Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In the real world. it has to do with the liberal preference to circle-jerk with similar minds, so that they need not worry about being questioned and then being forced to defend the soundness of their unsound positions.Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.
In the real world. it has to do with the liberal preference to circle-jerk with similar minds, so that they need not worry about beibng questioned and then being forced to defend the soundness of their positions.Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.
Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.
In the real world. it has to do with the liberal preference to circle-jerk with similar minds, so that they need not worry about beibng questioned and then being forced to defend the soundness of their positions.Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.
true story, liberals dont associate with conservatives, they get em fired at the academies.
True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.
The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.
Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.
The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.
Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.
Almost half of the world has below average intelligence, the fact that that group of people do something is not indicative of it being a good idea.
The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.
Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.
Almost half of the world has below average intelligence, the fact that that group of people do something is not indicative of it being a good idea.
Ever spend a great deal of time within a 'higher education' institution without actually going to school there?? Look outwards, especially since you don't have to worry about taking classes and getting grades. Higher education facilities are A CLOSED SYSTEM where many ideas and ideals are bounced off the walls within that particular institution, and they reinforce the same ideas from the same individuals, especially since they have to "publish or perish." Anyone that stays there for a long period of time assimilates to the Same Thinking of their colleagues and there is not much influx of other lines of thinking. The professors publish and research their own biases over & over, publish even more (they have to or they don't get tenure), and dig in deep. I'm speaking of the Social Sciences mostly; science and technology are different.
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Dude I've kicked your ass many times in this thread as have others....you dont need to publish, that's a libtard requirement...who gives a shit.....Everyone knows humanities is a very liberal field.....very liberal....if you dont, then you have no business discussing this subject. how do I know, well I went to college and my dad is a professor of REAL science.....that's how I know....oh btw it's call medicinal chemistry(and this is why I laugh at balls brunswick, he psycoanalyzed me and was waaaaaay off, liberals are hilarious, they take way more assumptions and stereotypes than a conservative)....you dont know shit, and I've already crushed you on liberals preaching but not practicing charity....and on this subject, you will lose big...........keep on comming hombre!
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.
OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.
That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.
Dude I've kicked your ass many times in this thread as have others....you dont need to publish, that's a libtard requirement...who gives a shit.....Everyone knows humanities is a very liberal field.....very liberal....if you dont, then you have no business discussing this subject. how do I know, well I went to college and my dad is a professor of REAL science.....that's how I know....oh btw it's call medicinal chemistry(and this is why I laugh at balls brunswick, he psycoanalyzed me and was waaaaaay off, liberals are hilarious, they take way more assumptions and stereotypes than a conservative)....you dont know shit, and I've already crushed you on liberals preaching but not practicing charity....and on this subject, you will lose big...........keep on comming hombre!
Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.
Dude I've kicked your ass many times in this thread as have others....you dont need to publish, that's a libtard requirement...who gives a shit.....Everyone knows humanities is a very liberal field.....very liberal....if you dont, then you have no business discussing this subject. how do I know, well I went to college and my dad is a professor of REAL science.....that's how I know....oh btw it's call medicinal chemistry(and this is why I laugh at balls brunswick, he psycoanalyzed me and was waaaaaay off, liberals are hilarious, they take way more assumptions and stereotypes than a conservative)....you dont know shit, and I've already crushed you on liberals preaching but not practicing charity....and on this subject, you will lose big...........keep on comming hombre!
Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.
give it up billy, if you give this guy a pocket knife and throw him in the woods he would build a mall. dont fuck with people you think are ignorant.. they can supprise you sometimes.
Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.
OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.
I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.
Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.
give it up billy, if you give this guy a pocket knife and throw him in the woods he would build a mall. dont fuck with people you think are ignorant.. they can supprise you sometimes.
Well none of that is relevant to what we are talking about so I can still accuse him of being ignorant.
billy ya do know you cross the line when you attack a posters knowledge.. all your proving to the world your the one thats ignorant not them. shame on you not them.
Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.
OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.
I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.
