Despite some quibbles over details, in the target article Duarte et al. are absolutely right that social psychology is beset by liberal bias. Their hope that this might be corrected by recruiting more conservatively minded social psychologists into the field is commendable, but I do not anticipate this happening any time soon. Hence, if social psychologists want to do an optimal job of discovering scientific truths, we shall have to overcome our liberal biases.

To be sure, many social scientists see their life's work as based on their (liberal) values, and so promoting the liberal political agenda is their main purpose rather than a handicap. This comment is addressed only to those social scientists who put finding the truth as their top value.

Which type are you? Suppose you conducted an excellent study on a topic close to your heart and the results came out starkly contrary to your political values. Would you push ahead to get those published? Suppose you found, for example, that your favorite minority or victim group really did chronically perform at a poor level and were significantly responsible for their own low status in society: Would you want the world to know (and with your name attached)?

Suppressing politically incorrect research findings (as authors or reviewers) is only part of the problem. Liberal bias prevents people from talking or even thinking about some issues. The episode of Lawrence Summers, the Harvard president who was vilified for suggesting as a hypothesis that the lack of female Harvard physics professors could be due to a shortage of women with the requisite intellectual gifts, should be a source of shame to scientists. The debate was not about scientific data and methodology. Rather, he was thinking thoughts that are not allowed by liberal bias to be thought. Scientific inquiry is hampered by prohibitions on free thought and free speech. Summers's case is reminiscent of Immanuel Kant, the brilliant philosopher who had to stop publishing because the authorities deemed his works to be insufficiently Christian.

Some decades ago I decided to abandon trying to support a particular viewpoint. I would strive instead to end up knowing the truth, even if it is disagreeable. Toward that end, I have struggled ever since to overcome my (mostly liberal) biases.

It is important to remember that you can never tell whether you are biased, at least certainly not by conscious introspection. It is necessary instead to assume that you are usually biased.

In my case, I took the extreme approach of trying not to care. I stopped voting, because voting requires taking sides. I want to be able to see each issue from both sides and to follow the data without favoritism or preference. This has created some difficulties for me, as I am now out of step with most peers (and relatives), who have strong political views. Espousing political values merely slows me down in my quest to end up knowing the truth, because they make me cling to favored views. One common form that bias takes is setting higher criteria for accepting unpalatable rather than politically agreeable conclusions.

Admittedly, I find that I cannot really stop caring about everything. Still, trying not to care is a useful general attitude, and I suspect (though I have no way of proving) that trying not to care helps diminish bias. And as scientists, we can at least learn to be embarrassed or even ashamed about our liberal biases, rather than proud of them.

One of the hardest things about overcoming bias is that one has to recognize one's values and preferences – and then constantly try to build the opposite case. If you wish there are no innate racial or gender differences, for example, then to guard against liberal bias you must constantly try to make the best case that there are such differences. It is essential to push oneself to develop the argument one dislikes, and not just to spell out a straw-man version suitable for trashing but rather to do a credible job of articulating how a very different perspective could produce a different explanation.

I devise tests for my liberal bias. For example, do I object to racial profiling (police selectively suspecting African Americans) while failing to protest gender profiling (police selectively suspecting males)? Have I considered the possibility that women earn less than men because women do not work as hard and are less ambitious? More broadly, do I follow the standard liberal line of blaming women's problems and deficiencies on men? Do I readily see the evil things done by corporate America but fail to appreciate the (probably far greater) immense positive effects it has had?

In my own experience, feminism has been by far the most difficult aspect of liberal bias to overcome. Deeply ingrained habits of liberal feminist thought are augmented by widespread intimidation and enforcement, as accusations of sexism are considered sufficient to condemn both an idea and anyone who even suggests it. This is especially difficult because the feminist bias masquerades as opposing bias.

Liberal bias gives me a quasi-phobic tendency to avoid thinking certain thoughts because someone might find them offensive. To counter this, I ask myself exactly why some idea would be offensive. (Surprisingly often, I find liberals will quickly label something as offensive but cannot articulate what makes it so.) One finds oneself afraid of being accused of blaming the victim, for example – but that is not a scientific argument. Sometimes victims do deserve some blame.

Blind spots for liberals include not only issues of race, poverty, and gender but also a knee-jerk hostility toward large corporations and profits, a lack of understanding of economics, and in many cases a negative attitude toward Western civilization.

It has helped me to assume that many of my preconceived ideas are wrong and so I should be eager to change those. Catching my mistakes will hasten me along the long road toward the truth.