Conservatives Needed in Social Psychology

[Revoltingest]

My best friend offline is a Christian, and I've expressed to him exactly the same views I've expressed here regarding different issues and beliefs, including those of Christianity. I prefer to be direct in most cases.

We're still best friends, so I figure I haven't done anything wrong... yet.

It sounds like that fellow is tolerant despite his inferior values.
Not so inferior (in the sense of the OP's spirit of tolerance & diversity), eh?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It sounds like that fellow is tolerant despite his inferior values.
Not so inferior (in the sense of the OP's spirit of tolerance & diversity), eh?

He's tolerant, yes. He's not really much of a conservative, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

He's tolerant, yes. He's not really much of a conservative, though.

So how does trumpeting your intellectual & moral superiority work with your conservative friends?

 

[Storm]

A paper being published by several social psychologists is calling for greater political diversity in the social psychology field. They are arguing that it is suffering a kind of confirmation bias with the vast majority of those in the field being liberal or left leaning. In fact, some of their examples have been known to pop up here on RF from time to time, such as studies suggesting conservatives are morally and intellectually inferior to liberals.

I have been skimming through it off and on today, it is pretty interesting so far. With it being an academic article, it is a little beefy (53 pages).

An article summarizing some of its main points can be read here:
How academia's liberal bias is killing social science - The Week

Oh, but conservative doesn't mean what it used to, though, does it? Do you think Eisenhower would have high opinions of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?

And I rather mistrust the author of the article, who says that uncomfortable silence inevitably follows the "what other underrepresented groups" question. The obvious rebuttal is "what other underrepresented groups joined that demographic by choice? Women, ethnic, and sexual minorities don't freely choose their status. Lack of popularity is not systemic oppression, and should never be presented as such."

 

[Debater Slayer]

So how does trumpeting your intellectual & moral superiority work with your conservative friends?

I don't "trumpet" anything; I just tend to state my beliefs without trying to garnish them merely for the sake of avoiding the possibility of offending others.

I don't have any close conservative friends (they believe atheists are immoral and criminal, so there's no love lost there ), but all conservative people I know also believe that their beliefs are morally and intellectually superior to others' (emphasis on that last apostrophe for clarity of meaning). At least I usually spend time explaining the reasoning behind my views when I do state them as opposed to just preaching them to the choir.

Anyway, don't you think we should take this discussion elsewhere to avoid derailing Apex's thread? The personal interview/grilling about my views concerning morality can continue elsewhere, I think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your counter is that the conservatives who responded were just lying? Do you think moderates were also lying, as their response lined up with the conservative response?

I don't think they were lying in that poll. That aspect of the results is probably accurate: the conservatives wouldn't show a preference for a liberal candidate.

Of course, the survey doesn't speak to whether this is because they wouldn't show any preference at all or because they'd show preference for the conservative candidate instead. Any assumptions about their motivations are conjecture.

 

[Apex]

Oh, but conservative doesn't mean what it used to, though, does it? Do you think Eisenhower would have high opinions of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul?

And I rather mistrust the author of the article, who says that uncomfortable silence inevitably follows the "what other underrepresented groups" question. The obvious rebuttal is "what other underrepresented groups joined that demographic by choice? Women, ethnic, and sexual minorities don't freely choose their status. Lack of popularity is not systemic oppression, and should never be presented as such."

You are confusing the authors. The person who wrote the article with the quote you stated is not one of the authors of the actual paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't "trumpet" anything; I just tend to state my beliefs without trying to garnish them to avoid the possibility of offending others. I don't have any close conservative friends (they believe atheists are immoral and criminal, so there's no love lost there ), but all conservative people I know also believe that their beliefs are morally and intellectually superior to others' (emphasis on that last apostrophe for clarity of meaning). At least I usually spend time explaining the reasoning behind my views when I do state them as opposed to just preaching them to the choir.

Anyway, don't you think we should take this discussion elsewhere to avoid derailing Apex's thread? The personal interview/grilling about my views concerning morality can continue elsewhere, I think.

I find many conservative friends who tolerate my less-than-godly views with friendship & interest. As I posted on another thread, I spent an hour or so yesterday chatting with a fundie so fundie that he won't watch The Simpsons. We're talk'n Word Of God literal Bible stuff. Twas a very interesting exchange, filled with friendship, laughter, tolerance, & philosophy of science stuff. If I looked down upon such folk, then I'd likely miss out on all this fun.

Edit:
I don't think we're derailing the thread. This is because what we're discussing is illustrative of the OP's theme, ie, exclusion v inclusion of conservatives in social science discourse.

Hey, Apex.....whaddaya think of our little intra-thread?

 

[Apex]

I don't think they were lying in that poll. That aspect of the results is probably accurate: the conservatives wouldn't show a preference for a liberal candidate.

Of course, the survey doesn't speak to whether this is because they wouldn't show any preference at all or because they'd show preference for the conservative candidate instead. Any assumptions about their motivations are conjecture.

It might worth tracking down the paper they cited on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you willing to read through the paper?

I skimmed it. With it being Christmas Eve and with my Mom on her way down for an extended visit, that's probably the best you're going to get for a while.

It discusses political diversity and the benefits of it among group decisions. I think its points would be quite relevant to your questions.

My last question was about how you misinterpreted a statement about a very rare situation where a preference could take the place of a coin flip into some sort of blanket support for excluding conservatives from all academic positions. What could the paper possibily say about that?

And I would rather not be the one constantly pulling the relevant sections out and posting them here when the paper is available for all to read and discuss.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't rely on others to sift through a 50-odd page paper to find the specific passage that supports a point you're making.

... and if you remember, I pulled a section out of the report, too: the passage about the survey that included the context you left out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I find many conservative friends who tolerate my less-than-godly views with friendship & interest. As I posted on another thread, I spent an hour or so yesterday chatting with a fundie so fundie that he won't watch The Simpsons. We're talk'n Word Of God literal Bible stuff. Twas a very interesting exchange, filled with friendship, laughter, tolerance, & philosophy of science stuff. If I looked down upon such folk, then I'd likely miss out on all this fun.

One last post from me in this exchange:

I agree. That's why I look down on their beliefs instead of them as people. There's no contradiction between the two unless they start acting on their beliefs in ways that could actually be harmful to other people, like voting in favor of discriminatory laws against LGBT people. Then I look down both on their beliefs and on them. I don't have much respect for malicious people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because they are psychologists, it really depends on what is meant by Conservative. If they are Conservative, as in socially conservative and are going to be opposed to homosexuality and transgernders (such as NARM or NARTH or whatever it's called), or automatically assuming porn is bad for the individual or a relationship, or taking a stance that will push their conservative views above all else, they have no business being in the practice of mental health. Religious conservatives can be ok, but only if they do not push their religion or religious practices on others, and tell a patient they must follow religious rituals to get better. Fiscal conservatives can also cause alot more damage than good if they are working with the poor and chronically underemployed and unemployed by telling them they just need to try and work harder.
Really, I would have to say a big part of it is that in psychology there is no room for telling people they must accept Jesus, they must not be gay, or that they must pray. And you can't just assume that someone is poor because they aren't trying hard enough. And of course there is zero room for the delusion that your culture and country are the best ever and everyone else should strive to be like you. I would suspect this is probably the key reason there is such a divide in the social sciences. People can believe them, but they can't push them on others, which is an area a lot of conservatives have troubles with. And because fields like anthropology and sociology require an open mind, I think if we were to really break down this divide we would find the fault has more to do with Conservative ideology than the social sciences themselves.

 

[Apex]

I skimmed it. With it being Christmas Eve and with my Mom on her way down for an extended visit, that's probably the best you're going to get for a while.


My last question was about how you misinterpreted a statement about a very rare situation where a preference could take the place of a coin flip into some sort of blanket support for excluding conservatives from all academic positions. What could the paper possibily say about that?

It says that diversity is a benefit to their field.

If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't rely on others to sift through a 50-odd page paper to find the specific passage that supports a point you're making.

... and if you remember, I pulled a section out of the report, too: the passage about the survey that included the context you left out.

I don't really have an argument to make. A discussion does not require an argument. This is one thing that really stops me from participating more on RF, too many people automatically think you are arguing something. Since when has an argument ever gotten anywhere on RF? IME, discussions tend to be far more productive.

 

[Storm]

You are confusing the authors. The person who wrote the article with the quote you stated is not one of the authors of the actual paper.

No, I'm really not. I specified which author I was referring to because I wasn't confusing them.

And regardless, American conservatism is not what it once was. I have no problem with Rockefeller Republicans, for instance. They genuinely want to see the country free and prosperous, as do I. No matter how badly misguided we may find one another's methods, we can find common ground in the goal. They don't want to institute theocracy, destroy the middle class, or create school to prison pipelines to bring back slavery with a minimal veneer of legality. Which is precisely why so many of them are now Blue Dog Democrats, as the party they love goes completely off the rails. Today's GOP has nothing to do with conservatism. (No more than the Dems do liberalism, for that matter.)

American politics are... impossible to describe adequately on a family friendly forum, so I'll just settle for 'a total Charlie Foxtrot.' So, what exactly are the standards for conservatism and liberalism being used? If the study is finding that people think Dittoheads and Pat Robertson acolytes and Open Carry Texas feel left out of social work, I'm sorry, but I take that as a very good thing. But I wouldn't call them conservatives.

 

[Valjean]

Hey, just so you know.....uh, this constructive advice.....intended to help....faux pas erasure.....
To trumpet one's own moral & intellectual superiority looks.....<searching for non-inflammatory word>....rather....well....a picture would illustrate it better.
It's like the Church Lady's superior dance....

I'll take a stab at explaining where I suspect Debate Slayer's coming from.
The The Week article mentioned that the paper was mostly written by Johnathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory. MFT posits six innate moral foundations with which people create a moral universe:

1. 
   
   
   • Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
   • Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
   • Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
   • Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
   • Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
   • Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.

Interestingly, liberals tend to emphasize the first three, while conservatives weight them all pretty equally. The problem is that the last three pretty much describe an Authoritarian Personality. #4 promotes tribalism, racism and nationalism, #5 promotes unquestioning obedience and conventionalism. #6: more conventionalism, puritanism and intolerance.

You can see why those embracing these last three might be morally suspect. They'd have fit right in in 1930s Germany.

 

[Storm]

It says that diversity is a benefit to their field.

That depends on the diversity and the field, though.

I mean, I should bloody well hope that Children's Protective Services takes pains to ensure that child abusers are underrepresented on their payroll. It's an extreme example, sure... but there are no few areas in social work where hiring what now passes for conservatives would be incredibly harmful.

 

[Apex]

No, I'm really not. I specified which author I was referring to because I wasn't confusing them.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the paper.

 

[Apex]

That depends on the diversity and the field, though.

I mean, I should bloody well hope that Children's Protective Services takes pains to ensure that child abusers are underrepresented on their payroll. It's an extreme example, sure... but there are no few areas in social work where hiring what now passes for conservatives would be incredibly harmful.

Child abuse is illegal...
Conservatism is not.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Social conservatism. This is what is being discussed as underrepresented in the social sciences.

Are we all talking about the same thing? Family values according to male headship, women homemakers, opposition to abortion, opposition to birth control, favoring corporal punishment, hailing military and law enforcement, patriotism and nationalism, opposition to same sex marriages, opposition to gay adoption, Christian-centered history, etc.?

Is this what we are discussing as being underrepresented in academic social sciences?

 

[Storm]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the paper.

No worries.

Child abuse is illegal...
Conservatism is not.

Not psychological abuse. And many of the talking points of today's so-called conservatives are pure psychological abuse.

Do you have any intention whatsoever of addressing the question at some point? If so, please proceed. If not, please explain.