It’s worth noting there are a few (unlikely) alternative explanations, like:
Studying social psychology tends to cause one’s politics to drift left, because the facts in that particular field genuinely do point to the correctness of left-wing positions. (For possible examples, see here and here.) Being right-wing is correlated with being a bad social psychologist.
Social psychologists are well-calibrated about their own behavior, so the reason they describe themselves as biased is because they are taking the outside view, thinking something like “I try to be fair, but in reality I’m probably biased”.
I am convinced that it makes sense to assume there are important right-leaning research findings that aren’t being publicized.
I’m less worried about Less Wrong than I am academia. If we really are committed to figuring out what’s true even when it’s uncomfortable, what’s comfortable and uncomfortable should matter less.
Another point: Less Wrong isn’t obviously a bastion of left-wing ideas, so it’s possible whatever is filtering out conservatives from posting here is also filtering them out of academia.
Another point: Less Wrong isn’t obviously a bastion of left-wing ideas, so it’s possible whatever is filtering out conservatives from posting here is also filtering them out of academia.
Back in the OB days, iirc, Eliezer referred to the community as mostly libertarian; recent surveys indicate that it would be more accurate to describe the community as mostly liberal with a strong libertarian streak. This would seem to indicate that there is some force driving the community in that direction; however it is also totally possible (and I would expect likely) that this has more to do with “science” as being a liberal applause light than it does with liberalism approaching truth-seeking.
Back in the OB days, iirc, Eliezer referred to the community as mostly libertarian;
Robin and Eliezer both are libertarian-leaning, and participated for a long time (accumulating audiences) in libertarian transhumanist circles such as the Extropians. New audience members aren’t primarily attracted through those channels, so the effect should decline with time.
I know of several parents who forbid their children to read the books because of some ridiculous fear of witchcraft, stemming from their conservative fundamentalism… so that would be one factor.
Well, reading Harry Potter probably at least marginally increases the child’s chances of embracing some form of witchcraft later in life. Whether that’s enough to bad the books is a different question.
Hmm, it does not strike me as obvious. For example, one could advance an argument that reading about witchcraft as fiction at an early age actually inoculates children from believing in the reality of witchcraft later in life. I do not see a way to believe either argument without experimental testing. Maybe some has been done already?
This reminds me of the varying positions religious parents take on Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Some say that such beliefs, bound to be proven false eventually, cause children to doubt their faith in the true God, others say that this highlights the difference between paganism and true beliefs. I am not aware of any studies on the matter.
Less Wrong isn’t obviously a bastion of left-wing ideas, so it’s possible whatever is filtering out conservatives from posting here is also filtering them out of academia.
When I started posting on LW, I was—depending on your terminology—very conservative. If there are any barriers that prevent conservatives from joining, then they didn’t affect me. (Edit: this is anecdotal; I might just be an outlier.)
I should point out that my views have drastically changed since joining. Though I try to avoid aligning with any particular political group, libertarian-progressive might be accurate. I’m interested in seeing where other people in the community stand after the next census.
That sounds like an interesting question to put on the next census: What were your views before LW, what are they now, and if there was a change how much did LW influence it.
It’s worth noting there are a few (unlikely) alternative explanations, like:
Studying social psychology tends to cause one’s politics to drift left, because the facts in that particular field genuinely do point to the correctness of left-wing positions. (For possible examples, see here and here.) Being right-wing is correlated with being a bad social psychologist.
Social psychologists are well-calibrated about their own behavior, so the reason they describe themselves as biased is because they are taking the outside view, thinking something like “I try to be fair, but in reality I’m probably biased”.
I am convinced that it makes sense to assume there are important right-leaning research findings that aren’t being publicized.
I’m less worried about Less Wrong than I am academia. If we really are committed to figuring out what’s true even when it’s uncomfortable, what’s comfortable and uncomfortable should matter less.
Another point: Less Wrong isn’t obviously a bastion of left-wing ideas, so it’s possible whatever is filtering out conservatives from posting here is also filtering them out of academia.
Back in the OB days, iirc, Eliezer referred to the community as mostly libertarian; recent surveys indicate that it would be more accurate to describe the community as mostly liberal with a strong libertarian streak. This would seem to indicate that there is some force driving the community in that direction; however it is also totally possible (and I would expect likely) that this has more to do with “science” as being a liberal applause light than it does with liberalism approaching truth-seeking.
Robin and Eliezer both are libertarian-leaning, and participated for a long time (accumulating audiences) in libertarian transhumanist circles such as the Extropians. New audience members aren’t primarily attracted through those channels, so the effect should decline with time.
This makes me wonder, is there a reason to expect Harry Potter fans to be more liberal than average?
And… yes, I guess there is.
I know of several parents who forbid their children to read the books because of some ridiculous fear of witchcraft, stemming from their conservative fundamentalism… so that would be one factor.
Well, reading Harry Potter probably at least marginally increases the child’s chances of embracing some form of witchcraft later in life. Whether that’s enough to bad the books is a different question.
Do you mean it as an objective statement or what a certain (probably strongly mainstream-religious) parent would think?
Objective statement. In fact, it strikes me as fairly obvious once one gets past thinking that any argument that even marginally helps the enemy must be wrong.
Hmm, it does not strike me as obvious. For example, one could advance an argument that reading about witchcraft as fiction at an early age actually inoculates children from believing in the reality of witchcraft later in life. I do not see a way to believe either argument without experimental testing. Maybe some has been done already?
This reminds me of the varying positions religious parents take on Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Some say that such beliefs, bound to be proven false eventually, cause children to doubt their faith in the true God, others say that this highlights the difference between paganism and true beliefs. I am not aware of any studies on the matter.
When I started posting on LW, I was—depending on your terminology—very conservative. If there are any barriers that prevent conservatives from joining, then they didn’t affect me. (Edit: this is anecdotal; I might just be an outlier.)
I should point out that my views have drastically changed since joining. Though I try to avoid aligning with any particular political group, libertarian-progressive might be accurate. I’m interested in seeing where other people in the community stand after the next census.
That sounds like an interesting question to put on the next census: What were your views before LW, what are they now, and if there was a change how much did LW influence it.