Research for which this forum HAD to have been a case study...

[Yonivore]

How academia's liberal bias is killing social science

I have had the following experience more than once: I am speaking with a professional academic who is a liberal. The subject of the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia comes up. My interlocutor admits that this is indeed a reality, but says the reason why conservatives are underrepresented in academia is because they don't want to be there, or they're just not smart enough to cut it. I say: "That's interesting. For which other underrepresented groups do you think that's true?" An uncomfortable silence follows.
I point this out not to score culture-war points, but because it's actually a serious problem...

That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform.
...
They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality -- and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative!

Anthropogenic Global Climate Change anyone?

Conservatives are racist?

The list goes on...

This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed.

And, right on cue, we have a Liberal Academic to prove the thesis, with a combination of asserted superiority and actual childishness.

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

A professor explains that studies show the GOP is bad.

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article led, "It's Okay To Hate Republicans," which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

"I hate Republicans," communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece.

Communications Department.

...
She writes that although the fact that her "tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased," historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!
...
Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the "determined vilification" of others, and have "crafted a political iden y that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all."

(Apparently, the irony of this accusation given the content of her own article was lost on her.)

This "Communications Department Chairwoman" could be any of several posters in this forum.

[Winehole23]

And, right on cue, we have a Liberal Academic to prove the thesis, with a combination of asserted superiority and actual childishness.

just like you, tbh. people tend to hate what they resemble.

[Yonivore]

just like you, tbh. people tend to hate what they resemble.

I don't hate.

[Winehole23]

you resemble what you denounce. the resemblance is striking.

[Yonivore]

you resemble what you denounce. the resemblance is striking.

Really? That's all you got?

"I know you are but, what am I?," is all you have?

[Winehole23]

there's not much to the OP. it's unsurprising you can't see the resemblance. your demonization of your own political opponents as depraved, deluded and unworthy of respect has been fairly consistent over the years.

[Yonivore]

there's not much to the OP. it's unsurprising you can't see the resemblance. your demonization of your own political opponents as depraved, deluded and unworthy of respect has been fairly consistent over the years.

I think you exaggerate how I've described those with whom I disagree. I would ask for examples of where I've demonized, or characterized my opponents as you say but, what would be the point, other than to divert us from the topic at hand.

So, there's not much to the OP?

A self-described liberal academic conducts a comprehensive study about the behavior of his own community and discovers, lo and behold, they are biased against conservatives and it's "not much?"

The research describes an approach, taken by liberals, that almost identically matches what Michael Mann and others in the AGCC were discovered doing with respect to global climate change skeptics, and it's "not much?"

For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality -- and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative!

I post an confirmatory article where a liberal academic says we should all hate Republicans, and that's "not much?"

"I hate Republicans," communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece.

Okie dokie; but, I think it's much.

[boutons_deux]

pussy eater checking in with yet another conservative checkbox: university professors are biased because they are liberal and against conservatives, Repugs, tea baggers, bubbas, rednecks.

it's not BIAS when the FACTS indicting conservatives, their policies, their disasters are inarguable