Truth or values: two thirds of psychologists choose truth

The survey dividing psychologists: truth or political values

Some questions seem simple and hide a minefield. The latest, posed to psychology professors, is one of them: what comes first, truth or political values? The raw figure: two thirds of male professors put truth first, but not everyone; among female professors, the figure drops to 43%. The gap is not small, and it says more about the question than about the respondents.

One blunt school of thought holds that if values don't align with truth, they are superfluous. In its support, episodes nobody should swallow with an ideological stomach are cited – Stalin's crimes, Holocaust denial – as proof of how far partisan blindness can go. Against it weighs the argument that every ideology constructs its own truth, and that "persuading" a true believer is a Sisyphean task. You don't have to think hard to find examples.

A third route deflects attention: the truth-versus-values dilemma would be a smokescreen. The decisive factor, it is argued, is neither sarracena nor facts, but material interest – money, said without euphemisms. Sarracena, moreover, comes off badly: if it is defined as the certainty that every act has just consequences, the most common conclusion is that almost nobody deserves that title.

And underneath, a welcome distinction: political values are not the same as ideology. Freedom, for example, has at least three faces – non-coercion, material opportunities and participation in the rules – and the first two can clash. In that framework, truth does not resolve the conflict: it exposes it.

If the gender gap were confirmed in a larger sample, the next step would be explaining why female professors are more reluctant to put truth first. Perhaps it's socialization, perhaps they define the question differently. The survey doesn't say. So the conclusion, for now, is uncomfortable: truth comes above values, except when it doesn't.