Phatscotty wrote:Really BBS? Why respond to a post where you didn't even watch the video or get the example I showed? My posts are filled with example after example after example. All you and your ilk are doing is "nu-uh, nu-uh". Any dolt can do that.
Think of ways you can participate in the subject matter. For example, you could show us how Universities are dominated by Conservatives....
Give us something worth reading/viewing, and it will be read or viewed. We already have enough Woodruff's and Andy's. There is no demand for more.
How about an opinion from you BBS. You have shown you are highly interested in this subject, so you probably have an opinion. Are our universities dominated by Conservatives? Or Liberals? Are you able to make a statement one way or the other? What do you think the ratio is?
I've already addressed your position (which still suffers from the same 3 problems):
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4162688
I've noticed three problems with this post.
When engaging in social science, (1) we have to control for the observer's confirmation bias. For example, you are seeing one side of the story, and upon accepting the data, you fit them into your preconceived conclusion: the Left are dominating, or PC brainwashing, or whatever. But the observer must ask himself: "what am I missing?" What of the alleged domination by the Right? Are there similar stories of the Right 'oppressing'/shaping kids' minds--similar to the Left?
In other words, if you spot a phenomenon and conclude something like "it is dominant," the scientist within you should be asking: "compared to what?"
Then there's other issues. (2) You seem to be having a methodological problem, e.g. your flimsy Left v. Right dichotomy. If the division is not clear, then it becomes susceptible to an arbitrary lumping of 'the bad' exclusively into 'the Left'. This will render your conclusions and your observations erroneous. You'll fit the 'disliked' into 'the Left' and possibly ignore instances which are 'disliked' but of 'the Right'.
Other necessary questions arise: Is brainwashing/indoctrination actually occurring? Is it centrally planned or is it the outcome of some spontaneous order? What does 'brainwashing' even mean, and how do I know when I 'see' it?
And finally, (3) ideology. Let's define 'ideology' as a set of beliefs predominantly based on feeling and intuition while being complemented by cognitive bias. In the realm of human affairs, to control for ideology, one must take a 'positive economics' approach (or in other words, a 'scientific' approach, or an empirical approach with a lovely dose of logic). While reading your post and your history, you've largely developed ideas from others which you take as given, and then rabidly apply them, so that a particular image of reality (as you define it) appears. Thus, "the Left is dominating."
Your image of reality may be entirely false, but it is true in that you define the meaning of your reality--which is largely guided by your ideology. To better understand the world, the social scientist must engage in the unpleasant task of removing or distancing oneself from their favored ideology. Instead, we approach a scenario and using a variety of methodologies, we seek to explain what is happening.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to lump complex explanations into bumper stickers which the Rabid Masses can chant and scream and vote upon. Another problem is that people love taking scientific findings, and converting them into completely different conclusions. Then they proudly carry them to their fora, households, or workplaces where they bellow about 'the facts'.
It's up to you to improve your position (not me); otherwise, no one should take it seriously.
