News Psychology Science

Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Sound of fiftieth shoe dropping.

From “skeptic” Shermer Scientific American:

Although there are many proximate causes, there is but one ultimate cause—lack of political diversity to provide checks on protests going too far. … The problem is most relevant to the study of areas “related to the political concerns of the Left—areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality.” The very things these students are protesting.

How does this political asymmetry corrupt social science? It begins with what subjects are studied and the descriptive language employed. Consider a 2003 paper by social psychologist John Jost, now at New York University, and his colleagues, entitled “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Conservatives are described as having “uncertainty avoidance,” “needs for order, structure, and closure,” as well as “dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity,” as if these constitute a mental disease that leads to “resistance to change” and “endorsement of inequality.” Yet one could just as easily characterize liberals as suffering from a host of equally malfunctioning cognitive states: a lack of moral compass that leads to an inability to make clear ethical choices, a pathological fear of clarity that leads to indecisiveness, a naive belief that all people are equally talented, and a blind adherence in the teeth of contradictory evidence from behavior genetics that culture and environment exclusively determine one’s lot in life.
Duarte et al. find similar distortive language across the social sciences, … More.

Who knew? No, seriously, read the rest. It’s enlightening. See the vid below too.

But the one thing the social “scientists” are sure of is, they don’t want more diversity. They want ridiculous strategies that they know won’t work, as does everyone else.

Note: It’s good to be a skeptic about lots of things but bad to wait until one hears the fiftieth shoe…

See also: Japanese U’s shedding social sciences

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    its predictable.
    The ‘left” is just making conclusions that finally has grown to be a empire. The empire is bumping into old allies.
    it is tyranny and thats what it is and ever was.
    conclusions are not to be questioned or if they are they who do will be punished.
    Everyone does this but the left has taken over in the upper classes and so is too dumb to run the empire as well as the old conservatives did for centuries.
    Truth is our natural right and no one is to stop its investigation and advocacy.
    All punishment, censure, censorship is by definition immoral and illegal.
    Read the contract.
    I suspect its the race stuff(really identity) that many don’t want conclusions about.
    Its just one bad guy fighting another.
    Why does this Shermer resent the belief in human equality?? Hmmm.
    Evolutionists never liked that because evolution teaches brain growth from separate populations.
    As long as they decide the winners.
    The other ‘left” can’t stand inequality based on identity even if its not about innate issues.
    They can’t accept motivation issues even though thats everything and ever was.
    They can’t accept men are more motivated then women and this a curve in intelligence will occur and does. Not innate but next door in motivation which is innate. The bible says this.

  2. 2
    GaryGaulin says:

    And “culinary science” can be fattening. So I guess that proves science is bad, and ignorance is good.

Leave a Reply