Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

[erps]

Came across this article today and found it interesting.

It's about the lack of diversity in the social science field and what effects it may have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...=2&ref=science

[PBzeer]

But Ray, they're objective, don't ya know? So of course their biases don't affect THEM, only the rest of us un-anointed.

I must admit to being surprised this morning when I saw the article, that it was in the NYT.

[chrisncate]

It appears that the higher you go academically, the less likely you are to identify as a conservative.

Why do you suppose that is? Liberal media? The Muslim Brotherhood? Obamacare? Unions?...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by chrisncate

It appears that the higher you go academically, the less likely you are to identify as a conservative.

Why do you suppose that is? Liberal media? The Muslim Brotherhood? Obamacare? Unions?...

Or?

More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years.


In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

[chrisncate]

Sounds like a bunch of fancy commie book learnin' to me, Jack..

::spits tabaccy into spittoon::

[PBzeer]

More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years.


In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Which doesn't prove a whole lot of anything.

We already knew you all were smarter than us, you remind us of it all the time. You're able to see shades of gray that us unenlightened types can't even imagine .... except of course, when it's inconvenient.

[jrd22]

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”

Sounds ominously like the man made global warming scientific community. I think this guy is on to something.
I was happy to read that when their bias was pointed out to them they were apparently very open to change, even to encourage more diversity in their membership. What a refreshing concept. Goodonya psychologists.

[chrisncate]

Ok PB and Jrd, tell me - Are conservatives now to be considered equal in status to other oppressed minorities, by being recognized and identifying as one themselves now?

And if so, doesn't that negate the very notion of the conservative concept of freedom, liberty and equality?

You guys are confusing sometimes..

[PBzeer]

Which oppressed minorities are you referring to chris? And whose oppressing them?

But to answer your question, no.

[chrisncate]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Which oppressed minorities are you referring to chris? And whose oppressing them?

But to answer your question, no.

Why, all of them of course, but in the case of the link erps provided, let's just go with the articles own parallel..

homosexuals:

Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

?