- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
This is an incredible article on liberal confirmation bias in the social sciences
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:26 pm
The article is long, and I can't post only excerpts because the thing needs to be read in its totality, but when you have sufficient time, you should read it.
LINK
Basically, the complete lack of intellectual/political diversity in the social sciences (and sciences) is seriously harming study design and adequate peer review.
The author then goes on to argue (with AMPLE evidence) that the 44:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives in these fields creates "taboos", meaning that things that need to be studied are not, and things that are dubious are still studied.
I'm afraid the article is simply too long for it to fuel an interesting thread here, but I hope at least a decent portion of you guys read it. I think buckeye_vol would find it interesting.
LINK
Basically, the complete lack of intellectual/political diversity in the social sciences (and sciences) is seriously harming study design and adequate peer review.
The author then goes on to argue (with AMPLE evidence) that the 44:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives in these fields creates "taboos", meaning that things that need to be studied are not, and things that are dubious are still studied.
I'm afraid the article is simply too long for it to fuel an interesting thread here, but I hope at least a decent portion of you guys read it. I think buckeye_vol would find it interesting.
17
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
creates "taboos", meaning that things that need to be studied are not, and things that are dubious are still studied.
i am so fascinated by this concept
it's clear, by any rational thinker, that the groupthink and threat of stigma is clearly creating a major bias in the entire way we do research
if some prof proved, without any shadow of a doubt, something in extreme opposition to SJW-based thinkin (let's say that something like ethnic origin was strongly correlated to IQ), then even if the study/analysis was 100% legitimate, it would be attacked and the researcher would be barred from research...simply because they didn't like the (true) results
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:From the article:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Blank Slate dogma has perpetuated a liberal version of creationism: the belief that there has been no evolution in modern humans since they left their ancestral homeland in Africa some 50,000 years ago. Except for a few genetic changes in skin color and other superficial qualities, humans everywhere are supposedly alike because there hasn’t been enough time for significant differences to evolve in their brains and innate behavior. This belief was plausible when biologists assumed that evolution was a slow process, but the decoding of the human genome has disproved it, as Nicholas Wade (a former colleague of mine at the New York Times) reported in his 2015 book, A Troublesome Inheritance.
“Human evolution has been recent, copious and regional,” writes Wade, noting that at least 8 percent of the human genome has changed since the departure from Africa. The new analysis has revealed five distinguishable races that evolved in response to regional conditions: Africans, East Asians, Caucasians, the natives of the Americas, and the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Yet social scientists go on denying the very existence of races. The American Anthropological Association declares race to be “a human invention” that is “about culture, not biology.” The American Sociological Association calls race a “social construct.” Even biologists and geneticists are afraid of the R-word. More than 100 of them sent a letter to the New York Times denouncing Wade’s book as inaccurate, yet they refused to provide any examples of his mistakes. They apparently hadn’t bothered to read the book because they accused Wade of linking racial variations to IQ scores—a link that his book specifically rejected.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
if any on the right actually care about that kind of thing, they ought be fellating economists any chance they get
that's the only social science with much ideological diversity at all, and self-identified libs still outnumber cons even there
imagine how much worse it would be if economists were not so respected policy-wise amongst the social sciences. sociologists and ___-studies professors might be scoring bills at the CBO and designing policy
that's the only social science with much ideological diversity at all, and self-identified libs still outnumber cons even there
imagine how much worse it would be if economists were not so respected policy-wise amongst the social sciences. sociologists and ___-studies professors might be scoring bills at the CBO and designing policy
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Pro tip: social sciences aren't science. So no loss.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:39 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:There is too much intellectual diversity in economics, tbh.
that's the only social science with much ideological diversity at all, and self-identified libs still outnumber cons even there
Can never agree on anything except free trade is good and price controls are bad. (and even those are not completely consensus)
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
race is one tricky concept
i fully understand the subjective aspects of it, but i mean to deny (at the least outward) physical aspects is legitimately insane
you line me up 100 people of east Asian descent and 100 people of sub-Saharan African descent and i'll take the Pepsi challenge in pointing out which are which. i'd really love to see how much personal wealth these true believers would put up. i'd put up my entire wealth that i'd get at least 196/200 correct
i fully understand the subjective aspects of it, but i mean to deny (at the least outward) physical aspects is legitimately insane
you line me up 100 people of east Asian descent and 100 people of sub-Saharan African descent and i'll take the Pepsi challenge in pointing out which are which. i'd really love to see how much personal wealth these true believers would put up. i'd put up my entire wealth that i'd get at least 196/200 correct
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I remember a study posted here a while back purporting the superior outcomes for children from traditional family structures.
The resident libs were quick to disparage the study and provided a link to a response from a consortium of peers in the field.
Bias is very difficult to directly measure, but in this case, regarding this specific topic we had an amazing clue.
Around 20 percent of the consortium had hyphenated names including several men.
The resident libs were quick to disparage the study and provided a link to a response from a consortium of peers in the field.
Bias is very difficult to directly measure, but in this case, regarding this specific topic we had an amazing clue.
Around 20 percent of the consortium had hyphenated names including several men.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:43 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Your star is once again rising, HHTM - I am not one to hold grudges and offer you a handshake as a true friend, a fellow Patriot, and a fellow Crusader in the war against leftism.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:44 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I remember a study posted here a while back purporting the superior outcomes for children from traditional family structures.
nuclear family privilege, brah
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:44 pm to Turbeauxdog
Interesting you bring up that, because it is mentioned in the article:
quote:
The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologist urging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:46 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
This was an excellent read. I shared the 44:1 stat with my fellow conservatives in academia. All three of us laughed.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
There is too much intellectual diversity in economics, tbh
Can never agree on anything
all that's saying is that the science is young and much is still unsettled. we can't know everything we want to know on the subject, and learning it is hard and not for the lazy/unrigorous. a slow and ugly process.
what there is too much of is failure to acknowledge all the uncertainty. assholes using bullshite like praxeology still calling themselves economists with a straight face. there's actually bullshite like "feminist-marxist economics" as well
i actually saw a great quote on the issue the other day:
quote:
What training in economics does pretty well is helps you see what is terribly wrong with most answers out there and, sometimes, gives you an idea about what might be less wrong in some particular cases.
i understand perfectly well that this is nowhere near good enough for simple minds
This post was edited on 4/19/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
nuclear family privilege
so fricking stupid
making this topic taboo is why we have useless arguments about "fixing schools" and community policing. the root cause can never be discussed.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:48 pm to SirWinston
quote:
war against leftism.
the academic front could use some manpower, pussies
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:54 pm to 90proofprofessional
Here's a excerpt about how liberal bias (and lack of adequate peer review) causes flaws in the very design of studies:
Essentially, all the studies that show conservatives are "dumber, more racist, more sexist, etc" are self-fulfilling prophecies, because the researchers use a definition of those attributes that includes conservative beliefs.
quote:
The narrative that Republicans are antiscience has been fed by well-publicized studies reporting that conservatives are more close-minded and dogmatic than liberals are. But these conclusions have been based on questions asking people how strongly they cling to traditional morality and religion—dogmas that matter a lot more to conservatives than to liberals. A few other studies—not well-publicized—have shown that liberals can be just as close-minded when their own beliefs, such as their feelings about the environment or Barack Obama, are challenged.
Social psychologists have often reported that conservatives are more prejudiced against other social groups than liberals are. But one of Haidt’s coauthors, Jarret Crawford of the College of New Jersey, recently noted a glaring problem with these studies: they typically involve attitudes toward groups that lean left, like African-Americans and communists. When Crawford (who is a liberal) did his own study involving a wider range of groups, he found that prejudice is bipartisan. Liberals display strong prejudice against religious Christians and other groups they perceive as right of center.
Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals. For instance, one study explored ethical decision making by asking people whether they would formally support a female colleague’s complaint of sexual harassment. There was no way to know if the complaint was justified, but anyone who didn’t automatically side with the woman was put in the unethical category. Another study asked people whether they believed that “in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life”—and then classified a yes answer as a “rationalization of inequality.” Another study asked people if they agreed that “the Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them”—a view held by many experts in resource economics, but the psychologists pathologized it as a “denial of environmental realities.”
Essentially, all the studies that show conservatives are "dumber, more racist, more sexist, etc" are self-fulfilling prophecies, because the researchers use a definition of those attributes that includes conservative beliefs.
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The article is long, and I can't post only excerpts because the thing needs to be read in its totality, but when you have sufficient time, you should read it.
I am just going to comment that the article and the website it came from have a pretty heavy right bent.
If you are going to judge social scientists as their political biases influence them, then the same should be true for this article.
quote:
Basically, the complete lack of intellectual/political diversity in the social sciences (and sciences) is seriously harming study design and adequate peer review.
he is probably right about this, but first point still stands.
One other thing to add is that for the majority of social sciences it just doesn't matter. These fields are largely irrelevant, outside of economics. In addition, their "science" isn't really science. its a lot of conjecture and bullshite.
I know quite a few professional social scientists, mainly psychologists. I am quite familiar with their study areas (they think other ppl care, we don't) and I just don't see how political viewpoints would arguably affect their studies. One is studying how economic achievement is impacted by daily marijuana smoking. She tracks daily smoking and pairs it to income and job status.
One is studying the impact of marijuana usage on the workplace.Lots of money slushing around in CO for psychological shite.
A third looks at end of life care for cancer patients.
I guess if they really wanted to make a point they could alter their results, but the marijuana areas are controversial enough to encourage them to be quite rigorous. Plus i know them really well.
These are all interesting studies to do, but I really doubt they influence that much.
This post was edited on 4/19/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 4/19/17 at 12:59 pm to NIH
this is literally how progressives see data
you have behavior comparisons B1 and B2
their outputs are compared and B1 has much more optimal results than B2
in a rational mindset, we say, man it's very likely that optimal results are a result of B1. we should write about this and promote B1 as a society
in a progressive mindset, once this data is collected, the progressive immediately asks if B1 or B2 is more representative of a marginalized group. if B2, either by the group selected or cultural associations, is a marginalized group, then the progressive mindset is "how do we demean B1 to normalize B2 and its sub-optimal results?" that's what privilege is, in this context
the really insidious angle is that they mask their motives by trying to assess vague, institutional explanations for the difference and THEN labeling THOSE differences privilege. that way they can virtue signal and show how fair they're being to all as a fallback to defend any issues of motive
the evil part is the people constructing this paradigm know what they're doing is bullshite and fully comprehend what set of behaviors is more ideal. they create useful idiots through indoctrination and rule over these people as their elites. that maintains their social position and if the revolution ever comes, will give them real power
you have behavior comparisons B1 and B2
their outputs are compared and B1 has much more optimal results than B2
in a rational mindset, we say, man it's very likely that optimal results are a result of B1. we should write about this and promote B1 as a society
in a progressive mindset, once this data is collected, the progressive immediately asks if B1 or B2 is more representative of a marginalized group. if B2, either by the group selected or cultural associations, is a marginalized group, then the progressive mindset is "how do we demean B1 to normalize B2 and its sub-optimal results?" that's what privilege is, in this context
the really insidious angle is that they mask their motives by trying to assess vague, institutional explanations for the difference and THEN labeling THOSE differences privilege. that way they can virtue signal and show how fair they're being to all as a fallback to defend any issues of motive
the evil part is the people constructing this paradigm know what they're doing is bullshite and fully comprehend what set of behaviors is more ideal. they create useful idiots through indoctrination and rule over these people as their elites. that maintains their social position and if the revolution ever comes, will give them real power
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Here's a excerpt
didn't comment on the article but i remember it from last fall. i def think it makes a good case for a lib echo chamber in the social sciences that is causing some fields of study to fail the actual academic mission they should be aiming to fulfill
Posted on 4/19/17 at 1:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
They apparently hadn’t bothered to read the book because they accused Wade of linking racial variations to IQ scores—a link that his book specifically rejected.
Even though the evidence is overwhelming that there is such a racial IQ correlation.
Ashkenazi Jews are the smartest (115 IQ average). I don't know the percentage of their world population, but I doubt it's 1%. And yet they are vastly over-represented in finance and intellectual pursuits throughout Europe (and now America). Check out a list of the Nobel prizes in the sciences; there's tons of Ashkenazi Jews -- far more than their population would predict. This is why they control the world: they are smarter than everyone else (literally).
East Asians are next (105 average) and are especially good at visual-spatial reasoning (which is what it takes to be good at math).
Us old generic white baws are third on the scale averaging at 100.
Native Americans are around a 90 average.
African-Americans (who are on average 25% white according to gene studies) are next at an 85 average.
West African blacks are around 70.
Australian Aborginees are around 65.
Bushmen (pygmies) in Africa are the lowest at a 59 average.
The numbers aren't debatable, as many studies have been done over the years on this topic. The only question is what the numbers mean. Nature vs. nurture. Most experts think both are involved.
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News