Why are so many social scientists left-liberal?

reprise · 11-02-2015 11:22pm #1

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 · 11-02-2015 11:31pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:32pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:34pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:35pm

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.

11-02-2015 11:37pm

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

The Backwards Man · 11-02-2015 11:37pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:39pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:41pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:42pm

Reality is left liberal. :pac:

gormdubhgorm · 11-02-2015 11:44pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:44pm

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)...

11-02-2015 11:46pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:48pm

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

Earthhorse · 11-02-2015 11:51pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:51pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:54pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:55pm

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 · 11-02-2015 11:57pm

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 · 12-02-2015 12:10am

steddyeddy wrote: »

It goes beyond that. Most scientists are liberal people.

He suggests a more even spread in STEM.

Karl Stein · 12-02-2015 12:20am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:21am

Turtwig wrote: »

Reality is left liberal. :pac:

only if you are blind to logic and reason

Aongus Von Bismarck · 12-02-2015 12:22am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:23am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:27am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:29am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:29am

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

Karl Stein · 12-02-2015 12:36am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:39am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:44am

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 · 12-02-2015 12:56am

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.

Why are so many social scientists left-liberal?

Comments