4 ms·

On the one hand, those are fair points - maybe conservatism is just not consistent with good science. We can't just rule that out. But on the other hand, I thi

On the one hand, those are fair points - maybe conservatism is just not consistent with good science. We can't just rule that out. But on the other hand, I think we can. The percentage of conservatives has declined rapidly in recent decades. We haven't seen an increase in scientific productivity because of that. Science worked just as well back when there were more conservatives doing it. And we also see conservatives talking about how hard it is for them to be themselves on campuses. It isn't that their politics interfere with them doing science. It is that they are a hated minority.

eropple 10y ago
I think your definition of "conservative" is cheating around to suit your argument (that's not a slight against you, most people make this mistake). In "prior decades", conservatism was a different thing. It wasn't a refusal to acknowledge that there are aspects of reality that will not move just because you want them to. We are very, very far afield from an intellectually respectable conservative movement that resembles the one where a conservative academia existed. For example: never mind that Richard Milhouse Dirtbag Nixon created the EPA--the idea of clean air and clean water being a social good that should be available to all people is a liberal idea now. That is a pretty big swing. The conservative movement that attacks facts because facts refuse to coexist with their ideology was a Pat Buchanan minority before about 1990 and didn't exist in the mainstream of political thought before about 1970. Do you realize that the modern conservative movement defined "reality-based community" as a pejorative because they believed they could simply create their own realities[1]? Turns out that when you fight reality, reality fights back. It's not really a surprise that burning effort on that struggle is not conducive to scientific pursuits. > And we also see conservatives talking about how hard it is for them to be themselves on campuses. It isn't that their politics interfere with them doing science. It is that they are a hated minority. When your belief system is predicated upon what modern conservatism is predicated upon, yes, you're going to be disliked. It is a very dislikable system of belief! And I mean, I'm speaking from experience. It wasn't that long ago when I was one of those Campus Conservatives, speaking truth to the Liberal Elites. I delighted in being the gadfly. I got shit because I acted like a little shit. (And I regret it now, because my desire to be Loudly and Emphatically Conservative actually hurt people; I was never so broken as to fall in with the racists and the homophobes, but I had no problem with the very morally upright hang-the-poors ideology and saw nothing wrong with "well, why don't they just work harder?".) So pardon me for being real skeptical about how very oppressed they are. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a... (the puncher quote there is largely believed to be from Karl Rove)
- brighteyes 10y ago
  You have very negative opinions about conservative people. I guess I can't be sure they are wrong, but they seem wrong based on the conservatives I know, follow on Twitter, etc.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Conservatives, doubtlessly conservatives that you know, just elected Donald Trump President of the United States. Let that sink in for a moment and then reflect on what conservatism even means.
    - brighteyes 10y ago
      I dislike Trump and voted for Clinton obviously. I'm sad they won. But why should I be surprised that the right-leaning half of the US voted for the Republican candidate?
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        >But why should I be surprised that the right-leaning half of the US voted for the Republican candidate? Because the Republican candidate deeply disagreed with most Republican ideas. For instance, he openly wants his government to "pick winners" in the marketplace and has repeatedly said he won't cut Social Security. For the Party to fall in behind him on personality alone, while he speaks one heresy after another against their purported ideology, shows that they no longer have an ideology they preach in good-faith. They've become a bad-faith party, distinct from conservative parties in other countries, who just seek power, connections, and wealth for themselves, and say whatever's necessary to get it.
        brighteyes 10y ago
        That's not at all what I hear from conservative people. First, yes, Trump disagreed with a bunch of typical Republican ideas. But those turned out to be things that Republican voters wanted, even if the Republican party members didn't. Like his stance on trade. Second, Trump loudly championed a lot of typical Republican causes, like the "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" mantra, being "pro-life", etc. Those seem like terrible ideas/policies to me and probably you, but Trump is a typical conservative on those. So no, it wasn't on "personality alone."
hackuser 10y ago
> The percentage of conservatives has declined rapidly in recent decades. We haven't seen an increase in scientific productivity because of that. Science worked just as well back when there were more conservatives doing it. Is there really data showing the proportion of scientists who are "conservative"? In what fields?
- brighteyes 10y ago
  Yes, see for example the data discussed in this recent article, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/liberal-professors/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/libera... This isn't new, it's been known for decades that academia leaned left, and in particular certain areas of it (humanities and social sciences).
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > it's been known for decades that academia leaned left Yes, but the question here is different: Has the proportion of conservatives diminished significantly? (tl;dr: Among 4-year colleges and universities in the U.S., according to one study, there has been a big change in New England but only a little elsewhere.) And thanks for adding some actual facts to that discussion! Some thoughts on it, and a summary so that everyone doesn't have to read it: The analysis is from Samuel Abrams, an apparently conservative[0] political science professor at Sarah Lawrence and the Hoover Institution. In looking up Abrams, I found an article that addresses his study plus other useful research and in a less biased way (the Boston Magazine article is titled "How Liberal Professors Are Ruining College" and mostly is anecdotes about persecution): https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, ... conducts periodic surveys of faculty members and asks them, among other things, about their political views. Recent surveys have shown that faculty members are moving more to the left than has been the case in the past. Abrams analysis is of the above data, and shows that the ratios are holding mostly constant in most of the country but in New England the ratio of liberal-to-conservative has shot up from around 5:1 to 28:1: http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/liberal-professors-new-england-chart-1.jpg http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/li... He found that region was the most significant factor, even controlling for institution type of discipline of faculty members. Also of interest: The HERI data are on four-year college and university faculty members, and much research suggests that community college faculty members are more centrist than are their four-year colleagues. Remember that very many people attend community colleges, regardless of their relative prominence. Still open is how much of that change is due to the country moving right and the definition of conservative changing; for example, much of Ronald Reagan's politics would be anathema to current "conservative" leaders. But again, many thanks; the research definitely informs the conversation. ---- [0] Abrams is identified as centrist in one article and conservative in another. The Hoover Institution is conservative, AFAIK.

eropple 10y ago

I think your definition of "conservative" is cheating around to suit your argument (that's not a slight against you, most people make this mistake). In "prior decades", conservatism was a different thing. It wasn't a refusal to acknowledge that there are aspects of reality that will not move just because you want them to. We are very, very far afield from an intellectually respectable conservative movement that resembles the one where a conservative academia existed. For example: never mind that Richard Milhouse Dirtbag Nixon created the EPA--the idea of clean air and clean water being a social good that should be available to all people is a liberal idea now. That is a pretty big swing. The conservative movement that attacks facts because facts refuse to coexist with their ideology was a Pat Buchanan minority before about 1990 and didn't exist in the mainstream of political thought before about 1970. Do you realize that the modern conservative movement defined "reality-based community" as a pejorative because they believed they could simply create their own realities[1]? Turns out that when you fight reality, reality fights back. It's not really a surprise that burning effort on that struggle is not conducive to scientific pursuits. > And we also see conservatives talking about how hard it is for them to be themselves on campuses. It isn't that their politics interfere with them doing science. It is that they are a hated minority. When your belief system is predicated upon what modern conservatism is predicated upon, yes, you're going to be disliked. It is a very dislikable system of belief! And I mean, I'm speaking from experience. It wasn't that long ago when I was one of those Campus Conservatives, speaking truth to the Liberal Elites. I delighted in being the gadfly. I got shit because I acted like a little shit. (And I regret it now, because my desire to be Loudly and Emphatically Conservative actually hurt people; I was never so broken as to fall in with the racists and the homophobes, but I had no problem with the very morally upright hang-the-poors ideology and saw nothing wrong with "well, why don't they just work harder?".) So pardon me for being real skeptical about how very oppressed they are. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a... (the puncher quote there is largely believed to be from Karl Rove)

brighteyes 10y ago
You have very negative opinions about conservative people. I guess I can't be sure they are wrong, but they seem wrong based on the conservatives I know, follow on Twitter, etc.
- CalChris 10y ago
  Conservatives, doubtlessly conservatives that you know, just elected Donald Trump President of the United States. Let that sink in for a moment and then reflect on what conservatism even means.
  - brighteyes 10y ago
    I dislike Trump and voted for Clinton obviously. I'm sad they won. But why should I be surprised that the right-leaning half of the US voted for the Republican candidate?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >But why should I be surprised that the right-leaning half of the US voted for the Republican candidate? Because the Republican candidate deeply disagreed with most Republican ideas. For instance, he openly wants his government to "pick winners" in the marketplace and has repeatedly said he won't cut Social Security. For the Party to fall in behind him on personality alone, while he speaks one heresy after another against their purported ideology, shows that they no longer have an ideology they preach in good-faith. They've become a bad-faith party, distinct from conservative parties in other countries, who just seek power, connections, and wealth for themselves, and say whatever's necessary to get it.
      - brighteyes 10y ago
        That's not at all what I hear from conservative people. First, yes, Trump disagreed with a bunch of typical Republican ideas. But those turned out to be things that Republican voters wanted, even if the Republican party members didn't. Like his stance on trade. Second, Trump loudly championed a lot of typical Republican causes, like the "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" mantra, being "pro-life", etc. Those seem like terrible ideas/policies to me and probably you, but Trump is a typical conservative on those. So no, it wasn't on "personality alone."

hackuser 10y ago

> The percentage of conservatives has declined rapidly in recent decades. We haven't seen an increase in scientific productivity because of that. Science worked just as well back when there were more conservatives doing it. Is there really data showing the proportion of scientists who are "conservative"? In what fields?

brighteyes 10y ago
Yes, see for example the data discussed in this recent article, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/liberal-professors/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/libera... This isn't new, it's been known for decades that academia leaned left, and in particular certain areas of it (humanities and social sciences).
- hackuser 10y ago
  > it's been known for decades that academia leaned left Yes, but the question here is different: Has the proportion of conservatives diminished significantly? (tl;dr: Among 4-year colleges and universities in the U.S., according to one study, there has been a big change in New England but only a little elsewhere.) And thanks for adding some actual facts to that discussion! Some thoughts on it, and a summary so that everyone doesn't have to read it: The analysis is from Samuel Abrams, an apparently conservative[0] political science professor at Sarah Lawrence and the Hoover Institution. In looking up Abrams, I found an article that addresses his study plus other useful research and in a less biased way (the Boston Magazine article is titled "How Liberal Professors Are Ruining College" and mostly is anecdotes about persecution): https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-new-england-colleges-responsible-left-leaning-professoriate https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/05/new-analysis-... the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, ... conducts periodic surveys of faculty members and asks them, among other things, about their political views. Recent surveys have shown that faculty members are moving more to the left than has been the case in the past. Abrams analysis is of the above data, and shows that the ratios are holding mostly constant in most of the country but in New England the ratio of liberal-to-conservative has shot up from around 5:1 to 28:1: http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/liberal-professors-new-england-chart-1.jpg http://cdn1.bostonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/li... He found that region was the most significant factor, even controlling for institution type of discipline of faculty members. Also of interest: The HERI data are on four-year college and university faculty members, and much research suggests that community college faculty members are more centrist than are their four-year colleagues. Remember that very many people attend community colleges, regardless of their relative prominence. Still open is how much of that change is due to the country moving right and the definition of conservative changing; for example, much of Ronald Reagan's politics would be anathema to current "conservative" leaders. But again, many thanks; the research definitely informs the conversation. ---- [0] Abrams is identified as centrist in one article and conservative in another. The Hoover Institution is conservative, AFAIK.