible conclusions, which means you can statistically prove that social psychology is not a science.

So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and analyze the findings, or are you simply going to continue throwing  just-so stories at the wall and see what sticks?

Really!

Money in mouth. My only faith is that everything is physical and governed by physical law. Beyond that I've been about linking energy to perception for about 50 years now working in a domain called Psychophysics.

What sociology and social psychology are about is linking the links from the physical through the perceptual to the behavioral to the social. If one comes up with useful social theories along the way I'm not going to mind at all.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I responded to Togo with your post in mind. I'm responding to you with the view that you also accept useful micro-theories can be established without having already having the connections with physics established for one reason or another. You must also accept that without fundamental connections to the understood physical laws of nature any social theory construction will reflect bias from one perspective or another. The political perspective is particularly germane for social theory since political theory is a subset of social theory. All social theory must reflect political bias as a presumption therefore. So social theory can be useful in the present and politically biased.

BTW, until people become robots and beyond the conceits of choice and will, social sciences will not be like physics, although I do agree with you that social sciences are young and much has yet to be developed.

This question is related to thee answer I gave you above. How, I think some clarification are in order lest you get the idea I am comparing sociology with physics. I'm saying sociology, ultimately must be a subset of physics, physical theory. Practically it won't be like physical theory in is use, but, it will be explicitly connected to physical theory. I'm a great believer in the ultimate physical explanation for everything

not really seeing what you are getting at then.

Let's just take the theories you listed and one by one find the liberal bias innate to each.

Since you have stated that there is bias, you start.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have asked at least twice so far, is there a section in the paper mentioned in the op that addresses why the shift in social psychological thought and so far no one has answered that question. I did not see any explanation of the move in social and psychological theory away from structuralism, prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s when the political divide within the disciplines was fifty-fifty, toward the post modern and deconstructionist theory prevelent today.

I don't know how to answer that; I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. There's a whole section in the paper on why the author thinks there may be such a disparate number of liberals in social psychology. It starts on page 25, section 5. Beyond that... I don't know enough about what you mean by structuralism and deconstructionist theory. Those terms have no meaning to me, I don't have the context for them. You're talking way above my head here

- - - Updated - - -

We should be more skeptical of ideas we like because we are sufficiently skeptical of ideas we do not like.

I like this sentiment

- - - Updated - - -

sez yoo.

On the other hand, we have confrontational confirmation bias, where people love to read research which agrees with what the already believe. For many years, conservatives pointed to research which showed no connection between smoking and lung cancer. It helped that all that research was funded by the tobacco industry.

I am wondering what kind of "research question requires that one assume that a particular ideology or value system is factually true"? How does this actually work in real life?

Fixed that for you

 

[Emily Lake]

Perhaps you can answer my question. Is there a recognized heterodoxy or more than one even, in sociology? I don't see how without one you could overcome the partisan nature of the profession.

I don't know what that means.

 

[fromderinside]

not really seeing what you are getting at then.

Let's just take the theories you listed and one by one find the liberal bias innate to each.

Since you have stated that there is bias, you start.

OK. Here is my start.

Here are the set of theories I ripped off from About.com
Sociological Theories: A list of Sociological theories and Frameworks.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/Major-Sociological-Frameworks.01.htm

From which I hi-lighted segments of each which I believe reflect bias.

1. Symbolic Interaction Theory
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.

Symbolic meaning? Is that the meaning on attaches to symbols like swastikas, fish symbols, cresents, flags, and the like?

Nothing possibly political about that is there. /Usupply

2. Conflict Theory
Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power in producing social order. This perspective is derived from the works of Karl Marx, who saw society as fragmented into groups that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources.

what could be political about use of power and perspective one brings to such analysis. Although Pinker did use the concept of Leviathan quite effectively when he wrote "Our Better Angels?

3. Functionalist Theory
The functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, is one of the major theoretical perspectives in sociology. It has its origins in the works of Emile Durkheim, who was especially interested in how social order is possible or how society remains relatively stable.

How, besides observation of what takes place can one predict whether a state will be functional or dysfunctional. Seems to me that political perspective, relative to where one observes the state, plays a large part in determining what is or is not functional. Who is going to argue that Hamas, for instance, operates a functional state in Gaza. Clearly, a politics of life sacrificing is working for them.

4. Feminist Theory
Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary sociological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women's lives. Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society.

This very theory starts with goals oriented toward enhancing the status of women is society.

5. Critical Theory
Critical theory is a type of social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

Carping as a theory? R U kidding

6. Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions.

Nice for some forms of computing, but, see where labels are taking us when things are tilted toward only interacting with those which one agrees

7. Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory is a theory that attempts to explain socialization and its effect of the development of the self. It looks at the individual learning process, the formation of self, and the influence of society in socializing individuals. Social learning theory is commonly used by sociologists to explain deviance and crime.

I'm sorry. The self? this is a theory based on failed theory. Gotta be something political here

8. Structural Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals.

Perhaps a truism among some political sorts within societies. Justifying such given our flexible predispositions requires a political perspective. For instance deviance, goals, means all sound pretty subjectively to political view to me.

9. Rational Choice Theory
Economics plays a huge role in human behavior. That is, people are often motivated by money and the possibility of making a profit, calculating the likely costs and benefits of any action before deciding what to do. This way of thinking is called rational choice theory.

Rational here isn't rational there.

10. Game Theory
Game theory is a theory of social interaction, which attempts to explain the interaction people have with one another. As the name of the theory suggests, game theory sees human interaction as just that: a game.

One can describe fitness as the outcome from a zero sum game but is that actually predictive of anything.

12. Social Exchange Theory
One way of analyzing social interaction is through the social exchange theory. This model interprets society as a series of interactions that are based on estimates of rewards and punishments. According to this view, our interactions are determined by the rewards or punishments that we receive from others and all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis. The theory has its roots in economics as well as sociology and psychology.

Actually I've been pushing a social viewpoint that is an after the fact process intended to convince others we aren't threats. I can't validate that either.

13. Chaos Theory
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, however it has applications in several disciplines, including sociology and other social sciences. In the social sciences, chaos theory is the study of complex non-linear systems of social complexity. It is not about disorder, but rather is about very complicated systems of order.

that things may be described as chaotic, that some of those non-linear systems seem to last and even recruit isn't really going to answer questions since the number of possible sustainable non-linear systems is infinite.

14. Social Phenomenology
Social phenomenology is an approach within the field of sociology that aims to reveal what role human awareness plays in the production of social action, social situations and social worlds. In essence, phenomenology is the belief that society is a human construction.

Yeah, that's the ticket. We create our gods so that must be the way things are. OMG

I consider each comment I made to illustrate a bias with that particular theory. So doing doesn't mean that I found the only bias. Given my definition of conservative and liberal pretty much track conservation versus change I claim my found biases are liberal biases.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

OK. Here is my start.

Here are the set of theories I ripped off from About.com
Sociological Theories: A list of Sociological theories and Frameworks.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociology101/tp/Major-Sociological-Frameworks.01.htm

From which I hi-lighted segments of each which I believe reflect bias.

1. Symbolic Interaction Theory
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.

Symbolic meaning? Is that the meaning on attaches to symbols like swastikas, fish symbols, cresents, flags, and the like?

Nothing possibly political about that is there. /Usupply

I consider each comment I made to illustrate a bias with that particular theory. So doing doesn't mean that I found the only bias. Given my definition of conservative and liberal pretty much track conservation versus change I claim my found biases are liberal biases.

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?