Diversity Training - Agreeing With Liberals For The Wrong Reasons
Because 12 years of public schooling with liberal cat lady teachers didn #39;t drill it into you enough. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art...
By: Morrakiu
Continued here:
Diversity Training - Agreeing With Liberals For The Wrong Reasons - Video
Obama , Jews Liberals
What Else Is New?
By: LMSTactical
Continue reading here:
Obama , Jews & Liberals - Video
By Maya Sen and Jennifer Hochschild February 27 at 3:06 PM
Many people think that political beliefs predict how people respond to science and technology issues. Conservatives, many believe, tend to be more skeptical or distrustful of science and technology, while liberals tend to be more accepting and encouraging. But this accepted wisdom doesnt always hold. For example, on the current flare-up regarding the vaccination of children against measles and other illnesses, we are increasingly seeing the strongest anti-vaccination sentiment in what are traditionally very liberal parts of the country.
This presents a puzzle. If politics doesnt always explain why some people embrace scientific research and why others are skeptical, then what does?
In an article recently published in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, we find that the answer lies not just in our views on politics or whether we are conservative or liberal. Instead, our views about innovations in science and technology may be driven by something more fundamental and more contextual whether we are optimists or pessimists.
The difference between the two is straightforward. When we are optimistic about a new technology or evidence-based public policy (such as compulsory vaccination), we believe that its potential for good outweighs its potential for harm. On the other hand, pessimists are more likely to remind themselves of the potential harm that a technology or policy could bring about, as opposed to its potential benefits. This difference between optimists and pessimists isnt always explained by the standard liberal-conservative divide, although it sometimes correlates with it.
Our study sheds light on the importance of optimism and pessimism by exploring the opinions of one prominent group: academics. Why academics? For one reason, academics write. And they write a lot. But another reason is that academics writing on science and technology issues are opinionated, providing reasoned arguments that serve as clues.
To determine the leanings of academics, we analyzed about 750 well-cited articles on the topic of genomics a new and exploding area, especially after President Obamas recent announcement regarding personalized medicine.
We found that nearly twice as many of the articles expressed optimism rather than pessimism. However, disciplines that are traditionally left-leaning for example, sociology, anthropology and cultural studies (such as race and ethnic studies) are among the most pessimistic on genomics issues, frequently using distrustful or cautionary language. This upends traditional rhetoric and much research, which argues that the political left is more amenable to scientific innovations and the political right less so.
Why is the usual association of liberal ideology and support for science reversed when it comes to genomic science? Left-leaning scholars appear to fear the resurgence of eugenics with regard to race and the possibility of ignoring environmental conditions that lead to medical problems such as high blood pressure or obesity. Left-leaning academics also tend to mistrust pharmaceutical companies.
In contrast, right-leaning scholars focus on the benefits of genomics for solving crimes through forensic databases and tend to be enthusiastic about the enormous economic benefits that genomic science can bring to investors, entrepreneurs, corporations and communities.
Read more:
Monkey Cage: Liberals and conservatives think about genomics in unexpected ways
By Erik C. Nisbet and R. Kelly Garrett February 26 at 10:50 AM
Confidence in the scientific community has diverged along ideological lines over the past two decades. Conservatives trust in science has declined, while the trust of liberals and moderates has remained relatively stable. This divergence threatens policymakers ability to engage in scientifically informed decisionmaking and makes political consensus less likely. But are conservatives unique in discounting science? Our new research suggests not. It turns out that liberals do it, too.
One explanation for the decline in scientific trust among conservatives is the Republican War on Science, purported to have emerged in the late 1990s. The claim is that fundamental psychological differences linked to ideology contribute to a scientific deficit unique to conservatives. In other words, conservatives are inherently predisposed to reject scientific evidence and to distrust the scientific community.
We are skeptical of this interpretation and join other researchers in arguing that conservatives and liberals can both be biased in how they process scientific information or trust scientists. Whether liberals or conservatives are more likely to distrust in science will depend on the specific issue under debate.
We recruited a diverse group of 1,500 adults from a national online panel of volunteers and randomly assigned them to read scientifically accurate statements about different science topics. Some read about issues where there is significant partisan divide, including climate change, evolution, nuclear power, and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of natural gas, while others read about issues that tend to be viewed as ideologically neutral, namely geology and astronomy.
Unsurprisingly, we found that conservatives who read statements about climate change or evolution reported more negative emotions and greater resistance to the information, compared to liberals who read the same statements and compared to other conservatives who read statements about geology or astronomy. This lead conservatives who read these messages to report significantly lower trust in the scientific community.
But we found a similar pattern among liberals who read about nuclear power or fracking. Liberals exhibited the same negative emotions and resistance to the information. They also expressed less trust in the scientific community.
One finding was more surprising, and perhaps more distressing. Although liberals who read statements about climate change and evolution reported greater trust in science than conservatives who did the same, these liberals also reported less trust in the scientific community than liberals who read ideologically neutral statements about geology or astronomy. This suggests that partisan battles over science can erode public confidence in the scientific community, even among those predisposed to trust the evidence.
Even though both conservatives and liberals interpret science in a biased fashion, this is not an excuse for either side to do so. Our findings neither exempt nor validate the well-organized and heavily funded climate denialist movement.
We believe that our experiment has two important lessons for science communicators. The first is that political journalismtoo often treats science like a political issue to be debated by non-experts in televised partisan theater. This type of coverage often obscures the actual scientific evidence and consensus, deepens polarization by providing partisan cues for both conservatives and liberals, and depresses confidence in the scientific community among liberals and conservatives alike.
Follow this link:
Monkey Cage: Biased interpretations of science? Liberals do it, too.
By Allison Jones, The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Ontario's Liberals brought "The War on Science" to the legislature Thursday, using the National Geographic cover story to mock a Progressive Conservative who doesn't believe in evolution landing them in some hot water with the Speaker.
As the opposition parties demanded answers on allegations on ongoing police investigations into the governing party, Liberal members brandished copies of the magazine on their desks and some shouted heckles about the Tory backbencher's anti-evolution stance.
"I really do want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ontario PC Party on being the cover story of the current issue of National Geographic magazine," said Deputy Premier Deb Matthews.
Props are not allowed in the house and Speaker Dave Levac reminded MPPs that it was his job "to try to reach some decorum" in the legislature.
"I'd like all members to be helpful with that," he said and later ordered the sergeant-at-arms to take away Matthews's copy of the publication.
The Liberal stunt was aimed at Progressive Conservative Rick Nicholls, who stunned the legislature on Tuesday when he suggested that evolution should not be taught in school. On Wednesday, he surprised even some of his Tory colleagues when he said, "I don't believe in evolution."
The opposition parties accused the Liberals of making fun of Nicholls's personal beliefs as a way to deflect attention from their ongoing scandals three of which are under provincial police investigation, including allegations the Liberals offered a job or appointment to a Sudbury candidate to step aside in a recent byelection.
Matthews said her comment was lighthearted and not an attempt to distract from the Sudbury allegations.
"I think it is a serious issue that there are members of the legislature that reject science and reject the notion that science be taught in schools, but the technique was just a little bit of fun," Matthews said after question period.
Read the original here:
Liberals use magazine to mock Tory MPP