Social psychology – an intellectual ghetto .

ghetto |ˈgetō|
noun (pl. ghettos or ghettoes)
a part of a city, esp. a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
• historical the Jewish quarter in a city: the Warsaw Ghetto.
an isolated or segregated group or area: the relative security of the gay ghetto.
verb (ghettoes, ghettoing, ghettoed) [ with obj. ]
put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group.
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: perhaps from Italian getto ‘foundry’ (because the first ghetto was established in 1516 on the site of a foundry in Venice), or from Italian borghetto, diminutive of borgo ‘borough.’

The  social  science  and humanities  departments of  universities  are  the  source  of  much of  the  confusion  and  folly  in  public  policy  on sex  and  gender in countries  like  the USA, UK  etc.  

Some  of  their  policy recommendations  are  so  silly  one  has  to  go  to  university  to  create  them.

The  following  article  discusses  how  left  wing  bias  in these  departments  have  made  them even more  liberal ,  more  useless  and  their  recommendation  like  Caitlyn  Jenner  being  normal  more  bizarre.

xxxxxx  E N D S  xxxxxx

http://the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/psychology-political-diversity.pdf

Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science

José L. Duarte, Arizona State University
Jarret T. Crawford, The College of New Jersey Charlotta Stern, Stockholm University
Jonathan Haidt, New York University—Stern School of Business Lee Jussim, Rutgers University
Philip E. Tetlock, University of Pennsylvania

Corresponding Author: Jonathan Haidt, haidt@nyu.edu

Abstract: Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of non- liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

Keywords: Social psychology, diversity, politics, bias, sociology of science

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s