Conservatives in Science and the Psychology of Politics

This is an interesting article.

We need to acknowledge that different people have different personalities and cognitive styles, and ensure we appeal to them all. Some of these psychological features will make teaching science more difficult, but we must resist simply calling those individuals stupid or dogmatists, and instead mitigate their intuitive responses in order to persuade them of the value of the scientific approach, even if they don’t want to participate in it themselves.

Hmm. I'd say the trouble with the article's argument is that there's more than one kind of "conservative". In the US, the following are associated with conservatism to some degree:

• Libertarian economic views. People with these views probably don't actually object to science but are more likely to pursue careers in the humanities.
• Hawkish foreign policy views. Again, not anti-science, but probably pushes people toward to humanities.
• Christian fundamentalism. Obviously this doesn't go well with science.
• A rejection of "touchy-feely" and "politically correct" thinking. This attitude would tend to push people towards the sciences and away from the humanities.

^ Then you have the fact those types of conservatism mix. I myself am all but the Christian one.

Thing is, Tom, it strikes me that your brand of conservatism - that is to say, secular conservatism - seems quite rare on your side of the Atlantic.

Or at the very least, secular conservatives don't seem to have much of a voice in the Republican Party.

edited 14th Jan '11 2:00:15 PM by pagad

More like very vocal stereotype. Secular conservatives are the majority but we don't have enough votes on our own to counteract die hard liberals and potential independent swings. Yet anyways. The conservative side has had very much a quiet disapproval of the bible thumper types in recent years.

Thus politically we have to be a bit more broad and if that means using the bible thumpers as a means to an end so be it. The left does the same thing broadening their scope to include less than likable parts of their side like eco-hippies or die hard communists.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the die hard communists hate the rest of us as much as they hate you guys.

But regarding conservatives and science, most conservative types I've met have been pretty pro-science (or, at worst, pro-science except when it suits them not to be, which goes for both sides of the left-right spectrum), so I find the suggestion that conservatives would be less open to science than anybody else a bit weird.

edited 14th Jan '11 2:12:46 PM by BobbyG

I would've guessed the demographic skew would have been more due to regional differences in quality of education. However, this also seems noteworthy:

The first is that scientists are hostile towards Republicans, which scares young Republicans away from careers in science.

While not quite so much in high school, I saw a lot of this at UO. Hippies are fucking obnoxious.

It’s also not hard to see that high Openness is desirable for a career in science; a closed minded, uncurious individual is unlikely to go far in their high school science class, let alone in an academic environment, no matter how intelligent they are otherwise.

Doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. A lot of the people throughout my physics major seemed more likely to consider science some kind of sword to brandish instead of a tool of discovery. These were some of the most closed-minded individuals I've ever seen, only receptive to this particular topic because their predispositions caused them to value it more highly than the cultures around them.

I do feel that the mistrust of science needs to be tackled, but tying it to conservatism seems considerably less accurate and more politically biased than tying it to insular cultures with poor education standards.

^^^ Yeah but the Democrats are hardly beholden to communists and other far-left ideologies, whereas it seems that the Republican party suffers from having to pander to its religious right base far more.

Thing is, the notion of the left having any real influence in the Democratic party seems rather laughable, considering that they seem to occupy a centre-right position more than anything from where I'm sitting.

^^ Bobby, you're British as well, right? I really don't think the British Conservative Party is even comparable to the Republican Party in that regard, all the Tories I know are more or less secular, and at least half of them are atheists to boot.

edited 14th Jan '11 2:24:23 PM by pagad

Around here some people have claimed that it's the humanities which is a Left thing, and the Right is what tends to go into sciences and engineering. I actually have some anecdotal evidence, even.

In my own experience, I've found more conservatives than liberals in the sciences over at my college.

I'm seeing a lot more conservatives at OSU, but keep in mind it's about as close to Flyover Country as you're going to see a college get, and a good deal of the engineering here is closely linked to the agriculture industry.

The difference I'm seeing between OSU and the small town I came from is that as a college, qualified teachers are actually jumping at the chance to teach there. How often do you see qualified teachers chomping at the bit to move to Bumfuck, Kansas (no offense to Bumfuck, Kansas) and spread the love? You end up with circumstances rather similar to your standard inner-city ghetto, except with even worse mobility issues.

edited 14th Jan '11 2:55:20 PM by Pykrete

@ pagad: Yeah, I'm British. I guess it could be to do with religion rather than politics then? But most Christians I've met IRL have been liberal anyway, with some exceptions.

And by liberal you mean?

(This is not meant as an accusation, I'm just curious.)

Leftists.

Sorry about that, you were right to ask; I don't use that word consistently at all.

I suppose you mean Christian socialists. They're pretty rare over here, or at any rate most Christians don't want to identify as such.

Some of them were almost certainly socialists, but I just meant generally. Most Christians I've met have been left, or left-leaning.

I suppose this article makes sense to me. But really? No, we don't need alternate teaching methods to reach out to future Republicans. If they don't want in, they can stay out.

That's quite easy to say when you come from an area likely to have teachers who were qualified in the first place to teach you.

edited 14th Jan '11 3:21:53 PM by Pykrete

I think the argument made by the article is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the issue is one of thought processes rather than conscious beliefs.

Also, if 6% of scientists are Republicans, 30% are independents, and 64% are Democrats, then we shouldn't be getting Republicans in; we should be getting Democrats out and independents in. Scientists, even more than other people, should be as detached from issues of political Blueness and Greenness as possible.

What a strange assumption, that Democrats would be inherently unable to stay neutral in the field.

IF college is any indication, that is indeed impossible.

While not quite so much in high school, I saw a lot of this at UO. Hippies are fucking obnoxious.

...scientists = hippies...? I am confused.

edited 14th Jan '11 7:05:57 PM by Tzetze

Individual scientists, as with every other person on the planet, will never be completely neutral. Therefore it's important for them to state their biases and give solid evidence that can be scrutinized and repeated so that the bias of individual scientists is mitigated as much as possible.

^^ There were several in my classes. Thankfully less than the usual cross section of campus.

What college?

Also, independent doesn't always mean independent of political mindset and motives. It often means

1) Detached from politics

2) Detached from the political parties (different than 1)

3) In the "middle" of the two major parties

4) So far to the "left" or "right" that the person doesn't identify as D or R respectively.

edited 14th Jan '11 7:31:00 PM by UnabashedFornicator