Kudos on a great post, elucidator – from first line to last, not just the question I quoted! Reading it persuades me that there may yet be hope for the future of mankind!
But in reference to the question, I think when we speak of “conservatives” in the context of this thread and the social psychology discussion, we are speaking of those who (pretty much by definition) are disinterested in social psychology as either a career or a field of inquiry, and, by extension, are more or less repelled by and hostile to academia in general, in part because so many of their beliefs are at odds with it. This goes back to the statement I quoted from political psychologist John Joost, and to his formal characterization, in the paper I cited, of the personality traits associated with that ideology as it’s currently understood in contemporary America. In short, “conservative” in this context means those who cheerfully voted for George W. Bush, John McCain and the inestimable Sarah Palin, and Mitt “Mittens” Romney and the inestimable Paul Ryan, and who consider all or most of the contents of the current Republican clown car to be superb Presidential material.
This is really deeply ironic because most of my friends and acquaintances are the sorts who would be described as financially prudent, law-abiding responsible homeowners with nice lawns and nice cars that they drive safely to responsible and productive jobs, except for the ones that are retired – but because many of them are academics and pretty much all of them vote Liberal or NDP even in Canada, by US standards they would all be considered raving ultra-liberal loons. A “conservative” would be someone like Rick Perry whose idea of justice is mass executions and who wants to abolish the EPA and the Department of Education, or Lindsey Graham who wants to bomb every country in existence back to the stone age. It’s really astounding to me that a word like “conservative” which used to conjure up images of financial caution, three-piece suits, and a quiet suburban home, is now associated with people who act like escapees from a lunatic asylum.
Self selecting sample. As a general rule, one pursues an MBA program in order to be an enthusiastic devotee of the Church of Mammon and the Dollar Almighty. Explains why there are so few Marxist MBAs.
By a similar token, one usually pursues an academic course in social sciences because of a commitment to social justice. Since society has not arrived at a state of justice, such is by definition going to be pursuit of change, not “conserving” a status quo.
Sometimes, people pursue double majors, like Business Admin and law. But who ever double majors in Sociology and Law?
You mean like this entire program? http://cls.soceco.uci.edu/
Criminology, Law and Society taught by Social Psychologists, among others.
There is a bias against more right-wing thought, and it negatively impacts the research at times. We might have better outreach to veterans, for example, if there were more people in the social sciences who had served. If, instead, they receive a negative feeling from the faculty - they won’t pursue the major and certainly won’t pursue the graduate work.
Why? The entire “nasty liberals are discriminating against conservatives and keeping them out of social psychology” discussion is already a hijack to the original discussion. What’s one more?
It may not be the technical definition but in the absence of evidence that there is some nefarious movement to keep conservatives out of this field, it certainly seems probable that they simply opt to pursue other interests, which tends to be true of conservatives with respect to their attitude to much of academia in general. Scott Walker being the pertinent case in point in the present discussion.
The Jost et al. paper that I cited is also compelling evidence that conservatives’ interests lie elsewhere. One site defines social psychology as being “… about understanding individual behavior in a social context. Baron, Byrne & Suls (1989) define social psychology as ‘the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations’.”
The Jost paper seems to suggest that conservatives have little interest in such undertakings. For example, it cites, among the taxonomy of conservative personality traits, the tendency to “lean toward rigid categorization of cultural norms. Power-weakness, cleanliness-dirtiness, morality-immorality, conformance-divergence are the dimensions through which people are seen … There is sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of probability …” It also cites “hostility to social innovation” and “preferences for inequality” and “endorsement of social and economic inequality”. IOW, as I interpret this, conservatives appear to think they already have all the answers to the questions that social psychology seeks to study, so why would they be interested in it?
Except I have cited, above, examples of people that are both conservative and were interested in working in the field of social psychology.
So while I don’t argue that equal numbers of liberals and conservatives would enter the field absent discrimination, I am arguing that discrimination exists and it prevents some who wish to enter the field from doing so.
That’s not, in any way, a rebuttal to the arguments that I have presented. In effect, you have conceded that you have no actual argument but you still refuse to concede the point.
Rather a low bar, don’t you think? Hard to reasonably argue that a given thing never ever happens, unless its sex between unicorns and Sasquatchi. Pretty much if it happens at all, you win. You tread boldly on safe ground.
Me: It’s generally fair to discriminate on ideology in the social sciences because reasons but it could be done unfairly
Him: how about this stuff?
Me: ok. Part of that is probably unfair.
Him: so now will you change your position?
Me : no.
Him: victory!!!
I’m confused–if tenure isn’t a factor, how on earth is Kipnis’s case relevant to a thread about tenure? I don’t think it’s appropriate to consider me off-topic if you’re the one who brought up the off-topic example to begin with.
To be fair, that is what nearly everyone who sets foot inside the doors of a University actually needs. They need the knowledge and skills to contribute in ways most valuable (both in monetary compensation and actual net utility gained from their actions) to the society that funds that university…
Trade schools are great. Frankly speaking, most attorneys, liberal arts majors, etc are probably parasites on society or are only marginally useful. You may look down on electricians or welders or plumbers, but it is unquestionable that their work is valuable. A properly trained person with a useful STEM degree (especially in engineering) ideally knows how to do immediately useful, valuable things as well, he or she just works with more sophisticated tools and has had more training in the theory that was used to design the tools in the first place. (you can think of advanced math as just a form of tool no different in concept than a screwdriver or voltmeter)
A really good school trains their engineering workers in the lower level technician skills their field depends on. Mechanical engineers should be able to do at least basic machining and pipe fitting, electrical engineers should be able to use voltmeters and soldering irons and so on, computer engineers should be able to work with software and operating system configurations the same way the corresponding MSCE technicians do…
I mean, lifespan limitation and specialization means you can’t expect to train a mechanical engineer to be as good of a machinist as one with decades of experience, but he should know how to use lathes and drill holes and rebuild car engines. Ditto the other fields.
That should be the goal of a university - to produce high quality workers with upgraded trade school skills who can immediately do useful stuff.
The tenure system means that low quality teachers and university employees get to stay for life. This doesn’t seem to lead towards that goal.
So is the hammer in my toolbox. When I need to hit something with a hammer, damn that thing is valuable! But it rates very low in my list of “most important things in my life”.
No, totally and absolutely wrong. That’s the goal of a trade school. The goal of a university is to contribute to and expand knowledge. The basic pursuit of knowledge is not some modern affectation, it’s as old as civilization – it was originally just called philosophy and it led to science. This legacy still persists in terms like “Ph.D”. The term “scientist” didn’t even exist until it was coined by the members of the Philosophical Breakfast Club in the 19th century.
Is that you, Scott Walker? No, the tenure system means that low quality teachers and researchers don’t get tenure and maybe don’t even get jobs – and these days, many high quality ones don’t, either. But it also means that the few who do get tenure are free to conduct research without political interference.
