Why are so many social scientists left-liberal?

reprise

William Reville posed the question in the Irish Times:

He opines:

Every social scientist I ever met was liberal-left. This uniformity always struck me as very odd. I accidentally came across a new, rigorous academic analysis of this question in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. The authors are worried by recent problems in social psychology research, including fraud and problems with replicating results

Further:

Psychology has robustly demonstrated the value of diversity of viewpoints for improving creativity, discovery and problem-solving. The authors conclude that lack of political diversity undermines much social-psychological science by embedding liberal values into the research questions and methods, by steering researchers away from politically unpalatable research topics and results, and encouraging conclusions to be drawn that mischaracterise liberals and conservatives. Of course, homogeneously conservative social sciences would face the same problem as homogeneously left-liberal social sciences.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-are-so-many-social-scientists-left-liberal-1.2082755

I expect young people to be liberal and a lot of social science is young, but I have suspected that there is more than a little group think involved for some time in social science with the potential for driving disastrous social policy.

What do people think?

The_Valeyard

It's a interesting notion to be debated alright. You would like to think that all scientists and peoples ingaged in research were neutral and leave there political, social and moral viewpoints to aside to create results that were not accidentally or otherwise skewed in one direction or another.

The King of Moo

Basically, a social scientist is going to be looking at society on a macro level and more likely to be aware of different social groups and be more open-minded about different groups and lifestyles.
A conservative individual is generally less likely to be concerned with people different from themselves and more concerned with maintaining their own position.

And social scientists are likely to be fairly well educated and therefore more exposed to information about the world and be more open-minded.

All very generally of course.

reprise wrote: »

the potentil for driving disastrous social policy.

What do people think?

Why disastrous?

Venus In Furs

Well analysis of how a society works, its nuances, grassroots and so on, is pretty left-wing in and of itself isn't it?
I mean, to give an example: when some kid commits an awful violent crime, the left wants to examine their background and what factors led to them turning out the way they did, whereas the right prefers to focus on the here and now and deems examination of the background to be making excuses, whereas it's not to make excuses - it's very valuable to address what factors lead to such problems, in order to prevent same recurring.
(Obviously I only mean very generally speaking).

Mr. Incognito

The rich want to mainstain the status quo and thus are conservative / right wing

The young educated start off liberal, grow rich and move to the right as they get older.

Social scientists are those that work with and for the majority of whats good for society not the narrow pointy rich top of the pyramid and thus are lefties.

Its always been the same, it will always be the same. No one wants to change the system they just want to be in the top pointy bit.

Its not rocket science.

They are there to balance out the right-wing economists.

The Backwards Man

People can think you're lefter than Trotsky or righter than the KKK depending on what perspective they have on your opinion when in reality you are probably somewhere around the middle.

Venus In Furs

The King of Moo wrote: »

Basically, a social scientist is going to be looking at society on a macro level and more likely to be aware of different social groups and be more open-minded about different groups and lifestyles.
A conservative individual is generally less likely to be concerned with people different from there, and more concerned with maintaining their own position.

And social scientists are likely to be fairly well educated and therefore more exposed to information about the world and be more open-minded.

All very generally of course.

Deleted User wrote: »

They are there to balance out the right-wing economists.

I'ma agree with the two kings.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

They are there to balance out the right-wing economists.

Economics is a social science, and those right-wing economists are all social scientists though - so the article is pretty far wrong (or maybe that was your point :pac:).

Turtwig

Reality is left liberal. :pac:

gormdubhgorm

The King of Moo wrote: »

Basically, a social scientist is going to be looking at society on a macro level and more likely to be aware of different social groups and be more open-minded about different groups and lifestyles.
A conservative individual is generally less likely to be concerned with people different from there, and more concerned with maintaining their own position.

And social scientists are likely to be fairly well educated and therefore more exposed to information about the world and be more open-minded.

All very generally of course.



Why disastrous?

In fairness if you are a left-liberal it does not necessarily mean that you are more open minded and educated. A person could be conservative leaning to the right but open-minded on the direction thier conservatism takes.Plenty of conservatives are educated too!:D

However I agree with your point about social scientists analysis of society. Which make them look at how the different strands of society can interact and function. Resulting in a hippie tinge

Earthhorse

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I'ma agree with the two kings.

I said, when two, Kingses post before you (that's what I said now)...

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

so the article is pretty far wrong (or maybe that was your point :pac:).

As long as there are no follow up questions, yes, yes it was.

Venus In Furs

So far, kings and a bishop have posted. I await pawns, queens, knights and rooks.

Earthhorse

Venus In Furs wrote: »

So far, kings and a bishop have posted. I await pawns, queens, knights and rooks.

I've been called a pawn and a queen at various stages in my life. Hope that helps.

Turtwig

Venus In Furs wrote: »

So far, kings and a bishop have posted. I await pawns, queens, knights and rooks.

Venus and Earth have posted too. Only six planets left.

El_Dangeroso

Three words:

Government Grant Money.

Anyone who relies on government money to advance professional is left liberal. To be anything else is to be a turkey voting for christmas.

Earthhorse

In fairness, although I'm left-liberal myself and dislike William Reville, I think the article has a point. If the field were more diverse it would likely generate more ideas and be better for it. I don't think there's anything much to disagree with there.

steddyeddy

reprise wrote: »

William Reville posed the question in the Irish Times:

He opines:



Further:



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-are-so-many-social-scientists-left-liberal-1.2082755

I expect young people to be liberal and a lot of social science is young, but I have suspected that there is more than a little group think involved for some time in social science with the potential for driving disastrous social policy.

What do people think?

It goes beyond that. Most scientists are liberal people.

reprise

steddyeddy wrote: »

It goes beyond that. Most scientists are liberal people.

He suggests a more even spread in STEM.

Karl Stein

In other words, the liberal values of feminism and environmentalism were embedded in the ethical assumptions.

The author, a biochemist, has decided that the disparate fields of feminism and environmentalism are 'liberal values'. Has this been agreed upon by academia?

nokia69

Turtwig wrote: »

Reality is left liberal. :pac:

only if you are blind to logic and reason

Aongus Von Bismarck

Social Democracy is the only game in town. 75 years of post war analysis has shown that Western Europe has very little time for gibbering lunatics on the right or gibbering lunatics on the left. We are pragmatic creatures. The last 30 years has seen a trend towards social liberalism and soft economic conservatism. It's a fine place to be at the moment. It's a freedom of choice.

Venus In Furs

Karl Stein wrote: »

The author, a biochemist, has decided that the disparate fields of feminism and environmentalism are 'liberal values'. Has this been agreed upon by academia?

And he uses the term "liberal-left" which puts me off straightaway. As opposed to... "liberal-right"?

Manach

A desire to fit in. Given the mental group think of the left and the pressure to conform means that they do not deviate from their dubious version of the norm.

nokia69

http://jacobinism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/stigmatise-shame-and-silence.html

In academia, the humanities began a process of decline as the demands of rigorous and fair-minded scholarship gave way to the requirements of a stultifying and increasingly censorious political correctness. The pursuit of objective truth and knowledge fell before endlessly competing claims from subjective 'lived experiences' and 'narratives', and international solidarity fell before a grotesque cultural relativism, itself informed by a neurotic culture of self-lacerating guilt. The lexicon of political activism - originally developed to identify irrational judgements made about people based on their unalterable characteristics - assumed a metaphysical dimension. Racism, misogyny, and homophobia were no longer alterable matters of law, belief, and practice - they became immovable structural toxins, against which not even the most broad-minded liberal could be reliably immunised, and to which well-intentioned people were often subject without their knowledge.

a good article about the direction of the left-liberals

Ostrom

Danny Dorling answered a similar question with 'that's just what happens when you study society long enough'.

Karl Stein

Venus In Furs wrote: »

And he uses the term "liberal-left" which puts me off straightaway. As opposed to... "liberal-right"?

Ultimately it's an opinion piece regardless of its author's credentials.

Surely environmentalism is concern with the condition of the biosphere that sustains all life? I'm baffled as to how concern with the very planet that sustains all life and how we impact upon it as human beings could be characterised as a 'liberal value'.

reprise

Karl Stein wrote: »

Ultimately it's an opinion piece regardless of its author's credentials.

Surely environmentalism is concern with the condition of the biosphere that sustains all life? I'm baffled as to how concern with the very planet that sustains all life and how we impact upon it as human beings could be characterised as a 'liberal value'.

An opinion piece based on this:

Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science

https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

Ostrom

Karl Stein wrote: »

Ultimately it's an opinion piece regardless of its author's credentials.

Surely environmentalism is concern with the condition of the biosphere that sustains all life? I'm baffled as to how concern with the very planet that sustains all life and how we impact upon it as human beings could be characterised as a 'liberal value'.

It's complete rubbish with the usual caricatures. All of the academic left are data-less cultural theorists, whilst the right are rigorous value- free scientists. Environmentalism has already been coopted by the most conservative disciplines already - ecological economics, renewable energy law etc. Meanwhile we hear people like Tomas Piketty, for example, address issues such as the myth of equality-generating growth from within economics itself. Reality is much messier.

KomradeBishop

Ostrom wrote: »

It's complete rubbish with the usual caricatures. All of the academic left are data-less cultural theorists, whilst the right are rigorous value- free scientists. Environmentalism has already been coopted by the most conservative disciplines already - ecological economics, renewable energy law etc. Meanwhile we hear people like Tomas Piketty, for example, address issues such as the myth of equality-generating growth from within economics itself. Reality is much messier.

In what way is environmentalism co-opted by ecological economics? Do you view ecological economics as bad?

I've not read up on ecological economics as much as other economic schools, but (led by guys like Herman Daly), it definitely seems to be doing a lot of important work on putting together economic theories which don't depend upon neverending-growth (of the kind which makes climate change inevitable), as our current monetary system does.

Karl Stein

reprise wrote: »

An opinion piece based on this:

Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science

https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

An opinion piece nonetheless. Oh, and he doesn't seem so interested in political diversity as he is with people in social science being 'left-liberal' whatever that reductive term might mean. Surely political diversity would include communists, anarchists, leftist-authoritarians, fascists and all sorts from the political spectrum?

reprise

Karl Stein wrote: »

An opinion piece nonetheless. Oh, and he doesn't seem so interested in political diversity as he is with people in social science being 'left-liberal' whatever that reductive term might mean. Surely political diversity would include, communists, anarchists, leftist-authoritarians, fascists and all sorts from the political spectrum?

from the abstract:

The underrepresentation of nonliberals
in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile
climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political
diversity in social psychology

This would suggest liberal and then everyone else.

suicide_circus

Dont think you'll get much support for those contrary notions here, reprise.

Karl Stein

reprise wrote: »

This would suggest liberal and then everyone else.

'Liberal and then everyone else'.

The entirety of political/societal/behavioural views and opinions broken into two strands: 'liberals' and 'everyone else'.

Or in other words 'utter bollocks'.

reprise

Karl Stein wrote: »

'Liberal and then everyone else'.

The entirety of political/societal/behavioural views and opinions broken into two strands: 'liberals' and 'everyone else'.

Or in other words 'utter bollocks'.

If untrue only. Scary if not.

reprise

suicide_circus wrote: »

Dont think you'll get much support for those contrary notions here, reprise.

You don't say.......

The_Valeyard

Venus In Furs wrote: »

So far, kings and a bishop have posted. I await pawns, queens, knights and rooks.

Im actually a Time Lord if that helps.

Ostrom

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In what way is environmentalism co-opted by ecological economics? Do you view ecological economics as bad?

I've not read up on ecological economics as much as other economic schools, but (led by guys like Herman Daly), it definitely seems to be doing a lot of important work on putting together economic theories which don't depend upon neverending-growth (of the kind which makes climate change inevitable), as our current monetary system does.

Ecological economics does little to challenge neoclassical growth theory - Daly and Rogen were lone voices although I agree with their criticisms of the assumption of unlimited growth. Ecological economics has hastened the creation of carbon trading systems and resource valuation which I tend to view as bad, since they limit the problem of environmental damage to imperfect markets. My opinion is they missed an important opportunity by overemphasising the problem of measurement and quantification at the expense of theory - just my opinion.

Eugene Norman

Environmentalists and the old school left - which was very much pro growth -- are not the same ideology.

Steady state economies won't ever work.

TheBeardedLady

I do agree with what he's essentially saying but the very fact that the field is full of lefties says it all, really. I doubt they're discriminating against right-wingers who want to get into the field - they simply mustn't have that much of an interest.

JuliusCaesar

I suppose, from my own perspective, the more you know about a person and their influences and opportunities, the more understanding you have of their behaviour and possible motives. This is why I've no patience with the 'hang 'em, flog 'em, lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade and tabloid approach to social problems.


It doesn't mean I have endless patience when I am threatened by a bunch of shouting teenagers as I go about my non-work life, alas.

KomradeBishop

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Environmentalists and the old school left - which was very much pro growth -- are not the same ideology.

Steady state economies won't ever work.

Steady state economies (no-growth economies) are pretty much an inevitability, if we're to avoid long-term climate change and eventual destruction of a habitable planet.

As explained well here by an ex-NASA physicist, economic growth is inextricably tied to growth in energy production, and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that increased energy production leads to an increase in waste heat being put into the atmosphere - driving global warming.

To give an idea of how utterly absurd the idea of neverending growth is - paraphrased from that article:
At the current rate of economic growth, the increase in waste-heat being put into the atmosphere, means the Earth's surface would reach 100°C in 400 years - obviously this is unsustainable, and the world economy/environment would come apart long before then.

Unsurprisingly, mainstream economists think that they can just ignore physical-laws/reality once again.

tritium

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I do agree with what he's essentially saying but the very fact that the field is full of lefties says it all, really. I doubt they're discriminating against right-wingers who want to get into the field - they simply mustn't have that much of an interest.

It reminds me of a picture of a well known physicist (Rutherford I think) surrounded by a number of his students. Many of the students would themselves go on to Nobel prizes or great esteem. The question is how much of that was their own ability and how much was through the exposure to such a major figure and the opportunities it created.

Basically its human nature to be more sympathetic to those of a similar view to us. Given social science is a largely academic field it seems likely that if some of the prominent people there have a particular political or social leaning then they'll also champion people of a similar ilk. This I'd speculate on no evidence whatsoever might be even more pronounced in social science where the social and academic views are so interrelated.

Consider then how this could drive hiring of new faculty members, awarding PhDs, peer review of papers etc. Once a critical mass is reached it becomes difficult for other views to get a look in or not be dismissed. When you have some of the radical views that form in academia actively feeding into a discipline, as it must with social science, this again becomes exacerbated.

Yet as reville points out, this dynamic is unrepresentative of the wider society.

Eugene Norman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Steady state economies (no-growth economies) are pretty much an inevitability, if we're to avoid long-term climate change and eventual destruction of a habitable planet.

As explained well ... by an ex-NASA physicist, economic growth is inextricably tied to growth in energy production, and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that increased energy production leads to an increase in waste heat being put into the atmosphere - driving global warming.

To give an idea of how utterly absurd the idea of neverending growth is - paraphrased from that article:
At the current rate of economic growth, the increase in waste-heat being put into the atmosphere, means the Earth's surface would reach 100°C in 400 years - obviously this is unsustainable, and the world economy/environment would come apart long before then.

Unsurprisingly, mainstream economists think that they can just ignore physical-laws/reality once again.

Climate change is just one aspect of the argument against further growth. However climate change is related to the amount of heat retained, not produced, which is a problem of how the earth traps heat. And not internally generated heat either, the energy from the sun is vastly greater than the extra heat produced by human activities ( a lot of which is just releasing stored solar energy anyway).

I would need to look at that paper but it sounds very dubious indeed. Is there a specific thread on this or are you willing to start one?

EDIT: Read the link. That's a physicist who doesn't really understand the first law of thermodynamics

conorhal

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I suppose, from my own perspective, the more you know about a person and their influences and opportunities, the more understanding you have of their behaviour and possible motives. This is why I've no patience with the 'hang 'em, flog 'em, lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade and tabloid approach to social problems.


It doesn't mean I have endless patience when I am threatened by a bunch of shouting teenagers as I go about my non-work life, alas.

But! but! but! The poor chilers are only suffering, according to Emile Durheim anyhow, the effects of anomie, induced by a corporatist culture that constantly throws their disadvantage in their face!

Beware an '-ology' that has a 'soci' in front of it. We love fake sciences these days. They should be shunted back to philosophy 101 and left there.

endacl

The Backwards Man wrote: »

People can think you're lefter than Trotsky or righter than the KKK depending on what perspective they have on your opinion when in reality you are probably somewhere around the middle.

conorhal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In what way is environmentalism co-opted by ecological economics? Do you view ecological economics as bad?

I've not read up on ecological economics as much as other economic schools, but (led by guys like Herman Daly), it definitely seems to be doing a lot of important work on putting together economic theories which don't depend upon neverending-growth (of the kind which makes climate change inevitable), as our current monetary system does.

*cough*carbon-trading*cough* a new comodities market for the 1% to make a fortune selling the option to polute to countries on behalf of nations that would love the opportunity to polute if only they could afford to. There are plenty of scam opportunities to make a packet from trading and subsidies in the enviornmentalism shell game.

FURET

The notion that there are social scientists and political scientists is a terminological absurdity in my view. I've met medievalist historians who self-describe as scientists. Richard Feynman (an actual scientist) had the right of it when he said that these things are not science.

conorhal

FURET wrote: »

The notion that there are social scientists and political scientists is a terminological absurdity in my view. I've met medievalist historians who self-describe as scientists. Richard Feynman (an actual scientist) had the right of it when he said that these things are not science.

Because it simply has to be said.

The Corinthian

The King of Moo wrote: »

Basically, a social scientist is going to be looking at society on a macro level and more likely to be aware of different social groups and be more open-minded about different groups and lifestyles.
A conservative individual is generally less likely to be concerned with people different from themselves and more concerned with maintaining their own position.

And social scientists are likely to be fairly well educated and therefore more exposed to information about the world and be more open-minded.

Four legs good! Two legs bad!

steddyeddy wrote: »

It goes beyond that. Most scientists are liberal people.

Liberal does not imply left-liberal.