Conservatism: Thought Disorder in Need of a Cure
Why no conservative should trust my profession.
Published on April 8, 2010
This post is a response to Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives by Satoshi Kanazawa
In a recent blog entry, Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives, Satoshi Kanazawa wrote this:
...apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life."
He reported that liberals possess higher IQs than conservatives, with "very liberal" people averaging 106.42 while the "very conservative" among us average 94.82. Inflammatory words, and they have received generous press coverage. Admittedly, I responded rather hastily to his posting with one of my own. I have since removed my original response because it was not as even-handed or informed as it should have been.
It is not that I was not personally offended. Rather, his findings struck me as remarkably improbable, most likely the result of a flawed study, and certainly part of a pervasive anti-conservative problem in psychology.
And yes, I would expect research on the mental inferiority of liberals to be equally flawed.
My suspicions have since been substantiated. Dr. Kanazawa's blog posting appears to have been based on his recent journal article, Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent. I have examined his methodology in detail at ironshrink.com and found it to be deeply flawed.
It is a long essay. I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say, I don't believe his study is to be taken seriously. And that is a shame.
Dr. Kanazawa seems like a decent man, and it is admirable that he is unconstrained by the hypersensitivity of others. Unfortunately, he appears to have recklessly exacerbated a serious problem in the field of psychology: our transparent and irrational animosity toward conservatives.
Psychology, which is unquestionably dominated by liberals, has developed an ugly habit of falsely maligning the political right. Through respectable-looking "research" we sling mud with flawed data and tendentious methodology (see here, for example).
These bogus studies build on each other to create an inbred, incoherent body of literature that will be cited with unquestioning faith by the next conservative-bashing researcher. And there are plenty of them. A simple PsycINFO* search for the word "Democrat" returns 324 articles. "Republican" yields more than double, at 688 articles. Clearly, psychologists have deemed conservatives worthy of a special level of research. The bulk of that research is "unflattering," in the words of Professor Richard Redding, J.D., Ph.D.
Redding believes that psychology's anti-conservative bias is more than unfair, it is potentially damaging: "psychology's pervasive liberal Zeitgeist may adversely affect treatment or program effectiveness with politically conservative clients and communities" (p. 311). He suggests four strategies for mitigating this bias:
* Explore conservative alternatives to problems so that the profession can benefit from the wisdom of more than one ideology.
* Expand the notion of cultural diversity to include diversity of ideas.
* Enrich training curricula to explore and challenge both liberal and conservative wisdom.
* Separate science from advocacy so that advocacy efforts are based upon empirical data rather than the dominant ideology of the field.
Sounds lovely, but I won't hold my breath. It appears that most of my colleagues are willing to tolerate this profession's bizarre mix of ideological warfare and compassionate healing. If it were otherwise, the methodology in papers like Kanazawa's latest would never survive the peer-review process. We bill ourselves as a healers, but what conservative would trust us in the face of such hostility?
References:
Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.
Redding, R.E. (2005). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: the case for pluralism. In Wright, R.H. & Cummings, N.A. (eds.) Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm (303-324). New York: Routledge.
My deconstruction of Kanazawa’s methodology in Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent can be found at www.ironshrink.com.
* PsycINFO is a searchable database of peer-reviewed psychology journals
psychologytoday.com
Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives? Another Broken Study Says It Is So
ironshrink.com
Do Psychologists Hate Conservatives?
Do psychologists hate conservatives?
Published on November 19, 2009
I am concerned that there is a growing problem in my profession, and I'm hoping that you will share your thoughts in the comments section at the bottom of this page. Here's the problem: I have noticed that some of my colleagues openly despise a certain segment of the population.
Don't get me wrong - psychology may be the friendliest profession in the world. Where else will someone take such pains to truly understand you and whatever problem you are facing? We pride ourselves on our appreciation of diversity, our tolerance, and our love of humanity... unless you happen to be politically conservative.
The field of psychology seems to house a special animosity toward conservatives. Since joining the stable of Psychology Today bloggers, I have been astounded at the open hostility that is displayed on these pages. For example...
* One blogger titled a post: "Republicans on health care: vicious, or just plain stupid?" Those are the only options? Reasonable people cannot disagree?
* Also on the topic of healthcare reform, a different blogger described critics as "idiotic spittle-spewing town hall demonstrators ranting about communism." How open-minded.
* Another blogger openly mocks enthusiastic Sarah Palin supporters. If there is a similar entry mocking Obama supporters, I can't find it.
* Another blogger dismisses legitimate concerns of conservatives as paranoia. This is a transparent attempt to kill debate through ad-hominem attack.
* Yet another has endorsed a fatally-flawed study suggesting that conservatives are dogmatic, narrow-minded, and less intelligent than liberals. The study itself is nothing more than name-calling on steroids.
I could go on. All of that is in keeping with psychology's tradition of vilifying people on the right. My profession has published several scientific-looking "studies" illustrating the mental and personal deficiencies of conservatives. To my knowledge, there are no similar studies aimed at liberals. Nor should there be.
I have deconstructed a couple of those papers, including the aforementioned study, here and here. Their methodology is egregious, as could only be the case. Statistics 101 teaches that any two groups of people are far more similar than different. Painting one group as flatly inferior to another, as do these studies, requires logical and statistical dishonesty.
Most of my left-leaning colleagues support open, good-natured debate. But a minority of them clearly strive to prevent debate by vilifying those with whom they disagree.
I contend that the field of psychology has become a safe haven for anyone who wishes to vent their untempered hatred of conservatives.
Do you agree? Why, or why not?
And if you are a conservative, Republican, or Libertarian, what is your opinion of my profession? Does our behavior toward you color your willingness to employ our services?
I've said my piece... now hit that comment button, please. (And let's keep it civil.)
psychologytoday.com |
