When complaining about the numbers, stating the numbers is the point where a social scientist should start.
Based on what?
[quote=“Paranoid_Randroid, post:38, topic:659166”]
With the caveat that I try not to have political opinions anymore[li], something feels deeply ironic about the quoted statement: it reflects a very black-and-white perspective on conservative and progressive thinking. There are too many exceptions to make that rule feel reasonable to me. Progressives may outnumber conservatives in the social sciences and humanities, but please note that in absolute terms there are still a great number of conservative persons in such fields.[/li][/quote]
Well, of course I’m speaking in generalities. You’ll note the importance of words like “tend to” and “often”.
This is a thread trying to explain why, in general, conservatives are underrepresented in the social sciences. Of course, there are conservative historians, conservative sociologists, conservative psychologists. I agree, however, with the assertion that they tend to be in the minority relative to their peers in terms of political orientation.
I have no problem whatsoever saying that anecdotally, conservatives tend to think in black and whites and absolutes. It’s defensible from observation of the political policies and ideologies they assert, from the logic and rationale that they employ in thinking through problems, and from observing outcomes (such as fewer conservatives end up in social sciences or as actors or artists).
It’s also defensible from the standpoint of examining the literature on cognitive flexibility, need for closure and authoritarianism.
It’s also completely manifest, as I pointed out, in the absurd assertion that “A=A”, as if asserting that equal things are equal is some kind of answer, or starting point to obtain an answer. A=A is an absolute, and as a Randroid, you ought to recognize the standing of that absolute as a characterization of a political orientation.
ETA: I’m always flummoxed, by the way, at objections to this observation. Certainly, people would not object to the idea that one’s personality, one’s traits, one’s tendencies and ways of seeing the world strongly influence the careers one pursues, right?
Doesn’t it make sense that such characteristics would also strongly influence one’s political orientation? I mean, the alternative would seem to be that people select a political orientation for reasons independent of their personality, their preferences, their own way of thinking through problems. That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Sorry. Should’ve used more weasel words. The folks I know who are trained in economics tend to be suspicious of government distortions of the market, and would tend to align center-right under normal political definitions. That doesn’t really make them conservative in the American sense, though, and I think most of them are too socially liberal to vote with the current GOP.
And I believe there’s a cite above proving me wrong on the fact anyway.
In other words, to quote Emily Litella, of blessed memory, “Never mind.”
As you pointed out, academia itself is heavily skewed left, so it’s no surprise that if you examined the political affiliation of any given professor you would find that liberals are overrepresented and conservatives are underrepresented. It’s usually said that who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. But I digress. A lack of conservatives who decide to go into academia does not correlate to a lack of conservatives in that field.
Anyway, economics is a social science, and there aren’t any lack of conservatives there. In fact, here is a study which measures the effects of taking economic courses has on a person’s political affiliation.
Simplified; the more economics classes you take in college, or even if you majored in either economics or business, the more likely you are to identify as a Republican and the less likely you are to express either no political affiliation or to identify as a Democrat.
Pretty sure even in the 2012 election, that was true, with economists as a whole favoring Romney to Obama.
Let me offer a few observations about the study you linked to.
First, they drew their sample from four schools: Florida Atlantic, Nebraska, U. North Carolina, and Purdue. I’m not sure how familiar you are with US regional differences in political orientation, but I wonder if you think those locations reflect a diversity across the political spectrum or not.
Further, they got a 91% non-response rate to their survey, meaning that the results are not even representative of whatever diversity there is. It’s very self-selected, and in particular, nearly 70% of the responses came from U. North Carolina itself. Again, perhaps you are not familiar with US regional differences in political orientation.
Further, when discussing their findings, even the authors of the study you have provided for us note:
So if we want to go back to your little jibe about people doing versus teaching, you have provided us indirectly with data that shows that people “doing” in economics (i.e. those in a professional organization of economists) are heavily biased towards affiliation with the Democratic party.
In contrast, your study of people who at one point took courses in economics, primarily at UNC, doesn’t seem to carry as much weight.
Considering colleges are open to all regardless of what state, county, locality or municipality the applicant hails from, what would regional differences in political orientation have to do with anything, especially considering colleges themselves are usually liberal hotbeds, so to speak? That is, of course, unless you’re assuming that everyone who goes to school at, say, North Carolina, themselves are from North Carolina and are just as conservative as the state as a whole in which the college is located. Is that what you’re saying? Because if it is, you’re engaging in quite the fallacy there.
BTW> Florida Atlantic is in Boca Raton, and Boca Raton isn’t exactly a conservative Mecca. Just thought I’d point that out, in case you were insinuating something.
Nice to see you’re back to the, “but… but… but… regional differences!” response.
Oh, look. Someone is shifting the goalposts. Why would I do that, since my post mentioned nothing of “professional organization(s) of economists”, but rather academia, which was a response to whoever it was pointing out that academia itself skews left.
Of course not. Because you don’t agree with it.
Really? You want to argue that students at a college don’t disproportionately come from the state the college is in? Have you ever heard of “in state” tuition? Most universities and colleges are usually cheaper for the residents of the state. What effect do you think that has on the demographics of the enrolled students?
In the case of UNC, though, there’s another factor: “At least 82 percent of each freshmen class must be from North Carolina, as dictated by state law.” http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-north-carolina-chapel-hill-2974
Please provide evidence that these colleges, or colleges in general, usually have a student body that is not predominantly drawn from the surrounding region.
Wait, are you now arguing that students are in fact drawn not only from the surrounding state, but the surrounding city? Nice 180, but I wouldn’t go that far.
I never got off of it. It’s my point. The study is not at all representative of the general population, of the population of universities, of the population of schools of economics… hell, the sample turns out not even to be representative of the sample (in that it had a horrid response rate and was almost all from UNC anyway)!
When it comes to economics, by the way, there are such dramatic regional differences that people sometimes refer to freshwater versus saltwater schools of economics. Paul Krugman, for example, represents “saltwater,” whereas the folks in Chicago represent “freshwater.”
You must not know what “shifting the goal posts” means. Here’s a link to wikipedia to help you out: Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia.
See, we are talking about the lack of conservatives in social sciences, so it’s very relevant to consider the political leanings of a professional organization of social scientists. The fact that you tried to suggest that liberals or democrats couldn’t “do” so they “teach” was just sauce for the goose I gave you.
I totally agree that it represents 9% of the students who responded to their survey, 70% of whom were from UNC.
Do you contend that it does not?
Is that what I said? Why no, it isn’t. Your argument requires you accept two premises; all students at a given university come from X, and that X is Y (or in the case you provided, X is North Carolina and North Carolina is "republican/conservative/however you want to label it). It’s faulty, least because the first assumption is false-- a fact you attest to yourself-- and the second because it assumes that there are no regional variations within a state, and that if a state votes X that any given person chosen at random in that state will vote the same way. At best, it’s an ecological fallacy, which I’m sure you understand. States are not monolithic voting blocs, and within any given state there is generally wide variation of voting habits by district/county/locality/municipality. Just because a college is located in state X means jack shit. Even the most conservative of states have their liberal districts and vice versa. What if, for example, the majority of the student population of North Carolina came from the most liberal district. What then?
Why should I, when I said nothing of predominantly, but rather everyone.
Of course not. I’m pointing out the fact that you can’t dismiss where a college is located, since at least one of those colleges isn’t in an conservative area.
I’m curious. What, exactly, do you deem an “adequate” response rate?
That’s nice. Now what bearing does it have on my posts thus far, especially since no one said “all economists are conservatives”.
So I guess if B then A is equal to if A then B now, huh?
I’m sorry, but did you completely skip over post #11, which specifically was dealing with professors and academia, to which I directly responded? Rhetorical question, of course.
Of course, especially since the data is not taken from one singular year.
Fuck it. I’m not playing “here we go 'round the mulberry bush” again with some conservative pushing a flawed reading of scientific literature on these boards.
The social sciences, however, are the least scientific of all the sciences and generate an awful lot of quackery. Whatever the causes may be, it isn’t because their learning science. There isn’t very much honest science there to learn.
One factor, of course, is that anyone showing any disturbing irreverence towards political correctness will simply be filtered out. The progressives who dominate the social sciences, as well as their sympathizers in the mainstream media, simply do everything they can to run off anyone who won’t worship at their political altar. Consider the case of Jason Richwine.
Er… Jason Richwine was fired by the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative organization, not by the evil liberal media.
Also it was done because his supposed research was fit to use as toilet paper and not much else.
Wouldn’t you agree that it is utterly moronic to claim that “Latinos” are a “race” seller ate from whites, or do you think Cameron Diaz and Charlie Sheen shouldn’t be considered white?
People tend to take business classes because they are conservative.
Also, I think it’s similar to what another poster said about creationists taking biology. Once you take some econ and business classes and learn how economics and business actually works, it’s difficult to be all “rich people are all evil and they’re stealing from the poor!”
Pretty sure it’s at best inconclusive who “economists as a whole” favored. I looked it up and it seems to all depend on who you ask. Here’s what the Economist says. Short answer "Obama with a ‘but’:…longer answer “Romney with a ‘however’”.
He was fired because a bunch of progressive swine started squealing “Racist! Racist! Racist!” and the folks at Heritage Foundation, with typical conservative cowardice, promptly shat their pants and hustled Richwine out the door with indecent haste.
His doctoral thesis, the research to which you seem to be referring, was only attacked after the progressive porkers started squealing. The fact that both individuals and groups vary greatly in IQ is about as scientifically non-controversial as you can get, and those who deny that fact are in the same league as Holocaust deniers and creationists. And Richwine never said they were a race. His thesis merely took into account the well-established fact that Hispanic immigrants have on average significantly lower IQs than Anglos and tried to address the question of how this fact should affect immigration policies.
This sort of thing happens at more or less regular intervals. A progressive journalist or activist will target some conservative figure with accusations of racism, homophobia or some other such nonsense, and other lefties will start squealing along with the rest of the herd. No one will support the targeted figure for fear of becoming targets themselves, the victim’s career is derailed or altogether destroyed, and then the progs have made their message clear: “Do as we say, or we’ll do the same to you.” The purpose of such periodic demands for sacrifices is the same as that of lynch mobs and pogroms–to assert the power of one group over another. Witch hunts such as these are designed to assert the power of progressives over everybody else.
- He resigned.
- His Dissertation made it past his committee at Harvard.
- His Dissertation has been quoted by the New York Times in the past for bringing up the question of how to identify the most potential in immigrants without education (versus the system other nations use of purely education).
- Nobody has disproven the data he used to put it together.
This attack on him is a PERFECT example of why conservatives can not survive in the social sciences. The best way to get published is to push the boundaries. When you do so, you will piss off whoever’s theory your are running against, or away from. That just becomes a small pissing match between factions. However, if you are stupid enough to go conservative - then it won’t be factional pissing match - the entire liberal wing will go after you. Once that happens, you are screwed. Every paper will go into revise-resubmit in perpetuity. That is one of the things that has created the Heritage, Hoover, CATO, etc. think tanks. Those places are full of conservative and libertarian social science PhDs who wouldn’t be given a second look due to their politics.
My undergraduate degree was in education, English. The first year was in a private college. There was very little political conditioning of students. Since the private college was religious there was, surprise, religious conditioning. I resented it.
The state university I attended either hadn’t gotten the message yet or else they found it difficult to influence English teachers to be liberals. Odd birds that we are.
But by the time I returned for a Master’s degree in the health department it was clear that the college intended to exert a strong liberal influence on its students. And it certainly worked with me. I left primed to believe all the government propaganda I was fed and well enabled to speak political correctness with the best of them. (I’ve got to say, given my background, I thought some of the terms were, if not dishonest, at least a bit foolish.) But if it kept feelings from being hurt I was all for it. Andwith stars in my eyes off I went to help the masses.
In my working life there was little talk of politics. I actually can’t say I even knew the political bent of the people I worked with. Most of us weren’t interested in anything but helping people heal and that occupied most of our time.
But my experiences of working in what was essentially a government controlled liberal system over time disproved to me many of the liberal ideas I had been taught in university. And I retired significantly more conservative than I was when I began.
Actually, unless one’s degree is in political science, I’d prefer that colleges allow expression of all ideas without prejudice and give the students a chance to take them out into the world to try them on and see which is the best fit for them.
Hope I’m on topic here. I’m not quite sure what is being asked. To sum up - you can’t learn much from facts and figures except how to teach others facts and figures. No one can teach you how to teach and no one can teach you how to heal. And I believe that both can be done by both honest liberals and honest conservatives.
Jesus… is it time for the quarterly debunking of the racist intelligence debate?
So do you have a counter-cite with data?
In the linked cite, the article links to:
Hispanics, the New Italians
By DAVID LEONHARDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/sunday-review/hispanics-the-new-italians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
With more links to the supporting research.
So, once again…
Riiiiiiight…