Psychology, Pseudo science and left wing politics

Dr. Martin Luther King would classify as a Right Wing Authoritarian homophobe in these left wing pseudoscience studies.
Dr. Martin Luther King would classify as a Right Wing Authoritarian homophobe in these left wing pseudoscience studies. | Source

Conservatives are Racist, Prejudice and have low IQ's?

Left wing social psychologists are dropping like flies, but the left wing media is still buzzing over the massive piles of dung that this disgraceful branch of “science” continues to publish. Recent news headlines have spoon fed this excrement to left wing blogs which in turn are propagating the claims of the pseudo scientists to their unwashed masses. The latest whopper out of the pseudo science community states that conservative ideas breed prejudice and racism. This story was printed in “Live Science” and by Yahoo News. These anti conservative Christian stories are widely covered, while less popular stories exposing the lies of the pseudo science community receive hardly any mainstream media coverage. Stories such as Marc D. Hauser, the Harvard psychologist found responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct by the university are unknown. There is another little known article out there that goes a little something like this: Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist.

There are some very interesting and relevant quotes from the latter article. For them to be relevant, first you need to know a little background about the pseudo science aka social psychology community. If you are going through some of these psychology papers like I did, you will see that they cite numerous previous studies to back their findings. While trying to research the study about conservative ideas leading to racism, I ended up looking through two or three other papers. They are extremely boring, and not very clear on the subject matter. The style of these papers go something like this. They tell you their procedure and constantly cite older studies as their methods. Then they will say something like racism was found to be related to candy canes (Gwynn and Boggs 1983) and economic conditions were shown to relate to lollipops in (O’Neal and Bryant 2001). These cited studies come out of peer reviewed science journals, and they are taken as gospel truth for all future studies.

Dr. D.A. Stapel might not know what is going on in your head, but he has false data to confirm his hypothesis.
Dr. D.A. Stapel might not know what is going on in your head, but he has false data to confirm his hypothesis. | Source

Massive Fraud in the Pseudo Science World

The problem occurs when some of these early studies are found to be fraudulent. We have just such a case in the social psychology world. This case is almost as damning as the climate gate case is for the global carbon tax movement. But, social psychologists are circling the wagons and pretending that nothing of significance is affected. Even as one of the superstars in European psychology is found out to be a fraud.

In the article about D.A. Stapel, who was called a rising star in social psychology by Oxford professors, that was published by the Scientific America we find this little tidbit:

"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.

Only 30? I did a Google search and there are 26 pages of Google “articles and patents” by D.A. Stapel. Another interesting statement in the article is how Stapel would magically hand over data groups to other researchers so that they could write their papers. Was Stapel’s name always on those papers that were written using make believe data groups? I don’t know how anyone will ever find out how deep the fraud by one influential “scientist” can go into this “scientific” community.

The defense by the pseudo science community will be that they had a bad apple but the real scientists forced him out. They will pat themselves on the back and show how trustworthy they are as they stick their pompous noses into the air. The problem is that it took them about 15 years for the “real scientists” to find the admitted fraud! How much research was based off of this guys work? Why is this “science” so full of holes that some guy can run fake data through the scientific journals for 15 years before students finally ratted him out? He wasn’t caught by the scientific community; he was caught by his own students that turned him into the dean.

The scientific peer review process was sleeping for 15 years while false data was passed off as science.  Left wing pseudo science must get the fast track to publication.
The scientific peer review process was sleeping for 15 years while false data was passed off as science. Left wing pseudo science must get the fast track to publication. | Source

How does Bad Science get Published in Science Journals

I always thought that science was observable and repeatable, but not in this “pseudo science” community. Their science is writable and everyone else is supposed to be gullible enough to believe what they tell you to believe. As a student of hard factual sciences, I do not appreciate these scientific imposters ruining the good name of my discipline. The main goal of this group is to give the legitimacy of science to their left wing ideology.

The reason why a "scientist" was allowed to publish fake papers for fifteen years is twofold. Number one, he was preaching to the choir. If this guy was coming out with studies that said that conservative values promote a better society, he would be under extreme scrutiny. Since he was promoting the ideology of the left wing, he was allowed to slide his garbage through the system for fifteen years. If you don’t believe that the social psychology community is left wing, here is my proof. Their own studies will tell you “about 70% of the 1st-year psychology students have a preference for the political program of parties that represent the leftwing side of the political spectrum in Flanders (i.e., the Green Party and the Social Democrats)”. If you want to get published in this field, then these are the people that you will have to convince. Do you think that they are going to peer review a paper that overturns previous published left wing studies?

Number two, this is not true science. None of these studies are easy to follow. If these pseudo scientists really had a discovery, then they would make it very easy to see their work. Why would anyone want to hide their findings? The data sets that they claim to use in their studies are not published with the journals. The graphs and tables in the reports are not clear. There is no statistical analysis shown in the reports. An arrow to a box that says RACIST, really, that is science? Maybe that is how they do it in cartoons and social psychology, but in real science we use bar graphs, charts, line graphs etc.

How a scientific graph should look

An example of how a graph is supposed to look.  The data in the graph may or may not be accurate
An example of how a graph is supposed to look. The data in the graph may or may not be accurate | Source

Just listen to what your Pseudo Scientist tells you

The meaning behind the data in social psychology is basically hearsay. You hear the social psychologist tell you his opinion, then after you hear the opinion, you are to accept his opinion as scientific fact. Here is the scientific process for pseudo science:the social psychologist will tell you what he found from a mysterious data set; that information will match his hypothesis (preconceived notion); then his findings are published in a Science Journal as gospel. As an engineer, I think that I know how to read a graph and compute a few equations. When I am looking at these pseudo science reports, I have to struggle to even figure out what they are talking about. Some of the charts are so poorly done that I have no idea what they are trying to say. They look like pointless graphics that are placed in the paper because someone told the pseudo scientist that his paper needs more than words to be published.

A replicated graphic from the pseudo science paper that claims that there is a link between racism and conservative beliefs

My work on microsoft paint might be higher quality than peer reviewed journals in psychology.  The Beta values in this figure are not accurate.
My work on microsoft paint might be higher quality than peer reviewed journals in psychology. The Beta values in this figure are not accurate. | Source
Lot keeps Sodomites from raping angels.
Lot keeps Sodomites from raping angels. | Source

You can't believe your Bible

Putting the whole corrupt pseudo science industry aside let’s take a look at their “findings”. The first red flag for me was when I read some of the parroted articles on Live Science and Yahoo. They used this phrase: “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”. That immediately tells me that these are not Americans. The word mum is a deal breaker for me. But the pseudo scientists cite some study that says that everyone in the world is the same. I didn’t bother looking that one up. Americans think differently from Europeans, if we didn’t we would be playing soccer over here instead of real Football.

After getting into the actual paper I found this line: “A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice “ So if you believe this Bible verse to be true you are prejudice according to the pseudo scientists: Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination." Does that make you prejudice or does that simply mean that your view of homosexuality is different from the writer? Let's put this into context. California is one of the most liberal states in the union, and it couldn’t even pass gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2008. In America more than half of the country has antihomosexual prejudice according to these definitions.


If you don't really want someone that looks like this to be your neighbor, then you are probably a racist.
If you don't really want someone that looks like this to be your neighbor, then you are probably a racist. | Source

3/4=1 in pseudo science

Now that we have determined that many of you are homophobes, let’s see how you can become a racist. Here is how you become a racist; well actually we only have examples because we aren’t given the actual questions to see how skewed they are. One example that is given is “I wouldn’t mind if a family of a different race moved next door”. Detroit is 90% black here in liberal Michigan, why aren’t white liberals moving back into the city? I guess that question will go unanswered.

Another fact from the pseudo science paper is that only 3 out of 4 of the groups gave the pseudo scientist the results that he wanted. He took that 75% success rate and called his “science” proven as fact! So if we have 75% of something we can now call that absolute fact according to pseudo science. Tell your kids that a C in school is really the same as an A. If we take water samples and 3 out of 4 of them are safe to drink, then we are good to go. If 3 out of 4 cars pass crash tests, then we are ready to start production. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Do you think that social psychologists are believable

See results without voting

We need to oppose the family unit at all costs!

One last thing that I found with these people is their attack on Conservatives, Christians, and the family unit. This video will show you the “problems” with the family unit. He claims that the hierarchical structure of the family is a negative influence on children. Anything with the man leading the way is negative to these people. I thought that it was interesting that the woman and man above the child is not hierarchical to them. It seems to me that an authority figure is an authority figure regardless of gender. I think that what they really would love to see is something out of Orwell with the children over the parents. At the very least we should have the children as co-equals to the parents with full involvement in all household decisions.


An Atheist preaching the gospel of UC Berkeley professors.

More by this Author


Comments 25 comments

Annette M Green 4 years ago

Good article, and very detailed and informative.

Thank you


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

Thank you, I'm glad that you liked it


dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 4 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

My time in college was before the 1960s but not much before. I think I would still trust most of the professors I had back then.Psychology at that time was working hard to gain respect as a science.Mostly in philosophy courses we talked about the "scientific method" which seems to be ignored now. I am puzzled that my friend who is an engineer and really good at math has very left wing ideas on these things.I wonder if they talked about scientific method in engineering school.I believe some of these things like global warming are more akin to religious cults. Al Gore was a wannabe preacher.Too bad social science has gone astray, although some of my fellow students had a pretty negative view of sociology even back in the 1950s.

Good article. I'm sharing it.


Sophia Angelique 4 years ago

I would have taken your poll, except that you didn't giveme an option. My option would have been, "I think psychologists are mostly unbalanced people with a chip on their shoulders trying to get the world to accept them." I don't think it has anything to do with left ideology. Then, again, I've never quite figured out what 'left ideology' is.


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks for stopping by Dahoglund. I took a test from one of their experiments in the 50's and it said that I was a normal American. The psychologists today would say that I am a right wing Nazi. I agree that they had more credibility back then. I think that they wanted to find answers and understand how the mind worked in those days rather than promote left wing ideology.


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

@ Sophia, that is a good answer to the poll. They will probably run a test saying that the world is too stupid to accept them. It will get peer reviewed and published.


Angela Blair profile image

Angela Blair 4 years ago from Central Texas

Thank you for this Hub wherein you sort out what (by common sense) I knew to be true but couldn't even come close to putting in words. From what I've read from these guys you're talking about -- I'm an old lady Nazi with a closet full of guns, off the wall ideas, and probably dangerous to all mankind under 100 years old. Great Hub and voted up! Best, Sis


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

I think that most people with common sense know that it is true. The problem is that if we take this stuff seriously and we continue to elect leaders like Obama that believe these studies to be fact. This kind of non sense needs to be exposed for what it is before it effects our lives.

Thank you for your compliments and for voting up!

Matt


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 4 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Like Sophia above, I didn't take your poll because it is an exercise in question-begging. I have a lot of sympathy with your dislike of pseudo science; in fact, I am a physical scientist and a confirmed Popperian, at least as regards his criterion of demarcation between science and non-science. But I think you are falling into a trap yourself, in allowing your left/right view of the world influence you into equating all that stinks with the left. There is every bit as much pseudo science trotted out to 'support' right wing ideologies.

But hey, you can ignore me as you obviously only value the opinions of Americans ;)


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks for taking the time to read my hub and leaving your comment.

"I didn't take your poll because it is an exercise in question-begging". How many options would you need before my poll would make you happy? I could have left it Yes or No, but I put FOUR options there to try to make someone like you happy. I see that no matter how far I am willing to bend over backwards to appease people it is never enough. Thank you for confirming that with your comment. I will take a mental note.

"There is every bit as much pseudo science trotted out to 'support' right wing ideologies".

Really now? I would like to hear some examples. I don't think that I came out in support of any form of pseudo science in this hub. Did I cite a study from the right?

"I think you are falling into a trap yourself, in allowing your left/right view of the world influence you into equating all that stinks with the left".

You don't even know my view points, so that is a nice little assumption. I actually have a Christian world view that is often times in conflict with both the left and the right.

"you obviously only value the opinions of Americans". Did the soccer comment give me away?


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 4 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

OK, your third option would be fine without the words "that is driven by left wing ideology". Social psychology is pseudo-science. End of story.

Pseudo-science in support of right wing ideologies? The first that comes to mind is Intelligent Design. The field is full of hopelessly unscientific 'proofs'.

This hub is very anti-left. Maybe I was too quick to interpret that as pro-right. Point accepted.


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

I see your point. I would edit the poll but I am not allowed to change it without resetting it. Plus, it really isn't very important since my polls are not scientific.

I wouldn't call intelligent design right or left wing. I think that there are people on both ends of the spectrum that support/oppose intelligent design. Believe it or not, there are some right wing atheists out there and plenty of left wing Christians.

I thought that you meant studies that were geared more toward behavioral science.


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

Very interesting and informative! That video was unbelievable! He starts out sounding kinda reasonable and then really goes off the deep end. Notice how he was always saying "Right?" and constantly looking for confirmation of his beliefs? Really scientific huh.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Mich.


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

That video was news to me. All of this crazy stuff just starts popping up when you start digging a little bit. The sad thing is that liberals justify every word that these "scientists" say. There just seems to be a lack of judgement in a lot of people out there.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago

This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time. The video is vomitous. This guy is 180 degrees out of whack with reality. The reality is this: The best example of a family without the hierarchical structure would be those with no father at all, headed up by a single mother. And how do they fare?

Children without their fathers living with them are more likely to go to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirty-two times, to abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by nine times, to be seriously abused by thirty-three times, to be fatally abused by seventy-three times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a seventy-two percent lower standard of living.


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks for the comment James. I am glad that you liked it. I don't know how anyone can say that a regular family is a bad thing, but it seems like a lot of people want to say exactly that.


Daxman profile image

Daxman 4 years ago from The Netherlands

Amazing article! Apart from the great content, you really succeed in bringing forward your own energy through your writing.

I can't imagine how the the traditional hierarchical structure that is and should be at the core of any family would harm children. A leading figure (father) is crucial to the (mental) well being of any child later in life.

Also, to be honest i lost this guy after about 4 mins into the video because he started to act like Richard Pryor on steroids. Right? :)

Great Hub!


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks for reading. If you watched the first couple minutes of his video then you saw it all. He just rambles on with more babbling right? It is hard to believe that people can look at society and say that a father is a bad thing to have, but the left is being conditioned to do just that.


GusTheRedneck profile image

GusTheRedneck 3 years ago from USA

Hello michiganman567 - I want you to know that I appreciate your viewpoints concerning the practices enjoyed by those in the psychology business. I once thought to write a good article such as this one, however I did not do so. The reason - my article, had I actually written the thing, would have been only one sentence in length, to wit: "Statistical analyses historically show that virtually all psychologists are nuts ."

Gus :-)))


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 3 years ago from Michigan Author

Short and to the point, I like it!


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 3 years ago from upstate, NY

Most of us on Hubpages could stand to know the difference between real science and pseudo science or know more about quality source material. But as you highlighted, even the scientific community has allowed a lot of sub standard work to be published as fact. This is a most dangerous thing because these journals are seen as sources of the highest quality.

I use a lot of studies found in conservative think tanks, now I'm thinking that it would behove me to back up my points with peer reviewed studies and even take a closer look at the source of those studies.

Thanks for your imformative insights!


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 3 years ago from Michigan Author

Thanks for the comment wba108. I am a conservative, but just like everyone else, the conservatives have an agenda. I do not trust them to be completely impartial with their findings.


mbuggieh 3 years ago

So why not be a bit more honest and clearly state that acience, at least for you, becomes something less than science when that science makes clear or demonstrates that racism, homophobia, and sexism are problems to be solved?


mbuggieh 3 years ago

CORRECTION: "acience" should read "science".


michiganman567 profile image

michiganman567 3 years ago from Michigan Author

I guess that you didn't bother to read the comment that I wrote right above yours. Saying that scientists are always honest is like saying that newscasters and politicians are always honest. It is up to you to think critically. I can not do that for you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working