Wonkblog: Liberals deny science, too
By Chris Mooney October 28 at 10:46 AM
Conservatives often face a lot of questions -- and controversies -- for their views on science. Most notably, only 22 percent of conservative Republicans accept the scientific consensus that global warming is mostly caused by humans. Meanwhile, conservative officialsin some stateshave pushed to undermine the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms.
Liberals get a lot less flack, in general, for ignoring scientific findings. Yet there is alsoreason to think they, too, are susceptibleto allowing their political biases influence their reading of certain scientific questions. And now, a newstudyjust out in the journalSociological Spectrumaccuses them of just that.
The study is far from the authoritative word on the subject of left wing science denial. Rather, it is a provocative, narrow look at the question. In particular, the study examinedagroup of left wing people -- academic sociologists -- and evaluated their views on a fairly esoteric scientific topic. The specificissue was whether the evolutionary history of human beings has an important influence on ourpresent day behavior. In other words, whether or not we are "blank slates," wholly shaped by the culture around us.
While there's virtually no argument in the scientific community that personality traits like being extrovertedrun in families and have at least some genetic component, there's been much greater debate among academics about whether other phenomena, such asan inclination toward committing violence and demonstrating an unusual level of jealousy,are rooted in nature rather than life experience.
The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative.Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. "I wanted to get at the really ideological blank slate view, its sort of a preemptive assumption that everything is taught, everything is learned," he explained.
Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.
In fairness, the sociologists were willing to credit some evolutionary-style explanations.Eight-onepercent found it either plausible or highly plausible that "some people are born genetically with more intellectual potential than others," and 70 percent ascribed sexual orientation to "biological roots." Meanwhile, nearly 60 percent of sociologists in the sample considered it "plausible" that human beings have a "hardwired" taste preference for foods that are full offat and sugar, and just under 50 percent thought it plausible that we have an innate fear of snakes and spiders (for very sound, survival-focused reasons).
Yet the study also found that these scholars were lesswilling toconsider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences. Less than 50 percent considered it plausiblethat that "feelings of sexual jealousy have a significant evolutionary biological component," for instance, and just 36.4 percent considered it plausible that men "have a greater tendency towards promiscuity than women due to an evolved reproductive strategy. While it is hard to be absolutely definitive on either of these issues (we weren't there to observe evolution happen), evolutionary psychologists have certainly argued in published studies that peopleexhibit jealousy in sexual relationships in order to ensure reproductive fidelity and preservethe resources that come from a partner, and that men are more promiscuous because they are not constrained in how often they can attempt to reproduce.
So is this proof positive that academic sociologists are science deniers? Not at all.Still, it's certainly noteworthy that a substantial minority of these scholars are resistant even to the least controversial evolutionary explanations, such as those involving hardwired tastes for certain foods or innate fears of poisonous critters.
View post:
Wonkblog: Liberals deny science, too