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.
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.
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.)
>> Psychologists understand the biological, environmental, and social factors that affect behavior and are reluctant to label people as “evil” whereas conservatives are far more likely to adhere to a Biblical moral code where there are simply good and bad people.
Wow: "there are simply good and bad people". This is utter nonsense. Such a caricature!
: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism
Conservative : of or relating to the conservative party in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada
: not liking or accepting changes or new ideas"
In other words, the operational definition might be something like: Conservatism is a decision process that seeks to minimize changes to our societel rules and models of natural processes.
E.g.: "good" and "evil" are old and well understood models for human behavior, and social psychology is new and less tested, so let's not change models too hastily.
Well, this thread will be hilarious if it sticks around for more then 5 minutes. I guess I'll go make some popcorn...
Except that those are not "operational definitions" as normally used in sciences, esp. in psychology, the subject at hand, but dictionary definitions - and dictionaries being circular, well....
(The point of indicating such definitions were lacking was to illustrate an irony, apparently lost, an irony present even if the suggestion of the article is intriguing.)
Please enlighten me, I'm not afraid to be wrong :)
I thought an "Operational Definition" was "a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity" [1]
I thought this meant a procedure who's results satisfy a set of definition criteria. So if the operational definition is "does the decision making algorithm change stuff?" that's derivative, not circular. It might also be inadequate, but you didn't argue that.
So we can either chose a set of selection criteria for the results of a procedure, or chose a procedure that satisfies the selection criteria, but if neither of those is good enough, how can we operationalize the definition of anything?
I think the simplest way to put it is that a dictionary definition is heuristic while an operational definition is quantifiable. One reads a number of dictionary definitions, and possibly literary works, etc., until one "groks" what the term means.
An operational definition usually (or should) include specific objective measurement criteria such that anyone can perform the measurement(s) and conclude whether or not the subject meets the terms of the definition.
Unfortunately, the Duarte, et al, article to which this article was a response is not available ($45!) so I cannot tell whether it had operational definitions of diversity, liberalism, conservatism, etc. My guess is that surveys and self-reporting ("do you consider yourself liberal/conservative" or "to what extent do you share this liberal/conservative value", e.g.) were used to evaluate diversity in the field....
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.
It should be pointed out that 'banning guns' is a loaded phrase when talking about gun laws.
Here in Australia gun laws removed stigma about gun ownership and we proudly have more guns than ever http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-... (linking to a pro gun blog so you can laugh at how they try to claim more guns in law abiding hands as a failure of gun control laws).
I suspect this kind of thing is why gun laws are the way they are in America. Whereas I see it as a nuanced debate akin to driving regulations Americans seem to view it as 'banning guns' vs 'not banning guns'.
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.
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.
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.
Thus, conservatives do not enter the field and it becomes dominated by liberals.
Intriguing approach to the question, to be sure.