Data Science & Psychology Data Science applied to Values, Morals, Politics, & things that matter.

1. 

   Matt
   February 10th, 2011 - 09:36

   This is an interesting post. A lot of people seem to have reacted to Haidt’s talk on the basis of the NYT article, without reading the talk itself, which is pretty well argued. I have some more comments here: http://theconsternationofphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/02/haidt-on-bias-in-academy.html
2. 

   Jon Haidt
   February 11th, 2011 - 16:09

   Ravi:
   what a great analogy, a group of non-parents studying parenthood. I’d add only that these non-parents chose to be non-parents because of their moral revulsion for parenthood, e.g., because they are environmentalists who want to save the earth by reducing its population.

   I certainly agree with you that the great majority of the underrepresentation of conservatives is due to self-selection based on trait differences; only a bit of this is due to discrimination. But the emails I’m receiving are heartbreaking and often angering. There are a lot of non-liberals out there who resent being forced into the closet, but who fear for their careers if they are outed.
3. 

   Ravi
   February 11th, 2011 - 16:29

   yes, it’s easy to lose in the statistics of studying people that each person that is discriminated against is a real person with real feelings, so even if the majority of underrepresentation is due to self-selection, there remains an opportunity to decrease suffering. Perhaps some of those individuals would be willing to let you share those letters anonymously, as I think that would drive home this point.
4. 

   wreaver
   February 13th, 2011 - 00:27

   Ravi,

   If you’ll indulge an off-topic question. (Being a libertarian, I sometimes have trouble automatically understanding Liberal morality. And sometimes it is easier to just ask.)

   Would it be accurate to describe Liberal anti-discrimination sentiment as purity/sanctity response? I.e., that to Liberals, discrimination is a “morally dirty” act?

   Also, AFAICT discrimination is tantamount to choosing. How do Liberals decide what is an immoral form of choosing and what is a morally permissible form of choosing?
5. 

   Ravi
   February 13th, 2011 - 18:43

   I’m perhaps just speaking for myself, but I’d say that the rhetoric of liberty can be borrowed by a lot of other groups, even if the source is somewhere else. For many liberals such as myself, empathy/harm is a fairly primary emotion and sometimes the liberty argument follows from that. Discrimination is morally dirty in so far as it causes psychological harm to others, especially disadvantaged others.
6. 

   Otis
   February 15th, 2011 - 06:11

   Hi Ravi. I am an undergrad psych major at USF St. Petersburg. As I begin my journey toward a career in psychology (I am a non-traditional sophomore returning to school after 28 yrs.) I feel like I have found in your blog a great resource to fuel my curiosity. Which ties in nicely with this post.

   Most of the criticism of Dr. Haidt’s speech seems to me to stem from an “error bias” way of thinking as opposed to a “realistic accuracy” approach. I just happened to be reading a 1995 paper by David Funder from UC Riverside on the accuracy of personality judgment. In the article he speaks about the rise of cognitive psych and the understanding of heuristics and error biases created a way of looking at accuracy. He then goes on to propose a different model of gauging accuracy by what he calls a “Realistic Accuracy Model.”

   While we can debate the specifics of the proposed remedies, is there not enough evidence to call a duck a duck? I certainly don’t think Dr. Haidt was proposing that we stop looking at the issue, only that there is enough to begin to take action.

   Do the remedies proposed cause harm? If not, then the liberals should be cool. What’s the beef in a room full of liberals? Maybe the pressure from conservatives joining would create a “foxhole conservative,” a liberal who would convert to conservative values while under fire by trying to preserve the status quo.
7. 

   Ravi
   February 15th, 2011 - 08:20

   yes, it does appear that many are caricaturing Haidt’s argument, because they still perceive the issue as a liberal vs. conservative one. That goes for both liberal and conservative commentators.
8. 

   Cris
   February 15th, 2011 - 17:05

   Does anyone have stats. about the proportion of conservatives in other fields of science? Biology, physics, chemistry etc.? What about anthropology and sociology? Instead of thinking that social sciences or social psychology in particular has a liberal bias, can’t we just think that, as Stephen Colbert once famously put it, it is reality that has a liberal bias? I love the study of political conservatism, and yes, the analogy of non parents studying parenthood sounds eloquent, but after reading Jost, Kruglanski et al. “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition” it begs the question: does a conservative have what it takes to understand social reality? Apart for inadequacies in some personality traits (openness to experience, dogmatism, uncertainty tolerance, fear of threat, etc.) I think the typical conservative view of reality tends to be too centered in the individual. Maybe it’s as if we were asking “why don’t we have that many physicists who aren’t good at math?, Or programmers that aren’t good at logic?

   Just for fun, can I ask a moral dilemma? (are you reading John?) Suppose you have an interview with a guy working on a PHD project and he asks you to be his tutor (< I'm not sure if that's the word, I'm from Argentina). The interview goes relatively fine but the guy tells you that he's going to vote for Palin, and he loves listening to Rush Limbaugh. Won't you want to reevaluate the guy's credentials and research ideas more thoroughly?
9. 

   Ed
   February 17th, 2011 - 03:18

   From a purely speculative, non-scientific point of view, I’d say that money has a lot to do with it. Conservatives seem to be more focused on money. The market is king, so it’s a no-brainer to choose the path they think they’ll make the most money in. Social psychology probably isn’t their best bet for this.

   Being in computer science, I’ve also thought and read a lot about why they male/female ratio in the field is so high. My hypothesis is that outsiders’ perception of the field plays a big part. People generally start studying a subject that they don’t know much about (that’s the reason for studying it). When people don’t have all the information about something and they have to make a decision, assumptions and stereotypes come in to play. Studies have found that outsiders perceive the atmosphere of computer science to be one of nerdy-masculinity, and females, in particular, don’t think they’d enjoy that kind of atmosphere.

   Similarly, I think conservatives may think they’ll have to memorize and regurgitate “liberal bs,” in fields like social psychology. Or they may think they’ll be surrounded by liberals, and have to conform to get anywhere.

   Another interesting point is that these stereotypes can dictate reality. Lack of women in computing, is going to make a more masculine atmosphere, and lack of conservatives in social psychology is going to make a more liberal atmosphere.
10. 

    Ravi
    February 17th, 2011 - 10:22

    @Cris…Many of us recall such a paper that detailed liberal/conservative splits for field and have an idea that some fields have more disparate bias than others. Anecdotally, some economists have said that they feel their areas are more conservative than psychology (though not necessarily more conservative than liberal). I don’t think reailty has a liberal bias. Liberalism and conservativism are (in my opinion) about two different kinds of truths…truths that lead to greater production and truths that lead to greater well-being. Both are important and intertwined, but sometimes each group errs in neglecting the other side. As for your moral dilemma, I would have 2 conflicting thoughts. I would selfishly be rooting for the guy, as I want to understand that logic, and he could be very useful in my research. But Palin and Limbaugh don’t just have opinions though, but are often mean spirited and I don’t know if I’d want to be someone who enjoys that. I would hope I would feel the same way about someone who enjoyed watching liberals be mean spirited toward conservatives too.

    @Ed – good points. I think conservatives might frame their choice of a better paying career as choosing a field they perceive as more “productive”.
11. 

    Cris
    February 17th, 2011 - 16:35

    @Ravi Hey Ravi, thanks for answering. I love your blog by the way and I check it often. The “reality has a liberal bias” comment is of course tong in cheek, but there’s a point to it, which is this: that IMO among the MANY aspects that lead to the result of SP having so few conservatives, the rejection / prejudice / discrimination of those already in the discipline play just a very small role. For me overall it’s more a matter of personality traits and cultural interests.

    But I think there’s even more to that, in this case having to do with some “measurement issues”. Here I think we must understand that the liberal / conservative distinction is problematic and that it carries a lot of emotional and stereotypical information. Liberal and conservative identities are just “ideal types” so there’s no actual limit up until everyone would agree that it’s proper to call a person a “conservative”. Furthermore, when it comes to social psychology, you won’t find the typical (?) conservative (who may be fan of Palin, Limbaugh, watches Fox News, etc.). That guy/gal probably didn’t even enter the field just because of personality and interests “mismatches”). Now, instead of thinking about that kind of conservative, let’s think about those that are more “in the middle” (maybe those who say they are not liberal): Would a politically sophisticated social psychologist for whom some would say holds some conservative positions in certain issues call himself a “conservative”? I’d say not in most cases. Some may argue that that’s some evidence for discrimination and I’d agree to a certain degree: there’s prejudice and pressure that leads that guy to say he’s not conservative. But, is he?

    What I’m trying to say is this: if we are going to argue that there’s ideological bias in SP, self identification measurements about the political identity can lead you to think so (0.3% declare themselves conservatives), but the whole picture can be far more complicated than that. If for instance we measure the level of agreement with some conservative vs. liberal positions on issues (immigration, abortion, gun control, drugs, health care, taxes, etc.), I’m sure we’d get a more rich and realistic picture. Probably very few SP would agree with ALL the conservative positions in a list of, say, 10 questions, but maybe only 60% would agree with all the liberal responses too.
12. 

    Ravi
    February 22nd, 2011 - 10:11

    @Cris, yes, that’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis and there is research to say that more educated people tend to use the extremes on a scale less, which might also mean that they’d be less extreme in terms of partisanship. On the other hand, our yourmorals data does not show that extreme liberals are less likely to be educated than slight or moderate liberals, which contradicts that.

    I certainly agree with your comment…but I think it just mitigates the issue, which still exists even accounting for that. Put another way, I would love to get a Palin/Limbaugh Republican in our lab who could come up with interesting research hypotheses.
13. 

    David
    March 29th, 2011 - 13:26

    Ravi, if for some reason you want to talk to a conservative who is calm/reasonable and somewhat learned in Psych/Social Science, you don’t need to buy me any drinks – because I haven’t touched a drink since the Reagan Administration! I teach Adult Education in a range of subjects, and Haidt is easily my favorite contemporary Psychologist. Perhaps my email says it all: “conservativedemocrat@yahoo.com”. I’d understand if you are too busy and/or not interested, but I am always on the look out for a fascinating conversation or two! -David
14. 

    Ravi
    March 29th, 2011 - 13:54

    thanks for the offer and I’ll definitely keep you in mind next time I have an idea that would benefit from a conservative view point (a fairly frequent occurence, actually) ..best, Ravi
15. 

    Ben Franklin
    November 9th, 2011 - 19:27

    Liberalism correlates with higher intelligence. That is why college faculties are more liberal than the general population.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
16. 

    Benjamin David Steele
    March 19th, 2012 - 12:25

    I don’t know if reality has a liberal bias, but I can think of one factor that relates to liberalism and the ability to assess reality. One study I’ve seen showed that liberals were on average less susceptible to confirmation bias than conservatives. Maybe it is unsurprising that conservatives wouldn’t be attracted to a field such as psychology which seeks to avoid confirmation bias, specifically in psychological research.

    This might relate as well to the correlation of liberalism and ‘opennesss to experience’. It is obvious that aspects of ‘openness’ are directly oppositional to confirmation bias. To be low in ‘openness’ would mean to seek out the familiar and known, and as such would lead one to want to confirm what one already knows/assumes. It’s because of ‘openness’ that liberals enjoy discovering something new. A strongly liberal person finds pleasure in this and so discovering something new, even if it disproves former assumptions, is still seen as a good thing from a liberal perspective of ‘openness’.

    I think there is danger in seeing conservatives and liberals as neutral categories in all ways. For example, research shows conservatives have a better ability at focusing by excluding distractions while liberals are hyper-aware of their environment (and the people around them, i.e., empathetic awareness), and so it would follow that conservatives are going to be overrepresented in fields requiring high degrees of focus. Does this mean liberals entirely lack the ability to focus? Of course not. But it would be silly to criticize as anti-liberal fields requiring focus. It’s just a fact that conservatives are better at this just as it’s a fact that liberals are better at ‘openness’.

    It’s not that the field of psychology necessarily as an anti-conservative bias, except to the degree that liberal psychologists have biases as individuals. Moreso, I suspect it is simply that conservatives have an anti-psychology bias. You could possibly attract some conservatives who are moderate in their conservative predisposition, but it’s unlikely that strongly conservative people will ever want to be involved in psychology.

    What might be interesting is to consider another aspect. Maybe psychology does have a liberal bias in one sense. Maybe thinking psychologically correlates to thinking liberally, the two either having the same source or simply closely corresponding in style. Maybe teaching conservatives to think psychologically would be equivalent to indoctrinating them into liberal thinking. It’s possible that psychological research couldn’t function (effectively? objectively?) if as a field it became dominated by conservatives. What if psychology itself is anti-conservative?

    This is similar to cities having disproportionate number of liberals. What if cities are simply liberally biased by their very structure? Maybe it would be impossible to build a city that wasn’t liberally biased. Liberals love new experiences and love diversity of culture, the very things that cities embody. What good would it do to try to attract conservatives to cities just to make cities more ideologically balanced?

    Would it even work? Research shows that children who grow up with cultural diversity tend to become adults who are more socially liberal. You could bring a conservative into a city, but then there kids would just more likely become liberals or at least more liberal than their parents. Similarly, you could force more conservatives into the psychology fields, but this just might change these conservatives toward liberalism. This relates to education overall. What if educating people inevitably makes them more liberal in the way that opening people to diverse cultures tends does?

Leave a comment