# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/61 "2011-02-09T18:02:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > From who? Ben Stein? The problem is that a conservative viewpoint is often going to be unwelcome in academia because it is antithetical to science. When you presuppose that something happens because God said so, naturally people are going to heap scorn on you. > > In fields where you can’t blame things on God, like economics, this seems to be less of a problem. Actually, you have this almost perfectly reversed. The split is _least_ pronounced in the (empirical) physical sciences, and wider the more you move away from that. By the time you get to the Humanities, the ratio is often 10-1 or the like. Social Psychology is much closer to the Humanities than it is Physics, so the findings are not surprising. > [@](#): > > Obviously, liberals are often religious too. The difference is that liberals, almost by definition, separate their faith and their political views, while conservatives almost by definition do not. For plenty of people, their political beliefs _are_ their religion. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/62 "2011-02-09T18:05:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > (empirical) physical sciences Could you define for me which sciences are empirical and which are not? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/63 "2011-02-09T18:09:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > the relevance is 1) suppose you’re not inclined to do this, 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. Then you should offer your post as some sort of WAG instead of a fact or even a decent, tested result stemming from a hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/64 "2011-02-09T18:11:59Z")
> [@furt](#): > > For plenty of people, their political beliefs _are_ their religion. Fair point. ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/65 "2011-02-09T18:26:05Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Then it is valid for me to reject your viewpoint because you yourself are biased, as indicated in the hyperbolic language you use below. I’ve noted above that my bias is irrelevant here. > [@](#): > > Nope. Physicist. My contact with psychologists in academia, and my reading of the literature, however, gives me a very different impression from your own. I suspect that you may also be extrapolating from your own arena. > [@](#): > > It’s a young field, and it is moving rapidly. From your other statements it seems that you might be picking on only a small subset of psychology. For instance: psychiatry. Certainly you’re not picking on, say, neuropsychology? Where are you coming from? You live and learn. Read statements by people in the field, published articles, testimony at commissions etc. You can read up a little on evidence based practice in psychology. See also, a couple of articles in the NYT, e.g. [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D7163EF93AA35750C0A9629C8B63&scp=2&sq=For+psychotherapy+skeptic&st=cse&pagewanted=all](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D7163EF93AA35750C0A9629C8B63&scp=2&sq=For+psychotherapy+skeptic&st=cse&pagewanted=all) & [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/science/for-psychotherapy-s-claims-skeptics-demand-proof.html?scp=1&sq=For+psychotherapy+skeptic&st=cse&pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/science/for-psychotherapy-s-claims-skeptics-demand-proof.html?scp=1&sq=For+psychotherapy+skeptic&st=cse&pagewanted=all) > [@](#): > > Saying such a thing would be completely vacuous, as there is literally zero evidence to support such an inference, and would be open to be taken out of context and distorted by media. But in the field itself, such statements are unnecessary, as the readers of such a paper are just as aware of the possible implications as are the researchers. Sure, without the PC pressure, a sloppy writer might be more apt to drift into pointless and potentially inflammatory excursions. And sure, such sloppiness is gotten away with more in cases where the PC pressure is absent. But such openly published guesses don’t drive science. They are there for the media, not for other scientists in the field. Such ornaments have very little effect on future research. The media translates to “the public at large” and is enormously influential. I don’t believe the influence fails to extend to science. BTW, for an interesting example of PC backlash against a psychologist with unpopular opinions, you might read [Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?_r=1&sq=evidence%20based%20practice%20psychology&st=nyt&scp=147&pagewanted=all) > [@](#): > > The difference between male and female brains has been established. The problem is that there is no solid evidence for the CAUSE of the male/female discrepancy in science. Correlation without cause. That’s not correlation without cause. That’s correlation and cause but with no conclusive evidence. > [@](#): > > The problem is that it is extremely difficult in practice to subtract away all of the other important factors that might cause females to lose interest in a career in science. Since you are not biased, perhaps you can think of a way? What does bias have to do with thinking of a way to subtract all other factors? ISTM you’re being cute here. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/66 "2011-02-09T18:40:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Without checking for cites right now, I’m fairly certain this isn’t true. I’m fairly certain I’ve heard a number of accounts of conservatives viewpoints being unwelcome in academia. What constitutes a “conservative viewpoint”? I have to call bullshit on this. I had more conservative professors in college than liberals. I’m not buying for a second that the poor widdle conservatives are being perecuted by evil liberals in academia. What a steaming pile. Did you get that from watching Ben Stein’s creationism movie or something? ---
**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 9, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/67 "2011-02-09T18:44:09Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > So you twisted what I said into “naive faith”. I guess you ignored all the verification and careful interpretation of data in my 1st post. You also ignored what I was comparing that process to. No, but I think to think that you can overcome this bias - or that as a practical matter you are doing so - is naive. Oddly, later in the same post you acknowledge at length that I am correct about this very point, including the fact that it’s obviously so, and offer up new defenses, namely that 1) all science is afflicted by this problem, and 2) it’s the best we can do. I’ll get to that below, but in light of that it’s hard to figure out what you’re doing. > [@](#): > > Your rubric sidesteps the methodology to make it a political issue. I don’t know why you keep going on about rubric. > [@](#): > > Your 2nd paragraph is what really is at issue in the article and in general. There is not a field of science that is not affected by biases which limit what “gets considered, studied, and published to begin with”. That’s very nice. What I’m doing here is pointing out a specific bias that exists in a specific field of science and noting that this specific bias would have an impact on this specific field on issues which relate to this bias. Seems pretty simple, really, but worth doing because it might not be obvious to a lot of people, and apparently isn’t, based on the responses to this thread. > [@](#): > > These biases may limit the field in terms of intellectual endeavor but they do not invalidate the scientific method, results obtained using the scientific method and do not make something like the rubric you presented superior to the scientific method. I think this gets at what gets the dander of you and people like you - you feel that science is under attack. Rest assured that this is not the case and I don’t really disagree with what you’ve written here, other than your ever present rubric jive. > [@](#): > > So we do not need a science of behavior because peoples’ biased interpretation of their experiences is enough. You are actually proposing to solve the problem of bias in behavioral sciences with more bias. No, but I think skepticism of certain conclusions would be warranted. That’s all I’ve been saying throughout, your incessant harping about my rubric notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > Are you really bringing anything to this argument other than the time-worn observation that all sciences are limited by the interests of their times? Did you know that there is probably not a single psychology research textbook out there that does not point this out? Did you know that all psychology programs require students take classes on research? My point here is that the interest of psychologists are skewed relative to “the interests of their times”. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/68 "2011-02-09T19:11:23Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Could you define for me which sciences are empirical and which are not? That was meant as a descriptor, i.e. “The split is least pronounced in the physical sciences, which are empirical.” Obviously, no science is completely bias-free, but I think it’s pretty obvious that people working in physics/chemistry/engineering are working with cold, hard facts in a way that the humanities are not. “Social Sciences” fall somewhere in-between. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/69 "2011-02-09T19:35:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What constitutes a “conservative viewpoint”? I have to call bullshit on this. I had more conservative professors in college than liberals. I’m not buying for a second that the poor widdle conservatives are being perecuted by evil liberals in academia. What a steaming pile. Did you get that from watching Ben Stein’s creationism movie or something? Of course no power on the face of the planet can move you from your position, I know. Because if it happened to you, it must be the Universal Experience of Everyone. But other readers may profit by the following links that answer your request: [One](http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/58911-conservatives-in-academia-express-views): > [@The Hill](#): > > The most provocative admission of Professor Lilla, however, is buried in the guts of the article. “My brightest conservative students, brought up on hair-raising tales of political correctness, dismiss academic careers out-of-hand because they are certain of not being hired or getting tenure. And I can’t say I blame them.” My own experiences in and around academia convince me that Lilla’s concerns are only part of the story. More than political correctness may be blocking conservative careers in academe. Elsewhere in his ruminations, Lilla admits that too many so-called conservatives are more aptly characterized as Fox News junkies than as authentic intellectual conservatives. You can’t put together a distinguished academic career around Bill O’Reilly talking points. Someone must impress on young conservatives that you must build up an intellectual foundation to enter academe and succeed. To suggest, as Lilla does, that you succeed primarily by playing politics — i.e., hiding your ideology — sends the wrong message. [Two](http://www.academia.org/academic-rights-bill-wronged/): > [@Accuracy in Academia](#): > > “Since the students who hosted me were almost invariably conservative, it was also my custom to ask them how many professors they could identify who were likely to sponsor their group,” author and activist David Horowitz discloses in his latest book. “The question provided me with a rough estimate of the number of conservatives available to counsel and support them.” > > “Almost invariably the answer was ‘two or three.’” The dominant faculty Left feels no such constraints. > > We’ve usually discovered that they are the source of such inhibitions on an ever diminishing conservative minority. Early in the decade, Horowitz crafted a proposal designed to empower students and “take politics out of the classroom,” an effort he describes in Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign For An Academic Bill Of Rights. > > Ultimately, his Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) was a set of recommendations. Chiefly, ABOR recommends that: > > 1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs. > > 2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. > > 3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. > > 4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions. > > Five years ago, I noted the startling similarity between ABOR and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statements on academic freedom. Nonetheless, the AAUP came out foursquare against ABOR, a reflection of the depth of the organization’s actual commitment to academic freedom. [Three](http://thefire.org/article/4990.html): > [@Foundatrion for Individual Rights in Education](#): > > How does liberal faculty domination translate into discrimination against students? When Wells Republicans last year published their study on the faculty’s political makeup, Prof. Jonathan Vawter responded with a campus-wide e-mail labeling Republicans “stupid,” and calling for “lobotomies” for all Republicans. Shortly thereafter, Wells’ version of the SA denied the Wells Republicans’ request for recognition as an official club, which would have qualified them for funding. > > The Cornell American incident is far from the only example of anti-conservative bias here. In 1997, when some students took issue with articles in another conservative publication, The Cornell Review, they stole and burned hundreds of copies of the newspaper. The administration meted out no punishment for such blatant trampling of others’ free speech. To the contrary, as former Sun columnist Joe Sabia has noted, the only official reaction was an attempt by the Student Assembly (notice a trend here?) “to defund the Review, ban it from campus, and send all of its editors to the Judicial Administrator for sensitivity training.” [Four](http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2009/02/by_anonymous_in_march_2008.html): > [@Why I Left Academia](#): > > The obvious ill-treatment began when the three conservative graduate students in the department were given the most remote office to share. Soon after we decorated our office and began our normal work, we were called in by the department chair to explain why we had racist paraphernalia in our office. We asked the chair to accompany us to our office and point out the offending items. It turned out that our portraits of Edmund Burke, President Reagan, Lady Thatcher, and a former speaker of the British Parliament were inherently racist since they were all white. To his credit, the chair dismissed the complaint of our fellow graduate students, although we were frequently called racists during seminar discussions. > > On a separate occasion, I approached one of my professors during her office hours to discuss her comments during class about white oppression, she being an oppressor herself, and to give her an article disputing her claims. I knew I was in the wrong place when she looked at the author and said, “I can’t read this. It’s written by Thomas Sowell. He’s a conservative.” [Six](http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000770.html): > [@Drezner quoting Erin O'connor](#): > > The student who enters grad school intent on becoming a traditional humanist is the student who will be labelled as hopelessly unsophisticated by her peers and her professors. She will also be labelled a conservative by default: she may vote democratic; may be pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and anti-gun; may possess a palpably bleeding heart; but if she refuses to “politicize” her academic work, if she refuses to embrace the belief that ultimately everything she reads and writes is a political act before it is anything else, if she resists the pressure to throw an earnest belief in an aesthetic tradition and a desire to address the transhistorical “human questions” out the window in favor of partisan theorizing and thesis-driven advocacy work, then she is by default a political undesirable, and will be described by fellow students and faculty as a conservative. [Seven](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/opinion/27BROO.html): > [@David Brooks in the New York Times](#): > > Most good universities have at least one conservative professor on campus. When, for example, some group at Harvard wants to hold a panel discussion on some political matter, it can bring out the political theorist Harvey Mansfield to hold up the rightward end. At Princeton it’s Robert George. At Yale it’s Donald Kagan. > > These dissenters lead interesting lives. But there’s one circumstance that causes true anguish: when a bright conservative student comes to them and says he or she is thinking about pursuing an academic career in the humanities or social sciences. > > ‘‘This is one of the most difficult things,’’ says Alan Kors, a rare conservative at Penn. ‘‘One is desperate to see people of independent mind willing to enter the academic world. On the other hand, it is simply the case they will be entering hostile and discriminatory territory.’’ > > ‘Here’s what I’m thinking when an outstanding kid comes in,’’ says George, of Princeton. ''If the kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he’s likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He’s going to face pressure to conform, or he’ll be the victim of discrimination. It’s a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad. > > ‘‘But say he gets through. He’s going to run into intense discrimination trying to find a job. But say he lands a tenure-track job. He’ll run into even more intense discrimination because the establishment gets more concerned the closer you get to the golden ring. By the time you come up for tenure, you’re in your mid-30’s with a spouse and a couple of kids. It’s the worst time to be uncertain about your career. Can I really take the responsibility of advising a kid to take these kinds of risks?’’ > > The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master’s degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: ‘‘You’re one of the best students I’ve got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You’ve got to be really quiet.’’ [Eight](http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/2003/09/11/conservative_students_versus_their_faculty/page/2): > [@Bruce Bartlett](#): > > hose in academia like to call the liberal orientation of most college faculty a red herring. But objective research continually shows that it is not. The latest data appear in the Aug. 29 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. A solid majority of those teaching at both public and private universities described themselves as being either liberal or far left. Less than a third considered themselves middle of the road, and just 15 percent said they were conservative. Not surprisingly, 50 percent of the general public considers college professors to be more liberal than they are. > . > . > . > The irony here is that unlike almost all other workers in society, university professors are granted tenure – a lifetime job from which it is almost impossible to be fired – precisely in order to guarantee freedom of expression. But in practice, the tenure process has become the means by which the left rigorously weeds out conservatives. In many university departments, opposition from a single faculty member is all that is necessary to deny tenure. These days, such a blackball is most likely to be used against a conservative, especially in disciplines such as sociology, history, English and government. > > Professor Robert Maranto of Villanova discussed this insidious practice in the Baltimore Sun on July 31. “While colleges strive for ethnic diversity,” he wrote, “they actively oppose ideological diversity.” The result is a lack of meaningful debate on campuses that makes corporate boardrooms a model of give-and-take. The reason is that in business, those who keep out new ideas lose market share to competitors. “But within the ivory tower, professors can hold dumb ideas for decades with no accountability,” Maranto notes. ---
**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 9, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/70 "2011-02-09T19:48:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Without checking for cites right now, I’m fairly certain this isn’t true. I’m fairly certain I’ve heard a number of accounts of conservatives viewpoints being unwelcome in academia. > Of course there are alternate explanations, and reasonably convincing ones to boot. But I took the thrust of the comment I quoted to be about _confirmation bias_, since there are also alternate explanations for womens’ poorer showing, such as time off of a career for childbearing. But the comment pointed out that when there’s a small discrepancy in womens’ numbers, the immediate assumption is discrimination; when there’s a large discrepancy in the presence of conservatives, the immediate reaction is, “Let’s find an alternate explanation.” I read the article in the Times last night, and the group under consideration are social psychologists, who are probably more liberal and more self selecting for being liberal than psychologist on the whole. I don’t know if their work has the same level of rigor as the work I’m familiar with does. There is also a lot more self selection. To have a real bias situation you need both statistical data (which we have here) and at least some instances of discrimination. I know there are such self-reported instances. However, a creationist would no doubt feel very discriminated against by a biology department. Someone who holds positions very much different from the majority of those working in the field is going to have a tough whether or not there is politics involved - unless they have very strong data backing them up. I don’t know if that is the case here or not, since this is a branch of psychology. My brother has a BA degree in family planning of all things. I doubt there were many devout Catholic teachers or students in his classes. Discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/71 "2011-02-09T19:50:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Psychologists Are Overwhelmingly Liberal No doubt. My psychology professor in college was the biggest flaming liberal I’ve ever met. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/72 "2011-02-09T19:58:07Z")
Rubric is a term used in teaching as guidelines for assessment. If you need a new term because it bugs you so much then criterion works too. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, but I think to think that you can overcome this bias - or that as a practical matter you are doing so - is naive. How about you come up with a system for preventing bias in research. You proposed “Essentially, any time the mainstream view is aligned with a left-wing viewpoint, there is room to question whether this is the result of unbiased scientific study or simply a reflection of the fact that people tend to find support for things they already believe (or prefer to).” Please spend some actual time defending how this proposal improves on the methodology I naively support. You act like the method failed a long time ago or something and everybody knows that by now. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Oddly, later in the same post you acknowledge at length that I am correct about this very point, including the fact that it’s obviously so, and offer up new defenses, namely that 1) all science is afflicted by this problem, and 2) it’s the best we can do. I’ll get to that below, but in light of that it’s hard to figure out what you’re doing.I don’t know why you keep going on about rubric. I acknowledged a type of bias based on my experience with the behavioral sciences. You, on the hand, were completely nonspecific at first but your proposed _criterion_ is specific. Subsequently, you have fixated on a type of bias that is unavoidable while working hard to ignore that fact that your proposed criterion is specific to the design and analysis of experiments. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s very nice. What I’m doing here is pointing out a specific bias that exists in a specific field of science and noting that this specific bias would have an impact on this specific field on issues which relate to this bias. Seems pretty simple, really, but worth doing because it might not be obvious to a lot of people, and apparently isn’t, based on the responses to this thread.I think this gets at what gets the dander of you and people like you - you feel that science is under attack. Science and its results are always under attack. That’s the point of it. What bugs me is when people want to politicize the process. I don’t like it when scientists do it and I don’t like it when laymen do it. I also don’t like it when people attempt to smear an entire field with criticisms based on something they cannot specifically describe. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, but I think skepticism of certain conclusions would be warranted. That’s all I’ve been saying throughout, your incessant harping about my rubric notwithstanding. You proposed the criterion. You shouldn’t have proposed it and discussed what you are actually interested in. You proposed that criterion, managed to show that the usage of such a criterion reflects intellectually lazy cowardice, and then fixated on a completely different type of bias which your criterion does not address. You really crack me up though. So now you are proposing skepticism. That’s really excellent, you just stumbled upon lesson #2 in every research methods class. So far you have: lesson #1: Scientists have research interests that are biased by their times, and lesson #2: Scientists should be skeptical. I really hope your next post stumbles on lesson #3 (hint - it start with an “e” and ends in “thics”) > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My point here is that the interest of psychologists are skewed relative to “the interests of their times”. So propose something to do about it other than labeling results as being politically left or right wing. You have brought nothing that is not already a central concern to scientists from any field. ---
**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 9, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/73 "2011-02-09T20:06:25Z")
> [@furt](#): > > That was meant as a descriptor, i.e. “The split is least pronounced in the physical sciences, which are empirical.” > Obviously, no science is completely bias-free, but I think it’s pretty obvious that people working in physics/chemistry/engineering are working with cold, hard facts in a way that the humanities are not. “Social Sciences” fall somewhere in-between. Have you ever actually seen a psychology paper? Does Bob Newhart define psychologist for you? I’m an engineer, and have read, reviewed and edited more papers than I can recall. My daughter is an academic psychologist. Her studies, and the data analysis of her results, is more rigorous than anything I’ve seen in my branch of engineering. She has read me reviewer comments on her papers, and it seems reviewers don’t let methodological sloppiness get by. Someone in her department had his work picked up by the press, and I assure you that the coverage no more reflects the actual limitations described in the studies and papers than does coverage of string theory. She is not a social psychologist, so I don’t have first hand information on what their papers are like, but I doubt that papers published in top journals contain the kind of hand waving you seem to think they do. ---
**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 9, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/74 "2011-02-09T20:08:48Z")
BTW, anyone who thinks that “Social Science” has a universally left wing bias should check out the University of Chicago Economics Department some day. But the right wing bias of many of the professors does not affect the mathematical rigor of their papers, and only a fool would accuse them of hand waving. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/75 "2011-02-09T20:14:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course no power on the face of the planet can move you from your position, I know. Because if it happened to you, it must be the Universal Experience of Everyone. I’ll be an anecdote. I went to grad school, and then served as an adjunct, at one of the largest universities in the country. I wouldn’t say I experienced any overt discrimination per se, but there were plenty of times where I was made well aware that my non-liberal ideas put me out of step. At one time I intended to pursue a humanities PhD; I elected not to, and part of the reason was that an already-difficult academic job market would be made worse by my not being orthodox. My personal experience totally proves everything I say is 100% true. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/76 "2011-02-09T20:22:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > … > > BTW, for an interesting example of PC backlash against a psychologist with unpopular opinions, you might read [Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?_r=1&sq=evidence%20based%20practice%20psychology&st=nyt&scp=147&pagewanted=all) > > … I have no dog in this fight, but thought this might be relevant (and I actually learned about it in Prof. Bailey’s class!): > **[Rind et al. controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy)** > > The Rind et al. controversy was a debate in the scientific literature, public media, and government legislatures in the United States regarding a 1998 peer reviewed meta-analysis of the self-reported harm caused by child sexual abuse (CSA). The debate resulted in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by both chambers of the United States Congress. The social science research community was concerned that the condemnation by government legislatures might have a chilling effect on the futur... > [@](#): > > The Rind et al. controversy was a unique historical debate in scientific literature, public media, and the US government, regarding a 1998 peer reviewed paper on child sexual abuse (CSA) that conducted a meta-analysis of several samples of college students. The paper was written by researchers Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman, following a related 1997 meta-analysis by Rind and Tromovitch in the Journal of Sex Research. The debate resulted in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by the United States House of Representatives and concern in the social science research community over the chilling effect the resolution may have on publication of controversial research results. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/77 "2011-02-09T20:28:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Have you ever actually seen a psychology paper? Does Bob Newhart define psychologist for you? I’m an engineer, and have read, reviewed and edited more papers than I can recall. My daughter is an academic psychologist. Her studies, and the data analysis of her results, is more rigorous than anything I’ve seen in my branch of engineering. She has read me reviewer comments on her papers, and it seems reviewers don’t let methodological sloppiness get by. > > Someone in her department had his work picked up by the press, and I assure you that the coverage no more reflects the actual limitations described in the studies and papers than does coverage of string theory. > > She is not a social psychologist, so I don’t have first hand information on what their papers are like, but I doubt that papers published in top journals contain the kind of hand waving you seem to think they do. :rolleyes: Strawman much? Yes, I’ve read academic psychology papers, and some of them are quite empirical, especially when they are oriented towards neurobiology. Some branches are less so, such as social psychology. _Taken as a whole_, the social sciences are comparatively less empirical than the physical sciences. In many cases, this is just a function of time: physics has been around for millennia, social science in most cases less than 200 years. In many cases, such as macroeconomics, there is a severe issue of data shortage. The “handwaving” is your creation. ---
**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 9, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/78 "2011-02-09T20:32:40Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Rubric is a term used in teaching as guidelines for assessment. If you need a new term because it bugs you so much then criterion works too. That’s OK, I know what it means. What bugs me about it is that I’ve said a fairly simple thing and you’ve misrepresented it in a convoluted manner, using terminology that is unfamiliar to many people. > [@](#): > > How about you come up with a system for preventing bias in research. No. > [@](#): > > You proposed “Essentially, any time the mainstream view is aligned with a left-wing viewpoint, there is room to question whether this is the result of unbiased scientific study or simply a reflection of the fact that people tend to find support for things they already believe (or prefer to).” Please spend some actual time defending how this proposal improves on the methodology I naively support. It improves by having people better assess the strength of various consensus views. I would have thought this was obvious. > [@](#): > > I acknowledged a type of bias based on my experience with the behavioral sciences. You, on the hand, were completely nonspecific at first but your proposed _criterion_ is specific. Subsequently, you have fixated on a type of bias that is unavoidable while working hard to ignore that fact that your proposed criterion is specific to the design and analysis of experiments. Again, you persist in ignoring the specifics of what I’ve said in favor of attacking what you perceive as some broad approach. Stick with what I’ve actually said. > [@](#): > > Science and its results are always under attack. That’s the point of it. What bugs me is when people want to politicize the process. I don’t like it when scientists do it and I don’t like it when laymen do it. How do you like it when laymen point out that scientists do it? Not very much, apparently. But it can’t be avoided, if it’s true. Sorry. > [@](#): > > You proposed the criterion. You shouldn’t have proposed it and discussed what you are actually interested in. You proposed that criterion, managed to show that the usage of such a criterion reflects intellectually lazy cowardice, and then fixated on a completely different type of bias which your criterion does not address. > > You really crack me up though. So now you are proposing skepticism. I’ve been extremely consistent throughout this thread. The sum of my words, in the OP to this thread were: “ISTM that this has significant relevance when discussing the mainsteam position or consensus of professionals in the field of psychology, when the issue touches on political or PC issues. Essentially, any time the mainstream view is aligned with a left-wing viewpoint, there is room to question whether this is the result of unbiased scientific study or simply a reflection of the fact that people tend to find support for things they already believe (or prefer to).” I’ve not varied from this. What has varied is your meandering about rubrics and your worship of the scientific method etc. But that’s just you. > [@](#): > > That’s really excellent, you just stumbled upon lesson #2 in every research methods class. So far you have: lesson #1: Scientists have research interests that are biased by their times, and lesson #2: Scientists should be skeptical. Again, I’m pointing to a specific type of bias in a specific field, which would call for a specific skepticism. And FWIW, I’m saying lay people should also be skeptical. > [@](#): > > I really hope your next post stumbles on lesson #3 (hint - it start with an “e” and ends in “thics”) Do you mind clarifying what you mean by this? > [@](#): > > So propose something to do about it other than labeling results as being politically left or right wing. i’m proposing being skeptical of consensus views that align with the political viewpoint of the vast majority of scholars in a particular field. That’s what should be done about it. ---
**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 9, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/79 "2011-02-09T20:38:07Z")
> [@furt](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Strawman much? > > Yes, I’ve read academic psychology papers, and some of them are quite empirical, especially when they are oriented towards neurobiology. Some branches are less so, such as social psychology. _Taken as a whole_, the social sciences are comparatively less empirical than the physical sciences. In many cases, this is just a function of time: physics has been around for millennia, social science in most cases less than 200 years. In many cases, such as macroeconomics, there is a severe issue of data shortage. > > The “handwaving” is your creation. How do you define empirical? Is a paper analyzing data from an extensive study empirical or not? Your post was of the “Social Science is not real science” flavor. Dealing with people certainly introduces additional variables, since you don’t have to correct for the socioeconomic status of a muon. But biology, usually considered a harder science, has those issues also. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/80 "2011-02-09T20:55:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How do you define empirical? “Provable or verifiable by experience or experiment” will do. It does not mean “good” or “better.” > [@](#): > > Is a paper analyzing data from an extensive study empirical or not? Sure, the data analysis is empirical. “Girls in the study were observed to play with dolls more, and boys with guns” is a wholly empirical statement. Interpreting that data and figuring out why they did so is a far, far more difficult task, with an exceptionally high number of variables. > [@](#): > > Your post was of the “Social Science is not real science” flavor. And there’s your problem. Stop looking for flavors and stick with what people say. > [@](#): > > Dealing with people certainly introduces additional variables, since you don’t have to correct for the socioeconomic status of a muon. More importantly, particles and chemicals are not sentient creatures. We pretty well understand what carbon is and what it does, and thus can predict how it will interact with other chemicals under given conditions. If need be, we can experiment repeatedly. We only imperfectly understand how humans work, let alone how multiple humans interact in vary circumstances, and experimentation on human subjects faces all sorts of practical constraints. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=5)