Why social scientists keep "discovering" conservatives are dumb, crazy etc...

Seems pretty evident that liberal arts in higher education is one huge echo chamber of liberals, each one lovingly massaging the gonads of the next.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&

"Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”


It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. "

desert dude said:

Seems pretty evident that liberal arts in higher education is one huge echo chamber of liberals, each one lovingly massaging the gonads of the next.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&

"Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”


It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. "

Click to expand...

This has no bearing on the 8 independent studies that conclude that there is something very different about conservatives.

bob altmeyer's study being the premier one.

Your post seems to be an attempt to single out a few components of.... no scientific study at all and use that to disprove some sort of impromptu poll.


Joseph J. Romm has written that Tierney is one of the "influential but misinformed" skeptics who have helped prevent the U.S. from taking action on Climate Change. In his 2007 book, Hell and High Water, Romm cites, and claims to refute, what he calls Tierney's "misinformation".

Ughh ughhh!!

Science bad!
Polls bad!
Education bad!

Sean Hannity good

Canndo and Ink,

Three conservative social psychologists out of one thousand in attendance. You are defending that?

Maybe you guys did not actually follow the link and read the article. Let me help you out by quoting from it:

"The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences."


"But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”



"Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”


Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published. "


Another study:
"However, a new study, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Dutch psychologists finds that overt discrimination against conservatives [PDF] likely plays a role. The researchers surveyed several hundred social psychologists, most of them American, and found that 6 percent identified as "overall conservative" - certainly better than 3 in a 1,000 but nowhere near being representative of the larger population.


Why, then, did Haidt have such difficulty finding more than a handful of conservative colleagues? The current results suggest one answer: Members of the conservative minority are reluctant to express their political beliefs publicly. Survey 2 shows why: Hostility toward and willingness to discriminate against conservatives is widespread. One in six respondents said that she or he would be somewhat (or more) inclined to discriminate against conservatives in inviting them for symposia or reviewing their work. One in four would discriminate in reviewing their grant applications. More than one in three would discriminate against them when making hiring decisions. Thus, willingness to discriminate is not limited to small decisions. In fact, it is strongest when it comes to the most important decisions, such as grant applications and hiring."
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/liberals-admit-to-discriminating-against

what do you call 10000 liberals in a stadium?- A concert
what do you call 10000 conservatives in a stadium?- A mega church.

Nope, basing it on my 30 years of political interest, my families involvement in the GOP and my personal experiences.

I dont need a study or a scientist to tell me what I already know and have witnessed over my lifetime.

ink the world said:

Nope, basing it on my 30 years of political interest, my families involvement in the GOP and my personal experiences.

I dont need a study or a scientist to tell me what I already know and have witnessed over my lifetime.

Click to expand...

So, no need to actually follow the link. No need to read the article. You already know it all. You sound like you would fit right in as a sociology professor at any American university.

I didn't read any of the original articles either. What's the point?

Side A: the moon is round, we have scientific proof
Side B: no it's not round, their scientists are wrong. Ours are right.

Bla bla bla, endless pissing contest. No one on either side is gonna change their opinions.

OK

Let's say investigation into race and gender differences are allowed. What do you hope they find? What do you wish to do with that info?

I get the distinct impression that what you dislike about liberal thinking most is egalitarianism. Moynihan and Summers had nothing to offer, as is the case with conservative thinking in general. However, why not humor this line of reasoning? Let's say they find white men are smarter and more likely to foster family integrity, as they sought to show in research. What then? Conversely, what if they find nothing? What if they find that white men are inferior?

Since you likely won't answer according to what I am pointing to and asking, WTF is the point of opposing a near consensus of educated folks who don't see any point in researching these things? The Third Reich studied them extensively, are you suggesting this avenue be revisIted? Are you not aware that conservatism epitomizes right-wing thinking while opposing progress? The rule of white men only is a thing of the past, power structures are subject to progress.

desert dude said:

Canndo and Ink,

Three conservative social psychologists out of one thousand in attendance. You are defending that?

Maybe you guys did not actually follow the link and read the article. Let me help you out by quoting from it:

"The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences."


"But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

“Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”



"Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”


Instead, the taboo against discussing sex differences was reinforced, so universities and the National Science Foundation went on spending tens of millions of dollars on research and programs based on the assumption that female scientists faced discrimination and various forms of unconscious bias. But that assumption has been repeatedly contradicted, most recently in a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Cornell psychologists, Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. After reviewing two decades of research, they report that a woman in academic science typically fares as well as, if not better than, a comparable man when it comes to being interviewed, hired, promoted, financed and published. "


Another study:
"However, a new study, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Dutch psychologists finds that overt discrimination against conservatives [PDF] likely plays a role. The researchers surveyed several hundred social psychologists, most of them American, and found that 6 percent identified as "overall conservative" - certainly better than 3 in a 1,000 but nowhere near being representative of the larger population.


Why, then, did Haidt have such difficulty finding more than a handful of conservative colleagues? The current results suggest one answer: Members of the conservative minority are reluctant to express their political beliefs publicly. Survey 2 shows why: Hostility toward and willingness to discriminate against conservatives is widespread. One in six respondents said that she or he would be somewhat (or more) inclined to discriminate against conservatives in inviting them for symposia or reviewing their work. One in four would discriminate in reviewing their grant applications. More than one in three would discriminate against them when making hiring decisions. Thus, willingness to discriminate is not limited to small decisions. In fact, it is strongest when it comes to the most important decisions, such as grant applications and hiring."
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/liberals-admit-to-discriminating-against

Click to expand...

This is akin to saying that all sociological studies of women - if they are performed by men, must be invalid. It ignores the riggors of research and the realitively unbiased nature of science. Certainly there will be some bias inherrent in any sociological study.

I wonder how many liberals work at creationist "think" tanks, or itelligent design insitutions.

abandonconflict said:

OK

Let's say investigation into race and gender differences are allowed. What do you hope they find? What do you wish to do with that info?

I get the distinct impression that what you dislike about liberal thinking most is egalitarianism. Moynihan and Summers had nothing to offer, as is the case with conservative thinking in general. However, why not humor this line of reasoning? Let's say they find white men are smarter and more likely to foster family integrity, as they sought to show in research. What then? Conversely, what if they find nothing? What if they find that white men are inferior?

Since you likely won't answer according to what I am pointing to and asking, WTF is the point of opposing a near consensus of educated folks who don't see any point in researching these things? The Third Reich studied them extensively, are you suggesting this avenue be revisIted? Are you not aware that conservatism epitomizes right-wing thinking while opposing progress? The rule of white men only is a thing of the past, power structures are subject to progress.

Click to expand...

I am a little flabbergasted at your response. What research are you quoting when you say the research sought to "show white men are smarter and likely to foster family integrity"? Moynihan's observation was about black families, whites were not mentioned.

Moynihan was ostracized and had his career ruined for pointing out a simple fact. Do you think that sort of atmosphere is conducive to creative thought. Is it conducive to investigating controversial subjects? Off to the gulags with you if you happen to observe that the sky is blue! This sterile world is a good thing? Do you think it might have been a good thing if the various government agencies had adopted policies that fostered strong black families instead of policies that destroyed families?


WTF is the point of opposing a near consensus of educated folks who don't see any point in researching these things?
Would you be so quick to defend a school where three teachers out of a thousand were black? Do you really defend the notion that a university gets to blackball a person because they don't like his politics? The "research" produced by these intellectual deserts are rightly laughed at by anybody with half a brain.

Are you not aware that conservatism epitomizes right-wing thinking while opposing progress?
Conservatism "Opposes progress"? What an absolutely meaningless accusation. Give me some examples of this "progress" you speak of.

Spare me your idiotic Godwin accusations.

canndo said:

This is akin to saying that all sociological studies of women - if they are performed by men, must be invalid. It ignores the riggors of research and the realitively unbiased nature of science. Certainly there will be some bias inherrent in any sociological study.

I wonder how many liberals work at creationist "think" tanks, or itelligent design insitutions.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing "creationist think tanks" to American academia in general? Do you think it is just peachy that social science departments of American universities actively engage in career ending discrimination against people because their politics?

This is akin to saying that all sociological studies of women - if they are performed by men, must be invalid.
Not at all. But if a "university" composed solely of angry feminists, think Andrea Dworkin, regularly published "research" that "proves" men are insane and stupid, would it be taken seriously? Apparently you liberals would happily swallow that bullshit, but most people would be quite amused at your gullible natures.

I have to say I am a little freaked out that you progressives would get on a public forum and defend the indefensible.

"Destroy a colleague's career?" Sure, if he is a "conservative", why not.

"Hire a conservative with impeccable academic credentials?" Sorry, we don't hire crazy people around here.

Apparently you're not familiar with the French revolution. The Right Wing and Left Wing refer to it. On the left, sat those who wished for change. On the right, those who wished to preserve monarchical power structure. Change varies, from revolution on the far left, to progress left of center. On the right, with the old power structure, was a view supportive of a rigidly stratified socioeconomic hierarchy. In current American vernacular, libertarians tend just right of center while conservatism is firmly right wing. Although, in current American vernacular, libertarianism is generally misunderstood.

Conservatism is therefore intrinsically opposed to progressivism by definition.

None of your other replies to my post are worthwhile, Moynihan and Summers are racists and so are you for considering their assertions based in fact.

AC, you are a close minded little troglodyte. Summers made no statements about race that I know of, but don't let that stop you from labeling him a racist. Moynihan's observations about the destructive effects of disintegrating African American families were spot on. Facts are race neutral.

desert dude said:

AC, you are a close minded little troglodyte. Summers made no statements about race that I know of, but don't let that stop you from labeling him a racist. Moynihan's observations about the destructive effects of disintegrating African American families were spot on. Facts are race neutral.

Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read your own article.

abandonconflict said:

Apparently you didn't read your own article.

Click to expand...

Really? Feel free to quote the part where Summers talked about race.

desert dude said:

Really? Feel free to quote the part where Summers talked about race.

Click to expand...

ok, he is a sexist, not a racist, still a bigot

abandonconflict said:

ok, he is a sexist, not a racist, still a bigot

Click to expand...

Bigot, racist, sexist, disagrees with liberals... What's the diff?

Questions that contain the words: "woman, women, black, gay, transgender, different, other, odd, alabaster" are forbidden by the university speech code. The list of forbidden words is subject to revision at any time without notice. You have been warned!

Summers sought to quantify IQ differences between men and women. Why?