Source: Lee Jussim
There is no general psychiatrist, and studies do come with a warning. Scientific articles will contain all the trappings of science. They will have methods and statistics, and they may be experiences. They are often filled with terms that sound impressive. What should the average intelligent person do? In this article, I identify four clues one can use to conclude whether an article is too politically biased to be taken seriously.
Warning sign 1: The discovery warrants some left-wing narrative
Source: Gross & Simmons, 2007. The Social and Political Views of American Professors.
The political distribution of psychologists is so skewed that the numbers seem like the delusions of right-wing advocates. More than 98% of psychologists In this poll Vote for Obama over Romney, and at elite colleges and universities, 90-100% of faculty are considered Democrats or leftists. In addition to the results shown on the left, this 2020 survey also found this About 40% of the Faculty of Social Sciences Learn about radicals, activists and/or Marxists. Although the people on the right (scientists included) may be as prejudiced as those on the left, RHere is hardly any psychology right.
Warning sign I then is the answer to this question: “Do the main claims of this study seem to justify some kind of left-wing narrative?” This is a necessary but not sufficient condition to infer political bias. It is necessary because if the claim does not prove a left-wing account, it cannot be left biased. It is not enough because the claim or study may simply be true!
However, inferring political bias begins with answering this question. To do this, one needs to be able to identify the main narratives on the left. Although it is impossible to identify them all, here are some common things:
- There are no biological differences between groups in socially valuable traits (particularly genetic differences).
- Bias and discrimination are the only sources of group differences (and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot).
- Society has a moral obligation to arrange itself so that all groups are equal in outcomes of social value.
- Any claim that has been framed as offering “social justice,” or programs designed to increase it (eg diversity, equity and inclusion programs, diversity training, implicit bias training, etc.).
- Liberals are more efficient and morally superior to conservatives (or more conservative political parties, which can vary by country). A subset of this are liberal sociologists who deny that they or their science is biased when they find conservative inferiority. Another subset is seeing the behavior, beliefs, and attitudes of conservatives but not liberals as things to be explained (as if liberalism were “normal” and only deviations from normality needed to be explained). For example, see the photo article in the header of this article.
- Attitudes in support of environmental protection are good.
However, even these kinds of claims not nessacary Biased just because they justify some left-wing narratives. The studies can be well-executed and their results actually justify some left-wing narratives. If sociologists engage in the search for truth in a relatively unbiased manner in their research, sometimes They will present results that validate the leftist narratives.
However, you need to start by answering the question of whether the study advocates a left-wing viewpoint, value, or narrative. If so, you have a file rival But it hasn’t been proven yet option. How do you know if a supposed scientific claim bias Incredibly so? One can look for several additional warning signs.
Warning Sign Two: Ignore Evidence and Counter-Scholarship
This warning sign is required some knowledge About the directory and scholarships. You can’t know something ignore him Unless you know first It exists. This turns out to be more difficult than it might seem, because if a field is systematically ignoring or underestimating certain types of scholarship, you may not even know it exists. I have no answer to this other than to stay reasonably well informed about psychological research, which is now much easier than it used to be. In psychology and other social sciences, one can get an education in them anti Scholarship by following contradictory psychologists on Twitter, who are often very outspoken. Here are some of my recommendations:
Corey ClarkAnd Jeffrey Miller Stephen Stewart WilliamsAnd Rolf Degen (Not contrary, but it does post a lot of things that go against popular beliefs), free black thought (Not a psychologist but he publishes a lot of excellent ideas in the social sciences), Oliver CornellAnd Eric KaufmanAnd LJ ZigerellAnd Zach GoldbergAnd John McCurter. For articles and articles that reveal how scientists routinely ignore counter evidence, go here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The third warning sign: One-eye watch
Source: Lee Jussim
From The Orwelexicon, the one-eyed observer is one who only guards against one-sided error. Mono-watchers are a sign of our polarized times, as those on the left routinely warn of the rise of fascism, and those on the right routinely warn of the dangers of the radical left (I suspect both are right, but rising extremism is a blog for another day).
However, when the social sciences are politicized, a one-eyed watchdog may emerge. It can usually be detected when the paper presents evidence of corruption, stupidity, ignorance, or dogmatism of those on the right, and either denies or simply ignores similar levels of corruption, stupidity, ignorance or dogmatism on the left.
Of course, in any given situation, these undesirable characteristics don’t have to be exactly equal – however, there is now accumulating evidence that they can be found largely on the left (like here, here, here, here). I can’t resist suggesting that past failures to find them on the left probably reflect the ways in which political biases distort psychology.
Selective invitations to rigor It can be considered a type of one-eyed observation. All psychological studies have limitations, weaknesses, and drawbacks. If scholarly criticisms are ostensibly published to denounce a study of faulty political thought, but the same critiques have never been applied to studies of right-wing political thought with the same limitations, weaknesses, and flaws, then we have good evidence of political biases at play. I have described some examples of this here.
Warning Sign IV: Bullseye
If an article reports a claim that seems to justify some left-wing narrative but is clearly unjustified, you have got political bias. If it is clearly unjustified in a political direction then it is politically biased (and this applies perfectly to unwarranted conclusions defending the right). When the researcher’s mistakes Consistently In one political direction, it is also fair to reach The conclusion of the man –Conclusion about the person (that he is biased).
clearly unjustified It comes in three main flavors:
1. express error
2. There is not enough evidence to support it (this includes known logical fallacies, such as jumping to a conclusion and failing to rule out alternative explanations).
3. Controversial because there is evidence to support and oppose it.
Psychologists have made all kinds of unjustified claims, such as:
Source: Lee Jussim
90% of Americans are unconscious racists (wrong)
Remove the threat of stereotype and black and white students will receive equal standardized test scores. (wrong).
People’s beliefs about groups (stereotypes) are generally inaccurate. (wrong).
The differences between the sexes are generally trivial in terms of size (perhaps wrong and controversial).
Peoples’ lives dictate self-fulfilling (false) prophecies.
Conservatives are generally more prejudiced than liberals. (Maybe wrong, definitely controversial).
The position of power will help women overcome socialization in negative roles. (Maybe wrong, definitely controversial).
Climate skeptics are delusional conspiracy theorists who also believe that the moon landing was a hoax.
“..our study suggests that political bias may not infect psychology to the point that it dominates many other areas of society.” (Not enough evidence/jumping to a conclusion because their study did not examine political biases among “spheres of society” other than psychology.)
However, you often need some level of arithmetic or familiarity with the specific studies involved to understand why left-wing assertion claims are unjustified. On the other hand, sometimes, this is not particularly difficult for any sane, numerical, or educated sane person. It only requires attention to the details of the study. For example, in this article, journalist Cathy Young easily debunks a study that claims to show bias against female political candidates just by examining its reported results (no math required).
None of these warning signs are present content To produce a valid conclusion about whether the conclusion is politically biased (except for warning sign IV). However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, even though it may in fact be an alien invader or a praying mantis, then it is logical to conclude that it is a duck. In this sense, these guidelines are useful.