Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I'm already aware that you lie about me reflexively, without even wondering if if the lie is plausible. Another demonstration was not required.Your feud is imagined.
Just stop.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm already aware that you lie about me reflexively, without even wondering if if the lie is plausible. Another demonstration was not required.Your feud is imagined.
I don't disagree in principal. Social science research would require people who are smart, objective & inquisitive. This does not preclude non-liberals.Many jobs require the right mentality.
Those sound like fine traits to have in addition to those I listed. But once again, they wouldn't preclude non-liberals....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.
Of course, one shouldn't discriminate against individuals in a group simply because one holds views (correct or otherwise) about how "more likely" they are to have a perceived negative trait. Consider race & gender....suppose we cataloged negative traits which were more likely in various groups, eg, blacks, whites, Asians, males, females, trans, gays, straights, atheists, Xians, Jews, Pagans. We wouldn't advocate discriminating against anyone in those groups simply because they belong. The same should be true for political orientation, but not so much out of egalitarian feelings, but rather for better quality research (as covered in the OP's linked paper).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, you will probably find it severely underrepresented in most scientific disciplines.
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. Nor was I trying to justify this gap.
I'd say the field shouldn't cater to any particular political orientation.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 many an education in marketing and advertising would be a poor choice for many on the left.
I don't recall anyone saying that liberals exemplify it, only that they believe in and try to promote it.I would consider political identity just one of many facets that should be included in multiculturalism
And this is where we need clear, shared definitions of our terms. academia is one thing, but to me 'the social sciences' includes social work. There are plenty of self-labelled conservative movements that promote philosophies that are damaging to the people that many social workers are paid to help.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.
You should note that I only respond to your posts, & even then only to few.I'm already aware that you lie about me reflexively, without even wondering if if the lie is plausible. Another demonstration was not required.
Just stop.
It doesn't cater to any political orientation. It caters to personal philosophies that, all round (social, economic, political) are more congruent with left-wing philosophies. The reason there are more liberals is because there are more liberals in America than there are other left-philosophies. And of course social sciences will appeal more to those on the left because it is those on the right who want cuts that would hurt those that social scientists work with the most; the right promotes discriminatory laws (anti-gay marriage laws; English only laws) and social scientists often work with people these laws are aimed at; the right promotes obedience to authority, and often times social scientists must challenge authority to do their job. There are a number of reasons why conservatives are underrepresented in the social sciences, as they are in many other disciplines.I'd say the field shouldn't cater to any particular political orientation.
I think you just described one of the points in the paper. Conservatism is a very broad term when you look at the wide variety of people who self identify as such (possibly broader than those who identify as liberal). So when these viewpoints are all but absent in a particular field we may want to start asking ourselves "why?" and what could be the repercussions. That is exactly what the paper does. And yes, I know some conservative viewpoints are less than reputable, but in all fairness, so are some liberal viewpoints. And they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Not simply categorically excluded.And this is where we need clear, shared definitions of our terms. academia is one thing, but to me 'the social sciences' includes social work. There are plenty of self-labelled conservative movements that promote philosophies that are damaging to the people that many social workers are paid to help.
Some promote child abuse in the name of discipline, and such people damned well need to be denied access to work meant to prevent child abuse. The Westboro Baptist Church should absolutely be denied government funding for queer "outreach." Neonazis should not be hired to interview welfare applicants in Harlem.
And all of those self-label as conservative. So do quite a few of the kindest, most loving, and generous people I've ever known, who would do worlds of good in academia and on the ground.
If you are going to continue posting on this topic, it would benefit you to read the paper. You are making assumptions that are specifically addressed in it.It doesn't cater to any political orientation. It caters to personal philosophies that, all round (social, economic, political) are more congruent with left-wing philosophies. The reason there are more liberals is because there are more liberals in America than there are other left-philosophies. And of course social sciences will appeal more to those on the left because it is those on the right who want cuts that would hurt those that social scientists work with the most; the right promotes discriminatory laws (anti-gay marriage laws; English only laws) and social scientists often work with people these laws are aimed at; the right promotes obedience to authority, and often times social scientists must challenge authority to do their job. There are a number of reasons why conservatives are underrepresented in the social sciences, as they are in many other disciplines.
The 1st sentence contradicts the 2nd.It doesn't cater to any political orientation. It caters to personal philosophies that, all round (social, economic, political) are more congruent with left-wing philosophies.
I'm sure there are multiple reasons for liberal domination of social science research. Nonetheless, I concur with the paper's recommendation that there be more diversity of thought in order to better the work being done. There's much to be said for adversarial cooperation. I recall that in engineering, one's best friend is the merciless critic.The reason there are more liberals is because there are more liberals in America than there are other left-philosophies. And of course social sciences will appeal more to those on the left because it is those on the right who want cuts that would hurt those that social scientists work with the most; the right promotes discriminatory laws (anti-gay marriage laws; English only laws) and social scientists often work with people these laws are aimed at; the right promotes obedience to authority, and often times social scientists must challenge authority to do their job. There are a number of reasons why conservatives are underrepresented in the social sciences, as they are in many other disciplines.
Liberal is also a very broad term, and they too are often placed into one massive lump. However, it still stands that once you hit a certain point on the right, the social sciences become a poor choice for education and employment. The left-side, on the other hand, can find the social sciences appealing to a much further depth of leftness than what the right allows for. You can be at a 9 or 10 on the scale going left and still be a good fit for the social sciences, but by about 5 on the right and you're starting to hold views that are contradictory to social sciences. If you are a 10 on the right, you should probably be excluded from it entirely. If you have a habit of telling the poor they need to just work harder and calling them lazy bums (something the right is much more prone to than the left), then the social sciences are not for you.Conservatism is a very broad term when you look at the wide variety of people who self identify as such (possibly broader than those who identify as liberal).
They why is very likely due to the fact the social sciences promote, and often require, views that are more congruent with the left.So when these viewpoints are all but absent in a particular field we may want to start asking ourselves "why?" and what could be the repercussions.
Bull****. Shoving words in my mouth in third person responses to other posters is a another of your hobbies, as you just demonstrated. Stop lying about me, and I'll stop calling out your lies. Simple as that.You should note that I only respond to your posts, & even then only to few.
So drop your petty little vendetta.We should all enjoy our experience here, & not endure undue stress.
May you choke on your own bile.If we find we're losing our equanimity & perspective, then tis best to seek a solution.
A useful resource....
Paranoia - What Is Paranoia - Signs of Paranoia
May you find peace.
And a happy Festivus to you too!Bull****. Shoving words in my mouth in third person responses to other posters is a another of your hobbies, as you just demonstrated. Stop lying about me, and I'll stop calling out your lies. Simple as that.
So drop your petty little vendetta.
May you choke on your own bile.
Duh? We have had numerous debates where I have heavily drawn from Marxism, and have acknowledged it. It seems odd that you would point out this "non-liberal" umbrella to someone who has, numerous times, declared herself both left-wing and non-liberal.Btw, your argument here still rests upon stereotypes of conservatives, & does not address individual variation. Moreover, there are more schools of thought under than the "non-liberal" umbrella than just conservative.
And I have been stating many reasons for left-wing domination. Conservative view points are much more likely to be at odds with the social sciences. Diversity does tend to be best, but I don't think anyone other than a religious conservative will be pouting about this lack of influence in biology, history, cosmology, and earth science. Social conservatives should largely be excluded from the social sciences because the social sciences demand working with those outside of your own social norms, values, morals, and expectations. Economic conservatives, once they hit a point where they become more interested in preserving the rights and profits of businesses over the well being of some remote foreign villagers they will never meet should be excluded as the social sciences strongly revolve around human rights, even if individual liberties must sometimes be curbed. Religious conservatives who insist on proselytizing should be excluded. However, on the very far left side of the scale where Anarchists and Marxists dwell, the social sciences can be a very good fit for a career choice.I'm sure there are multiple reasons for liberal domination of social science research. Nonetheless, I concur with the paper's recommendation that there be more diversity of thought in order to better the work being done. There's much to be said for adversarial cooperation. I recall that in engineering, one's best friend is the merciless critic.
Repercussions.....I'm reminded of Mrs Revolt's job back in days of yore, under the Carter admin. She worked for a social research company (a non-profit).....Institute For The Study Of Human Systems, as I recall. She & the principals of the company were all liberal. The fed hired them to study whether minority elderly got a fair share of fed benefits. They did their research, & presented the results to the fed. Problem: The found that minority elderly did get a fair share (& more). Their customer (the fed) was very unsatisfied with this result, & stopped sourcing work to them. Companies are loath to bite the hand that feeds them, & this will skew the results of social research.So when these viewpoints are all but absent in a particular field we may want to start asking ourselves "why?" and what could be the repercussions.
You sound, dare I say it... almost Canadian.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.
Since you are bereft of the integrity or maturity to stop yourself, your harassment has been reported.And a happy Festivus to you too!
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.