Why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal? what can we do about this?

why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal? what can we do about this?

people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

esp given that there is apparently no selection bias in universities
www10.arts.ubc.ca/fileadmin/template/main/images/departments/soci/faculty/gross/audit_paper_march_3.pdf

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/Among-mathematicians-scientists-is-there-greater-intellectual-diversity-in-terms-of-political-leanings-than-one-might-find-in-the-arts-humanities
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/academics-and-politics/?_r=1
youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

mathematicians are conservatives

Because academia strongly selects for naive idealistic sheltered people

Cut funding to all universities by 25%
Watch them scramble to see what departments are really important

They're extremely blue pilled, and they can be red pilled. I think all we need to do is continue to exist... Trump is going to be a great example.

I went from blue to red over the past 18 months.

proof? aside from "why not one o'clock" von neumann anecdote

Kek. Cut it by 100%.

Not all mathematicians.

mathematicians arent conservative
quora.com/Among-mathematicians-scientists-is-there-greater-intellectual-diversity-in-terms-of-political-leanings-than-one-might-find-in-the-arts-humanities

>Because academia strongly selects for naive idealistic sheltered people
>the people that more than any other group are responsible for the first world are naive idealisc and sheltered

>Academia
>Responsible for literally fucking anything ever

>what has science ever done for me?
>math is stupid why would i ever use it
> why am i learning chemistry in school? its not like i need it at my barista job

>every school is in CA

o iams cat food

>what can we do about this?

You can't do anything about it, Sup Forums is the one with the simplistic worldview, scientists have a better understanding of the economy and can see through the bullshit of conservatives.

Plus they're not as greedy, they made a less lucrative career choice because they're more idealistic and selfless than the common man.

Why are people so outraged? Why are some against affirmative action for blacks, but in favour of affirmative action for conservatives?
This silly debate should've ended with this spanking by Krugman.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/academics-and-politics/?_r=1

>>every school is in CA
where does it say that

They live in the world of theory not reality.
They are rich people surrounded by mostly rich young adults.

You seem mildly perturbed, Nigel.

FYI I have first author publications in scientific journals so I've contributed to scientific progress, albeit insignificantly.

>what can we do about this?
Look at me. I'm the scientist now.

if it happens you are conservative there is a visible invisible glass ceiling

mfw

>FYI I have first author publications in scientific journals so I've contributed to scientific progress, albeit insignificantly.
>academia is responsible for nothing
trololololol

/sci/entist here,

It's true. Everybody at my lab is a lefty liberal Remainer

(Except me)

If anything my education in CS has allowed me to take a step back and view things more abstractly. Patterns everywhere mostly.
Instead of looking at individuals I started looking at populations, and thinking about what would eventually be better for the world with complete disregard for individuals.
i.e. I have come to the conclusion that it's better to stop aiding africa and just let them die off if they can't survive. Solves the hunger and overpopulation problem while giving them an incentive to actually develop on their own.

this

that would make them extremely efficient thanks to the invisible hand of free market

Although now that I think about it, there's tons of SJW cucks in the field.

>why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal?

Intelligent, worldly people usually are.

My experience in my scientific university in Italy: Most real scientists (hard ST (ECONOMICS&MANAGMENT IS NOT A FUCKING SCIENCE) ) either keep their opinions to themselves, or don't care at all about politics. This comes from the way you have to think in science: When trying to analyse any problem in the most unbiased and objective way possible, you tend to not identify with any major political ideology. Accept it Sup Forumshacks, but you too have your biases. Example: While SJWs think that everything is societal and that anyone is a blank slate completely subject to his enviroment, you on the other hand think that everything is genetical, as we were robots driven just by programming.

because they (we) live in a bubble. Scientists generally live in a sort of "safe spot" of society, considering they mostly interact within themselves.

why care? the vast majority of these scientists know as much as the average joe on things that don't pertain their field, they are highly trained in something specific and have some increased knowledge in surrounding subjects, that's it

liberalism is the default political stance public education enforces, scientists just go along with it like most people who don't necessarily inform themselves on political subjects

the only difference with respect to the average joe is that they and liberals smugly think their deep knowledge in topological QFT or marine biology gives them any advantage when discussing politics

t. math major

>the only difference with respect to the average joe is that they and liberals smugly think their deep knowledge in topological QFT or marine biology gives them any advantage when discussing politics
>being educated isnt good for discussing politics
nice

2 reasons

1. The right is very religious
2. The right is anti evolution

>why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal?

1: Peer pressure. The university system is predominantly left wing so they tend to adopt the most commonly held views among their peers namely mainstream left or moderate socialist.

2: Self interest. Left wing and socialist political parties tend to be the ones in favor of throwing government grant money at them.

You have to remember that most people in the university system really don't put much effort into studying politics. They study their own field; but when it comes to politics they tend to just cling onto the consensus among their peers. If you go to a political science department you'll find the professors who actually study politics have more diverse opinions, there are still a lot of mainstream leftists and socialists; but there are also a lot of libertarians, some conservatives, a fair number of full on commies and your odd duck anarcho-syndicalists or the like.

being educated in politics is good for discussing politics, otherwise it doesn't make much difference compared to being officially ""uneducated""
at best, someone educated in history can have the upper hand when it comes to strictly historical matters related to politics

he's wearing white supremacist shoes

I think there are two reasons. The first is that the education system encourages left wing politics. The second is that scientists often get government grants.

Future scientist here finishing degree in biochemistry and molecular biology

>Voted for Trump

>If you go to a political science department you'll find the professors who actually study politics have more diverse opinions, there are still a lot of mainstream leftists and socialists; but there are also a lot of libertarians, some conservatives, a fair number of full on commies and your odd duck anarcho-syndicalists or the like.
but the proof OP posted contradicts this

>Future scientist here finishing degree in biochemistry and molecular biology
>voting for someone who denies evolution

Quality post 2bh

They're more often than not idealists, supported by government funding, and aren't allowed to look at any kind of data that isn't politically correct and thus form no conclusions in that regard

I will admit that liberalism is oftentimes the "ideal" and nice solution (though not a solution at all), it takes a different kind of hard perspective to see the world for what it is and choose the OPTIMAL or realistic approach

>being educated in politics is good for discussing politics, otherwise it doesn't make much difference compared to being officially ""uneducated""
>training cognitive skills to analyse information isnt useful in forming your political opinions

whatever you say diego

>training cognitive skills
nice joke
guess I must be shitting on your african studies ""education""

No I'm conservative and you don't want to cut university funding. They bring a shit ton of patents every year this really helps a states economy. Cut funding to bullshit departments like African American dance

dont know what you did in school luigi

because humanities are compulsary.

scientists in the private sector and non-profits are also liberal tho. At least according to poll op posted.

Yes

Reality has a liberal bias.

Fantasy has a liberal bias.

hell no. If it wasn't for government subsidized research, we'd still be stuck in the 1940s with people still trying to perfect the vacuum tube computer.

I'm a scientist and I'm mainly independent. Those pollsters get in your face about your politics. Many political polls are flawed

Scientists will lean left as long as science is government funded

why are coservashits so blatantly unscientific?

what can we do about that

Because their lives depend on gibsmedats for research.

>as if it actually matters

Intelligent, learned people generally aren't going to be the screeching, hateful shit-spewers that you want them to be.

I think anthropologists have the best chance to become redpilled. That is why they work overtime to push marxist cuckoldry hard in that department.

as opposed to voting for someone that literally wants to genocide you.

>>Future scientist here finishing degree in biochemistry and molecular biology
>>voting for someone who denies evolution
This isn't a contradiction. Stupid people should stop having opinions.

>Future scientist here finishing degree in biochemistry and molecular biology
>Votes for someone who is against GMOs and thinks vaccines cause autism.

50% this

and
50% this.

Theoretical mathematics/physics often has no practical application until tens of hundreds of years until after it is studied. Therefore the only way these autists can get jobs doing cutting edge scientific research is the government paying them to sit around and sit coffee and stare at a black board all day, with no real value added to society.

At the same time, conservative opposition to things that so strongly go against basic science (like evolution), really strikes a chord with these people and pushes them left.

I think some of the professors are at least a little redpilled but can only subtly teach that way for funding/keeping their job.

>why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal? what can we do about this?
Government employees will always oppose government spending cuts. Scientists are no exception. Conservatives are usually proponents of budget cuts.
>what about scientists in industry or private universities?
Much of their money comes from government-funded grants. If they're not funded by the government, their collaborators might be. NSF grants are the gold standard.

If you ever need to ask why someone who works for the government or gets funding from the government is a liberal, follow the money. My mom was a public school teacher for nearly 40 years. If she wasn't a teacher, she could've been a conservative Republican.

>why are scientists overwhelmingly liberal? what can we do about this?
Basically Dunning–Kruger effect.
They really overestimate the intelligence and capacities of the bottom-tier and immigrants because they don't really live with them

They are probably closet red pilled. If you class was filled with liberals and sjw you would have to cator to them to.keep the job

wow

>Scientists are no exception. Conservatives are usually proponents of budget cuts.

Government scientific research, especially if it's military or medical research, has bipartisan support. Nobody for example, wants to cut cancer or alzheimer's research.

When did Trump ever deny evolution?

Yes you can contribute to civilization without being in touch with or understanding it.

because libs pay to have their bullshit validated

Pence maybe. Pretty sure trump doesn't though.

the educated and highly educated tend to lean left no matter the country

it's only uneducated rednecks that lean far right, smart people are middle ground or slightly left leaning

>professor in visual analytics, can crunch through statistics like nobody else
>he thinks trump is against intellectualizing things

another visiting professor from France had obama all over his slides at a talk

utopia maybe, maybe they think that one day there will be:

>unlimited energy cause green energy
>plentiful forests and animals
>no poverty, everyone has shit
>space-level science

They all contribute to their respective field regardless of nationality, maybe they wish the world would do the same and "everything would be ok"

This is only STEM, social "sciences" must die, they don't count. A sociology professor/PhD is no fucking scientist.

when he appointed a creationist vice president

Because High IQ conservative people go into business.

Because they don't teach economics in their science degrees

Because republicans would lower their allowance.

Smarter people make more money. Making more money results in you living in safer areas away from any form of traditional hardship/threat.

This disillusions you from what reality is. You'll surround yourself with tons of people who are the same, and on social media you'll have tons of virtue signaling going on towards causes you can't possibly understand the true ramifications of due to only taking it at face value.

>t. Very well off American.

It honestly surprises me that Trunp managed to avoid this trap. He probably looked towards the whole truth of things like I did.

It would be comedic if they would, economic theory is just laughable, their physics-envy gives us the most joy

most economists are "liberal" too

Because they are grounded if facts.

/thread

Yes, but Trump did just suggest cutting back NASA's climate science research. And Republicans regularly deny climate change. And Mike Pence is a creationist.

Not to mention the general Republican attitude of cutting spending. The facts don't really matter when you feel like your job is in trouble. Most people think Democrats are more pro-science, even though George W. Bush increased science funding.

>youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

They aren't. There are a few loud ones and everyone else tells them what they want to hear. Every single scientist I've ever spoken with is a "conservative" in their private life and pays lip service to the cry babies so they can climb ranks.

Because they don't teach economy in their degrees either

He also proposed massively boosting the budget for human space exploration.

And climate science is for fags.

It''s not that academia gives preference to liberals. Smarter people tend to have more liberal views.

Being an academic seems to put a film of ignorance over your eyes.

Actually being out in the world, and working in it, is different than living in an idealized one inside of an ivory tower.

He who increases in knowledge increases in sorrow. But these academics are taking a warm bath in egalitarianism and flagellate themselves in front of the altar of political correctness, except the real world cares about neither, and the real world knows it as weakness. Put these fucks in a poor neighborhood full of hispanics or blacks for a month and I guarantee they will vote straight ticket republican for the rest of their lives, that is if they aren't fucked in the head.

Liberalism being a mental disorder isn't a meme. It's absolutely real.

There is nothing you can do to change the mind of someone more intelligent than yourself.

Instead you should ask what they know that provides them with such surety.

You have identified a trend, perhaps now you should seek the reason for that trend.

Because you have to be smart to be a scientist.

>modern academia is for becoming intelligent and discussing ideas with other intelligent peers.

5/5 I can't tell if this is b8 or not.

Psychologists and sociologists are considered scientists

\thread

Scientific studdies indclude studying philosophy in France (in "classes préparatoires"), that's important when it comes to having a ratonnal political position

It is if you graduate in a non-meme subject

>science is for fags
t. conservative

>“Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We’ve got to fix our potholes,”

He doesn't really have a consistent opinion on NASA.

Yes technological innovation and development should be prioritized over science.

Lately science has leaped forward in leaps and bounds while humanities most impressive technological fear was still done in the goddamn 60's

Patently untrue

The fact that you have geniuses that ascribe to Communism, Fascism, Austrian economics, and complete central planning illustrate that being smart doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with being right.

Different types of knowledge. I know a physicist that is fucking useless at everything he tries to do other than physics. Homie doesn't even know how to change his oil ffs

...