Conservatives Needed in Social Psychology

[Revoltingest]

Liberals tend to promote multiculturalism. This is something you must possess if you are wanting to go into the social sciences, especially if you want to go to a good school, and not end up at Liberty University. You do not need to be a liberal to have a since of multiculturalism, but the number of acts you find disgusting must be, necessarily, very limited.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to promote ethnocentrism. If having to press one for English bothers you, you have a streak of conservationism in you and the social sciences are not an appropriate career, because you have to be multilingual for some specific branches, and even things like psychology were knowing only English will get you far enough it will be severely stunting your potential to not at least learn Spanish. You also can't go around thinking America is the best country, or god's country, or whatever, because you will be working with people who have other national identities. Not a single major medical, psychological, or sociological promotes raparative/conversion therapy, they all hold a stance of seeing homosexuality as normal, natural, and only unhealthy when repressed. This flies in the face of Conservatives who find homosexuality to be unnatural and sinful. Conservatives also tend to put women in a subservient position to men, and to some of them a female headed household is unthinkable. In the social sciences, you will work with very strong and very proud feminist who will be offended working with someone who believes feminism want men to be subservient. Even economically, conservationism is a poor fit in the social sciences because overall there is a pretty good chance you are going to work with people who are poor who have trying their hardest to get ahead, but are unable to. Though I do not doubt you will find many more self-identified liberals within the social sciences than conservatives, even if we broadened the terms to left and right it the left would probably heavily outweigh the right, mostly because once you reach a certain point on the right side of the scale, working the social sciences becomes just as much of a torment as a tree-hugging liberal who hates Dick Cheney selling oil for Halliburton. They're just not good fits.

2 things:
- You should start using more paragraphs & white space so that long posts will be easier to read.
- I still disagree with the notion that people in social sciences must hold (or not) certain political, moral, religious or philosophical values.

Example of why liberal domination in social science research is bad: About a decade ago, UofMich published a study which listed traits of racists. To non-liberals, it was obviously a screed designed to demonize anyone who had non-liberal thoughts...thoughts like believing that the most qualified person for a job should get it. Yes, that was a sign of racism.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton
Diversity should be about more than displaying different skin colors & genders....it should be about thought too. Otherwise, their shared political agenda will color all research to generate desired outcomes.

 

[Nietzsche]

2 things:
- You should start using more paragraphs & white space so that long posts will be easier to read.
- I still disagree with the notion that people in social sciences must hold (or not) certain political, moral, religious or philosophical values.

A good example of why liberal domination in social science research is bad: About a decade ago, UofMich published a study which listed traits of racists. To non-liberals, it was obviously a screed designed to demonize anyone who had non-liberal thoughts...thoughts like believing that the most qualified person for a job should get it. Yes, that was a sign of racism.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton
Diversity should be about more than displaying different skin colors & genders....it should be about thought too. Otherwise, their shared political agenda will color all research to generate desired outcomes.

I generally agree(kindasorta) with what you're saying.

But quoting Patton on anything is not the best way you could prove your point. If you judge a man by how he treated his inferiors, well...

 

[Revoltingest]

I am curious as to what actually gives you the impression I am conservative? It's not the first time I have been labeled one on RF. (Although this is probably the first time where it was not meant as an insult.) I think many people mistake my reluctance to denounce all things conservative as an indication I must actually be a conservative. And for the record, I do not self identify as either a conservative, liberal, republican, or democrat. I consider myself a moderate. I support some viewpoints that make conservatives foam at the moth, and others that make liberals rage.

I can help you here by explaining your misunderstanding.
This is a debate forum. You're supposed to pick a side, & then defend it only. The other sides must be attacked & driven before you. If you defend a side you're not on, then this causes confusion, & you're mistaken for one of them. ("Conservative" is an insult which I too have endured from lefties.) We're all (mostly) big fans of tolerance based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, & religion....but not for those of differing values. Some here oppose tolerance & civility towards those belonging to a group branded "intolerant". Those individuals shouldn't be in politics, social sciences, the media or RF.
I hope this helps.

 

[Revoltingest]

I generally agree(kindasorta) with what you're saying.

But quoting Patton on anything is not the best way you could prove your point. If you judge a man by how he treated his inferiors, well...

2 things:
- Quotes are for pithy fun....not for proving anything.
- Patton was the kind of man who was useful in winning a war. The reasons we might despise him personally could very well be strengths needed to win a world war.

 

[Nietzsche]

2 things:
- Quotes are for fun....not for proving anything.
- Patton was the kind of man who was useful in winning a war. The reasons we might despise him personally could very well be strengths needed to win a world war.

Point conceded.

 

[Revoltingest]

Point conceded.

You'll never get anywhere here by being so gentlemanly. (It's seen as a sign of weakness.)

 

[Nietzsche]

You'll never get anywhere here by being so gentlemanly. (It's seen as a sign of weakness.)

"To win a hundred battles is not of the supreme excellence. To subdue one's enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

OR IS IT A TRAP?

 

[Revoltingest]

"To win a hundred battles is not of the supreme excellence. To subdue one's enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

OR IS IT A TRAP?

I don't really know. I'm still new here, & trying to figure this place out.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)
- I still disagree with the notion that people in social sciences must hold (or not) certain political, moral, religious or philosophical values.

Do you, though? Given how often you feel troubled by clear statements of criticism of the extremes and insist on claiming that equivalent yet opposite extremes exist and should be criticized as well (even if they do not exist), I don't think that is quite true.

Despite your own passionate intention (you are very much a Libertarian at heart), you are very much flooding with expectations of how people should feel about values. Perhaps in a more impersonal and ideallistic way than most, almost as if you held a dear hope for people being wise and accomodating despite themselves, but you still do.

Example of why liberal domination in social science research is bad: About a decade ago, UofMich published a study which listed traits of racists. To non-liberals, it was obviously a screed designed to demonize anyone who had non-liberal thoughts...thoughts like believing that the most qualified person for a job should get it. Yes, that was a sign of racism.

That, of course, was very much a misguided situation. I wonder how representative of general trends it was and what measures, if any, were deployed to correct it. And I do mean that I wonder. I truly have no guess.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.

George S. Patton

Quoting freaking Patton on me, are you? I suppose he was in a position to know. It is still ironic to quote him on this matter.

Leaving authorship aside, I think you are making an unwarranted subject jump here. Unjustified ideological agendas distorting the value of social sciences are one thing. "Everyone thinking alike", this bogeyman you keep fearing, is something else entirely. Do you think the one leads to the other? I would like to learn how.

Diversity should be about more than displaying different skin colors & genders....it should be about thought too. Otherwise, their shared political agenda will color all research to generate desired outcomes.

Sometimes I really have to wonder if you think of that as a real possibility. Or if I do.

 

[LuisDantas]

2 things:
- Quotes are for pithy fun....not for proving anything.
- Patton was the kind of man who was useful in winning a war. The reasons we might despise him personally could very well be strengths needed to win a world war.

Thanks for giving me my points ready-made.

 

[Revoltingest]

Given how often you feel troubled by clear statements of criticism of the extremes and insist on claiming that equivalent yet opposite extremes exist and should be criticized as well.....

"Equivalency" (something I did not state) is just a straw man. Why is it that lefties bristle at the idea they (not just conservatives) have faults too?

Despite your own passionate intention (you are very much a Libertarian at heart), you are very much flooding with expectations of how people should feel about values. Perhaps in a more impersonal and ideallistic way than most, almost as if you held a dear hope for people being wise and accomodating despite themselves, but you still do.

Au contraire, bruderherz....I expect people to hold diverse values.
I agree with some, & disagree with others.

Leaving authorship aside, I think you are making an unwarranted subject jump here. Unjustified ideological agendas distorting the value of social sciences are one thing. "Everyone thinking alike", this bogeyman you keep fearing, is something else entirely. Do you think the one leads to the other? I would like to learn how.

Fear? I've no idea to what you so vaguely allude.
What I (& I believe the OP's theme) object to is an enforced uniformity of thought.

Sometimes I really have to wonder if you think of that as a real possibility. Or if I do.

This is not clear.

Thanks for giving me my points ready-made.

Your points? No, they're mine, & you can't have'm.
But you may borrow them if you ask nicely.

 

[Apex]

Liberals tend to promote multiculturalism. This is something you must possess if you are wanting to go into the social sciences, especially if you want to go to a good school, and not end up at Liberty University. You do not need to be a liberal to have a since of multiculturalism, but the number of acts you find disgusting must be, necessarily, very limited.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to promote ethnocentrism. If having to press one for English bothers you, you have a streak of conservationism in you and the social sciences are not an appropriate career, because you have to be multilingual for some specific branches, and even things like psychology were knowing only English will get you far enough it will be severely stunting your potential to not at least learn Spanish. You also can't go around thinking America is the best country, or god's country, or whatever, because you will be working with people who have other national identities. Not a single major medical, psychological, or sociological promotes raparative/conversion therapy, they all hold a stance of seeing homosexuality as normal, natural, and only unhealthy when repressed. This flies in the face of Conservatives who find homosexuality to be unnatural and sinful. Conservatives also tend to put women in a subservient position to men, and to some of them a female headed household is unthinkable. In the social sciences, you will work with very strong and very proud feminist who will be offended working with someone who believes feminism want men to be subservient. Even economically, conservationism is a poor fit in the social sciences because overall there is a pretty good chance you are going to work with people who are poor who have trying their hardest to get ahead, but are unable to. Though I do not doubt you will find many more self-identified liberals within the social sciences than conservatives, even if we broadened the terms to left and right it the left would probably heavily outweigh the right, mostly because once you reach a certain point on the right side of the scale, working the social sciences becomes just as much of a torment as a tree-hugging liberal who hates Dick Cheney selling oil for Halliburton. They're just not good fits.

They might promote multiculturalism, except when it comes to areas that might contradict the standard liberal ideology. The journal paper talks about this on page 13:

3.2 Risk Point #2: Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative

 

[Storm]

I can help you here by explaining your misunderstanding.
This is a debate forum. You're supposed to pick a side, & then defend it only. The other sides must be attacked & driven before you. If you defend a side you're not on, then this causes confusion, & you're mistaken for one of them. ("Conservative" is an insult which I too have endured from lefties.) We're all (mostly) big fans of tolerance based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, & religion....but not for those of differing values. Some here oppose tolerance & civility towards those belonging to a group branded "intolerant". Those individuals shouldn't be in politics, social sciences, the media or RF.
I hope this helps.

It does not. I can speak for myself, and already had.

Must you start this in yet another thread?

 

[Revoltingest]

Must you start this in yet another thread?

Stones & glass houses.

 

[Storm]

They might promote multiculturalism, except when it comes to areas that might contradict the standard liberal ideology. The journal paper talks about this on page 13:

Multiculturism doesn't refer to political alignment. Whether people on either side want to admit it or not, American culture includes liberals and conservatives both, as well the simply ridiculous.

 

[Storm]

Stones & glass houses.

I was leaving you alone. I know that you don't respect me, and honestly, I take it as a compliment. But please learn to respect the other members of the forum and stop derailing their threads with your stalking as you try to drag them unwilling into your ridiculous feud. Yes, I could simply let your gross lies about my character pass unmarked, but I told you I won't do that anymore. Nor would any reasonable person expect it of me.

So just stop.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was leaving you alone. I know that you don't respect me, and honestly, I take it as a compliment. But please learn to respect the other members of the forum and stop derailing their threads with your stalking as you try to drag them unwilling into your ridiculous feud. Yes, I could simply let your gross lies about my character pass unmarked, but I told you I won't do that anymore. Nor would any reasonable person expect it of me.
So just stop.

Your feud is imagined.

 

[Apex]

Multiculturism doesn't refer to political alignment. Whether people on either side want to admit it or not, American culture includes liberals and conservatives both, as well the simply ridiculous.

I would consider political identity just one of many facets that should be included in multiculturalism. Which is why I find it hypocritical that some would say liberals exemplify this trait while in the same breath stating conservatives should be denied access to parts of academia.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would consider political identity just one of many facets that should be included in multiculturalism. Which is why I find it hypocritical that some would say liberals exemplify this trait while in the same breath stating conservatives should be denied access to parts of academia.

The recommendations (beginning on page 34) appear to be thorough & productive to remedies the problems of singular political & economic orientations. (It's all more readable than I expected.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- I still disagree with the notion that people in social sciences must hold (or not) certain political, moral, religious or philosophical values.

Many jobs require the right mentality. It takes a certain person to go scrape human remains off a blistering hot side walk and go examine them in a lab. Working with many different groups of people is no different in that it requires a certain mindset. I would also focus more on the philosophical part of it than the other three mentioned. There are many religious people in the social sciences, there are republicans, and there are people with different moral leanings. But one thing that units them is a personal philosophy that doesn't promote their own way of life or culture as superior to others, and thinking everyone else should be like they are. You also can't be quick to judge people. You have to be very tolerant and accepting.

They might promote multiculturalism, except when it comes to areas that might contradict the standard liberal ideology. The journal paper talks about this on page 13:

That doesn't address the point that conservatives are far more likely than liberals to keep to their own culture and promote it as superior. It still does not address the point of conservatives being more likely to hold negative views on the poor, a group that is frequently worked with in the social sciences. And because creationism is a conservative view, and one that will hold you back in just about any science, and you will probably find it severely underrepresented in most scientific disciplines.

I would consider political identity just one of many facets that should be included in multiculturalism. Which is why I find it hypocritical that some would say liberals exemplify this trait while in the same breath stating conservatives should be denied access to parts of academia.

Saying someone is likely to hold beliefs that are counter to a particular career is not the same as saying they should be denied access (although, in certain cases, such as promoting reparative therapy, it should be denied). Nor was I trying to justify this gap. However, having an undergrad education that covers psychology, sociology, and anthropology, it's very easy to see why the field really doesn't cater to conservative ideology. Really it's the same as how an economics education probably won't appeal to too many liberals, and how an education in marketing and advertising would be a poor choice for many on the left.