Tuesday, February 08, 2011

In with the in crowd ...

... here's some more about what's below: Should We Be Surprised at Political Bias in Academia?
It is interesting — and sobering — that two fields, psychology and economics, that we rely upon to describe and amend bias in the world are themselves so susceptible to bias within the ranks of their practitioners.
I would add that bias is bias, whatever the reason.

Post bumped.
... Social Scientist Sees Bias Within.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

As Yeats put it:

All shuffle there, all cough in ink;
All wear the carpet with their shoes;
All think what other people think;
All know the man their neighbour knows.

4 comments:

  1. So what?

    The bias may simply be self-sorting. As in, people who are other-centered are drawn to social science, while those who are self-centered are not. If you sort the psychology of political position alongside the kinds of careers that those same psychologies are often drawn to, or often found to be pursuing, there aren't that many big surprises. So is it really bias? Or is it simple mindset and viewpoint that self-sort the kinds of careers people are drawn to? I think one can make a strong argument for the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, one might, Art, except that doesn't stop these people from passing judgment on others' alleged biases. So I see no reason why we should trust their judgment in that regard, since they self-select a la what Yeats said. Basically, and to put it most crudely, these people are circle-jerking.
    And would you be so sanguine were the bias in the other direction?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Frank, not to be offensive, but I don't think the "would you be so sanguine if the bias were in the other direction" question is remotely relevant. I agree with you that bias is bias, but each side crowing about the other side's bias is also bias, and is exactly the kind of polarization that you yourself have often pointed out is destroying our rhetoric these days. LOL

    The point is that you always have to consider the source.

    As for passing judgment, isn't that what presenting this issue, in this matter, is also doing? I mean, let's be honest: Bias is bias, and pointing out other peoples' biases does not mean that one does not have biases of one's own.

    So I always consider the source.

    And, it must be said, that I frequently note that those who cry "bias! bias!" often have a biased axe of their own to grind. They need to check their own motivations.

    So again, so what? Consider the source. Check their motivations.

    And no offense intended. (And one does tire of the crowing, one truly does.) :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I may myself be biased on this issue, Art, because I worked for 30 years at a paper where nearly 90 percent of my colleagues were reflexively attached to the Democratic party. My view is that one can't be attached to any party and be an impartial (notice I did not say objective) journalist. We all have biases, but when an organization that takes it upon itself to, as it were, adjudicate others' biases, I think we are justified in not taking their views too seriously.

    ReplyDelete