Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist at the University of Virginia: “If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”
Now this is nothing new, everyone knows that bias exists, it’s a common human trait that knows no boundaries, all are effected in some measure, others even more so. It’s amusing however, for a scientist to discover to his amazement, that shock, his field of psychology is grossly biased, so much so that it’s members skew results and omit facts when they don’t correspond with their ”sacred values”.
Though this deals exclusively with the social sciences, you can easily include global warming science fraud and media manipulation as well. Both groups rally around their high calling as professionals saving the world from itself, and have overwhelmingly proven themselves to be biased, even to the extent of doctoring data and reports in order to come to the “right results and conclusions”.
The TT can’t say for sure just what the political demographics are in the GW science industry, but the media is overtly Left-wing in the US and here in Europe, which means Finland as well. It wouldn’t surprise to know that the numbers of scientists who promte GW are Lefties. KGS
NOTE: It’s also one of the reasons why the findings of social psychologist Nicolai Sennels work is rejected by them, it doesn’t fit into their neatly bound system of “sacred values”
H/T Weasel Zippers
Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
NYT: SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.
Viktor Koen
How do your moral intuitions shape your political ideology?
You can get a personalized answer by filling out a short questionnaire at Your Morals, a research project of Jonathan Haidt, the subject of this Findings column, and six other social psychologists.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
“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.”
