A Republican Conspiracy Theory?

[Soldier]

"More easily-led minds"?

We are not so!

...well...okay, if you say so...

[Inquartata]

Um, let me rephrase that...

You take a class. The professor lectures from his own world view and imparts theories favoring the ideas in which he believes. Whether or not you agree, you must parrot those ideas back if you want a good grade. ( Not all profs will grade down for being contradicted, but many will. ) If you are assigned papers you may even have to advocate for these ideas, whether or not you really agree with them. Do this often enough and in enough classes and one is likely to start internalizing some of these views. It's a pretty basic indoctination technique. Add to this peer pressure from fellow students who also are undergoing this brainwa---er, I mean, inculcation of truth---and you're steeped in an environment not conducive to independence of thought...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Um, let me rephrase that...

You take a class. The professor lectures from his own world view and imparts theories favoring the ideas in which he believes. Whether or not you agree, you must parrot those ideas back if you want a good grade. ( Not all profs will grade down for being contradicted, but many will. ) If you are assigned papers you may even have to advocate for these ideas, whether or not you really agree with them. Do this often enough and in enough classes and one is likely to start internalizing some of these views. It's a pretty basic indoctination technique. Add to this peer pressure from fellow students who also are undergoing this brainwa---er, I mean, inculcation of truth---and you're steeped in an environment not conducive to independence of thought...

Yes, a fair amount of that goes on in Academe. However, it only explains why sucessive generations of academics share the same/similar ideas, not why they are left-leaning.

Furthermore, similar stuff goes on inside the corporate world also.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

However, it only explains why sucessive generations of academics share the same/similar ideas, not why they are left-leaning.

Because the ideas either are or are founded in "left leaning" philosophy. Change is always better than stasis, the few must help the many, the state is supposed to aid the unfortunate and promote "progressive" policies, etc. These and others are frameworks into which many specific ideas and thought forms can be fit, including ones learned later on in life. And these are the ones that get promoted in settings dominated by liberal thinkers in positions of authority.

Furthermore, similar stuff goes on inside the corporate world also.

Generally by that time people are older and their general world views have solidified. Nor do they, like students, live in their workplaces. They put in their time and go home, generally to quite different social circles, where offsetting attitudes may haply be found. Nor are political views and philosophical frameworks as important in the workplace. There is no left or right to cost accounting or product design or computer programming; what matters is the bottom line---results which lead to profits....

[telkanuru]

This does not get by without comment.

Originally Posted by Vol_907

The academic circles I ran in (undergrad about the same time as Epee Pox, grad school in the mid '90s) were rife with liberalism. Liberal arts sections of colleges--history, language, philosophy, poli sci, law, psychology & sociology--tend to be breeding grounds for leftism. Lots of theory, not a lot of practicality, so there are a lot of ideas that don't work don't get weeded out (e.g. Marxism ensures a country's prosperity and the rights of its constituents--when they have the failures of the USSR and the former Warsaw Pact countries under Communism as examples. They tend to be overlooked by the theorists).

False thing #1: Liberalism is heavy on theory and light on practicality. Well, then. Those theories put forth in the Declairation of Independance, etc. were obviously out there. Also, (in the most sarcastic voice I can muster) look at all that uncontrovertial data supporting reverse keynsian (sp?) economics.

False thing #2: Soviet Russia was a Marxist state.

And, where the theorists managed to get established, they tend to promote those who are like-minded.

Implied false thing #1: This trend only affects intellectuals/leftists (I'm fine using those terms interchangably, if you are )

Business schools do tend to be more conservative, though (at least, that's what my MBA-candidate roommate stated, many many moons ago). Again, because they get some more real-world experience than do the theorists.

(see False thing #1)

As far as the hard sciences go, well, while there are hypotheses that can be proven or disproven according to the laws that govern the properties of our universe, unfortunately, there can be measures taken to manipulate, or at least put spin on, gathered data (e.g. the Kinsey reports, et al).

jth

Funny how so much of that spin comes from the Religious Right.

Cheers.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

False thing #1: Liberalism is heavy on theory and light on practicality. Well, then. Those theories put forth in the Declairation of Independance, etc. were obviously out there. Also, (in the most sarcastic voice I can muster) look at all that uncontrovertial data supporting reverse keynsian (sp?) economics.

[sarcasm smilie]Crazy liberal theories in the US spawned the Civil Rights Movement and voting rights for women.

Unproven theories dreamt up by academics who have little to no real world experience...

[/sarcasm smilie]

[Vol_907]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

This does not get by without comment.

False thing #1: Liberalism is heavy on theory and light on practicality. Well, then. Those theories put forth in the Declairation of Independance, etc. were obviously out there. Also, (in the most sarcastic voice I can muster) look at all that uncontrovertial data supporting reverse keynsian (sp?) economics.

Let's get back to my quote in its original context, explaining why liberalism is so rife in academia: because of an environment heavy in ideas, with often little effort made to test them in the real world.

There's nothing wrong with ideals--but you need to weigh what cost it takes to make those ideals work. Unfortunately, leftism's ideals usually come at the expense of economic prosperity (redistributing wealth instead of creating it), human freedoms (again, I cite living conditions in Cold War eastern Europe), and the longevity and integrity of society (ditto).

False thing #2: Soviet Russia was a Marxist state.

Communism is ultimately based on principles authored by whom, again?

Implied false thing #1: This trend only affects intellectuals/leftists (I'm fine using those terms interchangably, if you are )

I was not implying that conservatives cannot be intellectual.

Funny how so much of that spin comes from the Religious Right.

Who mentioned anything about religious orientation? Trying to hijack the discussion by injecting sensationalism? Let's keep it above the visceral, thank you.

jth

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Vol_907

Communism is ultimately based on principles authored by whom, again?

Soviet Russia, in the form most of us are familiar with, would most properly be described as a STALINIST Communist state, which is a political organizing methodology several times removed from Marx. There are significant differences been a Marxist Communist state and a Stalinist Communist state. Thankfully, the the long term economic sustainability of a Stalinist Communist state isn't all that great.

Its somewhat like saying that Democracy started in Athens, so the USA is Greek. Again, there are significant differences between the version of democracy practiced in Athens and the democracy practiced in the USA.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Vol_907

Let's get back to my quote in its original context, explaining why liberalism is so rife in academia: because of an environment heavy in ideas, with often little effort made to test them in the real world.

There's nothing wrong with ideals--but you need to weigh what cost it takes to make those ideals work. Unfortunately, leftism's ideals usually come at the expense of economic prosperity (redistributing wealth instead of creating it), human freedoms (again, I cite living conditions in Cold War eastern Europe), and the longevity and integrity of society (ditto).

Firstly, leftism != communisim. Secondly, let's try to work with the unwanted fact that conservatism is just as rooted in ideas that have just as little practical testing. Note also that the Bush administration has criticized/fired people in the White House for being too 'Reality Oriented'. Abort, retry?

Communism is ultimately based on principles authored by whom, again?

I think this was delt with.

I was not implying that conservatives cannot be intellectual.

Sure seemed like it. Choose words more carefully next time perhaps?

Who mentioned anything about religious orientation? Trying to hijack the discussion by injecting sensationalism? Let's keep it above the visceral, thank you.

Well, thanks for attacking me and not the argument. Inquarata can give you a nice Latin phrase for it, and so shall I. "Ad Hominem".

Religious orientation has many things to do with this discussion. And perhaps the hijack you should object to is evangalism's hijack of the Right...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Because the ideas either are or are founded in "left leaning" philosophy. Change is always better than stasis, the few must help the many, the state is supposed to aid the unfortunate and promote "progressive" policies, etc. These and others are frameworks into which many specific ideas and thought forms can be fit, including ones learned later on in life. And these are the ones that get promoted in settings dominated by liberal thinkers in positions of authority.

This does not explain why liberal opinions are more common among the hard sciences people than among non-scientific people, at least in USA.

You write a bit about academia, but considering what you write, I wonder: what is your personal academic background? How much time have you spent in academic settings? Do you have many academic-type personal friends? This will cast some light on how relevant your opinions are, and if so, on which type of academy.

(Full Discosure coming) Personally, I have 6 years of undergrad studies (delay due to fencing club, comedy acting, misc. extracurricular, one year of fruitless comp-sci. studies) and almost 6 years of PhD, studies (delay due one year of fixing an old project not finished by my elders, test results being dependent on mine planning beyond my control) so I think I know fairly well what goes on in a hard-sciences heavy University setting.

There are some things which people outside of academia generally do not know, but are pertinent to this discussion:
1. The large majority of all scientists work in the hard sciences, not in humanities.
2. Competition between academics is intense, and makes anything that can be used to diminish the standing of someone else an interesting tool. This also applies to proving peers wrong, so many half-baked ideas never get out of the academic setting.
3. When academe is written about by the outside world, they tend to focus on the failings and problems, not on what actually works.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Generally by that time people are older and their general world views have solidified.

There are quite a few old people in academe, and many people go into business in their formative years. I don´t know enough to say about US. universities, but this argument simply does not hold water in Sweden, at least.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nor do they, like students, live in their workplaces.

Many students live off-campus. The faculty almost always (at least in my 1st-hand experience) lives off-campus. Furthermore, there are a lot of people in business whose social life is totally centered around their colleagues.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

They put in their time and go home, generally to quite different social circles, where offsetting attitudes may haply be found.

In my experience, it is quite the contrary. Business leaders tend to live with other high-income people in well-off, and politically coherent, communities. Name an example of someone who decides anything in the business sphere, and lives in a place with many people who are not! My experience is that academic faculty generally live in places where they are a minority (sometimes a big one, but still a minority).

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Nor are political views and philosophical frameworks as important in the workplace.

Another statement which is totally contrary to I have experienced, and read about in my reasonably close surroundings. (What world do you live on?) The expression "office politics" exists for a reason. Give an example of a company where the leadership have quite different political opinions, and voice them! Similar examples in academe can easily be found, do a Google. Being the political outlier can easily kill a career in business.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There is no left or right to cost accounting or product design or computer programming; what matters is the bottom line---results which lead to profits....

I have seen some product design 1st-hand (have you?) and I can
say that some political discussions are done, for instance when trying to figure out how a product should be designed so that it appeals to the expected political opinions held by the intended customer base (ever heard of political correctness?) I will leave accounting and programming to those who are experts in those fields, but I suspect that political angles can be found in them too.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

Peter's comments certainly resonate with me. I want to second his remark about business and politics: universities are one of the places that ideology is discussed, but business is where ideology is carried out as business decisions. It's where the rubber meets the road. Speaking out against political beliefs expressed as company policy can be career suicide.

I'll illustrate with examples from a former employer, as well known stock brokerage. During "downsizing exercises" and outsourcing, the troops were repeatedly told that "change is good", and "globalization is inevitable and good for you", even when we were laying off people and either taking on their responsibilities or training their overseas replacements. Management (of which I was part) continued to receive bonuses, of course. Contradicting this, or saying that staff had rights, or that companies have social responsibilities was viewed as heresy and could only be done at risk.

Recently, one of my friends still there was at a planning meeting for outsourcing programming and call center operations to India. My friend, who is a VP (as I was) said "we're famous for 'bringing Wall Street to Main Street' - who are we going to sell stocks to if we send good middle class jobs overseas?" He was told in no uncertain terms to shut the hell up.

Company executives make public statements and lobby government consistent with their financial and political goals on subjects including immigration (H-1B visas, anyone?), globalization, education, tax policy and interest rates, the degree of government regulation. Company staff is "encouraged" to contribute to PACs, individuals and political parties that support the "company position". Protesting or even debating any of this is a poor career choice. So, the idea that "political views and philosophical frameworks (are not) as important in the workplace" is completely misplaced.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

This does not explain why liberal opinions are more common among the hard sciences people than among non-scientific people, at least in USA.

Firstly, is there any evidence that they are?

Secondly, I don't see any real connection between the way a person thinks about value-free principles of science and the way he feels about the much more amorphous, normative matters of philosophy. They are two entirely different realms of thought, and I cannot imagine any reason why an affinity for, say, mathematics should in any way either cause or result from a given sort of political world view...

You write a bit about academia, but considering what you write, I wonder: what is your personal academic background? How much time have you spent in academic settings? Do you have many academic-type personal friends?

6 years at ( state ) university, and as I fence at a university club I still find myself on campus a good deal. Yes, I have a number of friends who are or were professors, grad students, etc., in a variety of fields.

1. The large majority of all scientists work in the hard sciences, not in humanities.

Depends on how you define hard science and humanities, doesn't it?

And---even in academe, there's a lot of crossover. For example, are economists mathematicians? Some are. So as which do we count them, hard scientist or soft?

But I suppose that generally speaking that's about right. Lots and lots of chemists, botanists, geologists and so forth out there, in industry or research as well as academic settings.

There are quite a few old people in academe,

Yes, and generally they've been there a long time as well...and an older person who enters academe would not be as prone to adopting the prevailing ethos as a younger one, either, I'd expect.

and many people go into business in their formative years.

True. But the lower level of the corporate culture---let us say your average entry-level cubicle-farm position---is not as exposed to the constant pressure to conform to an intellectual, philosophical norm. To dress thusly, behave thusly, certainly. But there is not the omnipresent inculcation of abstruse worldviews coming from every quarter. There is not the same sort of teaching environment. The boss in a business is not concerned with passing on knowledge or ways of thinking to his subordinates; this is the whole object of the academician, however. And the employee, unlike the student, does not go from one venue dedicated to the implantation of ideas and ways of thinking to another, day in, day out. The purpose of the one is productive output, of the other learning. The opportunities for molding outlooks on life, politics and such are vastly greater for the latter than for the former.

Many students live off-campus.

And many do not...and those who do generally live with and around other students and the university, unlike the worker, whose habitat is much more likely to be diverse and removed from his daily place of toil. ( As an example, I lived off campus, but less than a mile from it and in an apartment complex inhabited almost entirely by students, one of dozens of such complexes in the area. Most of my friends and acquaintances were, still, other students. Today, I live over 20 miles from my work, and none of my circle of friends are co-workers. The difference in idioms is clear, IMO, and I think largely generalizeable. )

In my experience, it is quite the contrary. Business leaders tend to live with other high-income people in well-off, and politically coherent, communities.

We aren't talking about business "leaders", for they are not comparable to students in academe. The apprpriate comparison would be to lower-tier workers. As I said before, one's views and biases are acquired young, during one's formative, malleable youth. By the time one is mature, one's opinions and ways of looking at the world are largely set. This is why I say that a culture of monolithic political bias is more dangerous to college students than to older people.

Another statement which is totally contrary to I have experienced, and read about in my reasonably close surroundings. (What world do you live on?)

Well, I'll just ignore that in charity...

The expression "office politics" exists for a reason.

"Office politics" is not the same as "politics". It's a microcosmic reference to the maneuvering and infighting for personal power, prestice and opportunities for advancement within the firm or at worst the industry. It's a far cry from talking about who is sleeping with whom or which boss is incompetent to the sort of sociopolitical and philosophical ways of thinking about the world and general principles of 'good' and 'bad' behavior that one gets in school.

how a product should be designed so that it appeals to the expected political opinions held by the intended customer base

Er...what?

Are you saying that a computer or a vitamin-pill package is designed with an eye to the possible political views of the consumers????

Frankly, I have got to say that that seems a really stupid idea. Given that a product ideally will have broad appeal to all consumers, it strikes me as wildly counterproductive to aim it at only half ( at best ) of the marketplace right from the outset....and on a political basis, at that!