It’s well known that liberals are over-represented in academic and social science fields, that’s something that many liberal academics point out smugly, that conservatives just aren’t smart enough to make it in the educational field. Of course, they ignore the old canard, “those that can, do, those that can’t, teach” and I think to a large degree, that’s actually the case. I’ve often thought that there is a very simple explanation for why liberals are so prevalent in academics, because they spend their time around people who have never experienced the real world and often, they don’t have to deal with reality either. Liberalism is a problem in academics and the social sciences.
I find it funny that a lot of liberals claim that conservatives ignore reality when it is, in fact, liberals who do so most often. We know that most young adults are liberals, they have never had to make it in the real world. They get the majority of their expenses paid for by their parents or, by the time they get to college, by government grants. Most have never had a significant job in their lives, they only know how to sit in a classroom, they don’t actually know how to do anything useful or productive. It’s no surprise that they’re mostly liberal, given their life experience. Their professors, likewise, have mostly never gone beyond being in a classroom either. They get paid by the government, they achieve tenure and are almost immune from termination, they don’t actually have to produce anything worthwhile, they just have to keep vomiting the same ideas over and over, year after year. They just have their hands out for a paycheck from the government and every once in a while, they might take a sabbatical so they can write another book and prove they can actually produce something, whether it’s valuable or not.
The people who have moved beyond the nursery of college life, the ones who have gone out into the real world and been successful, those tend to be conservatives. The overwhelming majority of corporate CEOs are conservative. It isn’t the conservatives who can’t live in the real world, it’s the liberals.
Likewise, there are a lot of liberals in the social sciences field, for the same reason. It’s a bunch of talk and very little action. Yet now we’re finding that this political ideological bias is actually harming the field and doing exactly what most conservatives would have recognized all along. Having mostly liberals involved is resulting in cognitive bias and the suppression of important, but uncomfortable questions. The paper was written by Jonathan Haidt, a well-known and self-professed liberal, known for his Moral Foundations Theory. He concludes that the liberal hold on the social sciences is actually harming the effectiveness of the field and points to several different examples. In one, which I briefly touched on above, a study claimed that conservatives deny reality, then simply interviewed liberal thinkers who agreed with them, declared the liberal ideologues to be spouting reality and anyone who disagreed, most likely to be conservatives, to be “unable to deal with reality”. As much as I’d like to think that this is an isolated incident, I see this kind of “thinking” again and again in liberal belief.
It’s also funny that for liberals who claim to be so opposed to discrimination, that the liberals themselves are absurdly discriminatory. In one survey that was conducted among social psychologists, “82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate.” That’s a ridiculously high number, especially for our social justice friends who claim that any and all discrimination is simply wrong. Of course, we know they only care about discrimination against them and their allies, not against their “enemies”. That kind of discrimination is just fine! We also find that papers that went against liberal sensibilities were rejected from liberal-controlled peer-reviewed journals when they had exactly the same statistical strength and source validity as papers which agreed with liberal sensibilities and were accepted. It is clear that liberal-oriented academics are little more than an echo chamber. They only want to hear what they already accept and reject what they already dislike.
Yet isn’t that exactly what the peer-review process is supposed to avoid? Isn’t it supposed to let all well-supported ideas through while stopping those that are less-supported? That’s how it works in the physical sciences, at least, but in the liberal-controlled social sciences, where most of it is just opinion and not experiment, that’s not really the case. They make up their own rules, then declare their rules to be factually correct, even though they’ve never been through the gauntlet of scientific and rational objective evaluation. Come on guys, even people on your own side are starting to recognize this nonsense for what it is and calling you out on it. Are you going to acknowledge that you have a problem or are you going to continue to revel in your self-congratulatory back-slap-fest?