Social Scientist Sees {Liberal} Bias Within

The New York Times ^ | 7-Feb-2011 | John Tiernay

[mmercier]

I once dated a girl who paid a psychologist $150/hour because she had “intimacy issues”.

He laid her at the last session.

Problem solved.

She is still a loon, just more confused than before..

[mmercier]

I once dated a girl who paid a psychologist $150/hour because she had “intimacy issues”.

He laid her at the last session.

Problem solved.

She is still a loon, just more confused than before..

[MrB]

And how in the world will their “single mothers” get their “crazy checks” if those kids aren’t diagnosed with learning disabilities?

[exDemMom]

Everybody has “mental issues” as you put it. Some deal with them better than others. A good psychologist can help, regardless of political persuasion. A bad psychologist is like a bad plumber - get ‘em out of there before they cause too much damage.

Most psychologists are liberal because of academic orthodoxy,and its rigorous requirements. Psychologists in the public sector (VAs, academia) are far more liberal than private sector psychologists who deal with reality on a day-to-day basis.

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. By "mental issues," I did not mean the many quirks of human behavior which fall within the range of what I consider "normal." (Many of which are listed in the DSM-whatever they're up to these days.) I was, rather, thinking of bona fide mental disorders.

I'm curious as to why academic orthodoxy and its rigorous requirements should cause a preponderance of liberals in the profession. My experience with true academic pursuit is that the necessary foundation in logic and rational thought precludes those who are incapable of that level of thought from participating. But then, I'm a scientist--which, at its purest, is an extremely literal and rational profession.

[Earthdweller]

I agree..everyone has "mental issues" but not everyone has mental illness depending on the success of their coping levels.

As for the large portion of liberals found in this study I would say it is more attributed to the suspicion of Psychology in the conservative sector..meaning..fewer conservatives see it as an viable science to study.

The science itself does not have an ideology, it is just a compilation of theories and tools about the workings of the mind and more recently the physiological workings of the brain.

Conservatives still have a flesh and blood brain..they just use it differently after years of maturity and experience. Many of the foundational studies and theories fall short because they focus on the younger years of development..even though as time has passed, we live decades longer. The science is still very much incomplete..like all other science.

[MrB]

Psychological “science” (1 Tim 6:20), too often, is based on false [worldly] assumptions.
This is why many Americanists [conservatives] are suspicious of it.

[Earthdweller]

"Psychological “science” (1 Tim 6:20), too often, is based on false [worldly] assumptions."

See what I mean..LOL

Most all science(search for truth), not based on a self-fulfilling conclusion, ends up confirming Christians principles in the end, IMO. Think ultrasounds and abortion.

[driftless2]

"mental issues"

Not knowing any shrinks or psychologists, I can neither agree nor disagree with the mental issues argument. However, I think that particular field draws a lot of libs because it represents a study in which many of it's participants believe in the blank slate theory. The bs theory for short. They love the idea that humans are blank canvases unto which any idea can be flung rather that minds that are hardwired in many ways.

These are the people who told us that all behavior is learned and that there are no natural mental talents, just people who had better life situations. I remember reading a book about Hitler called "The Psychopathic God" wherein every evil thing Hitler did was attributed to him reacting to a scene from his early life. Total gibberish.

Libs love the bs theory, because it helps rationalize the fact that humans are not born equal and is unfair. Therefore, under liberalism, and with the help of liberal psychologists and their ilk, they can make the world fair and equal.

[paint_your_wagon]

Not all Psychologists...

I agree and understand. Just like teachers and school administrators.
Not all are bad, but the system they work in is defined and regulated by the left.

[wbill]

Conservatives tend to be a bit brighter, harder working, and accomplished, hence their under-representation in the field of psychology

Yup.

While Liberals are sitting around navel-gazing and talking about doing things, Conservatives are out doing them.

When I was in college, the professorial mantra (particularly in my non-engineer "elective" courses) was "Publish or Perish".... lots of b*tching and complaining about it. At the time, I accepted it as a big deal.

Now that I'm working, I say "what's the big deal?". I "publish or perish" every day that I do my job correctly. And why is it so hard, exactly, to document what you're doing?

But then again, I'm an engineer who *does* things, instead of talking about doing them.

[wbill]

Not knowing any shrinks or psychologists, I can neither agree nor disagree with the mental issues argument

Reaching WAAAAAAY back to my Abnormal Psyche elective...

There are 25(-ish) major symptoms of schizophrenia. I exhibit most of them. I'd suspect that you do, too.

Most of them are utterly harmless, like "You walk into a room and can't remember why you're there." or "Talking to yourself." (Both of which happen to me all the time, BTW.)

No voices in my as of yet though. I'll keep an ear out.

Bottom Line? There surely is a need for psychologists, some people can cope with their issues better than others (for instance, if I can't remember why I got up and went into a room, if I go back to what I was doing.....it always comes back to me instantly), but other people need help.

As for psyche profs, remember that those who can't do, teach. And for those who write books on the subject.... those who can't teach, pontificate.

[neocon1984]

My experience with true academic pursuit is that the necessary foundation in logic and rational thought precludes those who are incapable of that level of thought from participating. But then, I'm a scientist--which, at its purest, is an extremely literal and rational profession.

I guess you have not been in academia for a while or you would recognize that logic as Eurocentric colonialist epistemology that has oppressed women and people of color for centuries. -sarc off

[Cronos]

ouch — sounds like you have had to be “undercover” for a long time! Is the comparison that the guy wrote about (see my comment 1) true then?

[Cronos]

those “proofs” of schizophrenia are terribly broad — as you say, nearly everyone could therefore be labelled schizo.

[neocon1984]

In today’s academia, 99% of psychologists are publicly leftists or far leftists. Otherwise won’t get past the tenure committees. (I chose private practice 25 years ago, when it was terrible, but no where near as bad as today’s “mulitcultural” and “postmodernist” environment).

There may the eccentric libertarian or conservative out there, but they are treated like the schizophrenic homeless uncle at a family reunion.