In my never ending quest to learn about things, I ran across this:
https://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818
I am not quoting anything from this compilation of studies. There may be some good points but there is tons of hogwash based on the understanding of the dynamics which have led to putting together many studies like this.
Studies like this are done by individuals that have a stratospheric liberal bias/views. Even the psychologists recognize it
http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
"A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservative"
At the 2nd link, scroll down to: " 2) A statistically impossible lack of diversity"
https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-bright-future-of-post-partisan-social-psychology
"I submit to you that the underrepresentation of conservatives in social psychology, by a factor of several hundred, is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering."
So the point is, these studies that find lots of really positive traits in liberals and negative traits in conservatives are almost all being done by very liberal psychologists. The field of climate science also has only a small fraction that are conservatives and suffers from a similar bias.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fixing-the-problem-of-liberal-bias-in-social-psychology/
We should seek to reduce bias, not balance it out
Does Social Psychology need more political diversity? Here’s one thing on which everyone can agree: social psychology is overwhelmingly composed of liberals (around 85%). The question of why this is the case, and whether it presents a problem for the field, is more controversial. The topic has exploded out of our conference halls and into major news outlets over the past several years, with claims of both overt hostility and subtle bias against conservative students, colleagues, and their publications, being met with reactions ranging from knee-jerk dismissal to sincere self-reflection and measured methodological critique.
A recent paper led by Jose Duarte of Arizona State University attempts to organize the existing empirical research relevant to this debate. There are two central questions here. First, is the ideological imbalance the result of some kind of bias against conservatives, or some more benign cause, like self-selection into the field? And second, independent of the cause, would more political diversity actually improve the validity of our science?
Duarte et al provide evidence suggesting that social psychology is not a welcoming environment for conservatives. Papers are reviewed differently depending on whether they are considered to support liberal vs. conservative positions, and anonymous surveys reveal a considerable percentage of social psychologists willing to explicitly report negative attitudes towards conservatives. This shouldn’t surprise us. Everything social psychologists know about group behavior tells us that overwhelming homogeneity, especially when defined through an important component of one’s identity like political ideology, will lead to negativity towards an outgroup. We also know a thing or two about confirmation bias and all the ways in which it can affect our decision-making, and it is odd to suggest it might not affect our own. Or to suggest that it might in some domains but not the political."
The field of social psychology is so broken right now, that research on certain topics, like climate science-the fake climate crisis(climate politics is what it is) is just a showing of how extreme the bias is of the researchers.
This is important when you also consider that the vast majority of climate scientists are liberal, half of which are progressive activists and that half of the MSM is made up of progressive activists/extreme liberals.
Only a small minority of the US population, 8% are progressive activists but they represent 6 to even 10 times that number in some fields of science, the MSM and of course the ones in the democratic party have taken over. ..........they are running for president and are controlling the narrative, like AOC with made up stuff.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39903/
So how does one get things balanced again so it represents America?
The only place that can happen is in the voting booth.
Progressive activist/liberals have taken over the entertainment industry, the MSM, the democratic party and even the intelligence community.
They are the gatekeepers of the narrative and messages. They are educating our youth.
I'm not saying this because metmike is not a progressive activist/liberal. Just look at the stuff I show you.
It's clear that this is where our country and world are headed and there is no stopping it. The bogus Climate Accord has zero to do with the climate crisis, other than using a fake narrative to accomplish global socialism.
Almost the entire planet has less resources than the US and most of it has billions of poor people. Of course they are gung ho for the Climate Accords global socialism plan.
I am very much for sharing more of our wealth using altruistic intentions and generosity. We should be doing that.........much more of that.
I am against plans that trick people and take their money with schemes, determined by the schemers to be worth "the ends justifies the means" because the schemers are convinced they know best for everybody and thus, steal freedoms and resources from people and countries that don't want to play along. This includes taxing beneficial CO2 to "save the planet" from a fake climate crisis so the schemers can generate revenue for governments.