User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 25

  1. #1
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default Haidt's new paper: Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science

    Jonathan Haidt has a new paper out and it sure is a doozy.

    I finished reading it last night, and it really blew my hair back.

    The link below is to a PDF of the paper.

    Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science


    There was also an article about it from The Week, that I'll include an excerpt from.

    From The Week: How academia's liberal bias is killing social science

    An excerpt:

    I have had the following experience more than once: I am speaking with a professional academic who is a liberal. The subject of the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia comes up. My interlocutor admits that this is indeed a reality, but says the reason why conservatives are underrepresented in academia is because they don't want to be there, or they're just not smart enough to cut it. I say: "That's interesting. For which other underrepresented groups do you think that's true?" An uncomfortable silence follows.

    I point this out not to score culture-war points, but because it's actually a serious problem. Social sciences and humanities cannot be completely divorced from the philosophy of those who practice it. And groupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not to be overly scrutinized. It is making our science worse. Anyone who cares about the advancement of knowledge and science should care about this problem.

    That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform. For those who have the time and care about academia, the whole thing truly makes for enlightening reading. The main author of the paper is Jonathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory (and a self-described liberal, if you care to know).

    Although the paper focuses on the field of social psychology, its introduction as well as its overall logic make many of its points applicable to disciplines beyond social psychology.

    The authors first note the well-known problems of groupthink in any collection of people engaged in a quest for the truth: uncomfortable questions get suppressed, confirmation bias runs amok, and so on.

    But it is when the authors move to specific examples that the paper is most enlightening.

    They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality — and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed.

    The study also goes over many data points that suggest discrimination against conservatives in social psychology. For example, at academic conferences, the number of self-reported conservatives by a show of hands is even lower than the already low numbers in online surveys, suggesting that conservative social psychologists are afraid of identifying as such in front of their colleagues. The authors say they have all heard groups of social psychologists make jokes at the expense of conservatives — not just at bars, but from the pulpits of academic conferences. (This probably counts as micro-aggression.)

    The authors also drop this bombshell: In one survey they conducted of academic social psychologists, "82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate." Eighty-two percent! It's often said discrimination works through unconscious bias, but here 82 percent even have conscious bias.
    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    A great case for affirmative action!

  3. #3
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    A great case for affirmative action!
    Interestingly enough, that is not one of the changes recommended by the paper to this particular field of study.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Interestingly enough, that is not one of the changes recommended by the paper to this particular field of study.
    Really?


    http://the-good-news.storage.googlea...-diversity.pdf

    Pg 35, under Recommendations:

    Each organization should develop strategies to encourage and support research training programs and research conferences to attract, retain, and graduate conservative and other non-liberal doctoral students and early career professionals. Examples might include dissertation awards, travel funds for presentations and attendance at conferences, and other financial support targeted to graduate students.

  5. #5
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Really?


    http://the-good-news.storage.googlea...-diversity.pdf

    Pg 35, under Recommendations:
    And quotas no where to be found. Nor any statement about how ones political orientation should be weighted when applying for an academic position in the field.

    But yea broaden the definition enough and you can torture the facts into obedience.

    Kind of a derail of the thread though no?

    It's nice to have someone the left can't ignore confirming the reality of how fucked up things are in academia.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And quotas no where to be found.
    Affirmative action plans does not necessitate quotas, but goals.

    Nor any statement about how ones political orientation should be weighted when applying for an academic position in the field. But yea broaden the definition enough and you can torture the facts into obedience.
    None of the recommendations are specific enough to spell it out, as you think it should be spelled out. However, the case has been clearly made, if you are to look it with an unbiased lens, and read what is being implied, rather than refusal to admit (as torturous as that may be).


    Kind of a derail of the thread though no?
    Why? It is directly discussing the paper, and ways to tackle the "issue".

    It's nice to have someone the left can't ignore confirming the reality of how fucked up things are in academia.
    Why do you think "liberals" got such a strong-hold in academia in the first place?

  7. #7
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Affirmative action plans does not necessitate quotas, but goals.


    None of the recommendations are specific enough to spell it out, as you think it should be spelled out. However, the case has been clearly made, if you are to look it with an unbiased lens, and read what is being implied, rather than refusal to admit (as torturous as that may be).
    Give me a fucking break, they are looking to be more inclusive of diverse political viewpoints in the future, not "favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture." In order to favor one must give advantage to a class of people. I see no advantage being given in the instant case.

    They aren't taking conservatives with lower GPA's here, they are saying "conservatives come check out psychological science because we don't hate you anymore." Big difference.


    Why? It is directly discussing the paper, and ways to tackle the "issue".
    It's a way to use my posting of this article to insinuate that I've come around to your world view, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

    Why do you think "liberals" got such a strong-hold in academia in the first place?
    You're clearly desperate to tell me what you think on the subject so go ahead.

  8. #8

    Default

    In my experience anyone who says they are in favour of diversity are usually pretty sure about what sort of diversity that is and any diversity which doesnt match up with it is very much unwelcome.

  9. #9
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Would anyone besides qreus like to post. Any interaction would be more enjoyable than this.
    Likes Qre:us liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Would anyone besides qreus like to post. Any interaction would be more enjoyable than this.
    LOL!!!!

    Special pleading on top of everything else? I'll turn you out, yet.

Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] The new and improved Enneagram! From the sponge and evan.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 235
    Last Post: 04-04-2017, 04:57 AM
  2. Maps of American ("New World") - Political, linguistic, etc
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-17-2016, 10:02 PM
  3. Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
    By Forever in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 05:45 AM
  4. Australian and New Zealand Politic and MBTI?
    By Camelotlord in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 08:09 PM
  5. Type Me (New and Improved With Marmite Flavour!)
    By Tigerlily in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 07-25-2008, 12:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO