He's taking the slow train

An interesting example of pseudoscience and epistemological closure. As usual in the field of Psychology. From How Do Liberal and Conservative Attitudes About Obedience to Authority Differ? The Surprising Result of My Study by Jeremy Frimer.

As far as I was concerned, bible-thumping social conservatives were like obedient robots. When Uncle Sam called them to arms, heels clicked and hands met temples. When the preacher demanded chastity, zippers ascended toward belt-buckles. When the boss told them to fire an employee, conservatives reached for a pink slip. Social conservatives asked no questions, even when the command was arbitrary or the cause indecent.

The way I saw it, this slavish obedience to authority and tradition on the part of conservatives was the true source of the culture war between liberals and conservatives over foreign war, abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and racial inequality. They way I saw it, conservatives clung to old, near-sighted ways of thinking and fell in line with the dictates of the "man in charge." If only conservatives would think for themselves -- like liberals do -- the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought.

Frimer is rather heavy handedly setting himself up for praise for abandoning a gross stereotype that had no foundation.

Without providing any of the details of his experiment (probably meaning that it lacks scientific rigor), Frimer reports that he and his team discovered that both liberals and conservatives are equally obedient to authorities that they view as legitimate. So obedience to authority is a function of legitimacy rather than an independent trait.

What is missing is any sort of exploration of all sorts of other attendant issues. Some people will obey authority on a tactical basis in order to undermine it on strategic basis (or vice versa). Some people obey authority, not because they like authority, or view the authority as legitimate, but because they believe it is in their own self-interest. And on and on. Surviving most your professional life on a profoundly shallow and objectively incorrect stereotype would seem to disqualify one from continuing long in the profession. But that's the beauty of the university. You don't have be either right or useful to be employed.

This faux confessional approach to science grates. The contrast to Jonathan Haidt's work is marked.

I have spoken of Haidt's experimental work in which he discovered to his surprise that conservatives and liberals were equally committed to fairness, the difference being that conservatives define fairness as rule of law (equal application of the law to everyone) whereas liberals tend to define fairness as equality of outcomes. Finding a useful distinction and clarification is quite a useful advance (Haidt). Finding that your personal stereotypes and prejudices were unfounded is less useful.

Frimer may be travelling the same path to Damascus as Haidt but he's taking the slow train.