# Psychologists Are Overwhelmingly Liberal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674 "2011-02-08T18:21:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/21 "2011-02-08T20:49:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Nothing. Actually, conservatives tend to be better educated than liberals, on average. > > (What was your point with this?) You appear to be confusing smart and educated. If the elite academics, very smart, are all liberal, the mid level people with bachelors and associate degrees are somewhat more conservative, and the poor with little college and not even high school are liberals, you both might be right. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/22 "2011-02-08T20:51:35Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I have not found that to be the case in my work but everybody has different experiences. My daughter is working on a PhD in Psychology, and is publishing a fair bit, and it appears that reviewers often or even usually check the data carefully and often call for an additional study. When I review engineering papers I certainly look at the data, and recommend rejection of the benchmarks used are inadequate. In any case, I was unaware that MatLab had a liberal bias. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/23 "2011-02-08T20:59:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You appear to be confusing smart and educated. I was not. His claim was about academic success. > [@](#): > > If the elite academics, very smart, are all liberal, the mid level people with bachelors and associate degrees are somewhat more conservative, and the poor with little college and not even high school are liberals … I believe this is correct. [Although it’s a bit more complex, because the poor with little education tend to be conservative socially but liberal fiscally, and the mid-level guys are reversed to some extent. But again, this is all a tangent.] ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/24 "2011-02-08T20:59:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The thing is, ideologies tend to be developed before one gets to the PhD level. […] I think it more likely that liberals are more likely to want to go into psychology in the first place. > > The only conservatives I know that are big on helping people with their problems are some of those in the Christian Right, and those that feel that way tend to go into ministry. I think fiscal conservatism just has too much of self-reliance paradigm. You’re touching on what I posted earlier. Apparently, self-reliant people never need help _becoming_ self-reliant - except maybe from sky-buddy. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/25 "2011-02-08T21:03:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You are confusing cause and effect. The OP was about the implications of this bias, not about the causes of it. No. You are confusing cause and effect. The implications of positions that are perceived by you as liberal have everything to do with their causes. For example, if their causes are “unbiased research findings”, then the implication is that some liberal positions are correct. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/26 "2011-02-08T21:06:40Z")
A quote from the speaker mentioned in the OP: > [@](#): > > “Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/27 "2011-02-08T21:16:21Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > No. You are confusing cause and effect. The implications of positions that are perceived by you as liberal have everything to do with their causes. For example, if their causes are “unbiased research findings”, then the implication is that some liberal positions are correct. That’s true. But the question is whether in fact it was the result of “unbiased research findings”. And one factor that has a bearing on the likelihood of this being the case is whether the predominent mindset in the field is liberal. IOW, once the predominent mindset is liberal - for whatever reason it came about - then it is reasonable to assume that this mindset influences the results. What you (& others) are talking about is how this mindset came about. But this is irrelevant - this is cause (of the mindset). I’m talking about the effect (of the mindset). That’s what I meant that you’re confusing cause and effect. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/28 "2011-02-08T21:16:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A quote from the speaker mentioned in the OP: The problem with that is that conservative dogma is filled with beliefs that are simply flat out factually wrong; it isn’t surprising conservatives would do bad at anything that requires them to be correct about something. That quote presumes that Left and Right are automatically equally correct, which isn’t true - you often tended to get poor science from hardline Communists, too. In what way are women and minorities “wrong”? A woman unlike a conservative isn’t by definition committed to falsehoods. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/29 "2011-02-08T21:22:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > > > He was saying, and I quote him directly: > > > > First, there is only one good, unbiased standard for judging data and that is to analyze the study that produced it. > > You’re quoting one sentence out of a lengthy post. Yes, and the sentence that I quoted nicely summarized his position on the matter. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > > > I agree with this. If you want to take issue with something psychologists espouse that you believe to be a result of liberal bias, then you need to find a flaw or bias in the studies that their position cites. That’s how science works. > > Many times you can do this. But the relevance is 1) suppose you’re not inclined to do this Too bad. What if I don’t like Einstein’s theory of relativity? You know, it doesn’t _feel right_ to me. But I’m _not inclined_ to point out a flaw in it. I just reject it on lazy ideological grounds. That would make me a crackpot. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > and 2) suppose you think you see the bias but might otherwise be intimidated by the fact that you are not a trained psychologist and how could you go against the collective wisdom of the scientific establishment. If that collective wisdom is tainted by bias, then it’s a lot easier. Again: crackpot. I can [point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=595790) you right now to a guy making erroneous claims based more or less on a “gut” feeling. Happens all the time on the internets. Experts do their best to clarify, but its a futile, meaningless argument, if you can’t point to a flaw in any particular piece of data or study. Where’s your evidence? It’s insulting to an expert to hear that your results are biased or wrong, yet not be inclined to actually point to anything specific. It’s insulting because if you work in the field you see just how much care goes into removing and accounting for bias. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/30 "2011-02-08T21:29:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Smart people tend to be liberal. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/31 "2011-02-08T21:29:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A quote from the speaker mentioned in the OP: Perhaps the reason for this is that we have specific instances of discrimination aganst women and minorities in many areas, but not against conservatives. There are alternate explanations we do have data to support - business school professors make twice as much as psychology professors, so those who are more interested in money, who are likely to be conservatives, may be attracted there. I don’t know what the ratio of conservatives to liberals is in business schools, but I am pretty sure it is a lot higher. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/32 "2011-02-08T21:36:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s true. But the question is whether in fact it was the result of “unbiased research findings”. And one factor that has a bearing on the likelihood of this being the case is whether the predominent mindset in the field is liberal. Well surely it is likely to have _some_ effect. But the question is how big an effect. Everyone has biases, but the scientific community does its best to remove or account for biases. In fact, that’s what we spend the majority of our time doing. Accounting for bias. It’s something that is at the very core of the modern scientific paradigm. One way we do this is through a very competitive environment. We don’t all agree with one another, and we would _like_ to disprove each other. When a competitor’s paper is released, we would love to prove it wrong. Studies are examined scrupulously and repeated, and criticized. “I think you have bias” doesn’t cut it. What is your criticism? How was study X biased? What did they do wrong? Otherwise your argument boils down to conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/33 "2011-02-08T21:44:31Z")
Obviously, the human psyche has a liberal bias. It must be eradicated. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/34 "2011-02-08T22:06:48Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Yes, and the sentence that I quoted nicely summarized his position on the matter. I disagree, but am not inclined to keep arguing about whether some other poster expressed themselves clearly. Whatever. > [@](#): > > Too bad. What if I don’t like Einstein’s theory of relativity? You know, it doesn’t _feel right_ to me. But I’m _not inclined_ to point out a flaw in it. I just reject it on lazy ideological grounds. That would make me a crackpot. It would, but you’re mistaken in comparing people’s opinions about psychology and sociology to people’s opinions about complex areas of physics. The former is an area in which people have extensive personal experience, and access to a vast amount of other empirical evidence, even if they don’t have letters after their names. The latter is a different story. > [@](#): > > Again: crackpot. I can [point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=595790) you right now to a guy making erroneous claims based more or less on a “gut” feeling. Happens all the time on the internets. Experts do their best to clarify, but its a futile, meaningless argument, if you can’t point to a flaw in any particular piece of data or study. Where’s your evidence? It’s insulting to an expert to hear that your results are biased or wrong, yet not be inclined to actually point to anything specific. It’s insulting because if you work in the field you see just how much care goes into removing and accounting for bias. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn’t referring to a case of not being able to point to anything specific. That was 1). Under 2), I pointed out that a guy might have some specific objection. But the counter-argument is “it’s you against the world, do you really think all these scientists are wrong?”. And the answer might be “yes”, if these scientists are influenced by their own personal prefences and professional mindset. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Well surely it is likely to have _some_ effect. But the question is how big an effect. Everyone has biases, but the scientific community does its best to remove or account for biases. Your best is not necessarily good enough. As above, I think this is a naive attitude, and one that is not supported by history. > [@](#): > > In fact, that’s what we spend the majority of our time doing. Accounting for bias. It’s something that is at the very core of the modern scientific paradigm. One way we do this is through a very competitive environment. We don’t all agree with one another, and we would _like_ to disprove each other. When a competitor’s paper is released, we would love to prove it wrong. Studies are examined scrupulously and repeated, and criticized. That only works if the audience to which the criticism and scrupulous examination is directed is receptive to this type of criticism. If the audience is similarly biased - as is apparently the case here - then no such scrupulous examinations are likely to take place, or if they are, to be paid heed. Which is even besides for the fact that, as I posted previously “many times the bias is not so much in terms of interpreting the data but in terms of what gets considered, studied, and published to begin with. The article in the OP gave two good examples of this, in racial and gender studies.” For example, the issue in Summers’ case is not that someone made a study which proved that women are inherently as capable as men in math & science and Summers was saying this was a biased study. The theory that Summers put forth was simply rejected as unacceptable on PC grounds, by an audience that was predisposed to think this way. (Actually my understanding is that Summers’ position is thought to have some validity by actual scientists in the field. But very very quietly.) See also the graduate student cited in the article in the OP, for another example of this type of issue, on which your argument has no bearing. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/35 "2011-02-08T22:10:16Z")
Faculty positions in the social sciences pays poorly - typically starting at well under 6 figures after 5-6 years of grad school AND a post-doc. This COULD be a reason that highly driven conservatives avoid it - they would rather put that energy into a more fiscally rewarding path. However, I am now painting with a damned broad brush - which brings me to party affiliation and education: As for party affiliation, here is a table from one quick Google link that shows that it can be risky to ASSume that education is a perfect predictor: [http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=750](http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=750) I will say that my experience in academia reveals some strong bias against the right wing when you are on the social sciences side. A smart conservative grad student or assistant professor keeps their mouth shut until they are tenured. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/36 "2011-02-08T22:11:17Z")
According to that article democrats in general faculty at top universities outnumber republicans 6-1 > [@](#): > > 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. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1. People in life and physical sciences see the same biases. [http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141264/most\_scientists\_politically\_liberal\_(reality\_must\_have\_a\_liberal\_bias)/](http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141264/most_scientists_politically_liberal_(reality_must_have_a_liberal_bias)/) So I don’t know if you can claim it is anything about psychology itself that draws liberals. I think academia is just more appealing to people whose worldview is also more liberal. I don’t know what role that plays in how psychology develops as a field though. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/37 "2011-02-08T22:18:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That only works if the audience to which the criticism and scrupulous examination is directed is receptive to this type of criticism. If the audience is similarly biased - as is apparently the case here - then no such scrupulous examinations are likely to take place, or if they are, to be paid heed. I think this shows a profoundly distorted view of the reality of the field. But this is one opinion against another, and a perfect example of why you really need to provide some kind of case against a particular position, rather than the ad hominem attack on psychology that you are attempting. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/38 "2011-02-08T22:20:10Z")
Higher education discriminates against the less intelligent! ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/39 "2011-02-08T22:41:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > For example, the issue in Summers’ case is not that someone made a study which proved that women are inherently as capable as men in math & science and Summers was saying this was a biased study. The theory that Summers put forth was simply rejected as unacceptable on PC grounds, by an audience that was predisposed to think this way. (Actually my understanding is that Summers’ position is thought to have some validity by actual scientists in the field. But very very quietly.) I think the Summers’ debacle is a red herring. Just so you know, I actually agree with the hypothesis he presented, or at least that it has some possible merit. And there was indeed a PC overreaction. But the fact is, there are many hypotheses regarding the “women in science” issue; many of them have merit and are likely contributing factors, and there is very little evidence that the “IQ variance” hypothesis is a _large_ contributing factor. There just isn’t. But it’s a complex issue, and the Psychological community, as far as I am aware, has not even come to a position on the matter. And it shouldn’t – more research is needed. And, as the very fact that Summers cited such research indicates, research is in fact being done. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/40 "2011-02-08T22:45:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Higher education discriminates against the less intelligent! As usual, the Onion weighs in: [Are tests biased against students who don’t give a shit?](http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-are-tests-biased-against-students-who,17966/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=3)