Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

by Guest Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is the field of social psychology biased against political conservatives? There has been intense debate about this question since an informal poll of over 1,000 attendees at a social psychology meeting in 2011 revealed the group to be overwhelmingly liberal. Formal surveys have produced similar results, showing the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the broader field of psychology is 14-to-1.

Since then, social psychologists have tried to figure out why this imbalance exists. The primary explanation offered is that the field has an anticonservative bias. I have no doubt that this bias exists, but it’s not strong enough to push people who lean conservative out of the field at the rate they appear to be leaving. I believe that a less prominent explanation is more compelling: learning about social psychology can make you more liberal. I know about this possibility because it is exactly what happened to me.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/psychologists-are-known-for-being-liberal-but-is-that-because-they-understand-how-people-think/

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:05 pm

You still miss the point of treating everyone with normality Victor.
Again problems arise only because we create them and treat people different, does it not?

Its all about treating people naturally.

People are only here to have a voice, one that lacks the confidence to be more vocal. They seek it in others

You argue off the extreme Victor and still attempt to deny freedom of choice. Its their choice not yours or mine.

That is freedom. Choice to decide.

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:12 pm

Cuchulain wrote:You still miss the point of treating everyone with normality Victor.
Again problems arise only because we create them and treat people different, does it not?

Its all about treating people naturally.

People are only here to have a voice, one that lacks the confidence to be more vocal. They seek it in others

You argue off the extreme Victor and still attempt to deny freedom of choice. Its their choice not yours or mine.

That is freedom. Choice to decide.

so isis is "normal then???

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:14 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:You still miss the point of treating everyone with normality Victor.
Again problems arise only because we create them and treat people different, does it not?

Its all about treating people naturally.

People are only here to have a voice, one that lacks the confidence to be more vocal. They seek it in others

You argue off the extreme Victor and still attempt to deny freedom of choice. Its their choice not yours or mine.

That is freedom. Choice to decide.

so isis is "normal then???

Of course, to Isis supporters yes they are but do they treat others as normal Victor?

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:23 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

so isis is "normal then???

Of course, to Isis supporters yes they are but do they treat others as normal Victor?

ah well now then theres a good point.....you THEN have to ask who's "reality" is "real"

remember my point when we were talking about evil and who gets to decide
and I made the point about two societies side by side

one which is "good" by our standards and the other entirely evil by our standards

and I said we can ONLY judge by OUR (and thus biased) opinion

since to the two societies each could equally well say that the other was "evil"

thats my point you cannot determine what "normal" is to any degree of sharpness, since what YOU consider normal" may well be an entirely differnt kettle of fish to waht I, or TM or Stalin or Ghengis Khan would (have)consider(ed) normal

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:27 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Of course, to Isis supporters yes they are but do they treat others as normal Victor?

ah well now then theres a good point.....you THEN have to ask who's "reality" is "real"

remember my point when we were talking about evil and who gets to decide
and I made the point about two societies side by side

one which is "good" by our standards and the other entirely evil by our standards

and I said we can ONLY judge by OUR (and thus biased) opinion

since to the two societies each could equally well say that the other was "evil"

thats my point you cannot determine what "normal" is to any degree of sharpness, since what YOU consider normal" may well be an entirely differnt kettle of fish to waht I, or TM or Stalin or Ghengis Khan would (have)consider(ed) normal

You are playing off negatives again mate.
You treat everyone with normality.
It matters not what someone has done to being treated with normality.
If you do not treat someone well you are abnormal.

Night

by Guest Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:55 pm

semantics didge...

define treating well

you cant...EXCEPT from the narrow perspective of "our" (collective) experience....

moreover WHO says that treating some one "well" (however you define that) is the best possible outcome
OR the correct thing to do
or the most beneficial thing to do (who benefits? and why? and how?)

Isis would consider themselves "normal" as you agree....and yet.......

the pacifist Jaines would consider them selves equally "normal"......

we consider "us" (our society) to be "normal"

so who IS normal?

kinda depends on your world view I guess

by Guest Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:51 am

Of course I can define treating well and where your position falls down Victor, where we are back to the well being of people. ISISdeny the well being of people so they are not treating people normally are they?
They are treating people abnormally. Look back to the set standard created on this.

by Guest Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:50 am

Cuchulain wrote:Of course I can define treating well and where your position falls down Victor, where we are back to the well being of people. ISISdeny the well being of people so they are not treating people normally are they?

By who's terms of reference?????

They are treating people abnormally. Look back to the set standard created on this.

by Guest Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:51 am

The well being of each other.
Are you suggesting people donot want to be treated well?
There is your measure.

by Sponsored content

Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?

Re: Psychologists are known for being liberal – but is that because they understand how people think?