Two responses to the NYT's Social Scientist Sees Bias Within:
I went through the recommended posts to see if my premise based on facts, that openness (big-five) correlates with intelligence and 'liberal-ness', was repeated, and found it was, as well as the occasional flip-side, that business people are typically conservative. Gee, smart people identify as liberal or independent, and conservatives are typically middle class and concerned with money.
Although intelligence and personality explain much of the difference, it doesn't explain why the US is so politically and socially backward, as compared to other developed countries.
Your weakness is your strength. It is what you make of it.
Rather than looking at the distribution of political stances as a problem, one could try to see it as a positive feature, provided you are a conservative. My sense is that greatness, e.g., Nobel's in Economics or Einstein, is not the province of the common view but the iconoclast. Great thinkers attack their professions bad assumptions, they make new science, and they make their name on not being with the status quo.
I was struck but how disproportionately male my reading genres are - I ran across a comment decrying Infinite Jest as one of those 'jerk...
My response to the NYT article Therapists Offer Strategies for Postelection Stress garnered many likes, so I thought I'd repost it here...
I posted a comment in response to An Open Letter to James Damore by Debra Sterling , below: It doesn't get mentioned, but some of the ...
As part of the Damore-related article I responded and posted about , I later wrote responses to other posters in response to a NY Times...