Why focus on the bad?

One of my graduate students made an interesting point last night. She pointed out that when something bad happens like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor then we develop racial stereotypes that last decades. We ruminate on the negative for years. But when we have a heart-warming story like the rescue of the Chile miners (remember them?) we feel good for a day or two and then move on. Why is it we focus on bad events much longer than good events?
It is one of the reasons I stopped watching local news a long time ago. I do not want to hear about all the murders, corruptions, and calamities that are happening around me. The saying is that if it bleeds it leads. That can not be more true when it comes to local news. Why this focus on the negative?
Believe it or not trouble-maker is an optimist at heart. I rather hear about good news than bad. Maybe I am an anomaly. But it seems that people are more entertained or drawn to tragedy than to pleasant news. I hope that is not part of the human condition but the evidence suggests that it is.
I have a suggestion. Can we try to find the good news in our lives for at least a day? Maybe a week? Who knows? It could catch on and having a positive attitude will be the popular thing to do. I know that I am dreaming but remember I am an optimist.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

The Worst of Us

So the killer in Arizona is a nihilist atheist. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman What does this tell us about atheism? Absolutely nothing. This does not mean that atheism leads to chaos and killing. It means that there is a crazy killer and he happens to be an atheist.
So many times we want to look the the worst representation of an idea or group and use that representation to denounce the entire group. To tie this creep to atheism is just as fair as linking the Westboro Baptist Church www.godhatesfags.com to Christianity.
If we want to evaluate an idea and people tied to the idea we need to stop finding the worst people so that we can demonize them. The key is whether we are going to be honest in our assessment or do we want to tar and feather our enemies. Do we want the truth when we evaluate those we disagree with or do we merely want to win?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Snow!!!!!

Ran across this little tidbit a couple of days ago. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0112/Snow-now-in-49-states?cmpid=addthis_email&sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d2e2314335ac10b%2C0
Okay now I have two predictions. The anti-global warming people will say "see, that is proof that there is no global warming. Uh, no it is not. It may just be an anomaly as we go on the path towards warming. The pro-global warming people can say "hey it is climate change we are worried about and this represents that." But that is the case of having a flexible hypothesis that you change just to match the data. It does not give me much confidence in the theory of global warming.
So how does trouble-maker feel about global warming. Don't know. To much politics is being played with the science surrounding this issue for trouble-maker to have a firm opinion. Sad really. I would like to have a strong opinion on such an important issue. But as long as it is obvious that people are putting their political opinion in front of scientific inquiry, I retain the right to be skeptical.

Sincerely,

Trouble-maker

Bias and Scholarship - Part 4: What does the evidence say?

Okay, so there is the possibility that there is a bias against political and religious conservatives in academia. A lot of people have claimed that they have proved this bias but they really haven't. They usually cite some isolated incidents or the fact that academics are less likely to be political or religious conservatives than the general public. Neither is evidence of academic bias.
But I recently tested this possibility with a survey of academics. In that survey I asked them whether a potential candidate's religious or political belief mattered when hiring a faculty member. I found a variation between scholars in different scientific disciplines, but in all of them a significant number of academics were less likely to hire someone if they were a Republican and even less likely to hire an evangelical or fundamentalist. For example, about 30 percent of the chemists are less likely to hire a candidate if they find out the candidate is an Evangelical Christian. This zooms up to 60 percentage when I looked at anthropologists.
This fits our definition of intolerance. Political and religious conservatives are being unfairly treated when their political and religious beliefs should not matter. There is no reason why a Republican or evangelical cannot perform the work of a scientist. Yet I found evidence that individuals with those beliefs operate at a disadvantage when they seek a job as a science teacher. So to answer the question, yes there is bias in academia and I have found systematic evidence of it. If you are interested in reading more about my research then you can get the book at http://www.baylorpress.com/en/Book/235/Compromising_Scholarship.html.
Sorry about the book plug but it will be the last from me for a while. No more books coming out soon. But the major point is that science is not an unbiased endeavor. Certain people, and thus certain ideas that come from those people are not fully scientifically tested. There is not room for me to go into all of the implications. Needless to say that I am less certain about what is presented as scientific knowledge than I was when I started this research. We who are in the sciences should take seriously the fact that this bias exists and work to make sure that no scientist is judged on a criteria other than the viability and strength of his/her ideas and research.

Sincerely,

Trouble-maker

Bias and Scholarship - Part 3: Bias against who?

There is a ton of research (Okay maybe only 1900 pounds and not a full ton) that documents how education creates more tolerance. For reasons that I will not go into now, I have my doubts about such research. But even if education alleviates intolerance we have to remember some of the aspects of intolerance I discussed in the first blog in this series. We can only be intolerant against something we disagree about. Education may "create" tolerance more by giving us arguments about the worth of what was once considered deviant rather than help us to accept that which we disagree with. But this does not mean that education makes someone a more tolerant person if he/she still is unfairly biased against people and ideas that he/she disagrees with.
This has important ramifications as it concerns academia. Since, by definition, academics are highly educated, then we should expect them to be very tolerant - if we believe the previous research on education. The ability of academics to honestly assess the ideas of groups they disagree with is tied to their ability to avoid allowing their bias to influence their judgement. So we have to know how academics react to ideas and groups that they disagree with. Do they assess such ideas and groups are their own merits or do they practice an unfair bias?
There are reasons to believe that the groups that academics are bias against are political and religious conservatives. The foundation of our modern scientific institution developed in conflict with the dominant religion of its day - Catholicism. Scientific exploration also tends to promote progressive change, which goes against political conservatism. So if we really want to know if people in academia have bias we should not be asking them about homosexuality or affirmative action. We need to know what they think about groups they disagree with which would be political and religious conservatives.
Ahhhh but here is the problem. It is not fair to expect people in academia to accept the ideas of political and religious conservatives. What if the ideas of those conservatives are wrong? What we have to see if they unfairly reject those conservatives. Only a measure of whether those conservatives are not treated fairly can assess whether there is unfair bias in academia. This could be the sort of bias that can call into question the veracity of academia. In the final installment of this series I will discuss how such a possibility can be tested and what the results of those tests are. Until then may your 2011 be a wonderful time for you.



Sincerely,



Trouble-maker