Why do scientists tend to be so liberal?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3_EtIWmja-4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

smart people solve problems
socialism tells you that every problem is fixable with goverment
conservatism is as thomas sowell youtube.com/watch?v=3_EtIWmja-4 puts it the tragic vision i.e. problems CANNOT be solved
smart peoples brain is programmed to find solutions to problems
if socialism = solutions, then smart people go leftist cuzz they are egotistical and refuse to believe that there is problems they cant fix

The same personality traits that are related to being academics are related to being left leaning. Is the U.S. more skewed than European nations?

Because they couldn't exist without government gimme dats for da science, hard to say how many of them are actually conservative because of this.

They don't live in the 'real world'

Teachers, scientists, artfags... They all rely on money that comes from the public purse. They can pursue their esoteric interests without ever having to employ someone, pay wages from money they earned in a business, look at profits vs expenses. Money just keeps rolling in to 'fund' them. They simply need to keep obtaining that 'funding' and the funding is never enough.

The above groups view money as something to be 'given' or 'received', not earned, not spent. The magical money fairy (government) is the source of financial control as far as their experience is concerned.

Although not all scientists are bluepilled gibsmedats.

James Watson (co-founder of the structure of DNA and Nobel prize recipient) said the following:

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

Universities are marxist ideology brain washing camps

Cause they don't work around niggers so they only see what the media shows us about negroes

Weird, most engineers I know are very conservative. Of course the engineers I know all work in either the petroleum, coal power, or defense industries so that might have something to do with that...

They're so immersed in their education/work that they never bother to read about politics or question status quo assumptions.

Medical researcher. Most of my coworkers are meek and sheltered.

Because if they are not, a horde of angry students will show up at their offices. Case in point, Jordan Peterson.

This is probably true of most intellectual types.

They're too busy studying and shit so they just absorb the liberal bullshit around them without a second thought

Liberal thinking people have a far higher average IQ than conservative or right wing leaning people. Liberals know that people are too dumb to be able to make some decisions for themselves. They understand the biology and psychology that lead people to make poor decisions and fail. Broad guidelines are necessary to keep the less educated from drawing the rest of us down with them.

...

>no libertarian option
>Conservative being the only right wing option

Shit poll. Retarded

>libertarian
>right wing

Shit post. Retarded Vuvuzela

People with high IQs tend to be liberal. This has been proven by science.

The only retard here is you.

No wonder they all equivocally worry about climate change.

>mathematics and statistics in the same graph
triggered

They yens to be state funded

Source: i'm a scientist that is state funded and have to pay 0 taxes

Because they're smarter. Not hard to work out is it.

>inb4 muh college jew indocrination xDDDD

Tend to be*

and who are creating those IQ test i wander?

JEWS

Their careers are based on grants and funding from donors. Essentially they've made a profession out of begging.

Libertarians are too young to get a degree

>nerds
>weak
>fearful
>identify with female perspectives

mommy indulged their eccentric interests too much growing up, that's why nerds want .gov to mommy them (and everyone else) as adults

Scientists are sheltered children utterly divorced from reality.

then why do niggers vote liberal?

(((academic education))) when universities look like this?

Ahhh yes, looks like scientists have contributed absolutely nothing to the world and have had no effect on history.

As always on pol, it's the highschool dropouts who are truly redpilled and bring society forward.

Sheltered.

Only someone devoid of any connection to the real world (i.e. a scientist) would create something as vile as the atomic bomb. It's like an autistic child ripping off an animal's legs and not comprehending their wrongdoing.

>implying scientists aren't passive tools of those in power

Black people vote for social conservativism and economic liberalism.

Time and time again, black people have voted against gay marriage, drug legalization and pretty much follow "Baptist" conservative values. Younger voters are changing this. Econimically, I don't know why they vote liberal. I assume its due to reliance on community and government programs.

>tfw getting chemistry degree
>tfw the most redpilled field
>tfw feels good man

>socialism tells you that every problem is fixable with goverment
Socialism says no such thing.

Of course they do their fucking jobs. Stop implying.
They can be good at their jobs, and still politically brainwashed because of their (((academic education))) which they get in universities completely dominated by libtards.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Physicist here.

It's been my experience that scientists (by and large) fall into more of the moderate part of the spectrum, most of the people I know in my department are center-right or center-left, with a few exceptions that are either far-right or far-left.


Researchers and engineers for the most part just aren't really that political, we've got more important shit to worry about.

>2017
>Still this Jealous over WWII

Look up "Operation Epsilon" and read a bit, maybe you'll understand a bit more about USA and German attitudes towards atomic wrapons.

Nah it's like saving the lives of people fighting for your country.

Pic related is a nicer thing the "muh evil scientists" have made possible.

Why do the libtards rise to the top? Jews wanting to control the population?

what? yes it fucking does

>atomic bomb
>vile

I agree, sending 10x the number of troops to take an arbitrary point and die in the process is very honorable.

I'm a redpilled evolutionary biologist
Sorry, no irrational liberals for me..

Nuh uh.

yuh huh

most of those were diminished because of a change in hygiene practices. nothing more

Darn

What do almost all schientists have in common?

They went to universities.

Universities were hijacked by marxists a long time ago.

Jesus, what's wrong with astrophysicists?

because academics and scientists want to bypass having their ideas face the market so they just latch onto the government teet. Its a symbiotic relationship as the state needs them to be guardians of (((truth))) and (((facts)))

Liberals are much more intelligent after you take out blacks and latinos

Reality has a liberal bias.

So why does the lowest IQ race on earth vote 95% for a liberal socialist in the US & UK every single time?

Engineering master race.

Prolonged exposure to Academic environments. They are as prone to virtue signalling as any 13 yo girl.
Notice that the most Tangible real-world applications field contains the highest distribution to the right. Based Engineering!

Because they just absorb whatever ideology they're exposed to. Academics are incredibly insulated and tend to not have many interests beyond their field of research, in my experience anyway.

They can't be that smart if they have such a high IQ and decide to work for shit pay as a teacher.

I live in Arizona, and today a academic I made friends with through yoga grief-posted about the law to remove social justice classes from the University.

The whole thread was academics, and I posted a pretty well thought out 3 or 4 paragraphs about how academia is creating social ills through it's dogma, and how it's borderline McCarthyist how academics have been behaving.

I expected some sort of response. I sort of waited around, read some other stuff, and then visited it again. The thread was still there. But something was missing.

It was my comment. She had deleted my comment. That was their response to my opine that they were stuck in dogmatic group think. They deleted my opinion.

I'm not gonna lie. I kind of want to get the whole Social Science wing deleted now.

>only retard
actually not...see

>economics and statistics have the most conservatives
really makes you think. also science is government funded so obviously scientists lean left.

>I kind of want to get the whole Social Science wing deleted now
>deleted now
>now

Notice how the more worthless (((sciences))) are more skewed towards leftists while practical sciences only have a marginal difference? The more naive the (((scientist))) the more likely they support leftist doctrine, after all, they work in an environment that revolves mostly around theory and not reality

They're people, I know its fun to talk about war and genocide, but I honestly don't enjoy killing. Thats why I'm attending university now. I just want them to know they are getting people killed with their naivety.

I don't get why astrophysics is so lopsided. It must be some weird selection bias since a lot of universities don't technically have a separate astrophysics department.

Anyways, scientists tend to be liberal because they work in academia AKA government.

scientists are smart enough to be dangerous. they aren't smart enough to know that they're being dangerous. they're smart enough to delude themselves into thinking they're right, even as everything crumbles around them, and that any problems are sabotage attempts from people who disagree with them.

scientists are scared of risk, and live lives of indoor comfort. they don't know what real struggle is. they're privileged pieces of shit.

they're not going to get government grants if they're not

Back in the 1930's tons of scientists supported Nazi style eugenics, they can be influenced just like any other pleb and should not be seen as objective observer

Science is also an extremely corrupt institution that mainly serves the interests of large corporations

basically who gives a fuck what a scientist thinks about anything other than their extremely narrow field of research, pic related the average scientist

longtime Sup Forums poster here, but same reason rightwing categorically makes shitty art, music, movies, cultural output in general. Lower IQ. Lower creativity. Narrower frame of reference to work from. This creates a self-hating bitterness that morphs into race hatred - sense of superiority in being dwarfed by the vast body of superior cultural output driven by liberal traditions.

Not like there isn't good conservative art, but it's few and far between.

This is why Sup Forums is always co-opting leftwing memes and comics, etc, because there's nothing good from the right to co-opt. What someone is going to make memes out of that shitty Tim Allen sitcom?

>a fucking leaf
The greatest composer of all time was a good christian white man with a lot of kids.

Are you serious? Those nerds are making 6-7 figures, creating businesses, and generating jobs. Fuck off.

total progressive liberal for his time. He fucked with polyphony.

That poster was replying to tons of posts talking about how scientists are effeminate weaklings contributing nothing and he addressed that point.

Then why does it repeatedly try to solve poverty?

>bach
>progressive liberal
kys retard. First of all, Bach didn't really break tradition too much. And even then, simply breaking some musical conventions does not magically make you a political liberal. Many composers were highly nationalistic and right-wing. Stravinsky hated commies and shit and was the most influential composer of the 20th century.

I mean, I went to the Gatsby Gallery in LA, and I watched the evolution of art from 1300's to modern day. Your contention is that all of this are can be described as "left wing"?

I mean I'd go so far as saying a degree of openness is required to make good art, but 'left' has many connotations. I don't think its descriptive, or accurate in describing whats necessary for art. Creation takes a flare, and a reverence for the transcendental. Perhaps what is 'left' about it is the total self assurance that what is being created has value.

It's the sociologists that are causing all the problems, you might as well get a degree in cultural marxism

The message is: you're not alone.

I'd ask anyone who values art objectively to explain why there's been such a degradation of art in the rightwing tradition over the past 100 years. Fair enough, trying to superimpose modern values onto art older than this can be anachronistic - take a look at voting alignments of Whigs and Tories in the UK and prepare to get confused on where you'd stand - but the past 100 years or so there's been a pretty dismal trickle. Trump's inauguration is a good example of the slim pickings he has to work with in terms of vital art and culture being made. People can bitch about Jew-run this or that, but we live in an age of mass communication and easy dispersement of information. Anyone can make their thing outside the normal channels now. Why is rightwing arts & culture shit?

only leftists become scientists because science depends on funding from big government. conservatives dislike big government so they logically avoid jobs that depend on big government
>be scientist
>salary is paid by government grants
>size of government is reduced by conservatives
>government stops renewing your grant/contract
>starve to death because nobody is paying you to sit on your ass in a lab playing clash of clans

>Ingroup
>purity
>more common in conservatives
nope

They are not but sometimes no liberal = no funding

wrong

t. smart person

They tend to be in academics more.
Academia in the US and Europe tend to be the largest concentration of democrats besides Hollywood.

One of the last rightwing art movements of any significance was Italian Futurism maybe

>left wing "art" hasn't been degraded as well
Seriously? Almost everything post-WWII is trash.

>vaccine for measles mumps rubella
>hygiene practices

faith in artificial intelligence over faith in free will

i.e. the artificial objectification of time and space

>free will
user...

Science is generally liberal, because the consequences of not being, are highly damaging to ones career. Take for example, Dr. Peter Duesberg, an esteemed virologist, at least until he wrote a book entitled "Inventing the AIDS Virus". His questioning of the science behind AIDS has all but ruined his career. Fortunately, he was tenured at UC Berkeley.

Because they spend all of their time doing science instead of learning about economics, law, politics, and philosophy.

Most of a university's revenue comes from school fees.

>chemistry has the highest far right

it's right there in the name
liberal -> open to reforms/ drastic changes
opposite being conservatives -> cautious regarding reforms/ drastic changes

and sciences are a never-ending quest of reforms and changes (of world view)

maths related fields don't move much, hence more conservative
biochemistry and exploration fields move fast, hence more liberal
human sciences are funded by soros/ koch and the like, hence move based on what they want

I might suggest that, it takes enormous creativity, to meme a pot head liberal frog, into a politically incorrect threat to national security. It also unveils a sense of humor and irony that the left cannot compete with.

All the other user's are wrong.

I'm a social scientist listen to me. I literally study this shit.

>Take a bunch of generally intelligent individuals
>put them in a safe setting away from any dangers
>invite them to socialize with one another at little to know risk
>Everyone freely exchanges ideas and friendships
>Everyone has a moderate to high amount of disposable time and money

This is a recipe for liberalism. Liberalism is a bunch of reasonably smart people with no fear of other human beings, being surrounded by a homogeneous group of similar thinkers.

Conservative ideologies are built off the consequences of poorly considered and unexpected contingencies. it is literally "Holy shit, that idea was stupid. We should be more careful next time." - the ideology.

Erradicate the sociology department. Kill it with fire! Nuke it from orbit!