Liberal professors admit to openly discriminating against conservative peers

[fuckwaffle]

Could you explain how to solve this in a right wing fashion?

http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/limcondirectory/img4.gif = Obama

There ya go. Opps, it's still leaning left.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

By the way, all the sources you're going to find all start with a recent article in The Washington Times. One person quoted in the WT article has written a blog post at Rationally Speaking that you'll find interesting:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/08/liberal-bias-in-academia.html

 

[RjThoughts]

Matthew 4:2–4

So you're advocating that we not be educated by professors, but on what God says? *Scratching head*

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Just a bit of "peer review" from the blog post I linked to above:

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the Inbar and Lammers paper, however, is the above mentioned lack of the obvious control: they didn’t ask conservatives about their biases (nor, for that matter, did they ask another obvious control group: politically neutral or middle of the road faculty). Of course, even if they had, one would still have to make a good number of more or less debatable assumptions (such as that the various groups are all equally trustworthy in their self-reporting, for instance), but it would have been better than nothing. As it is, the paper’s findings are next to impossible to put into proper perspective.

 

[about_average]

I think I'm speaking for most of the board again when I say, "What?"

Haha, yeah. I was in a store the other day and saw a book titled "Geometry for Christian Schools".
I still haven't figured out how geometry is different from one religion to another or even if you're an atheist.

 

[Ramone45]

Conservatives dont get hired as professors much because there aren't many who apply. Very few scientists are conservatives and educated people eschew conservatism as well.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

 

[RjThoughts]

Haha, yeah. I was in a store the other day and say a book titled "Geometry for Christian Schools".
I still haven't figured out how geometry is different from one religion to another or even if you're an atheist.

Probably states in the book, "God stated that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two remaining sides."

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

More from that blogger regarding "peer review", here in this excerpt from his interview with The Washington Times (which the Times did not print in their article):

EES: [sic -- Washington Times reporter] What do you think about the study’s conclusion that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate”?

MP: Taken at face value the results would be disturbing. But they cannot be taken at face value, for a variety of reasons. First, the paper has not actually gone through peer review, and as such it is actually improper — by academic standards — to discuss it in the press. [The WT article claims that the paper is now in press in Perspectives on Psychological Science, though neither the download web site nor the manuscript itself carry that information.]

Second, the methodology of the paper has a number of flaws, acknowledged by the authors themselves. To name but a few: the study was conducted via a self-selecting electronic survey, which means that we do not know the extent of bias in the sample — it could be huge. Moreover, the authors crucially did not investigate the extent of bias against liberal-sounding papers and grant proposals, only the conservative ones. The academy has a strong ethics of reducing bias as much as possible, so it is to be expected that people would reject papers and grant proposals that smacked of clear ideological bias — one way or the other. As for hiring practices, I have never ever seen any job candidate being asked about his/her ideologies, so it seems to me next to impossible that conservatives would be thus discriminated against. Interestingly, the study investigates likely behaviors, not actual outcomes, and one should start by demonstrating that there is a problem first, then inquire into its possible causes. As it is, the authors addressed the causes of a phenomenon of which they have not established the existence. Peculiar, no?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I researched the OP's "article", which he didn't source, found that it was actually a repost from a Washington Times (the right wing "Moonie" newspaper) article, then found that that article's conclusions and headline aren't exactly what the study says, then found that its claim of "peer review" is suspect, and lastly found evidence that the science isn't that good.

I'm a Liberal, and I approached this with rationality and nuance.

The OP is Conservative, and cut and pasted something he wished was true without looking at it very closely.

No wonder Liberals don't want Conservatives teaching science.

 

[busybody..]

ah, yes

the famous PEE REVIEW


teh same PEE REVIEW all teh GLOBALL BULLSHITTERS did

and

LIED ABOUT


STFU, with your PEE REVIEW!

 

[kbate]

More from that blogger regarding "peer review", here in this excerpt from his interview with The Washington Times (which the Times did not print in their article):

EES: [sic -- Washington Times reporter] What do you think about the study’s conclusion that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate”?

MP: Taken at face value the results would be disturbing. But they cannot be taken at face value, for a variety of reasons. First, the paper has not actually gone through peer review, and as such it is actually improper — by academic standards — to discuss it in the press. [The WT article claims that the paper is now in press in Perspectives on Psychological Science, though neither the download web site nor the manuscript itself carry that information.]

Second, the methodology of the paper has a number of flaws, acknowledged by the authors themselves. To name but a few: the study was conducted via a self-selecting electronic survey, which means that we do not know the extent of bias in the sample — it could be huge. Moreover, the authors crucially did not investigate the extent of bias against liberal-sounding papers and grant proposals, only the conservative ones. The academy has a strong ethics of reducing bias as much as possible, so it is to be expected that people would reject papers and grant proposals that smacked of clear ideological bias — one way or the other. As for hiring practices, I have never ever seen any job candidate being asked about his/her ideologies, so it seems to me next to impossible that conservatives would be thus discriminated against. Interestingly, the study investigates likely behaviors, not actual outcomes, and one should start by demonstrating that there is a problem first, then inquire into its possible causes. As it is, the authors addressed the causes of a phenomenon of which they have not established the existence. Peculiar, no?

You, with your good sense, properly attributed articles and straightforward facts are ruining an otherwise fun but useless thread.

humbug.

 

[coachdb18]

I have never ever seen any job candidate being asked about his/her ideologies, so it seems to me next to impossible that conservatives would be thus discriminated against.

How would you suspect the fact that 95% of faculty is either liberal or liberal leaning has come to be? Would you be suspecting a bias if these individuals were equal in all things short of being black? female?

Just FYI, interesting study!

 

[RjThoughts]

How would you suspect the fact that 95% of faculty is either liberal or liberal leaning has come to be? Would you be suspecting a bias if these individuals were equal in all things short of being black? female?

Just FYI, interesting study!

“There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up”
Rex Stout

“Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.”
Evan Esar

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

How would you suspect the fact that 95% of faculty is either liberal or liberal leaning has come to be? Would you be suspecting a bias if these individuals were equal in all things short of being black? female?

Just FYI, interesting study!

Before I answer that will you agree that the science behind this study is suspect and that your original source, The Washington Times, has obfuscated its findings?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You, with your good sense, properly attributed articles and straightforward facts are ruining an otherwise fun but useless thread.

humbug.

Let me make up for it.

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/f6/aa/handy,erotic,sex,lace,an,handjob,black,and,white,erotica-f6aaf42c9507b4dd980576006f1fad69_h.jpg

 

[coachdb18]

Before I answer that will you agree that the science behind this study is suspect and that your original source, The Washington Times, has obfuscated its findings?

All studies should be suspect if they are to be of value, which is the rationale behind peer review... find the flaws and investigate every possible defect to improve the knowledge available. Social investigations are always harder to measure and to gain value from, as science has more 'measurableness', and the controls and standards are more easily achieved. I don't know all the information that would make this a good or bad study, but feel it's a valuable investigation to follow.

 

[kbate]

Let me make up for it.

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/

I prefer watching you shred coach's invincible ignorance. I apologise for correcting you.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

All studies should be suspect if they are to be of value, which is the rationale behind peer review... find the flaws and investigate every possible defect to improve the knowledge available. Social investigations are always harder to measure and to gain value from, as science has more 'measurableness', and the controls and standards are more easily achieved. I don't know all the information that would make this a good or bad study, but feel it's a valuable investigation to follow.

That doesn't answer my question, but you chose not to respond in a dozen or more partisan douchebag ways, which is good, so I'll let it go.

 

[about_average]

Well, as I suspected, the reports of this study are grossly inaccurate.
The survey consisted of a survey of "all 1,939 members of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology's electronic mailing list"

I could be wrong, but I suspect a minority of university faculty are members of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology.

 

[Wrong Element]

How would you suspect the fact that 95% of faculty is either liberal or liberal leaning has come to be? Would you be suspecting a bias if these individuals were equal in all things short of being black? female?

Just FYI, interesting study!

The main reason seems obvious to me: conservatives tend to be less interested in an academic career.

 

[about_average]

the fact that 95% of faculty is either liberal or liberal leaning has come to be?

Where did this 95% "fact" come from? Certainly not the study.

 

[coachdb18]

That doesn't answer my question, but you chose not to respond in a dozen or more partisan douchebag ways, which is good, so I'll let it go.

And I thought from your post you were actually interested in academic honesty, my fault for that mistaken belief, as I answered in an academically factual manner. I won't worry about making that same mistake with you again...

 

[RjThoughts]

I prefer watching you shred coach's invincible ignorance. I apologise for correcting you.

You did it without the use of the RED pen. SHAME!!!!!

 

[RjThoughts]

The main reason seems obvious to me: conservatives tend to be less interested in an academic career.

Could it be due to the fact the hours are long and the pay sucks?

 

[coachdb18]

The main reason seems obvious to me: conservatives tend to be less interested in an academic career.

The hostility toward conservatives makes for a far more hostile work environment, which is not the same thing as being less interested in academics as a career