
Why are there so few non-liberals in social psychology? A closer look - randomname2
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/07/why-are-there-so-few-non-liberals-in-social-psychology-a-closer-look/
======
PeterWhittaker
Intriguing. Basic premise is that _conservatives_ (operational definition
lacking, but work with me here) tend to dismiss social psychology as a field -
and thus not enter it - because they consider the subjects of social
psychologically to be fundamental to the persons affected, fixed, inherent in
a person's base personality or approach to life. _Liberals_ (ditto re op def)
consider the subjects of social psychology to be amenable to study and
remediation, and not fundamental to the person.

Thus, conservatives do not enter the field and it becomes dominated by
liberals.

Intriguing approach to the question, to be sure.

~~~
cristianpascu
Replace conservatives with women or afro-american and see if the answer still
sounds legit. I think you're oversimplifying. Academia is still a social
environment and social pressure still exists.

I don't think it's fair to say that conservatives will dismiss social
psychology as a field. Maybe certain schools of thought, but hey, that's the
spirit. On the other hand, if the vast majority of scholars are white
atheist/agnostic men, imagine how easy it is for certain views to prevail.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
_I think you 're oversimplifying._

I think I'm summarizing the quoted article. Whether or not said article is
oversimplifying is another question altogether.

(There have been a number of HN stories over the last few months re the
apparent liberal bias in many fields, esp. psychology and sociology, the
article in question suggests an alternative explanation of why this may be
so.)

~~~
cristianpascu
Ok, my bad! I should've read more carefully!

------
fleitz
This study seems to confuse American political parties with philosophy...

For example banning guns is similar philosophically to banning drugs (the
state knows better than the individual) yet in American politics one of these
is a liberal value and one a conservative values.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
As a non-American (me, not you, I assume you are an American, given your
assertion), I suggest that conservatism and liberalism as concepts re what can
be done about socially undesirable behaviour have far broader applicability.
Conservatives of many stripes in many countries believe people are fixed in
their roles and likely place in society (cf British tories, e.g.) while
liberals, generally, believe people can be mobile, if given just and equitable
access to advancement.

This simple (and simplistic, to be fair) characterization is at the heart of
the original article, that liberals enter the field and conservatives don't
because of what each believes _can be done_ to affect outcomes.

~~~
arethuza
Worth noting that there really haven't been many old "Tories" in the
Conservative party for a long time - they are about as rare as socialists in
the Labour party. The Conservatives (and New Labour) became "liberals" years
ago while nobody really knews (or cares) what the Lib-Dems think.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
True. I should have specified that I meant "Tory" in the early 18th C sense.

------
Mz
I was one of the top students in my graduating high school class, but was
sexually abused as a kid. I spent a lot of years in therapy and generally
trying to deal with my personal issues. At one time, I wanted to go into some
kind of "helping" profession and considered psychology and social work.

I'm a woman and I CLEPed college algebra when I returned to college in my
early thirties. I decided that with a relatively strong math background, I
could do whatever the hell interested me and that becoming successful as a
woman was the best thing I could do to try to make the world a better place. I
could set the example instead of going into a helping field and this would be
a better thing to do. The desire to go into a helping field was posited on the
idea that the world was as broken as I had been at one time and people needed
my pity and needed help.

My understanding of the problem space changed and I decided that oppressed and
downtrodden need opportunity more than they need help. I still like helping
people and I still want to do things that will help folks who are having a
rough time, but my framing of how best to do that has changed dramatically.

I will suggest that a lot of people who go into psychology do so because they
fundamentally view the world as broken and people as crapped on by the system
and cannot imagine the system actually changing in any meaningful fundamental
way.

I have had a class on _Homelessness and Public Policy._ I am currently
homeless. I am abundantly familiar with the kinds of personal challenges that
land an individual on the street. I am strongly opposed to writing people off
as incapable of ever getting their act together just because things are really
bad currently. I am strongly opposed to the idea that we need a system in
place for being permanently "helpful" in a way that actively makes it harder
for people to get their lives together themselves.

I run a website aimed at helping homeless people preserve their agency while
trying to resolve what are typically very serious problems. On the other hand,
I also am very clear that systemic problems like the high cost of housing can
be relatively readily resolved by moving someplace cheaper. I did so in May
and I am in the midst of writing a blogpost today about the fact that where I
currently am is a lot cheaper and levels of homelessness per capita appear to
be lower.

People who live on limited incomes, like retirement money, may be poorly
positioned to increase their income in order to keep up with rising housing
costs, but if they move someplace cheaper, their lives may suddenly work a
whole lot better.

Being on the street should not be a reason to write someone off permanently.
It is really not healthy for society for us to be taking that position. We
should be doing all in our power to help people keep their agency and maintain
their independence -- even people with mental health issues. It is possible to
have serious mental health issues and still manage your life on your own. In
fact, the more someone can manage their life on their own, the more they are
empowered to conquer the root causes of their mental health issues, which
either have chemical or social roots (or both). Having agency can help one get
on top of that, regardless of the root cause.

Edit: Finished my blog post:
[http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2015/11/th...](http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-
cheap-seats.html)

