ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Reliable in what regard?

Jonathan Haidt considers whether an entirely biased social science is capable of reliability:
Truth is a process, not just an end-state. The Righteous Mind was about the obstacles to that process — confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, tribalism, and the worship of sacred values. Given the many ways that our moral psychology warps our reasoning, it’s a wonder we’ve gotten as far as we have, as a species. That’s what’s so brilliant about science: it is a way of putting people together so that they challenge each other and cancel out each others’ confirmation biases and tribal commitments. The truth emerges from the interaction of flawed individuals.

But something alarming has happened to the academy since the 1990s: it has been transformed from an institution that leans to the left, which is not a big problem, into an institution that is entirely on the left, which is a very big problem.

Nowadays there are NO conservatives or libertarians in most academic departments in the humanities and social sciences. The academy has been so focused on attaining diversity by race and gender (which are valuable) that it has created a hostile climate for people who think differently. The American Academy has become a politically orthodox and quasi-religious institution. When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as race, racism, gender, poverty, immigration, politics, and climate science). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?
Based on the evidence, the answer is yes, as a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produces findings that are reliably insane. At this point, the term "social science" has become an oxymoron akin to "military intelligence" or "new Star Wars movie".

Labels: ,

83 Comments:

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 23, 2015 12:01 PM  

You just had to throw the TFA dig in didn't you, Vox? Why don't you go see the Star Wars movie before you bitch about it.

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 23, 2015 12:06 PM  

There is no interest in solving problems in the social sciences. Recently was subjected to my GFs cousin who is working on her PHd in the field. She outlined her study and was extremely proud. All I thought was "this Woman is conducting a study where she has no interest in the root cause of the problem. Instead she is trying to prove a political point and to treat one minor symptom."

Anonymous Victor F. Michaelson December 23, 2015 12:06 PM  

Inbred describes the though process in that field.

Blogger Nate December 23, 2015 12:07 PM  

"At this point, the term "social science" has become an oxymoron akin to "military intelligence" or "new Star Wars movie"."

TROLOLOLOLOLOL

Blogger VD December 23, 2015 12:08 PM  

TROLOLOLOLOLOL

(laughs)

Blogger VD December 23, 2015 12:09 PM  

Why don't you go see the Star Wars movie before you bitch about it.

I'm not bitching at all. It would be impossible for me to care any less. Once I'm done with something, I'm done with it. Same with the Hobbit; after seeing the first movie, I didn't even think about seeing another one.

Blogger El Borak December 23, 2015 12:16 PM  

after seeing the first movie, I didn't even think about seeing another one.

I immediately went home and re-watched the Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit.

It was much better.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 23, 2015 12:19 PM  

"Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics"

This seems to be particularly apropos, given that many of the topics featured in social sciences are highly relevant to political policies, whereas geometry is only ever tangentially so.

Here's a question: does the fact that our government likes cheating in accountancy so much mean that none of them understand accounting, or does it mean that the accounting depts. have all been taken over by New Math advocates?

Anonymous Stephen J. December 23, 2015 12:26 PM  

The problem with "social science" as a concept is that the fundamental requirement of any actual science -- i.e. conducting empirically falsifiable experiments in which certain variables can be controlled -- is both practically impossible and morally impermissible when human behaviour is the subject. Even the self-reporting required to determine which subjects fall into which defined category of analysis is usually highly dubious; the microscope cannot look at itself.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2015 12:30 PM  

Anyone else noticing a trend of movies having excellent portions (first 30-45 minutes of The Hobbit, the middle of Conan) that are completely overshadowed when the writer/director goes off into his own little world instead of sticking to what made the book?

Blogger dc.sunsets December 23, 2015 12:31 PM  

The American Academy has become a politically orthodox and quasi-religious institution.

quasi-?

Blank-slate, "all cultures are equal" and Magic Dirt are far more than political beliefs. They are embraced with the vehemence of religious dogma, and any EvilFacts to the contrary are treated as blasphemy.

The West is governed by a Theocracy, its dominant denominations being Progressivism and Fabian Socialism. Both hold to basically the same unassailable dogma, and both have taken this dogma to the level of utter self-destruction.

Blogger Badmojo December 23, 2015 12:32 PM  


Most of these programs exist merely to perpetuate themselves, not solve any of the perceived "problems." In fact, it's in their best interest to inflate and exacerbate the "problem" as much as possible to draw attention, funding, and increase their own demand.

I like my science based on learning and improving understanding.

Blogger Nate December 23, 2015 12:32 PM  

"Anyone else noticing a trend of movies having excellent portions (first 30-45 minutes of The Hobbit, the middle of Conan) that are completely overshadowed when the writer/director goes off into his own little world instead of sticking to what made the book?"

Hollywood has serious creativity issues. This is well documented. The potential cause is an interesting discussion.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 23, 2015 12:36 PM  

The academy is Universalism's monastery (sans chastity) with a tiny section for occupational training, e.g., engineering schools.

"Science" is overwhelmingly funded by the Universalist Cathedral.

Social science, given that it occurs 100% inside the monastery and is funded 100% by the Cathedral, cannot by definition produce anything that conflicts with Universalist dogma. It's a feedback loop, an echo chamber and a process for rationalizing whatever happens to be the topic (deviance) of the day.

Why is this so difficult to see?

Blogger Michael Thompson December 23, 2015 12:36 PM  

Missed out on the whole discussion about Star Wars a couple threads ago, but I have an idea about why Rey is the way she is.

I'm not sure it has so much to do with 'girl' as it has with 'protagonist for a generation of people who grew up playing Star Wars game.'

Think about it. Rey is essentially a player's avatar brought to life. Game players in general don't like their in-game personas to be burdened down with things that might make them less effective in combat. And they certainly don't want to have to go through an arduous period of training before they jump into the fray.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 12:38 PM  

"as a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produces findings that are reliably insane."

This is not a clear statement, in that it presupposes that the diversity viewpoints have merit within a rational system. (By diverse I mean ones that think gender and race are more valuable than rational thought) That is certainly not true, given the outputs of such a system are irrational. If anything, they might serve as a graphic warning to others as to how NOT to think.

The thing that I find problematic here is that a non-thinking outsider would say the same about our points of view, which definitely excludes SJW concepts, and has a very narrow racial, cultural, and religious inclusion zone.

It's tolerance and the abuse of that tolerance that has given rise to the leftist social sciences. It's our error to tolerate more than a token representatives of the other viewpoints. SJW's will naturally say the same.

In the end the author here is, as he says, merely looking at the process, and fails to grasp that there is objective good and bad, and morality of an individual and a nation are two very different things. SJW's do not know this and project their individual non-morality upon a whole nation.

SJW's have grasped that any diversity in thinking is a weakness and point of doubt within their system. As their thought cannot withstand doubt any divergence must be purged. Those who share our philosophy and culture can withstand doubt, because a rational system is non-fragile and has the means to determine truth.

To correct the problem the pendulum must swing the other way, and it must swing hard to eliminate the buildup of non-rational bodies in society. Then it may return to equilibrium with a dominant culture and small minorities of other viewpoints that can exist in peace. It will not be nice, nor fun, and I am not looking forward to it.

I've done a poor job here, but the TL;DR version is that a diverse set of viewpoints is not a desirable outcome, and the results will always be tainted and capable of producing insane outputs.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 12:40 PM  

Also, holy crap about the Star Wars comments in a non-SW thread. I told my family that I was boycotting the damn movie because Social Justice. That's the end of it for me. It's just SJW pr0n, like most entertainment programming nowadays. Move on, please.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2015 12:42 PM  

@Nate - Well, there's the formulaic "needs romance" aspect to the Hobbit; but I also got the impression that it fell into the trap of replacing whimsy with absurdity, which I would call a major cause. Classic fairy tales, and Tolkien's/Howard's early fantasy, were real people, in a real world, with real rules, plus some magic. The chaff we get now is the inverse.

Blogger Zaklog the Great December 23, 2015 12:42 PM  

Based on a recommendation from the Ace of Spades HQ, I read The Righteous Mind a few months ago. It's a really interesting book about the way we do moral reasoning, and highlights the differences between leftists and conservatives. From someone who largely identifies as liberal, it is surprisingly honest and decent towards those on the right.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2015 12:47 PM  

This is why Iron Man 1 was great, and 3 was bad. The first was whimsical on the science side, but the villains in the third were absurd.

It's also why Daredevil is a much better production than Agents of Shield.

Heck, I'd actually ascribe most modern film issues to some variation on this. Magic , parody villains, etc., are all just variations on taking the fantastic and replacing it with the ridiculous.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2015 12:47 PM  

That should be "magic (minority)".

Blogger Joshua_D December 23, 2015 12:48 PM  

Wasn't expecting a laugh in this post, and then ...

or "new Star Wars movie".

LOL. Badum tiss.

Anonymous Determinator December 23, 2015 12:48 PM  

"first 30-45 minutes of The Hobbit"

Am I the only one that thought they screwed they up too?

Blogger Shimshon December 23, 2015 12:52 PM  

"which are valuable" - Of course they are. Why do we never see anyone whining about the lack of diversity in intelligence, which would at least be more honest.

It would be even better if they started talking about the "stupidly gifted" or something like that. So much better than "intellectually challenged".

Blogger Jon M December 23, 2015 12:52 PM  

I am grateful that the list of social sciences includes climate science. What they are doing in climate science these days owes more to sociology than it does math, chemistry, physics, or any of the hard sciences.

Anonymous HammerSix Actual December 23, 2015 12:54 PM  

The tent continues to empty, or perhaps more realize that the tent moved, and they weren't told. Grahman not a Republican any longer

Blogger Shimshon December 23, 2015 12:54 PM  

I watched one of the recut versions of the Hobbit trilogy that distilled all the material into a single ~3 hour movie. There were some odd cuts, but the movie worked pretty well. I am happy I didn't waste 6+ hours of my life watching what was left out.

Blogger VD December 23, 2015 12:54 PM  

The thing that I find problematic here is that a non-thinking outsider would say the same about our points of view, which definitely excludes SJW concepts, and has a very narrow racial, cultural, and religious inclusion zone.

How is that a problem. The only question that matters is if your points of view produce results that are in line with observable reality or not.

Blogger S1AL December 23, 2015 1:02 PM  

That should be "magic (minority)".

Blogger Austin Ballast December 23, 2015 1:04 PM  

The author referred to in the post errs because he has still bought into the lie that diversity is the best way to achieve truth.

Clearly ideological conformity can be constraining, but claiming no firm truth is errant as well.

An interesting question would be if we have truly achieved more scientific breakthroughs, when taken in context, than those in the Middle Ages or such.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 1:05 PM  

@ The Dark Master

It's not a problem. It's simply the viewpoint that needs to come out on top. The outsider has to come to grips with making the choice, and shades of grey allow people to tolerate where they should not, and make poor choices.

Naturally the pressure has to be increased to make such a choice, which we are seeing. I merely enjoy a more black and white phrasing. I will report for correction.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 23, 2015 1:07 PM  

@16


I've done a poor job here, but the TL;DR version is that a diverse set of viewpoints is not a desirable outcome, and the results will always be tainted and capable of producing insane outputs.

That would only be true in a field with a very harsh feedback system. Social science effectively has no effective feedback system, so criticism from people with different viewpoints is really the only failsafe available.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 23, 2015 1:14 PM  

Science based on middling quality political rhetoric

Blogger Dexter December 23, 2015 1:16 PM  

it has been transformed from an institution that leans to the left, which is not a big problem, into an institution that is entirely on the left, which is a very big problem.

Since "leans Left" inexorably lead to "controlled by the Left", it was in fact a very big problem when it "only" leaned to the Left.

The academy has been so focused on attaining diversity by race and gender (which are valuable) that it has created a hostile climate for people who think differently.

As if that was a complete accident...

Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as race, racism, gender, poverty, immigration, politics, and climate science). America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics,

The humanities do not HAVE to grapple with those topics. They were all but absent from the agenda when I was a kid. They were deliberately introduced by the Left in order to further their agenda. We can NEVER have "innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics". If they are discussed at all, it will be on the Left's terms, and as a practical matter you might as well forget about trying to recapture them or trying to study them "objectively". Just pull the plug!

Blogger pyrrhus December 23, 2015 1:20 PM  

"The academy has been so focused on attaining diversity by race and gender (which are valuable) that it has created a hostile climate for people who think differently. "

"Which are valuable" in what Universe? Not this one.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 23, 2015 1:26 PM  

@34

The humanities do not HAVE to grapple with those topics. They were all but absent from the agenda when I was a kid. They were deliberately introduced by the Left in order to further their agenda. We can NEVER have "innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics". If they are discussed at all, it will be on the Left's terms, and as a practical matter you might as well forget about trying to recapture them or trying to study them "objectively". Just pull the plug!

They absolutely were all being discussed in the humanities when you were a kid (well, not climate science so much). What wasn't happening is that they weren't making the news.

Blogger SciVo December 23, 2015 1:30 PM  

Postdiction is storytelling, not science. Without prediction or performance, the only correction of error is argument. And generally the social "sciences" as practiced in academia lack all three.

Here we have both prediction and argument over such things as economics, which is as it should be. Aside from attempting to perform something in a way that risks failure (as in band, football or programming), those are the only other ways to fertilize your imagination beyond the sterility of mental masturbation.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 23, 2015 1:31 PM  

Rey is essentially a player's avatar brought to life. Game players in general don't like their in-game personas to be burdened down with things that might make them less effective in combat

You mean like tits? I am reasonably sure most STR8 guys like them.

"which are valuable" - Of course they are. Why do we never see anyone whining about the lack of diversity in intelligence

If they had any dieversecity in intellect some of them would realize that diversity=conformity.

Anonymous Rolf December 23, 2015 1:33 PM  

@2 - of course. If you actually solve the problem, the gravy train stops. If you admit that there are a few simple root causes for the myriad of symptoms you study, and solving nearly every one of those root causes requires LESS government, the gravy train stops... and your world-view is crushed.

So they are highly motivated to NOT observe reality, and indeed are hell-bent on denying it.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 23, 2015 1:33 PM  

Question for social "scientists":If a cartoon was published that had Bath House Barry Obama's adopted daughters as monkeys what would leftists do?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/22/ted-cruz-strikes-back-at-washington-post-cartoonist-for-mocking-his-daughters-theyre-out-of-your-league/

OpenID Jack Amok December 23, 2015 1:40 PM  

Hollywood has serious creativity issues. This is well documented. The potential cause is an interesting discussion

I'm in. Where do we have it? The game industry potentially faces the same issues down the road.

OpenID Jack Amok December 23, 2015 1:48 PM  

The thing that I find problematic here is that a non-thinking outsider would say the same about our points of view, which definitely excludes SJW concepts, and has a very narrow racial, cultural, and religious inclusion zone.

Who cares what a non-thinking outsider says? "Diversity of thought" does not require believing every thought, it requires hearing and giving fair consideration to them. We are most certainly not underexposed to SJW thoughts, or to outside racial, cultural or religious elements.

In fact, the ability to hold a thought in your head without having to believe it is a pretty damn valuable thing and one sign of a mature mind. It's also a check on letting your beliefs become disconnected from reality.

Anonymous The OASF December 23, 2015 1:51 PM  

I suggest an open Star Wars thread. See if you can break the record for this year and perhaps for all time for number of comments.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 1:55 PM  

@32

And yet still not desirable, because that's what we had in the past, and it resulted in SJW's and the systems we have now, because tolerance. Those with tolerance let those without tolerance change the rules and staff up their departments. Tolerance works when the other side extends you the same courtesy. If not, then everything gets one sided.

Diversity will work when there's a common majority culture that values rationality and morality. Exceptions can be dealt with and tolerated if they are not a direct challenge to the majority. When they become the direct challenge the majority had better slap them down hard, otherwise it will suffer irreparable cracks in its moral and value foundations.

Social Sciences do have feedback, and it's cultural and comes from people that interact with it. Schools that become full leftist would shrivel and blow away without funding, grants, or student loans. Those come from kids and parents that are credulous and lack information. As the opinions and values become known the value of that education will fall as its cost rises. This is the education bubble at the moment, and it will pop.

It's a slow feedback process, which allows the pendulum to swing so far. The swing back will be equal or greater.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 1:58 PM  

@42 True. I'm having difficulty in conveying my thought today. I will say that not all thoughts are worthy of consideration, and can be dismissed out of hand. Eliminating the grey thinking helps reduce the scope of thoughts that confuse or divert from the primary arguments.

Anonymous YIH December 23, 2015 1:59 PM  

@1. Stg58/Animal Mother:
You know movies ain't perishable goods right?
In fact, they can exist longer than you can.
TFA will be on home video before Trump is elected President, I promise!

Blogger SciVo December 23, 2015 2:00 PM  

Bluntobj Winz, what if there are enough billionaires willing to open their pockets enough to keep enough politicos in office to keep the departments funded that provide the rationalizations for their confirmation bias?

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 23, 2015 2:00 PM  

Typical Lysenkoism. Trifim Lysenko replaced orthodox Medelian views on genetics in agriculture with his own weird ideas he labled as Marxist. If a Scientist did not agree they found themselves shot or sent to Siberia

Blogger August December 23, 2015 2:14 PM  

The Short Bus of Sociology

I used to be subscribed to orgtheory, and I finally became intolerant of the idiot when he said they could improve sociology's image like this: "Openly embrace positivism/science as our motivation and professional model."

OpenID genericviews December 23, 2015 2:36 PM  

I find it interesting that a writer who is advocating diversity of thought in social sciences, cannot control his own bias long enough to finish three paragraphs.

Given the many ways that our moral psychology warps our reasoning. Typical Anti-Christian bias.

That’s what’s so brilliant about science: it is a way of putting people together so that they challenge each other. Typical "we are awesome" bias, with no evidence that this actually happens. Several trends in Science would seem to suggest that group think is strongly encouraged in the sciences and the "sciences".

The academy has been so focused on attaining diversity by race and gender (which are valuable)... another counter-intuitive bold statement that has no evidence in history to support it and lots of evidence to suggest it is false.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 23, 2015 2:36 PM  

YIH,

I thought movies were in the produce section with the rest of the perishable items.

Blogger Student in Blue December 23, 2015 2:43 PM  

Speaking of Sociology, probably one of the first thing that lead me down this dark rabbit hole of realizing PC's full of holes, was Brainwash by Harald Eia.

To a bluepilled-but-inclined-to-skepticism mind, this was... really fascinating.

OpenID genericviews December 23, 2015 2:45 PM  

You mean like tits? I am reasonably sure most STR8 guys like them.

We like the Nazi Ninja Assassin team or the Forsworn to have them. Just not our own character.

Blogger Student in Blue December 23, 2015 2:46 PM  

I should continue it on with saying that the video series made me realize how bullshit Sociology was as a "science".

Blogger CM December 23, 2015 3:07 PM  

Ideas need only be given enough tolerance to be heard and pitted against the differing viewpoint.

Once challenged and found lacking, it does not need to be afforded any more tolerance and can be thrown on the trash heap of ideas.

That's how you improve and get better. If you discard opposing ideas without thinking through them, you are locked into ideas that could be wrong.

This is what SJWs do in their exclusion of alternative views in publishing, art, academia, blogs, and hollywood.

This has never been the case here from my observation. Differing viewpoints are allowed to face off against opponents as long as they are on topic and don't dissolve into trollish whining. Ideas that stand the merit test are allowed to stay... even if not everyone agrees.

There IS diversity of thought here. Not everyone agrees on everything and each brings his argument to the table.

How many of you who liked TFA were banned from this blog for thinking differently than VD?

Anonymous DNW December 23, 2015 3:11 PM  

Haidt is one of those liberals who has been confronted with the unpleasant face of his own ideology where it has been triumphant.

He's a smart guy whose own Hume-ean and largely deconstructive assumptions on the ontological status of moral propositions and norms, seems to be at odds with those vestiges of a supposedly more tolerant liberalism he cherishes but which most of his peers have abandoned. Vestiges then, to which he has a more obvious attachment than many of his modern "liberal"/progressive peers; whose strident illiberality, is their most striking public trait.


I tried commenting on his Righteous Mind blog - to which you have indirectly linked - back in the fall of '12; but was never really able to clarify to my own satisfaction what his actual aims are. Or more precisely, how they were grounded; as he seemed to use the word "good" with them in an equivocal way: sometimes as modern liberals do wherein it means nothing more than "to my taste" or "forwards an outcome I like", and sometimes as if referred to the preservation of an objective value which any rational man was obligated to recognize.

Apparently he thinks that while teleology is an illusion, and moral formulations are post hoc rationalizations of inborn impulses which are per definion cosmically arbitrary outcomes, somehow, nonetheless, the "Ying and Yang" of a conservative and progressive societal mix, is somehow intrinsically "good" or to be preferred, or something ...

In any event, he takes quite a lot of abuse from his own party. I suppose that is to be expected when a modern liberal tries to preserve some shred of liberalism in his politics.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 23, 2015 3:37 PM  

@47

Like we have now?

Anonymous daddynichol December 23, 2015 3:46 PM  

The infection that has permeated the Social Sciences in academia has spread throughout the entire structure of higher education. Not one department has not been subjected or subjugated to the demands of the ravenous Social Justice beasts.

Blogger Jon M December 23, 2015 4:03 PM  

@57 Hey Olof, you sound like one of those goofballs who thinks that diversity means having a Marxist, Maoist, Communist, and Trotskyite in the same room. ("We have BOTH kinds of music, country AND western!") Isn't there a window you could be licking somewhere?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 23, 2015 4:18 PM  

@55

I certainly found enough of a welcome for me here.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 23, 2015 4:25 PM  

The "diversity" forced upon society now is not diversity of thought. There is utter conformity and exclusion of those who don't parrot it. But the problem goes deeper than that... it is conformity to a narrative that is utterly false. If instead it were conformity to the truth, where symbology matches reality, then that would not be a bad thing.

Blogger Giuseppe The Kurgan December 23, 2015 4:28 PM  

Truth is a process, not just an end-state

Right there. I don't need to read a single word more than this to know that all that follows will be one giant pile of steaming crap.

Blogger Kyle Searle December 23, 2015 4:29 PM  

What we are seeing here is a sharp divide between the 'bottom-up' first-principles approach of physics to the 'top-down' rationalization explanation model of the social sciences. All the top down approaches fail to understand observed behaviour in both the general and special case because of the bias of the observer. The first-principles approach forces quantitative math onto everything and (usually) avoids bias this way.

Physics is gradually engulfing other discipines, although it takes a lot of time, effort, and computing power. Nowadays chemsity is entirely physics and the old-school alchemy is beyond dead. Biology is in the process of being absorbed, which is most evident in structural biology (i.e. understanding the structures of proteins and similar molecules). I think in my lifetime we'll start to see psychology begin to dissolve into neurophysics, but the computing requirements tend to grow geometrically with the physical scale. Sociology might be too hard to ever understand correctly, at least with computing technology we can conceive of today.

Blogger August December 23, 2015 4:58 PM  

Sociologists plus computer models would equal the global warming fiasco 2.0 pretty damn quick. They haven't paid attention. They never bothered to read Mises, nor did they participate in the discussions that have been happening around research and research models since 2008. What should be on their radar, despite ideology, isn't.

Anonymous YIH December 23, 2015 5:03 PM  

@51. Stg58/Animal Mother:
I thought movies were in the produce section with the rest of the perishable items.
Can't say as I blame you, I've seen supermarkets put them there too ;)

Blogger dienw December 23, 2015 5:38 PM  

Given the many ways that our moral psychology warps our reasoning...
Is it even worth reading after this point?

Blogger Groot December 23, 2015 5:58 PM  

The gravy train of government, and particularly federal government, money is, indeed, an important reason for the flavor of their propaganda. But another important contributor to their anti-Americanism is their explicit internationalism. In universities (especially top ones), in big business, in government itself, and in any web-based business, the customer, one's colleagues, and almost all of one's dealings are international.

Pushing American exceptionalism just feels like bad taste.

This is why Vox's push for nationalism, without the socialism, serves as an intellectual grounding pole to counter the incessant and assumed internationalism. If no one is arguing your point, you're losing the argument.

Anonymous old man in a villa December 23, 2015 7:22 PM  

(Which are valuable) sounds a lot like "the train is fine"

Blogger Jon M December 23, 2015 7:34 PM  

Olof, you are like Humpty Dumpty's spergy kid brother who, instead of the words say meaning what you want, it ts the words you read that mean what you want.

That quote you like so much refers to truth being a process, yet you talk about the *search for truth* as though they are the same thing. The journey is not the destination. That you, and the social scientists in general, have such difficulty with such a foundational aspect of the study of God's creation speaks volumes about your suitability to serve as a guide on the search for truth.

Blogger VD December 23, 2015 8:23 PM  

The premise of the post (lack of viewpoint diversity) is untenable.

You're a moron, Olof. What is untenable is your comments. I'm spamming you because you are not intelligent enough to comment here.

Blogger ray December 23, 2015 10:02 PM  

"The academy has been so focused on attaining diversity by race and gender (which are valuable)"


That's also the position and policy of Barack Hussein. Diversity in and of itself is valuable and, more, is morally requisite, fundamental to the American Way and rightfully codified. Then the author goes on to skritch his noggin and wonder why the academy is a prog religion. Apparently, Jonathan figures the Somalian and Syrian emplacements also are valuable.


"America needs innovative and trustworthy research on all these topics, but can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?"


No. However, the practitioners and proponents of the U.S. social sciences (and administrative lackeys) CAN reliably produce onions, lettuce, taters, various legumes and also citrus crops. Assuming they ask God for rain beforehand, and are suitably supervised in tasks that actually benefit the nation.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

Blogger ray December 23, 2015 10:49 PM  

"I told my family that I was boycotting the damn movie because Social Justice."


Sets a good example. A poodle-free zone.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY December 23, 2015 11:09 PM  

" Olof, you are like Humpty Dumpty's spergy kid brother who, instead of the words say meaning what you want, it ts the words you read that mean what you want."
I could not put it better, my good man.
It's the way these snot nosed spoilt brats have been reared,
and that common it not all that common anymore, it appears.

Blogger GoodShipG December 23, 2015 11:26 PM  

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.”
―Herbert Marcuse

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY December 23, 2015 11:27 PM  

"How many of you who liked TFA were banned from this blog for thinking differently than VD?"
1st . WTF is a "TFA" and why is it relevant ?
2nd. If you came in my house and pooed or peed on my floor , you would get your ass get kicked doubly hard out the door. No ifs, and or buts.
3rd, quit whining, you simp.

Anonymous Eric the Red December 23, 2015 11:44 PM  

Haidt is basically a leftist. As such, he represents the left saying they want to reign in the excesses of its shock troops. Whoopee. What they are really doing is to return the pendulum to a "new normal", thereby consolidating their gains of the last 15 years. It is all psycho-political bullshit. If the GOP and/or conservatives in general had been doing their jobs, there would not be a new normal so agreeable to the left, but instead there would be a complete return to pre-existing values, traditions, and laws, thereby negating all the left had attempted in the first place.

This is all just another stage in a well-tested cycle of entryism/gradualism, so that the dumb proles will sit back and relax and think that the water is actually not THAT hot.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY December 23, 2015 11:55 PM  

"Anyway, Merry Christmas!"
And to you and yours, as well as all out there .
May the Lord bless all.

OpenID denektenorsk December 24, 2015 10:27 AM  

I guess the upshot here is these people will be outbred by Muslim immigrants (how terribly raciss of me I know). They are nothing if not ultra-conservative and they'll have little time for the whinings of a bunch of spoilt brats in universities. The pendulum will swing hard right in a generation or two under sectarian values... it just won't be Christianity.

Interestingly enough, I heard on the news today that the King Abdullah Scholarship fund is being refocused on the "top 200" universities in the world. The local universites (all of which do not make the grade) are all wringing their collective hands as they can no longer collect dirty oil money washed by the virtuous hand of the Saudis in the form of foreign tuition. I'm sure they'll continue to denounce capitalism while they try to find the next rock to squeeze money out of.

Anonymous John VI December 24, 2015 10:45 AM  

Who here has not been killed by the rat?

What you call "arduous training" I call "grinding".

OpenID Jack Amok December 24, 2015 2:46 PM  

Eliminating the grey thinking helps reduce the scope of thoughts that confuse or divert from the primary arguments.

Sure, but what matters is how you sort through the thinking. SJWs do it by automatically rejecting anything that isn't on the approved list provided by their controllers. That's what let's them avoid the obvious contradictions in their worldview, like being in favor of gays, feminism, and moslem immigration.

It's the anti-scientific principle, where experimental evidence is overturned by established theory. Or at least that's how it starts, and after pesky experimental evidence causes enough angst, you outlaw experiments, claiming they've all already been done.

There is a difficult line to walk between being open to new evidence and allowing discredited evidence to survive via proof by repeated assertion. But that's what our brains are for.

Anonymous trains December 24, 2015 9:23 PM  

Lee Jussim skewers leftist 'bias' in his article here.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/liberal-privilege-in-psychology

Blogger dfordoom December 24, 2015 10:44 PM  

@18. S1AL

Classic fairy tales, and Tolkien's/Howard's early fantasy, were real people, in a real world, with real rules, plus some magic.

Tim Powers used to talk about writing "hard" fantasy - where you set up the ground rules and you have to follow them. You can't then break the rules just to get yourself out of a plotting difficulty. The advantage of this is that it imposes discipline on the writer - maybe discipline is one of the elements that's lacking these days?

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 25, 2015 8:31 PM  

Sociology is a lot like anthropology, except with bigger and more obvious hypocrisy. Social Sciences are the kind of fuzzy feel good science that people who eat nothing but salads with French Dressing and never read the calories on the label to understand why they're not losing weight. Its crazy cat Barbie science with small furry animals held hostage to lonely barren women and improbable tales of lands like Lemuria that never existed but is part of that whole Atlantean Aquarius you can't remember a decade of your life when you were smoking pot pseudophilosophical false spirituality of people who collect Buddhist statues and burn incense to get in tune with the universe inside their tiny skull, cause God knows they've never lived on our world.
Academia can afford to hire people who write articles no one reads in Journals that are nothing but paid ads for Government and Corporate sponsors, but never oil companies, because they deal with the real world and this is just some Voodoo Hoodoo crapola here.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts