Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...08tier.html?hp

And there's an attack from science from the other direction.

[Illusions]

Your immortal soul, or actually being educated and intelligent.

This is the part that gets me...if its wrong (scientific theories that the religious object to), how do the people who believe its wrong contend with the fact that using them as tools or information to do things that work, like developing vaccines, launching satellites, etc. work better than prayer? Is there some form of cognitive dissonance going on, or does it just not appear as contradictory to them?

[Loki]

This is the part that gets me...if its wrong (scientific theories that the religious object to), how do the people who believe its wrong contend with the fact that using them as tools or information to do things that work, like developing vaccines, launching satellites, etc. work better than prayer? Is there some form of cognitive dissonance going on, or does it just not appear as contradictory to them?

See article above. How do people who claim that it must be discrimination that leads to a disproportionately few women and minorities in academia then blame the victim when it comes to a disproportionately few conservatives in academia.

[Illusions]

See article above. How do people who claim that it must be discrimination that leads to a disproportionately few women and minorities in academia than blame the victim when it comes to a disproportionately few conservatives in academia.

Because they can logically contend with the fact that some discrimination is okay if its objectively relevant to why the discrimination is being applied. For instance if you're going to fill a position for a Biology professor and when the topic of speciation comes up one claims that "God did it", and the other outlines various scientific theories, who do you think is going to get the position? Or relevant to the psychology field mentioned in the article, who do you think is more likely to believe in psychology being a legitimate field of study, and invested time in learning it properly? A social liberal or a social conservative? Also it could be that ideology is a choice, while what gender or race you are is not, biologically speaking of course. Besides that, I'm not exactly certain how you are drawing equality between what I've stated, and what you are stating.

What I'm describing are people who claim evolution is a pack of lies, and then have to contend with the fact that we have legitimate technological achievements in existence because of our understanding of it, yet none prayed into existence...

[Loki]

Because they can logically contend with the fact that some discrimination is okay if its objectively relevant to why the discrimination is being applied. For instance if you're going to fill a position for a Biology professor and when the topic of speciation comes up one claims that "God did it", and the other outlines various scientific theories, who do you think is going to get the position? Or relevant to the psychology field mentioned in the article, who do you think is more likely to believe in psychology being a legitimate field of study, and invested time in learning it properly? A social liberal or a social conservative? Also it could be that ideology is a choice, while what gender or race you are is not, biologically speaking of course. Besides that, I'm not exactly certain how you are drawing equality between what I've stated, and what you are stating.

See my point about making up hypocritical excuses. I can easily make similar statements about why women or minorities don't want to be in academia.

[Illusions]

See my point about making up hypocritical excuses.

How exactly is it hypocritical? A belief system isn't the same as gender or race. Teaching positions require people who can teach specific ideas, belief systems dictate what ideas you are likely to understand and be able to teach, race or gender does not.

I can easily make similar statements about why women or minorities don't want to be in academia.

I'm not making a statement about why conservatives don't want to be in academia, I'm outlining why certain brands of conservatism aren't represented. If I held the radical idea that 1 + 1 = Apples, and 2 + 2 = Square, I would not be hired by academia to teach math, and while I am being discriminated against based on my beliefs, it is not the same as being discriminated against because of my gender, or race. To state they are is ridiculous, and therefore I hope you are able to understand why its different when someone is kept from teaching biology because they believe in creationism rather than evolution, or kept from teaching psychology because they believe its a load of crap. Additionally if I was allowed to teach my brand of math, I would not be under-represented because academia is biased against AppleSquare mathists but because 1) There aren't that many, and 2) The demand for professors or teachers to teach AppleSquare math is not as great as the demand for professors or teachers who actually know real math.

[Loki]

I'm not making a statement about why conservatives don't want to be in academia, I'm outlining why certain brands of conservatism aren't represented. If I held the radical idea that 1 + 1 = Apples, and 2 + 2 = Square, I would not be hired by academia to teach math, and while I am being discriminated against based on my beliefs, it is not the same as being discriminated against because of my gender, or race. To state they are is ridiculous, and therefore I hope you are able to understand why its different when someone is kept from teaching biology because they believe in creationism rather than evolution, or kept from teaching psychology because they believe its a load of crap.

Except there's nothing inherent about conservatism or academia that would prevent a conservative from having a position in it. But thanks for making my point for me and answering your own question.

[Illusions]

Except there's nothing inherent about conservatism or academia that would prevent a conservative from having a position in it.

yes there is. The demand for people who know and can teach evolution is far higher than the demand for people who know and can teach Creationism, and likewise the number of "liberals" who are educated in and understand evolution would be higher than the number of "conservatives" who are educated in and understand evolution. Your attempt to argue that certain ideologies aren't more likely to be educated in and knowledgeable of certain ideas, and more likely to want to teach them, and be accepted to teach them, is staggeringly absurd.

[Loki]

yes there is. The demand for people who know and can teach evolution is far higher than the demand for people who know and can teach Creationism, and likewise the number of "liberals" who are educated in and understand evolution would be higher than the number of "conservatives" who are educated in and understand evolution. Your attempt to argue that certain ideologies aren't more likely to be educated in and knowledgeable of certain ideas, and more likely to want to teach them, and be accepted to teach them, is staggeringly absurd.

So ~12 times as many "liberals" than conservatives are capable of doing research on sociology/psychology (in a country where twice as many people identity themselves as conservatives)?

[Nessus]

So ~12 times as many "liberals" than conservatives are capable of doing research on sociology/psychology (in a country where twice as many people identity themselves as conservatives)?

How many of those conservatives would think "walk it off, be a man" is a valid medical opinion? Particularly about mental health?

[Loki]

How many of those conservatives would think "walk it off, be a man" is a valid medical opinion? Particularly about mental health?

I didn't realize academics who do research on psychology and sociology get to offer medical opinions. More importantly, why are you assuming that conservatives can't separate their personal opinions from their research? If they can't, why are we assuming that "liberals" can?

[Nessus]

I didn't realize academics who do research on psychology and sociology get to offer medical opinions. More importantly, why are you assuming that conservatives can't separate their personal opinions from their research? If they can't, why are we assuming that "liberals" can?

I don't think we are assuming that, have you read women's studies? It is only in the post-modernist era that one can read a scientific treatise on how someone looking at you is the moral equivalent of rape. That said, the current conservative movement in the U.S. values anti-intellectualism, rabid religion and a blind adherence to the interests of the Markets and investors. These qualities mean they tend to self-select out of research and academia; you remember how Lewkowski explained to us how CEOs are more intelligent than Nobel winners, right? This doesn't keep some from trying, though, and it is my understanding there are 'special' institutions around where one can be a bold and empowered scholar on creationism, get called a professor and all that jazz, and generally play pretend that they're anywhere nearly scientifically important.

[Loki]

I don't think we are assuming that, have you read women's studies? It is only in the post-modernist era that one can read a scientific treatise on how someone looking at you is the moral equivalent of rape. That said, the current conservative movement in the U.S. values anti-intellectualism, rabid religion and a blind adherence to the interests of the Markets and investors. These qualities mean they tend to self-select out of research and academia; you remember how Lewkowski explained to us how CEOs are more intelligent than Nobel winners, right? This doesn't keep some from trying, though, and it is my understanding there are 'special' institutions around where one can be a bold and empowered scholar on creationism, get called a professor and all that jazz, and generally play pretend that they're anywhere nearly scientifically important.

I think you're confusing cause and effect here. Could it be that conservatives hate academia because academia clearly discriminates against them? There were plenty of academic conservatives a few decades back, and the movement certainly wasn't anti-intellectual back then. I've also heard of stories from the humanities where applicants were rejected solely because of their political views. I also doubt it's a coincidence that the only political psychology research that gets published ends up painting only conservatives in a bad light.

I also think you're taking far too many leaps in logic. Just because many conservatives believe in the markets doesn't mean that they all want to earn as much money as possible or don't care about social problems (in fact, social conservatism is all about fixing social problems). Heck, there are plenty of far-left people in academia, despite the fact that their salaries are frequently being paid due to money given by corporations or the US government.

[Nessus]

I think you're confusing cause and effect here. Could it be that conservatives hate academia because academia clearly discriminates against them? There were plenty of academic conservatives a few decades back, and the movement certainly wasn't anti-intellectual back then.

I also think you're taking far too many leaps in logic. Just because many conservatives believe in the markets doesn't mean that they all want to earn as much money as possible or don't care about social problems (in fact, social conservatism is all about fixing social problems).

Like how one fixes a dog by sterilizing it, but okay, let's roll with that.

It's probably true that the love affair between conservatism and academia broke and caused the anti-intellectualism wing to rise higher, but that's still self-selection, no matter how dumb.

And generally, isn't this just how free markets operate? The liberal intelligentsia have their own idea of science and they're keeping the weirdos (in their eyes) out, so the conservative scientists have to sell their brand of science in their own institutions. And society selects which ones it listens to. The creationist schools probably get equal amounts of respect from the conservative segment of the population as do the normal institutions from the rest, Hell probably more so!

And given how often you've invoked "champagne socialist" as a straight-faced argument, I find it strenuous that there are conservatives out there who wouldn't trade what they're doing now for a more lucrative job.

[Nessus]

Another thing to consider is that your government had a boat-load more reasons to subsidize conservative academics during the Cold War, esp. during the later stages. This has changed too, though not necessarily just because CCCP collapsed.

[Wraith]

Want me to split off these posts into D&D?

[Loki]

Sure.

[Wraith]

Nessus gave a no vote. Tiebreaker: Illusions.

[Illusions]

Want me to split off these posts into D&D?

Nessus gave a no vote. Tiebreaker: Illusions.

I'm going to wait to see how much further we derail or how it goes, if this burns out in a few more posts I guess it can stay here, but if we go another page, sure break it off so others can have the WTF thread back...

[Illusions]

So ~12 times as many "liberals" than conservatives are capable of doing research on sociology/psychology (in a country where twice as many people identity themselves as conservatives)?

I never said "capable", I claimed that there was likely a greater demand for a certain kind of sociology/psychology research and teaching, and that it was far more likely that a person whose ideology aligned with that research or set of ideas would be more likely to put effort into doing that research, or studying it, understanding it, and learning how to teach it. This is the same reason why the arts aren't filled with people who think art is bullshit or nonsense, mathematics is filled with people who enjoy math or have a proclivity for it, and why people who teach creationism as fact very likely believe it God. Its not that their ranks are discriminated against like gender or race are, its that their opinion of a certain idea, art/math/psychology/God, caused them to desire to study more of it, understand it, and either want to know more about it, and/or teach others about it, and that when it came time to get their job all of that resulted in them being far more qualified than someone else who holds feelings of opposition towards their ideas or holds the "wrong" ones.

More importantly, why are you assuming that conservatives can't separate their personal opinions from their research? If they can't, why are we assuming that "liberals" can?

I'm assuming they both can separate their personal opinions from their research or teaching, but honestly on average how do you think it works out? That people who are opposed to an idea are the best ones to teach it and know the most about it, or that the people who feel passionately about an idea are the best ones to teach it and know the most about it? Or are you going to argue that you studied what you studied because you think its a load of crap, but you'd like to teach other people this stuff you think is crap, as your job? You're trying to paint a world where its as likely that tomorrow Nessus will pursue teaching Creationism with as much knowledge and vigor as someone who actually wholeheartedly believes it, and that she will get a job doing so...

[Loki]

I never said "capable", I claimed that there was likely a greater demand for a certain kind of sociology/psychology research and teaching, and that it was far more likely that a person whose ideology aligned with that research or set of ideas would be more likely to put effort into doing that research, or studying it, understanding it, and learning how to teach it. This is the same reason why the arts aren't filled with people who think art is bullshit or nonsense, mathematics is filled with people who enjoy math or have a proclivity for it, and why people who teach creationism as fact very likely believe it God. Its not that their ranks are discriminated against like gender or race are, its that their opinion of a certain idea, art/math/psychology/God, caused them to desire to study more of it, understand it, and either want to know more about it, and/or teach others about it, and that when it came time to get their job all of that resulted in them being far more qualified than someone else who holds feelings of opposition towards their ideas or holds the "wrong" ones.

And here I thought the point of research was to uncover truth, not to move in preconceived directions. And frankly, you're grossly underestimating the amount of research that is far too abstract to pose ideological problems to anyone. That's certainly the case in political science. Most of the fights are between rival camps of center-left professors.

I'm assuming they both can separate their personal opinions from their research or teaching, but honestly on average how do you think it works out? That people who are opposed to an idea are the best ones to teach it and know the most about it, or that the people who feel passionately about an idea are the best ones to teach it and know the most about it? Or are you going to argue that you studied what you studied because you think its a load of crap, but you'd like to teach other people this stuff you think is crap, as your job? You're trying to paint a world where its as likely that tomorrow Nessus will pursue teaching Creationism with as much knowledge and vigor as someone who actually wholeheartedly believes it, and that she will get a job doing so...

Doesn't stop plenty of humanities professors from trying to brainwash their students. If they can do it, why can't conservatives?

[Illusions]

And here I thought the point of research was to uncover truth, not to move in preconceived directions.

I'm not seeing how "truth" is relevant to the discussion. I'll illustrate for you. Say we have ten professors, they all teach the widely accepted field of Abstract Math where 2 + 2 = Square. They want to expand the Abstract Math department, because they have 100 more students who've applied to their University specifically to major in Abstract Math, and they can't handle them all. So they set out to hire a new professor. The two applicants are a man with an innate passion for Abstract Mathematics, well versed in his field, and the resurrected Kurt Gödel. Kurt Gödel is going to advocate the revolutionary, and obviously true to us, idea that 2 + 2 does not in fact equal Square, but that 2 + 2 = 4. The other guy has recently made headway in demonstrating to other Abstract Mathematicians that Square + Square = 8.

Who do you think is going to get the job? Have we now established that objective truth isn't essential to why these people are being hired, just what they believe is true?

And frankly, you're grossly underestimating the amount of research that is far too abstract to pose ideological problems to anyone. That's certainly the case in political science. Most of the fights are between rival camps of center-left professors.

, if there weren't ideological problems, there wouldn't be fights.

Doesn't stop plenty of humanities professors from trying to brainwash their students. If they can do it, why can't conservatives?

Because the accepted truth, and those who wish to pursue it and teach it, is not currently aligned with the ideologies that conservatives find attractive. Its also why the Bible is taught at Christian and Catholic schools, that is the accepted truth to them.

If this quote was meant to be taken as why can one group of people do something wrong, and another can't, then its merely that it would be nice if no one was doing anything wrong, but the solution isn't to allow everyone to do it, because that sort of "fairness" is flat out moronic. If two people walked up to you and one of them stabbed you, and some bystander stopped the other one before he got his chance, would you request the second blow out of some perverted fairness?

[Loki]

I'm not seeing how "truth" is relevant to the discussion. I'll illustrate for you. Say we have ten professors, they all teach the widely accepted field of Abstract Math where 2 + 2 = Square. They want to expand the Abstract Math department, because they have 100 more students who've applied to their University specifically to major in Abstract Math, and they can't handle them all. So they set out to hire a new professor. The two applicants are a man with an innate passion for Abstract Mathematics, well versed in his field, and the resurrected Kurt Gödel. Kurt Gödel is going to advocate the revolutionary, and obviously true to us, idea that 2 + 2 does not in fact equal Square, but that 2 + 2 = 4. The other guy has recently made headway in demonstrating to other Abstract Mathematicians that Square + Square = 8.

So suddenly conservatives are somehow less willing to seek truth than left wingers? Seriously? You don't see the bias showing here? Now tell me why left wingers would be any more willing to conduct research on areas that have no policy relevance than conservatives.

, if there weren't ideological problems, there wouldn't be fights.

The fights are generally over theory and academic positions (and slights). there are virtually no fights over political ideology since the end of the Cold War (mostly because the far left is discredited and conservatives barely exist).

Because the accepted truth, and those who wish to pursue it and teach it, is not currently aligned with the ideologies that conservatives find attractive. Its also why the Bible is taught at Christian and Catholic schools, that is the accepted truth to them.

Parts of the truth are consistent with conservative ideology. And it's hardly surprising that left wingers are more likely to see their ideology reaffirmed when they control the journals and ability to grant tenure. The author of the article is correct: there's a reason that studies that question left wing notions almost never get published, and it's not because left wingers are always right.

I'm just amazed that you engage in the exact same kind of blind ideology and hypocrisy as the people you attack.

[Nessus]

I'm just amazed that you engage in the exact same kind of blind ideology and hypocrisy as the people you attack.

Broken

record

[Wraith]

I've interpreted the conditions of Illusions sorta-yes vote as being fulfilled. Took the title from the article to start with.

[Nessus]

Well fuck me

Here's a free pass for Dread, though

[Illusions]

So suddenly conservatives are somehow less willing to seek truth than left wingers?

if you have an evangelical christian and a hardcore atheist, they are going to have two completely opposed truths they believe in when it comes to why human beings exist. Stop trying to dilute or strawman my arguments, or if that's not the case explain to me what it is you aren't understanding.

Seriously? You don't see the bias showing here? Now tell me why left wingers would be any more willing to conduct research on areas that have no policy relevance than conservatives.

What do you mean policy relevance? I'm not certain what my bias is, I'm not taking a side, I'm explaining that the reason its more likely that a certain ideology is going to be over-represented in a certain area of teaching is going to be because what they believe is what is in demand to be taught and what is accepted as what should be taught. My argument is that this isn't the same as discrimination based on race or gender, or over/under representation of them in academia. Being black, or a woman, or whatever has no objective bearing on whether or not they will be knowledgeable in certain subjects, have a proclivity towards certain subjects, etc., but believing in the ideology that God created the Universe and Man can have an objective bearing on whether or not that someone is going to be knowledgeable and have a great deal of understanding, and desire to teach Evolution.

The fights are generally over theory and academic positions (and slights). there are virtually no fights over political ideology since the end of the Cold War (mostly because the far left is discredited and conservatives barely exist).

I'm speaking of ideologies in general. You're railing on me for being biased, yet didn't consider that I was using the word with nuance since a Conservative doesn't necessarily need to believe in Creationism, or a Liberal in evolution.

Parts of the truth are consistent with conservative ideology.

Hence why there are conservatives in academia instead of there being none.

I'm just amazed that you engage in the exact same kind of blind ideology and hypocrisy as the people you attack.

Whose side am I taking here? I'm just explaining how the discrimination going on isn't equatable with discrimination based on gender or race.

I've interpreted the conditions of Illusions sorta-yes vote as being fulfilled. Took the title from the article to start with.

Confused the crap out of me for a second when I was reviewing what I'd stated on previous pages, and the thread was a page shorter, and my post in the middle of nowhere. Guess you moved it before I got a chance to ...

[Loki]

if you have an evangelical christian and a hardcore atheist, they are going to have two completely opposed truths they believe in when it comes to why human beings exist. Stop trying to dilute or strawman my arguments, or if that's not the case explain to me what it is you aren't understanding.

I don't think you realize that the social sciences != metaphysics. Go find a journal in psychology or sociology and then tell me why the objects of study are inherently not suited for conservatives.

What do you mean policy relevance? I'm not certain what my bias is, I'm not taking a side, I'm explaining that the reason its more likely that a certain ideology is going to be over-represented in a certain area of teaching is going to be because what they believe is what is in demand to be taught and what is accepted as what should be taught. My argument is that this isn't the same as discrimination based on race or gender, or over/under representation of them in academia. Being black, or a woman, or whatever has no objective bearing on whether or not they will be knowledgeable in certain subjects, have a proclivity towards certain subjects, etc., but believing in the ideology that God created the Universe and Man can have an objective bearing on whether or not that someone is going to be knowledgeable and have a great deal of understanding, and desire to teach Evolution.

And one can claim that women's brains function differently to men, which makes them less able to engage in extremely complex mathematical activities. Or that minorities are underrepresented in academia because they're underrepresented in all levels of education (or some IQ-related argument). Not that I believe these arguments, but they're at least as likely to be correct as yours. But anyone who makes those arguments gets shunned (and called a racist or sexist), while someone making your argument is praised. Repeat after me, most research has very little to do with political ideology. Most conservatives have no qualms with conducting research. Conservatives are as likely to allow their ideology to influence their work as left wingers. Even if you account for the portion of conservatives that are extremely religious, we should expect an even ratio of "liberals" to conservatives in academia because there are twice as many of the latter in the general population. We should certainly not see a ratio of 12/1 in the opposite direction. The ratios are even worse in the humanities, where a conservative would be able to make a rigorous defense of their position as easily as a left-winger. And we have cases of people admitting to not hiring conservatives in the humanities.

Whose side am I taking here? I'm just explaining how the discrimination going on isn't equatable with discrimination based on gender or race.

You're on the side of attacking the victims, as long as those victims are not people you care about. Frankly, I find it extremely disgraceful.

Broken

record

Good to see you on the side of discrimination. I guess it's ok as long as it's against a group you dislike.

[Illusions]

I'll give you a longer reply tomorrow, but I'm going to sleep now, however:

You have to fill a position to teach the Biological Sciences, who out of the following is most likely to pursue it, and who would you likely fill the position with?

Nessus
Lewkowski
Illusions
Aimless








Now, if you didn't pick Lewkowski, was it because you discriminated against him because he's a conservative, or did you not pick him because he's unlikely to pursue a position to teach Biological sciences because of his ideological leanings, and because his ideological leanings have left him not as well versed as other applicants?

Conservatives are as likely to allow their ideology to influence their work as left wingers.

Good, glad you agree with me. I'm arguing that almost everyone is likely to be heavily influenced by their ideologies when it comes to what they believe to be true, what other truths they seek out, and what they want to do with their lives. This is why you don't see devout atheists spending enormous amounts of their free time to study and fully understand the Bible in order to become ordained ministers so that they may teach others about the Bible as fact.

[Loki]

I'll give you a longer reply tomorrow, but I'm going to sleep now, however:

You have to fill a position to teach the Biological Sciences, who out of the following is most likely to pursue it, and who would you likely fill the position with?

Nessus
Lewkowski
Illusions
Aimless

Now, if you didn't pick Lewkowski, was it because you discriminated against him because he's a conservative, or did you not pick him because he's unlikely to pursue a position to teach Biological sciences because of his ideological leanings, and because his ideological leanings have left him not as well versed as other applicants?

At what point are you going to get through your head that there's no equivalent to evolution (in terms of moral objectionability for conservatives) in the social sciences? And I would take Aimless or Nessus, because they already have experience in similar fields, not because they're not conservative.

For example, I know a conservative here (of which there are ~4 out of over 50) who does research on the effect of Muslim immigration on political extremism. Not a topic conservatives are interested in, right?