The student-run independent The Wake Report has published a story that has gone national about a psychology professor who taught her students that conservatives are “guilty, anxious, and unable to handle stress well as children.” Conversely, liberals are generally “resourceful, independent, self-reliant, and confident as children.” Assistant professor S. Mason Garrison expressed surprise that students “interpreted” the description as “negative” and caused “discomfort.” Apparently, many would take being called “guilty” and “unable to handle stress” as comforting and positive.
What is most striking about the controversy is the astonishment that Professor Garrison expresses about the reaction of conservatives to her online Personality course description as “guilty, anxious, and unable to handle stress well as children.” After changing the language, Garrison told the student reporters:
“I apologize if my statements were interpreted as negatively characterizing conservative students. I was unaware that my comments had caused any feelings of marginalization, and I sincerely regret any harm or discomfort they may have caused.”
It strains credulity to suggest that the disparaging terms were just a matter of interpretation as “negatively characterizing conservative students.”
The response of Department of Psychology Chair Christy Buchanan to The Report was little better. Buchanan stated
“[s]ometimes misunderstandings occur in the course of human interactions, including those that occur in the classroom. I trust that both the department’s and Dr. Garrison’s responsiveness to the concerns brought forth in the current situation demonstrates the department values of and commitment to creating a safe and inclusive experience for all students.”
Buchanan also ignores the obvious bias, and false characterization of conservatives, including many students at Wake Forest. Rather than deal with such political prejudice, Buchanan adopts the same implausible suggestion that this was a “misunderstanding” and matter of interpretation.
It is a common pattern. When faculty on the left say controversial statements they tend to be ignored or rationalized. When conservative faculty make such statements, there is often a very different response from investigations to suspensions to even terminations.
I do not believe that Garrison should be terminated or sanctioned. However, it would be helpful if she or someone at the school would acknowledge the obvious rather than insult not just the sensibilities but the intelligence of conservative students and faculty.
It is also worth noting that the student reporters identified the source that Garrison cited for this clearly dubious claim as an article in the American Journal of Political Science titled Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. However, the study appears to refute the very point made by Professor Garrison. The authors find that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” Indeed, the summary of their paper states:
“These findings cast doubt on the assumed causal relationship between personality and politics. Here we test the causal relationship between personality traits and political attitudes using a direction of causation structural model on a genetically informative sample. The results suggest that personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes; rather, the correlation between the two is a function of an innate common underlying genetic factor.”
Thus, not only does Garrison show obvious prejudice in describing conservatives on her slides, but she appeared to distort the actual findings of the report due to a possible confirmation bias confirming her own preconceptions.
A couple of decades ago, for a short time, there was a similar controversy over the so-called “authoritarian triad”; that there was a strong correlation among religious belief, Republican party membership, and facistic tendency. Some went so far as to claiming they could identify a budding Hitler through survey answers. At least some of this research used results from the General Social Survey (GSS). There was a fundamental problem with this sort of data-mining research, though. The GSS at the time didn’t ask for party affiliation (probably still doesn’t) and so the researchers devised a way of determining this missing piece from other bits of information on the GSS itself. This only provided for the bias of the researchers to enter their results. Terrible research — produced nothing but divisiveness.
The link to the NIH paper allegedly behind Garrett’s views was very helpful. Thanks for this. However, Garrett’s real failure is to ignore Feynman’s dictum that in doing research “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Classic projection
“I apologize if my statements were interpreted as negatively characterizing conservative students. I was unaware that my comments had caused any feelings of marginalization, and I sincerely regret any harm or discomfort they may have caused.”. This is not surprising. Like many of leftist commentators this Professor lives in a leftist echo chamber were 95% of the Professors are on the left. How could she not think that calling a conservative psychologically inferior would not be found to be offensive. She knew exactly what she was saying and now she’s in CYA mode. Swarmy. Does anyone really think she is sorry.
Whether she’s sorry or not, she isn’t familiar with current research findings that conservatives are much more psychologically resilient than leftists.
The integrity of psychological research was in shambles long before the discipline went over to the woke darkside. One big problem is that more than half of the studies cannot be replicated.
I thought that the University was supposed to be a safe place where micro aggression was not tolerated. A place were all are accepted. Instead we have a Woke Professor that tells us that one group is psychologically impaired. They started telling children in elementary school that if they are white they are psychologically impaired because they were born as a racist. Why should we be surprised that this ideology has now found its way into higher education. Bigotry with a pretty face is still bigotry.
Projection much?
Turnabout is fair play. She should face the very same repercussions that conservative professors have to endure. To treat her differently perpetuates a two tier justice system. Justice should be blind but apparently it is not and hasn’t been for some time now.
“It is a common pattern. When faculty on the left say controversial statements they tend to be ignored or rationalized. When conservative faculty make such statements, there is often a very different response from investigations to suspensions to even terminations.”
I understand your point, but I do believe that anti-speech enforcement action, as is often applied against one group, should be applied against another. What we are seeing, instead, are several examples of better speech well and cogently engaging in the debate for any to read.
Facts accumulate providing evidence, Scholarship is following ideology. Meaning the those highly educated are slaves to their confirmation bias. And, if they can’t find the confirmation, they just make it up. Im lucky I live my life away from city centers, able avoid multigenerational results of the govt sponsored destruction of family and community. Here in fly over country reality reigns.
Projection, pure and simple.
The liberal intelligentsia sure seems to suffer from psychological projection. So many of the things they blame and/or ascribe to their “enemies” are an accurate description of what they’d find if they did some serious introspection.Once you realize this, you’ll see it everywhere.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
“In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold interpersonal damage.A bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target, or a person who is confused may project feelings of confusion and inadequacy onto other people. Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping”
Let’s cut to the chase and rid ourselves of all of the dross…..The Wake Forest Professor and her Department Chairman….are both offering up a bunch of bovine fecal matter and proving. yet again how impressionable students grossly unable to exercise critical thinking skills or enjoy the freedom to voice opposing or differing views than the brain dead faculty are being force fed radical commentary under the guise of it being an education rather than what it is really is….brain washing.
Svelaz and one particular “Anonymous” will now have a 200 part “conversation” between themselves agreeing that the 80% of people that disagree with them are somehow wrong.
“Anonymous” is just an ugly little leftist that lives in his mother’s basement while I BELIEVE that Svelaz is an actual Democrat operative getting paid by the comment. Two leftists who managed to find each other on a rational site and have become determined to try to ruin the comments section through their heckler’s veto of commenting 200 times on each issue.
Hullbobby is obsessed with paranoid delusions of “paid trolls”. Hullbobby is paid to complain about paid trolls.
These two asinine comebacks prove my point. Svelaz and “Anonymous” will have a heckler’s veto “conversation” about how they are not using a heckler’s veto by commenting 200 times on every issue…by commenting 200 times.
Hullbobby, you keep misusing the term “heckler’s veto”. Learn the real meaning of the term. It’s not what you think it is. Google is your friend. BTW, you suck at math. I have not posted more than 200 times.
Also….this is a free speech forum. I can post as many times as I want just as John B Say, George, S. Meyer or whatever he calls himself today, and a few others, including you. I’m sure if you had the opportunity you would censor me because you don’t like the fact that I can post an option or comment that you find annoying. Your incessant whining clearly implies you would prefer to censor me and others you find annoying.
Svelaz, unlike your ilk I have not said you should be banned, did I? All I ever say is that you comment 200 times for every issue, demonstrably true, that you are most likely a Democrat operative and that you and “Anonymous” are he** bent on trying to ruin the comments section on a truly great site.
If you and “Anonymous” hate Turley and his opinion so much why do you come here and spend ALL DAY here? I hate CNN and guess what, I ignore them. I hate MSNBC…I ignore them. I don’t go to leftist sites (this isn’t a right wing site btw) and then attack everyone that partakes in their discussions. The left dislikes something AND THEY WANT IT BANNED. The leftist snowflakes have tried to ban Fox, Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham, Limbaugh, they censor conservative voices on Twitter, FB IG and everywhere else and they will not let a conservative give a speech on campus. Meanwhile back in planet civility the right changes the channel, doesn’t buy the product, ignores the newspaper and magazine and avoids the movie.
The left is still trying to get rid of Clarence Thomas after 30 years of attacks. You lost, but when the left loses they never accept it, they whine like the little children they are and keep demanding they get their way. We have AOC demanding the Thomas be impeached for going on trips with rich friends as she gets a free ticket to the MET Gala worth $30,000 and designer cloths and make up as a tip and Pelosi invests in items on the House docket.
They will never stop attacking Kavanaugh and you want to know why? Because they lost that battle and they never, ever accept defeat. They lost in 2016 and they never for a moment stopped attacking Trump. They will not accept losing because they are spoiled little children.
HullBobby,
Dont forget, it is the leftists that send death threats to the good professor, his family, or try to get him fired from George Washington U.
” you keep misusing the term “heckler’s veto”. Learn the real meaning of the term. It’s not what you think it is. ”
Is Hullbobby incorrect about the FACTS ?
Left wing nuts constantly try to make stupid dictionary areguments.
Ignoring reality.
What is TRUE is that left wing nuts interrupt the speech of others to shout them down, often with bullhorns.
The purpose of this is NOT to foster the free discussion fo different ideas.
But to SILENCE those you disagree with.
” I can post as many times as I want”
No one is stopping you.
But all of us would appreciate it if you would THINK a bit before hitting POST.
Check your facts, check your claims, check you logic.
Your hecklers veto post abouve is a perfect example.
Does it matter what the precise name for the efforts of the left to silence the speech of others is called ?
Does it matter whether you are silenced by having your words deleted or by being overpowered by an angry mob or a bullhorn ?
“I’m sure if you had the opportunity you would censor me”
Then you would be wrong.
We would all prefer you made better arguments and did not just spew nonsense.
I would love to see some actually intelligent progressives post here.
Dealing with you is like dealing with a toddler.
Your logic is absymal, your arguments shallow and without much thought.
They are typically easily dealt with.
And then you repeat the same nonsense over an over.
You are not so anoying because you are on the left,
but because your arguments are poor.
Childish, shallow.
You do not even grasp that shouting down the speech of others is NOT free speech, it is just a different way of censoring.
John Say,
Thank you, you just proved my point about how I like to read your and Lin’s take downs of Sleezevez.
Well said, and entertaining.
Keep up the good work!
@hullbobby…RE:”Svelaz and one particular “Anonymous”..” Well writ!
ZZdoc, you do realize that Hullbobby is exhibiting the very thing professor Garrison was talking about. His constant stressing over “millions of posts by Svelaz and Anonymous” and the whiny complaints sure back up the professor’s claims. Oh the irony.
Svelaz gets close to the 200 comment mark by saying he doesn’t comment 200 times an issue. Svelaz thinks irony is something made out of iron.
HullBobby,
It also projects your observations, that are pretty accurate, as “whiny.”
It could be argued it whines a whole lot more when it whines when the good professor does not post columns that it wants.
“I do not believe that Garrison should be terminated.”
I agree, that wouldn’t accomplish anything. Instead we should recognize that higher education in the US is utterly corrupt and beyond saving. As a citizen, taxpayer, and voter I believe the billions in financial support we give higher education is worse than wasted. I believe all tax breaks, grants, scholarships, etc. should be withdrawn. Let people who want to go to places like Wake Forest pay full freight. Fools like Garrison would soon have to find real jobs.
The entire purpose of all this circumlocution of language is to destroy the underpinnings of our culture. No different than stating that a man can have a baby. It is part of a larger concept to destroy western culture in general. That these mis-educated tools on the prog/left actually take this nonsense seriously and go off on tyrades as is frequently posted here about professors and congresspersons ranting wildly about concepts seemingly with which they are barely aware of but they have been coached to demand action or reactions is what is most disconcerting since many of these purveyors of propaganda are ensconced in positions where they have great influence.
Only radicals believe that they can feel marginalized. Words are violence, except when directed at those with a different point of view.
Hmmm… maybe the professor should read some of Jonathan Haidt’s studies on anxiety and stress and depression among teens, which he consistently finds to be significantly higher among the children of left-of-center parents, particularly progressives. Perhaps we should send her a link to his Substack site?
More evidence from the education community of its buffoonery and ineptitude.
So….those poor stressed conservatives couldn’t handle the professor’s opinion? They may have unwittingly proven his point.
@Svelaz: RE:”So….those poor stressed conservatives…” Wow!” Talk about not being able to handle opinions. We have, from you a hissyfit-less response which doesn’t require a lunchbreak in order to get through. Never thought we’d live to see the day..
I recall a paper that found the instances of mental health issues were 2x greater among progressives than conservatives, attributable to the lesser adherence to religious faithfulness
Not just one. Multiple studies have found a statistically significant higher incidence of mental illness in liberals than conservatives. Not sure they all attribute it to religiosity.
My own theory, borrowed heavily from conservative philosophical theory, is that conservatives look back at several thousand years of human history and see that humans have always been flawed. No matter what kind of economic or governing system, the ugly parts of humanity that none of us like have always been present: bigotry, hatred, prejudice, inequality, and so on. We can’t expect flawed beings to build Utopia.
Liberals, on the other hand, seem to believe that all of those ugly aspect of human nature that nobody likes exist because society is not structured correctly. (Notice how they NEVER blame the shooter for a mass shooting. It’s always the gun. They never blame the individual for failing to properly govern his own life to lift himself up. It’s always structural racism or the privileged or whatever that keeps them down.) So they believe if we perpetually change “the system” by building new and different institutions; passing more coercive laws; force more economic transfer payments; etc. we’ll have a better, fairer society. Except their idealism ignores all of human history and human nature. No matter how many 5000 page bills they enact, how large the bureaucratic welfare state gets, or how many new redistribution schemes they concoct, the ugly traits of human nature none of us like remain present.
So their Utopian ideals ALWAYS fail and all we are left with is less individual and economic freedom, and more state oppression and coercion. Because their schemes always fail – Utopia is a fantasy – they are perpetually unhappy. And unhappiness leads to higher rates of mental illness.
Maybe she didn’t read the whole article.
Cliff Notes.