# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/101 "2011-02-09T22:44:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, I used that word because my point was about the historical background of this field, which - as is so frequently the case - helps to shed some light and understanding of where it is today. > > If you would have read the articles I linked earlier, you would see that there is in fact a lot of resistance in this field to only assuming things based on data, even today. > > One doesn’t follow from the other. > > Yes, there’s a lot of data work going on. But that doesn’t imply that the theories commonly held by experts in the field are exclusively those which are backed by data. To the contrary. The field is constantly testing those theories WITH data. There is a reason Jung and Freud aren’t taught other than as history in most research programs. Maybe we are quibbling about the definition of expert, however. I am speaking of published articles written by research psychologists at accredited universities. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/102 "2011-02-09T22:55:18Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > The field is constantly testing those theories WITH data. There is a reason Jung and Freud aren’t taught other than as history in most research programs. I said that they’re moving in the right direction, but they’re not nearly there yet. > [@](#): > > Maybe we are quibbling about the definition of expert, however. I am speaking of published articles written by research psychologists at accredited universities. I’m primarily talking about, for example, if you’re reading an article in some reputable source about some psychology-related issue, and the writer correctly states “most psychologists maintain that …”. How likely is it that this agreement is derived from careful and unbiased study? Or if some governmental or other institutional body is deliberating what to do about such-and-such and the mainstream, reputable psychologists who testify or advise them maintain that some course of action is appropriate. How likely is it that this is based on careful and unbiased studies? And so on. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/103 "2011-02-09T23:01:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So you don’t believe that a predominantly male population is likely to commit more violent crime than a predominantly female one? Not on topic. I’d appreciate it if you simply answered my question. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/104 "2011-02-09T23:02:16Z")
Your question was a rhetorical device. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/105 "2011-02-09T23:20:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your question was a rhetorical device. No, it was not. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/106 "2011-02-09T23:23:48Z")
It has been shown that the statistical methods used by the UK sociologists are very deficient and I doubt it’s any different in the U.S.: “That UK sociology makes relatively little use of statistical methods” “The deficit in quantitative methods traces to undergraduate programmes in sociology, which typically require little or nothing of the students in statistics, and indeed do not even offer much in the way of statistical coursework.” “A disturbing result of all this is that most British-trained sociologists cannot read the quantitative literature in sociology with any degree of understanding. Furthermore there appears to be an anti-quant culture – a standard undergraduate methods course will include as much time critiquing the use of quantitative methods as teaching them” (International Benchmarking Review of UK Sociology, March 2010) ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/107 "2011-02-09T23:45:48Z")
> [@furt](#): > > “Provable or verifiable by experience or experiment” will do. > > It does not mean “good” or “better.” Nothing ever gets proven. However, plenty of hypotheses in psychology do get verified (or at least supported) through experimentation. > [@](#): > > 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. And doing things like that are way there are so many journals. Given that the statement is true, you might do an experiment with girls from father only families and boys from mother only families -, girls with older brothers or older sisters, etc., etc. I doubt anyone tries to answer the why question experimentally, though I suppose it is okay to speculate once you have enough supporting data. > [@](#): > > 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. Sure, but experimenting with human subjects is a lot cheaper than building giant accelerators. Look at the experiments Dan Ariely describes in Predictably Irrational. Cheap and clever. And of course you have to have controls - if you don’t your stuff will keep getting rejected. ---
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/108 "2011-02-09T23:51:40Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Psychological research is based on a lot more than just anecdotes. I like hiring Psych undergrads because they have had to do so much statistical math work, but they don’t come in thinking they know business thanks to an undergraduate degree. > > My b-school profs took advanced statistical classes taught by a professor in psychology. Interesting. My daughter is pioneering a program which will get her two PhDs at once - one in psychology, one in business. Here research is on judgment decision making as applied to economic decisions, and she has a BS in econ also, but she sees a lot of commonality. And she knows a lot of statistics. ---
**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 10, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/109 "2011-02-10T00:06:12Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Just because an argument gets ignored doesn’t mean it’s irrefutable. > > When a post projects that much smug, it’s not worth my time banging my head against that wall. Never claimed it was irrefutable. I did claim conservatives a) don’t believe in it and b) don’t want to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/110 "2011-02-10T00:22:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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).” There is no room to question it based on the criteria you proposed. You question the view if you find some conflict with the validity or reliability of the data. Its the same way with conservative views. People aren’t hostile to the views because they are conservative, they are hostile because it is wrong. No fundamentalist religionist should ever go into biological science because they would get it wrong ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/111 "2011-02-10T00:59:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Nothing ever gets proven. However, plenty of hypotheses in psychology do get verified (or at least supported) through experimentation. Of course. I never said otherwise; in point of fact, I explicitly stated that Social Sciences are more empirical than Humanities, if less so than the Physical Sciences. I said that the Social Sciences (all of them, as a group, including econ, poli sci, etc) are not as empirical as the physical sciences. That was it. Are you going to argue with what I actually said, or keep on arguing about things I didn’t say? ---
**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 10, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/112 "2011-02-10T14:31:43Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Are you going to argue with what I actually said, or keep on arguing about things I didn’t say? As long as nobody’s arguing the fact that psychology is a bastion of liberal dogma with all the attendant baggage, I’ll continue being amused by the other arguments. 🙂 ---
**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 10, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/113 "2011-02-10T15:05:43Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > As long as nobody’s arguing the fact that psychology is a bastion of liberal dogma with all the attendant baggage, I’ll continue being amused by the other arguments. 🙂 I don’t ever remember spending a minute of my time worrying about the politics of my professors. Didn’t you have anything important to do in class like take notes or take a nap or check out girls? Also, nobody has said or supported the idea that “psychology is a bastion of liberal dogma”. That is your misinterpretation of the discussion. To catch you up: 1. The OP is trying to find an argument still. I don’t think he knows what he is arguing other than “behavioral scientists are mostly liberal” and he has no consistent thing to say beyond it. This factoid vaguely bothers him but he is not sure why. 2. Others are listing researchers who were attacked for their views in nonscientific contexts. 3. Somebody else is arguing something about conservatives and discussing the actual data instead of political ideologies. Nobody thinks what you think. It is you alone who has this “bastion of liberal ideology” thing going through your head. ---
**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 10, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/114 "2011-02-10T15:21:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > It is you alone who has this “bastion of liberal ideology” thing going through your head. That’s OK. I was just pushing the hypothesis a little further based on it being “OK to speculate once you have enough supporting data.” ---
**Author:** ![kati123](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bcef8e/32.png) [@kati123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kati123)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/115 "2011-02-11T08:29:46Z")
they show that they are liberal… but from inside they are actually not at all liberal… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/116 "2011-02-11T12:49:54Z")
If conservatives believe psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal, it certainly goes a long way in explaining some of their batshit crazy perceptions of the world. Once they are convinced psychologists are liberal, it stands to reason that conservatives would reject them as dangerous and unreliable. Conservativism is nothing more than a manifestation of untreated mental illness. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/117 "2011-02-11T16:55:32Z")
There _is_ a flip side. Although their social “center of gravity” is well off into the liberal cluster of opinions and beliefs, psychologists are often\* more inclined than the average academic / well-educated person to think that it unhealthy or unfortunate for a person to not share the beliefs and opinions of the prevailing culture around them. They value normative behavior and tend to think of unusual or eccentric behavior as representing some kind of developmental pathology, as a compensating mechanism or as ‘acting out’ etc… and any belief system that worships normativeness like that is inherently conservative in the way that really matters. It’s anti-individual, anti-freedom and operates from a perspective that wet-blankets most possibilities of living differently or enacting social change. - opinion and observation. no cite at this time, sorry ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/118 "2011-02-11T18:31:46Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > There _is_ a flip side. Although their social “center of gravity” is well off into the liberal cluster of opinions and beliefs, psychologists are often\* […] anti-individual, anti-freedom and operat[ing] from a perspective that wet-blankets most possibilities of living differently or enacting social change. > > - opinion and observation. no cite at this time, sorry No cite at all, I imagine, because your stereotype (generally applied) does not correspond to any reality of which I am aware. To provide a countervailing statement of opinion, I wish to point out that nothing could be further from the truth than what **AHunter** has described – no cite, sorry – merely opinion and observation. ---
**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 11, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/119 "2011-02-11T19:45:33Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > No cite at all, I imagine, because your stereotype (generally applied) does not correspond to any reality of which I am aware. To provide a countervailing statement of opinion, I wish to point out that nothing could be further from the truth than what **AHunter** has described – no cite, sorry – merely opinion and observation. I think one of the big problems in this thread is the inability to discriminate between psychological as clinically practiced and psychology as an actual science. I believe that **AHunter3** may be referring to clinical psychology/psychiatry. An example I can think of is the recently corrected mistake of defining homosexuality as mental illness. More tongue-in-cheek, I’ve noticed that the clinical psychology professors and graduate students are always dressed up like a bunch of corporate conformists. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674/120 "2011-02-11T22:37:13Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I think one of the big problems in this thread is the inability to discriminate between psychological as clinically practiced and psychology as an actual science. I believe that **AHunter3** may be referring to clinical psychology/psychiatry. An example I can think of is the recently corrected mistake of defining homosexuality as mental illness. More tongue-in-cheek, I’ve noticed that the clinical psychology professors and graduate students are always dressed up like a bunch of corporate conformists. I think this is true. A huge chunk of DSMIV disorders depend on observing a person believing, thinking, or acting in ways that are contrary to their culture or the people around them. Clinical psychologists are wary of beliefs that are unconventional, radical, unusual, or contentious, seeing them as symptoms. And let’s face it, there’s a grain of truth to that. You can be mentally healthy with radical, unconventional ideas, but if you are, you’re probably out changing the world, not moping around in the shrink’s office about why nobody understands you. But that’s just clinical psychology, not psychological research. They are very different things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-are-overwhelmingly-liberal/570674.md?page=7)