If you missed Part I, go here:"Believe it or not, there was a time when I didn't consider acupuncture to be a form of woo."-- Orac, of Respectful Insolence, making an obvious admission.
It now seems tragic for me to continue pursuing this series, but Orac's words go to the heart of my point about the online science community: they're a collection of NewAge (or former-NewAge) Liberals who, in my estimation (by not exploring their biases fully) haven't totally seen the error of their ways in other areas. It's like Orac can't understand, as he ponders why homeopathy still persists, these bad things happen because people like him allow them to happen.
I clearly remember when I first suggested he should consider actually doing something - other than merely making fun of woo - and the derisive replies I received from him and those on his message board. It pissed me off, because I was desperately looking for help then, and each of those comments just seemed to be another bit of confirmation - not that the situation was hopeless (I've obviously not lost hope and have even seen Orac grudgingly come around) - but that it was the science community that was hopeless. Like all NewAgers and Libs, they were so sold on the smell of their own farts, it was clear my job was going to be bigger than I thought.
Like Ted Patrick before me, getting stifled by the courts in the 70's, I was becoming a black cult fighter, but this time, anti-cultism is being abandoned by the liberals in science: I had made the innocent mistake of naively considering science my (natural) ally.
Unfortunately, it didn't stop there. I thought, maybe, it was just the guys with the attitude problem, right? Surely, female scientists wouldn't be as close-minded as the guys. So I found the ever-popular Skepchick's site, but, while her posts could be somewhat informative, they could just as easily start like this:
"I once was a hippy. Okay, I still consider myself rather hippy-ish, but not like I was. I worked as an activist for a progressive nonprofit, used all organic everything, ate a completely vegetarian diet, and I smoked a lot. Tobacco. Of course. Nothing wrong with any of those things, it’s just that all together they technically made me a hippy.My heart sank - the bitch is a NewAger - and, since then, it's been all downhill.
But as part of the hippiness, I also thought homeopathy was a perfectly acceptable alternative to prescription medication. I didn’t really think about it — it just seemed to be common knowledge. At the time, I assumed that homeopathy was the same as naturopathy: all natural ingredients that people have known for centuries to be beneficial to a person’s health."
Oh sure, occasionally I'll find a few people in science who get it but, almost to a man, they're all doctors - not scientists. (I was shocked when Richard Dawkins did The Enemies of Reason. Good for him.) Almost every pure science site around is a sickening display of NewAge and liberalism, to such a sickening degree it's, well, sickening. It doesn't surprise me they can't see the huge holes in the arguments for Global Warming because not one of them is objective in the least. Listen to Abel Pharmboy over at Terra Sigillata:
"Two political posts in two days. Apologies to those who come here for the science but these are the issues getting my attention and energy this week.Yea sure, cry me a river, you simple-minded asshole. Stay on the pharm, boy, because you understand absolutely nothing about war, world politics, self-defense, foreign affairs, the Middle East, or music. (I once toured with Billy Bragg - great guy - but, let's face it, he's a fucking commie with an acoustic guitar and, in 2008, you can't get much more out of touch than that.) And with dickheads like Abel Pharmboy in it, you don't have to be a creationist to think science is being held hostage by some pretty dumb people.
Billy Bragg is a special guy in my life and this song from 2002 was particularly prescient.
In memory of those lost in the 11 September attacks, the Spanish 11 March bombings, the thousands of allied forces and Iraqi people dead and injured, and all around the world whose needs have gone unmet in exchange for financing an unguided and unnecessary war."
The Left has lost 6 of the last 8 elections, but has that caused the scientific community to examine the evidence, and re-think their assumptions, especially, about themselves? Not that I can see. They're throwing out the same, lame, charges as all the rest of the idiots and, then, wondering why the woo-miesters get play but no one pays them any mind when they make a pronouncement. Well, it's their own faults for being such wimps when it comes to being honest about the reality they claim to be examining in such detail. I, for one, ain't fooled, by their degrees, the bullshit they say, or anything they claim to stand for:
They're liberal liars, just like all the rest.
Conservatives Just Aren't Into Academe, Study Finds
ReplyDeleteDivergent life choices may explain the dearth of right-wing scholars
advertisement
Article tools By ROBIN WILSON
Harrisburg, Pa.
On Thursday mornings, a half-dozen faculty members from Pennsylvania State University's campus here gather at Kuppy's Diner to talk politics. Like most professors, all of those in the Kuppy's gang are Democrats — all except Matthew Woessner, an assistant professor of public policy.
During a recent Thursday-morning get-together over scrambled eggs and toast, the conversation at Kuppy's focused on the U.S. presidential election. As usual, Mr. Woessner's colleagues were taking shots at him. Why did he originally favor Rudy Giuliani? one of his colleagues wanted to know. "I really want to make sure I have a president who is going to bomb more countries," Mr. Woessner quipped.
It is the kind of over-the-top statement Mr. Woessner is famous for. The young professor relishes the role of conservative contrarian inside the liberal academy, a role that puts him in a distinct minority not only here but in higher education generally. But Mr. Woessner's candid conservatism also sets him squarely at odds with the findings of his own research, which suggests conservatives may just not be well suited to careers in academe.
That research — which Mr. Woessner completed with his wife, April Kelly-Woessner, an associate professor of political science at nearby Elizabethtown College — is some of the first to take a hard, scientific look at the politics of the professoriate. The topic has excited fervent discussion and argument by anecdote, but very little empirical research.
"The idea that professors are liberal has been known since the 50s," says Solon J. Simmons, an assistant professor of conflict analysis and sociology at George Mason University, whose own recent study found that 90 percent of professors called themselves liberal or moderate. "But the Woessners actually have something new here. I think they are some of the first to do this kind of work."
The Woessners have peered into the psyche of conservative undergraduates to find out why so few of them want to earn Ph.D.'s and become professors. Their paper on the topic, "Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don't Get Doctorates," is available online and will be published as part of a book published in August by the American Enterprise Institute.
The Woessners found that liberal students have values and interests that point them to careers in academe, while most conservative students do not.
"The personal priorities of those on the left," the Woessners conclude, "are more compatible with pursuing a Ph.D."
Rush Limbaugh Junkie
Mr. Woessner acknowledges that his own career choice contradicts his research. He is a lifelong Republican who has been a Rush Limbaugh junkie and watches Fox News. But he says the prospect of a career in academe never seemed foreign.
"I knew academia had a liberal bias," says Mr. Woessner, who earned his Ph.D. in 2001 from Ohio State University. "But it was worth the risk."
Unlike most conservative students whom he and Ms. Kelly-Woessner have studied, he had a deep interest in the scientific method early on. "I used to come home from college and explain Einstein's theory of relativity to my brother and sister," he says.
David Horowitz, the conservative activist, has staged a national campaign for colleges to hire more conservative professors, and he tells stories about right-wing students who have been turned off by hostile leftists in the classroom. He even proposed an "academic bill of rights," which encourages colleges to foster a variety of political beliefs and become more intellectually diverse.
But Mr. Woessner says he never confronted intolerance in the classroom. Even some of his most liberal professors went out of their way to solicit his views.
In fact, Mr. Woessner gets along so well with Democrats that he married one. Ms. Kelly-Woessner teaches a course on women and politics, among others, at Elizabethtown College. She and Mr. Woessner didn't like each other at all when they first met at Ohio State. She even once told her future husband that she could never date a conservative. So when the couple announced their engagement, the director of their graduate program at Ohio State was stunned.
"They really were opposites," says Herbert F. Weisberg, chairman of the political-science department at Ohio State. "They were always debating each other."
The combination, however, turned out to be a boon to the Woessners' work. "Our research is a byproduct of the way Matthew and I interact," says Ms. Kelly-Woessner, who is chairwoman of her department at Elizabethtown. "We disagree, and we know there is only one way to find out which one of us is right and which one is wrong: empirical research."
The couple started studying the politics of the professoriate after September 11, 2001, when they noticed their classrooms becoming more politically charged. "You were on one side or the other after that, and everyone either loved Bush or hated him," says Ms. Kelly-Woessner. "You had to wonder how students were responding when you talked about Bush in the classroom."
The Woessners were surprised to learn that while there had been a lot of debate about politics in the classroom, not much empirical research had been done. "There are questions here, but they're getting lost in the bickering and the political debate," says Ms. Kelly-Woessner.
To find out how students reacted when professors expressed political views, the Woessners distributed questionnaires in 2004 to 1,385 undergraduates in political-science courses at 29 colleges and universities. They asked the students to indicate whether they thought their professors were conservative, moderate, or liberal. And they asked students about the quality of classroom teaching.
What they found was that students who believed their professors had the same politics they did rated a course more highly than students who didn't. The Woessners also found that students were less interested in a course when they believed their professors' political views clashed with their own.
They published their findings in a paper called "My Professor Is a Partisan Hack: How Perceptions of Professors' Political Views Affect Student Course Evaluations," in the July 2006 issue of the American Political Science Association's journal PS: Political Science & Politics.
They completed their study just as the Pennsylvania legislature held hearings on Mr. Horowitz's academic bill of rights in the spring of 2006. Mr. Woessner was watching the hearings at home on television when he heard someone testify that politics does not affect classroom learning. So he called up the legislative panel and told an aide that research he and his wife had completed showed just the opposite. The panel asked the Woessners to testify.
Since their research showed that students were turned off when professors expressed views that were contrary to their own, the Woessners told lawmakers that professors should do their best to present both sides of a political argument and tread lightly when it comes to expressing their own views.
Ms. Kelly-Woessner follows that advice. "My students don't know what I am," she says. "I don't tell them how I vote."
But Mr. Woessner's students know he is a conservative, and he says it would be irresponsible for him to remain "politically invisible" on the Penn State campus here. If he did, "all students would hear is left-wing voices," he says. So Mr. Woessner often appears as the lone conservative in university-sponsored policy debates. And he doesn't hide his allegiances on his Web site, which includes photos of him at the 2001 inauguration of President Bush and of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas holding the Woessners' young son. But in his classroom, he says, he is careful to encourage students whether they agree with him or not.
Even-Handed Research
His colleagues predict Mr. Woessner will have an easy time earning tenure later this academic year, and agree he does a good job of balancing his political views. He is even the faculty adviser to both the College Republicans and the College Democrats. Each December, Mr. Woessner takes a group of students to Washington, to meet with Supreme Court justices and watch the court deliberate.
The evenhandedness of the Woessners' research caught the attention of Robert Maranto, an associate professor of political science at Villanova University who is editing a book for AEI Press to be called "The Politically Correct University." "Their work doesn't fit neatly into either camp," says Mr. Maranto. "It's just good, empirical research."
Mr. Maranto asked the Woessners to contribute a chapter to his book on why conservatives don't pursue doctorates. Typically, he says, there are a few answers to the question. Liberals say conservatives want to make more money than professors earn, while conservatives argue that they get less encouragement from professors than liberal students do. What the Woessners found, though, is that those are not the only reasons. They looked at a 2004 survey of 15,569 college seniors completed by the University of California at Los Angeles's Higher Education Research Institute. That research showed that while liberal students were more likely than conservative students to have contact with professors outside the classroom and to do research with them, the difference was not enough to explain why so many more liberal students wanted to pursue Ph.D's.
Instead the Woessners looked at differences in interests and personality. They found that in a variety of ways, conservative students were less interested than liberals in subject matter that often leads to doctoral degrees, and less interested in doing the kinds of things that professors spend their time doing.
For example, liberal students reported valuing intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution to science. They outnumbered conservative students two to one in the humanities and social sciences — which are among the fields most likely to produce interest in doctoral study. Conservative students, however, put more value on personal achievement and orderliness, and on practical professions, like accounting and computer science, that could earn them lots of money.
The Woessners also found that conservative students put a higher priority than liberal ones on raising a family. That does not always fit well with a career in academe, where people often delay childbearing until after they earn tenure.
The research led the Woessners to conclude that if higher education wants to attract more conservatives to the professoriate, it should smooth the way financially, offering subsidized health insurance and housing for graduate students, and adopting family-friendly policies for professors.
But Mr. Simmons, the assistant professor at George Mason, says that if the Woessners are right, there may not be an easy solution to the political imbalance in academe. "If it's true that people are self-sorting," he says, "what is to be done?"
A Bipartisan Household
Completing research on the politics of the professoriate has made the Woessners even more attuned to their own views. While their observations are not exactly empirical, both spouses have noticed that running a bipartisan household has had a moderating effect on them both.
Since Mr. Woessner met his wife, he's voted for a Democrat for the first time and given up Rush Limbaugh, who Ms. Kelly-Woessner thought was just plain dumb. Meanwhile, she tolerates Fox News, which they typically record and watch after their two preschool-aged children are asleep.
But while the Woessners have come together in some ways, differences remain. And, as usual, they find that's good for their research. Right now they are trying to answer a question that has been debated nationwide: Do professors indoctrinate students by expressing a political ideology in the classroom? The Woessners surveyed 69 political-science classes in the fall of 2006 and again in the spring of 2007 and asked 1,603 students about their ideology at the beginning and at the end of each course.
Mr. Woessner tends to think students are susceptible to professors' political views and change their opinions, while Ms. Kelly-Woessner thinks college students are fairly set in their own views.
"We're running the data right now," says Mr. Woessner, "and we'll soon know which one of us is right."
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
ReplyDeleteEven in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.
Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.
Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.
"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along."
--
denise.gellene@latimes.com