It will be interesting to read the paper when it comes out.

I don't see much in the article to suggest it's about views that come out in papers.

The disclosure of which applicant is conservative or liberal could come anywhere in the application process, from statements made over a beer, to comments about music, hair style, clothes, to stereotypes based on place of origin, or disclosure of religious faith or religious activities.

The disclosure of which paper are authored by conservatives can come not from the paper, but from experience with the author, meetings at conferences, gossipy emails, etc.

If you visit the websites of the two authors, they do not appear to be terribly conservative. They look like young academics, and likely liberals themselves.

http://yoelinbar.net/
http://lammers.socialpsychology.org/publications

thurstonxhowell: RolandGunner: thurstonxhowell: If I can tell what your ideology is from a scientific paper, that piece of shiat belongs in a trash heap.


That would be a big trash heap.

Only because idiots like you define going from data to conclusion instead of the other way around as liberal.



Confirmation bias. You have it.

culebra: "Many"? My goodness that sounds terrifyingly vague! And vaguely terrifying!

The important thing is that we all come to realize that conservatives are the real victims here, and have been all along.

God told them that they should be in charge of this great nation, and ergo, His whole world. It's common sense.

But ivory tower elitists, homosexuals, minorities, and foreigners all have their own agendas.

It's frankly oppressive.

FTFA: This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions "were so blatant that I thought we'd get a much lower rate of agreement," Mr. Inbar said. "Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they'd discriminate against minorities."

Um, no.

Minorities don't dominate the talk radio world, own the most powerful and pervasive news network in the country and run the entire Republican Party.

Well, if the Moonie Times says it, it must be true.

A common trait among those on the left (as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread) is that they are so smart and moral that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition stupid and/or a bad person. Yet they believe that they are the open minded ones.

Meliorist: A common trait among those on the left (as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread) is that they are so smart and moral that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition stupid and/or a bad person. Yet they believe that they are the open minded ones.

Conservatives are the real victims here. I knew it!

And if somebody was discriminating against hiring liberals you would have the same people who are defending this behavior based on their own misconceptions about conservatives... in a fit of absolute rage.

It wouldn't even be hard to figure out what they say.

"I guess unless you're some flag waving right wing redneck then you need not apply", or something to that effect.

The crack about the two universities that wouldn't hire liberals because they're Christian universities is also funny... Considering the mile long list of cases of students being discriminated against for expressing anything other than liberal views, and the well documented cases of "be liberal or forget ever getting a job at this university".

Meliorist: A common trait among those on the left (as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread) is that they are so smart and moral that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition stupid and/or a bad person. Yet they believe that they are the open minded ones.

And a common trait by many conservative christians is that anyone who doesn't agree with them is morally inferior and lazy.

Gee, its almost as if people tend to judge other people when they make belief choices that are diametrically opposed to their own.

I wouldn't hire a social conservative if I found out they were one, just like I wouldn't hire a flat earther or a believer in phrenology if they offered up their opinions on that nonsense in an interview.

Social dominance theory identifies several mechanisms by which hierarchies are developed and maintained (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). First, according to this theory, many social institutions, such as financial organizations, educational bodies, and religious establishments, tend to distribute desired goods to dominant and powerful collectives disproportionately. These dominant collectives, such as affluent sectors of society, for example, receive undue levels of money, prestige, power, and health care, for example. In contrast, these social institutions allocate undesirable commodities, such as dangerous work, incarceration, and contempt, towards subordinate collectives.

Link

Financial organizations - Mostly economic conservatives. Check.
Religious establishments - Mostly social conservatives. Check.
Educational bodies - Mostly progressives. Gotta work on this!

Dangerous work, incarceration, and contempt - No problem, we have plenty of minorities.

meow said the dog: Intelligent people who enjoy science do not wish to hire individuals who support the anti-scientific cause. Wow this is such the surprising thing!

There are many scientists who are Christians but you go on pretending otherwise.

I can see a headline already.

Affirmative Action: Do conservatives deserve it more than blacks?

Have you seen the conservatives lately? They don't believe in science and evolution, think education is elitist, want to cut taxes for the rich but tax the poor, their immigration policy is deport them all, etc etc.

I would need to seriously question the intellect of a conservative as well.

FTA: Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans. By contrast, about 20 percent of the general population are liberal and 40 percent are conservative.

I like how the author of this "article" not only conflates the terms Republican and conservative (and Democrat and liberal), she does so misleadingly to make a point.

Lsherm: Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.

This seem to fit with the behavior of most people in this thread.

Accordingly, over time, dominant individuals become especially likely to embrace the myths that legitimize hierarchies, called a social dominance orientation. Indeed, social dominance orientation is higher in dominant groups than subordinate groups, especially in individuals who identify strongly with their own collective (e.g., Levin & Sidanius, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Discrimination is also more rampant in individuals who experience social dominance orientation and identify with their dominant group (Overbeck, Jost, Mosso, Flizik, 2004).

We all perpetuate myths that legitimize our dominant position in society.

Liberals are smarter than conservatives. Just ask them. Conservatives are more moral than liberals. Just ask them. Rich people are harder working, urban dwellers are more knowledgeable.

Etc. etc.

moralpanic: Have you seen the conservatives lately? They don't believe in science and evolution, think education is elitist, want to cut taxes for the rich but tax the poor, their immigration policy is deport them all, etc etc.

I would need to seriously question the intellect of a conservative as well.

The important thing here is to understand that all conservatives think alike in every respect. I can tell, because the people that hate them tell me so.

Meliorist: A common trait among those on the left (as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread) is that they are so smart and moral that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition stupid and/or a bad person

Let me guess. By pointing out that you just pulled that out of your ass and it means nothing, I'm somehow proving your point?

The fact that conservatives go to such great lengths to be wrong doesn't diminish anyone but conservatives.

ko_kyi: moralpanic: Have you seen the conservatives lately? They don't believe in science and evolution, think education is elitist, want to cut taxes for the rich but tax the poor, their immigration policy is deport them all, etc etc.

I would need to seriously question the intellect of a conservative as well.

The important thing here is to understand that all conservatives think alike in every respect. I can tell, because the people that hate them tell me so.

I never said that, obviously some are going to mix and match what they believe, but those are their platforms and principles. Do you disagree with that? If you do, then tell me what kind of conservative you are.

The article is deliberately misusing the words "discriminate" and "minority". In the western consciousness those words are meant for legally defined purposes. Conservative does not meet the legally definition of minority or discriminate. This article is invalid because it is using biased phrasing to create a nonexistent problem.

moralpanic: I never said that, obviously some are going to mix and match what they believe, but those are their platforms and principles. Do you disagree with that? If you do, then tell me what kind of conservative you are.

One that doesn't fit a stereotype. Pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization, anti huge government debt, not religious, protective of my rights as defined in the constitution, pro business. A lot more libertarian than conservative, but hell, on Fark, admitting you don't agree with whatever came out of Obama's mouth last week is like admitting you eat babies.

ko_kyi: moralpanic: Have you seen the conservatives lately? They don't believe in science and evolution, think education is elitist, want to cut taxes for the rich but tax the poor, their immigration policy is deport them all, etc etc.

I would need to seriously question the intellect of a conservative as well.

The important thing here is to understand that all conservatives think alike in every respect. I can tell, because the people that hate them tell me so.

The important thing here is to understand that all liberals think alike in every respect. I can tell, because the people that hate them tell me so.

Both sides have been caricatured to the point that it's hard to imagine anyone seeing common ground any time in the near future. Compromise is now a dirty word, because you don't compromise with the enemy.

ko_kyi: moralpanic: I never said that, obviously some are going to mix and match what they believe, but those are their platforms and principles. Do you disagree with that? If you do, then tell me what kind of conservative you are.

One that doesn't fit a stereotype. Pro gay marriage, pro pot legalization, anti huge government debt, not religious, protective of my rights as defined in the constitution, pro business. A lot more libertarian than conservative, but hell, on Fark, admitting you don't agree with whatever came out of Obama's mouth last week is like admitting you eat babies.

You're just wrapping up the derp in nicer words. 'Pro-business' is an idiotic term. Nobody is anti-business. But what 'pro-business' means in the Republican party today is tax cuts for the rich and getting the poor to 'put a little more skin into the game'. And the 'constitution'... believing that something written hundreds of years ago should be set in stone, despite it being written in a time before large cities, professional police force, a standing military, arms that went from a musket taking 30secs to load and fire a single shot to automatic assault rifles. Ya, there was a time when everybody should probably own a gun, but we live in different times now.

No, you're just as moronic as them all. You're just too deep into the derp to see it. You're a true believer.

Conservative thought processes are based on a THEORY of multiple realities, which remain to be proven by the scientific method. That, and the fact that if they are right, they haven't evolved enough in the 6,000 years of Earth's existence to handle anything more complicated than emptying trash cans.

moralpanic: No, you're just as moronic as them all. You're just too deep into the derp to see it. You're a true believer.

Wow, you're so smart and perceptive. What an eye opener.

Douche.

ko_kyi: moralpanic: No, you're just as moronic as them all. You're just too deep into the derp to see it. You're a true believer.

Wow, you're so smart and perceptive. What an eye opener.

Douche.

Mija: meow said the dog: Intelligent people who enjoy science do not wish to hire individuals who support the anti-scientific cause. Wow this is such the surprising thing!

There are many scientists who are Christians but you go on pretending otherwise.

1) Christian != conservative. There are scores of liberal Christians in the United States.
2) Scientists who are Christian (about 60% in general, but only about 3-5% of elite scientists, i.e. in the National Academy of Sciences or the British Royal Society) do not inject their beliefs into the work. For the overwhelming majority of them, their beliefs are orthogonal to their work.
3) Dr. Piglucci's point in the article about no data yet on discrimination against an overtly liberal candidate is rather important. If data in that line comes to similar conclusions. it may in fact reveal a general lack of tolerance for candidates who wish to inject their personal beliefs and biases into their work. Academics are there to discover, to create, to teach, and to learn. The vast majority are not there to have their pre-existing beliefs validated by their surroundings. Academics welcome rational discourse, debate, challenge, and contrarian views that are expressed with data, facts, coherent theories, and logic - even if that discourse or debate is heated and emotional. They don't like people who act like they have nothing left to learn and have all of life's answers.

Yeah, throwing your hat into the same ring as unrepentent, bigoted assholes has consequences. Maybe time to meaningfully distance yourselves from the loonies, eh, conservatives?

What's that? Maybe next year? OK fine, your name will go in the fark-you pile for now.

What are these "openly conservative" beliefs they are being discriminated? Acting like an asshole doesn't award you victim status.

A challenge to conservatives in this thread: what widely-held conservative beliefs should be subject to government-based anti-discrimination laws? Do any of these beliefs possibly conflict with, or could they interfere with, social science work?

Please, be detailed in your answers.

A clarification for the above: it should read, "what beliefs should be protected by government-based anti-discrimination laws"?

Liberals: We reject racist, bigoted, sexist, discriminatory,anti-intellectual, or anti-science ideologies and don't want to work with people who subscribe to such ideologies.

Conservatives: See, liberals are intolerant and close-minded to other viewpoints! Why can't they just accept our right to be racist, sexist, discriminatory bigots who reject science and spit on the education system? It's so rude that they don't want to hire us despite our higher probability of refusing to do certain types of work due to our religious/moral beliefs!

abb3w: sendtodave: [...]receive undue levels[...]

There's a pretty subtle assumption hiding in the middle of that. By what means does one measure what someone ought to be due something?

That said: yes, this looks like it may be an actual bias. Yancy's Compromising Scholarship is essential reading on the topic. Mind you, not all his points seem solid, and his pile of data may in part be due to biased search; but it's a non-trivial pile.

Contrariwise, there are empirical studies which link certain forms of "conservative" thinking to significant difficulties with abstract reasoning. The prejudice may not be utterly without justification.

Nohow... yeah, the SDO research is kind of interesting. I wonder how it cross-correlates to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Hmm, I wouldn't go so far to say that there are no actual differences between certain people, or even between certain groups of people, and that they can't be ranked. More that they are often ranked unfairly, mostly due to who is doing the ranking. Incorrect conclusions could be drawn.

"Conservatives tend to have difficulty with certain types of abstract thinking" shouldn't lead one to conclude they are not, as a whole, smart enough for certain jobs, or more to the point, that they are "not as smart as people like me." That's just stereotyping and in-group favoritism.

As for correlation with the Dunning-Kruger effect, I can't really say, but I think that overvaluing one's own ability (or one's group) and undervaluing the ability others kinda makes sense in a hierarchical, competative environment.

Maybe if conservatives weren't actually, objectively farktards, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I am more than happy to judge someone as stupid and/or evil if they believe in stupid and/or evil things.

PillsHere: Liberals: We reject racist, bigoted, sexist, discriminatory,anti-intellectual, or anti-science ideologies and don't want to work with people who subscribe to such ideologies.

Conservatives: See, liberals are intolerant and close-minded to other viewpoints! Why can't they just accept our right to be racist, sexist, discriminatory bigots who reject science and spit on the education system? It's so rude that they don't want to hire us despite our higher probability of refusing to do certain types of work due to our religious/moral beliefs!

Right on. Reject their hierarchical views of reality, and substitute your own!

ArkAngel: tlchwi02: well, conservatives have spent the last 30ish years attacking science and scientists. they mock college educations and attack the very colleges themselves. Why is it shocking then that college employees who consider themselves scientists would be skeptical of a self-professed political conservative?

Black people have spent the last 30ish years mocking those who would get an education and the schools themselves. Why would any school hire a black person?

You're born black; whether one agrees with the dominant black culture (or the stereotypical racist view of black culture) is a matter of personal choice, and it would be unjust to assume that every black person is an ignorant felon. You're not born a conservative, unless your mother drinks too much when she's pregnant. It's a set of beliefs and ideals that one chooses to subscribe to, and if those beliefs and ideals are not only nonsense, but an insult to the intelligence of any thinking human being (hint: they are,) then it is understandable that one might prefer to hire someone who does not subscribe to those beliefs. Given the vocal misogyny and racism of many on the right, it also may be prudent to avoid hiring them simply to avoid lawsuits.

The irony is that most conservative faculty, which includes myself, are in STEM areas and universities with STEM programs. And guess which area is the only one being promoted right now for job creation and to advance the sciences and engineering???
Hint, it's not humanities or women's studies majors...wait for it....it's the stem programs which most conservative faculty migrate towards. So enjoy those student loans with the liberal studies degree. Make sure you can say, do you want fries with that you 'enlightened' fools.

Yes, I undestand this. I'm a conservative who works in the accounting field, and I regularly discriminate against and refuse to hire liberals. So, we're cool, right?

brianbankerus: And I don't even think it meant for individuals to own guns, but a "well regulated militia", if memory serves me.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's fairly clear that the individual has the right to bear arms, and the reason for that is that a militia was considered necessary to national defense, militia in this context meaning all adult males of military age. Of course, these days we have a standing army, so one could argue that the amendment is obsolete and should be altered, but pretending it says something it doesn't won't help your cause; it just makes you look like a disingenuous douchebag.

At the other end of the political spectrum, gun nuts sure do like to pretend the amendment doesn't include the words "well regulated."

Proteios1: The irony is that most conservative faculty, which includes myself, are in STEM areas and universities with STEM programs. And guess which area is the only one being promoted right now for job creation and to advance the sciences and engineering???
Hint, it's not humanities or women's studies majors...wait for it....it's the stem programs which most conservative faculty migrate towards. So enjoy those student loans with the liberal studies degree. Make sure you can say, do you want fries with that you 'enlightened' fools.

So what you're saying is that these conservatives like yourself weren't hired because they were arrogant douchebags?

Um, I have never had an interview where I was asked my political views. Not sure if it's against the law to do so but more lilely, who cares? Why bother? Frankly I wouldn't care to work for a company or at a school where your political opinions were a consideration in your hiring.

So if these liberal academic discriminated against conservatives, how would they know against whom to discriminate? They couldn't know the person's opinions before the interview because if they did they would simply not call him in for an interview. The conservatives in question must have said something duing the interview to make their political opinions known. If you go into an interview and say "Just to let you know, I am deeply religious and politically conservative, hope that doesn't affect my odds of getting the job," it is not your interviewer's fault if you fail to get the job. Where I come from, this is called "flubbing the interview." If you can't come up with a non-confrontational way to express your opinions on the odd chance they are requested, or you force them unrequested on your interviewer, you probably lack the social skills to work in academia anyway. Are there conservative academics who managed to hide their opinions and now are viewed with loathing by their liberal colleagues? Undoubtedly. But that is a far cry from failing a political litmus test and being denied employment because of your opinions.

Just don't wear your trucker cap and Confederate flag wifebeater to the interview.