9 ms·

Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? (2016)

35 points by teslacar 10y ago

rrdharan 10y ago
Should have a (2016) on it? > The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if they want resounding victories. It’s not in their long-term interest to be too much what Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the party of the Ph.D.s.” Yeah, about that...
cs1717p 10y ago
Two things: One, academia (for many reasons) tends toward liberal group think. Two, interestingly, many of the most intelligent and successful (especially self made) people tend to be libertarian or conservative.
- lcfcjs 10y ago
  Two contradicts your reasoning. Also, it's not true. Most self made successful business owners in the United States are immigrants. Spoiler alert: Immigrants do not vote Republican.
- CalChris 10y ago
  Yeah, my engineering classes at Cal were mostly close readings of Karl Marx.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    Engels really grokked angles.
- newyankee 10y ago
  I see that in most of the first world countries 'self'made' is a very incorrectly used word, no one can be completely 'self-made'
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    No idea why you're getting down voted here. It's absolutely true. If you start a business, hire a bunch of people, and are very successful, congrats. You've probably worked very hard. But self-made? No. Your business benefitted from having your employees educated (at least K-12), being protected from crime by all levels of law enforcement, being protected from foreign invasion by the military, being protected by fire by the local fire department. Your goods can be shipped via roads built and paid for by the government. Etc. No man is an island.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      Everyone (within first world geopolitical borders, at least) has access to all of those things though. Self-made still refers to the part that sets the individual apart. The dictionary seems fairly clear on that.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        No, everyone in the first world doesn't have equal access to those things, even within any given country, and the people described as "self-made" disproportionately come from the segment with better-than-average access to them.
        randomdata 10y ago
        I think you may be attaching way too much meaning to the definition of self-made, or perhaps haven't actually looked up the definition. It doesn't mean that someone was able to succeed in a vacuum.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        I'm not even discussing the definition of self-made, I'm pointing out that, in fact, the claim made upthread that access to certain things is universal in the first world and they the self-made vary from the norm in other ways simply is (1) based on a false premise, and (2) is not accurate of the situations where the term is used, even accepting that the proposed definition is exactly what it is meant to convey.
- tyleo 10y ago
  Can you please elaborate on your first point, or provide a few examples of reasons that academia tends toward liberal group think?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    I can't find it since I'm at work right now but Jonathan Haidt has some great work on this. Liberal group think is present, but only really dominates the social sciences/humanities. But in these fields liberal group think has increasingly dominated since 2000. He has some stuff on departments going from 3:1 liberal:conservative to more like 10:1.
lcfcjs 10y ago
The reason is because they are more intelligent, more likely to follow the news and less likely to believe everything they read on the internet or watch on TV.
nextstep 10y ago
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" --Stephen Colbert
- pizzetta 10y ago
  I think Nature has more of a Libertarian bias, or maybe that's just me.
  - rc_bhg 10y ago
    I don't see anyone calling nature fair and equitable though. It's survival by luck and chance. You happen to find and catch the food, then you get to live.
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    You mean Social Darwinism?
  - tomlock 10y ago
    Depends on what you mean by Libertarian, or what you mean by Nature. Social primates generally have collective senses of justice (if my friend gets a grape I should get a grape too). Even on a single-cell level self-sacrifice for the collective (slime moulds). Of course, its totally possible to argue that these traits could be Libertarian traits too. Aren't we the only creatures on earth with government?
    - Danihan 10y ago
      That sense of collective justice only applies to the in-group, within family or tribal units. Your tribe might fight another tribe to the death over some territory, or for some grapes. Also, collective justice isn't exactly something you want to appeal to in general. The mob might lynch you for being too annoying, for instance.
      - tomlock 10y ago
        I'm not "appealing" to it, I'm making the point that nature isn't particularly aligned with Libertarian ideals. I wouldn't consider family or tribal preferences to be particularly cogent with the philosophy of Libertarianism, for instance.
startupdiscuss 10y ago
I suspect liberals and conservatives will have different opinions of this. (They're smarter! They're brainwashed!) However, it is worth breaking down what it means to be liberal or conservative. It is odd that if you tell me an American's opinions on guns, I can give an above-chance estimate of their opinion on immigration, or abortion. The real question is, why are liberals so liberal?
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  I think first past the post voting makes people vote for parties whom they only agree with on a few large issues out of a huge platform. People then spend a lot of time rationalizing their vote by reading/digesting opinions from their in-group, slowly transforming into a straight-line party voter.
  - startupdiscuss 10y ago
    That is a rational possible explanation. If that were the case, then (in answer to the article), one would need just one liberal view that the highly educated can agree with (for instance, lower cost of higher education, lower debt on students), and then you would get the other views along with them.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      No, you'd need one liberal view that you vote on. That is, the one view that you hold as more important than all other views must be liberal.
      - tracker1 10y ago
        Or, you are like me (Libertarian), and many others who believe that a minimalistic government that only meets the needs of common defense, upholding court decisions and essential infrastructure are best on a number of levels. Most of us are also in favor of VERY high levels of transparency in both government and businesses in order to establish fairly open trade. Most of us would prefer to see transactional taxes over income taxes. What consists of essential infrastructure is up to some debate, I might be convinced that education is, roads are, internet is (communications), electricity is... but not too much else. I feel that healthcare and other social welfare programs could lean towards family care requirements, which would allow for much lower costs for everyone else that doesn't have family for care. I'm not hardline either, I'm open to pragmatic options for many things... but the direction should be towards freedom and not away from it.
m52go 10y ago
> Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not. I'm not a member of either major party, but I'm tired of people labeling the left as the party of 'logic and reason' and the right as the party of stubborn, mindless tradition. Both party platforms are bent to suit political whims, so ultimately, both parties are laughably contradictory in their values. There's plenty of rational reason on the right. If you don't agree, read Thomas Sowell and I bet you'll be forced to reconsider. As a side note, why the hell can't I copy text from the article? Very annoying. Had to search for text in the developer console just to copy the quote above.
- goalieca 10y ago
  Perhaps the left has no innate sense of reason. That seems logical. What I fail to understand is how so many republicans deny logic. It seems not that the left is the side of logic but that the right is on the side of illogic. They deny much of our understanding of evolution, climate science, criminology, sociology, and even economics.
  - creaghpatr 10y ago
    A lot of people simply conflate logic and reason in the first place.
  - m52go 10y ago
    I perceive this to be because of unfair characterizations by opposing media. Example: do all conservatives think climate change is a hoax? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones do believe this based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed conservatives, from what I've seen, don't reject the science entirely. They question specific numbers and trends that make the case for climate change weaker than the liberal one. So to clarify: conservatives are skeptical of specifics, while liberals accuse them of wholesale rejection. What do you see on The Daily Show? The latter. Example from the other side: are all liberals socialists? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones want outright socialism based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed liberals, from what I've seen, don't want socialism. They have more nuanced views on social programs that, when better understood, are really just public welfare programs to promote equality of opportunity in a society with lots of excess capital. So to clarify: liberals want reasonable social benefits, while conservatives accuse them of being radical socialists. What do you see on Breitbart? The latter. Neither side is innocent. But liberals have claimed a monopoly on the terms 'logic' and 'progressive' as well as virtually all of academia and mainstream media...so it's hard to fight back. Which is yet another reason Trump's win was so incredible & unexpected. Please realize this is based on no hard evidence, just personal observation.
gnipgnip 10y ago
You may as well ask: "Why are parish school students so Christian". This is not to say that they viscerally believe in these qualities... oh nooo. It's just that if you want to play the game, you optimize for the environment (I may have picked that up from Alan Watts). Simple RL really. Idiots, and loudmouths, on the other hand will get ostracized and have pots broken over their heads; one shouldn't be surprised if something one writes on a public forum will get one fired from school/work (may have happened to the younger me once). This is not the depressing thing though - no the depressing thing is that the rules of the game are never explained clearly. In this sense, the Western liberal dogma is essentially the Christian one of grovelling expiation. You know... one can be as bad in action, but words and "belief", expressed tirelessly over and over, are key to salvation [1]. Terrible, terrible messaging to the naive younglings. This probably explains why some (generally poor) idiots in the Midwest send tons of money to "harvest Asia in the name of Christ" (well atleast to those in power), while jumping up an down to keep these "loved" people away from their neighborhood. Then there is the New Age movement, "meditating" and "yoga-ing" for "peace" "health" and "environment" (and lots of greens), while showing total disdain for the path [2]... Namast.. No, fk you! All this facade gets really really tiring. [1] The laity in much of Asia believe in very similar things to be fair... although they don't get bonked on the head with a book everytime they are out of line. [2]　acharya: "Guru" lit. he who walks the path
CM30 10y ago
Makes me wonder if this will change soon. I mean, look at the whole 'alt-right' thing, the readership on sites like Breitbart, The Donald subreddit, etc. They're not made up of older folk with religious tendencies any more, but young college students/graduates posting memes on social media sites. I think it's quite possible we could see highly educated people become more conservative in the foreseeable future. Especially with all the comments about protests and social media shaming and crazy professors...
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  With the universities dominantly liberal (at least in the humanities departments), I wonder if the alt-right isn't a form of rebellion, kind of like punks with brightly-colored mohawks were a generation ago. We're going to pick something not just different, but something that you find repulsive.
dkhenry 10y ago
Let me propose another theory. In the awesome book "How not to be wrong" ellenberg walks through a scenario with dishonest roulette machines as a way to explain Bayesian Inference and shows how powerful your priori are in interpreting new evidence that you are shown. If you hold a non neutral viewpoint on something, natural variations of a neutral truth will take an extremely long time to adjust your view of reality. It just so happens that most highly educated people get their initial priori set from the institutes of learning that have increasingly become sounding chambers for liberal ideologies. So its no surprise that it takes a preponderance of evidence to migrate those views back towards a neutral reality ( if in fact reality is neutral ). A similar situation can be established for rural and uneducated people. They get their priori set from their parents and peers who have a very distinct view of government and governance. All the other talk I see of reasons for the homogenization of the educated class into a specific political view just reads like chest thumping to me.
fredley 10y ago
In my view, liberalism equates to a view that most people are trustworthy, and will do good things. Authoritarianism assumes people are bad and need to be controlled. Liberal/Authoritarian is somewhat independent of left/right, politically. Highly educated people spend more time around other highly educated, and likely richer people, creating an environment where you view almost everyone as inherently good, and trustworthy. Less educated people spend more time around other less well educated, and likely poorer people, creating an environment where you view more people as potentially dangerous. I've been watching The Century of the Self recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
- WkndTriathlete 10y ago
  I think that part of the problem - with the article, and with the perception by most of society in general - is that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are now heavily overloaded and may have either positive or negative connotations, depending on the current audience. As a result, I think both words are largely devoid of any real meaning today except as a compliment or an epithet. My political leanings tend to be pretty moderate. I used to think of "liberal" as someone for changing society faster than a "conservative", but with the two major political parties in the US today using fast legal changes to inflict the most damage on the party not in power my definitions of those two words do not hold, either. I do not think that either major political party in the US represents my interests, nor I do not expect that to change anytime soon.
f4rker 10y ago
Many highly educated are not liberal. Liberals feel free to speak out, it's safe. Not true for non liberals.
- tomlock 10y ago
  The article focuses mostly on the results of anonymous surveys.
Danihan 10y ago
If you're smart enough, you'll get to a point sooner or later where you are no longer working class. You won't be getting paid a low hourly wage, nor will you be living paycheck to paycheck. Once you are not working class, you'll gradually become very out of touch with working class issues and perspectives. It's nearly impossible to see life as an ongoing, harsh competition where everyone is hustling each day to survive, when you aren't living that way. You become liberal instead, like all your friends, and espouse egalitarianism and socialism. Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. They are competing for a paycheck every day of their lives. They have no extra money to give away, period. Handouts for people they consider to be lazy disgust them. The upper class remain liberal. Harsh competition is just so low class, isn't it? So primitive, so gauche. Why can't we all just work together for a greater good? Handouts for the poor only help the most vulnerable among us. How could you be against that?! It's an intractable polarization, in my opinion.
- tomlock 10y ago
  If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary? Also do you consider unions to be liberal?
  - splintercell 10y ago
    > If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary? Different priorities. A lot of astronauts and NASA scientists don't believe in anthropogenic nature of climate change. Are they backward, anti-reason, anti-science religious individuals? Perhaps you can help me understand why?
    - tomlock 10y ago
      What are you basing that claim on? >Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. This flies in the face of the facts surrounding who voted for who in the last election - if you consider Democrats to be liberal. What different priorities do you feel the generally worse-off working class minorities in America have?
balabaster 10y ago
It's because the highly educated spend such a vast amount of time discovering how little they know that they realize their opinion is worth almost nothing... and through this learn to realize that everyone else's opinions are just as valid. This seems to be a very liberal stance. As long as you're not forcing your political beliefs on me, or anyone else, I'm okay with you. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I feel that people on the extreme ends of each wing are crazy selfish and want everything their own way without considering anyone else. It's not just that the highly educated lean towards liberal, it's also that those who spend the time and effort educating themselves tend to be much more moderate than those on either end of the political spectrum. The more moderate Republicans tend to appear more educated. The more moderate Liberals tend to appear more educated. The highly educated appear to be more readily able to find common ground and compromise with one another than those who are not so highly educated.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-... might explain part of it.
hyperliner 10y ago
>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering of professionals into exclusive neighborhoods, or the early immersion of professional-class children into a world of literacy, art and science — its move left is evident even on questions of economic redistribution. My own analysis of data from the General Social Survey shows that in recent decades, as class inequality has increased, Americans who hold advanced degrees have grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences, whether through changes to taxes or strengthening the welfare system. >>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have become more redistributionist, if less so than others. One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud Minnesota. So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can afford to be. Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of others. On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or higher education. The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those interested: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali... The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys. Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"
curun1r 10y ago
> alongside the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university. This seems like the main reason. Republicans have attacked the importance of education, trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" instead of the traditional intellectual betters that the left would rather see running the country. Education is often a transformative experience that becomes part of your identity and when your identity is attacked, you react tribally and defend your tribe. The interesting thing is that I see both sides wanting to make their sides feel superior through what they value as important. Democrats view that every race, gender and life choice is equally valued means that the most intelligent and most educated will naturally rise to the top and feel most important. The Republicans message of anti-intellectualism, racism, sexism, homophobia and such will make a whole different group of less educated people feel superior. But both groups have an underlying need to feel superior to others. That seems endemic to our species. It's just that as access to education increases, the educated are now a large enough bloc to use that attribute to satisfy that deep-seated need.
- splintercell 10y ago
  > trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" Yeah and that's nothing but accidental properties of their candidates. It's like how almost all Presidents have good hair(ok after this election I should say 'not bald'). Is being not-bald an essential property of being the President? No, but if the other side keeps putting up candidates who are bald and your guys all have good hair, then you will talk about how your candidate appears more 'trustworthy'.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well, oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I hope that my posting history here also reflects this. Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI tech. I could go on but I won't. Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me. Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range, then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either - but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose). Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.
narrowrail 10y ago
The definition of liberal has morphed quite a bit over the centuries. I hail from the camp now known as "Classical liberalism"[0]. I value freedom and consider the government to be a necessary evil to be minimized. From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal altogether. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I certainly thought I was adding to the discussion here, but perhaps not. Should I have mentioned I strongly support science? I'm not sure what I wrote that is so offensive.

35 points by teslacar 10y ago

Should have a (2016) on it? > The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if they want resounding victories. It’s not in their long-term interest to be too much what Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the party of the Ph.D.s.” Yeah, about that...

cs1717p 10y ago

Two things: One, academia (for many reasons) tends toward liberal group think. Two, interestingly, many of the most intelligent and successful (especially self made) people tend to be libertarian or conservative.

lcfcjs 10y ago
Two contradicts your reasoning. Also, it's not true. Most self made successful business owners in the United States are immigrants. Spoiler alert: Immigrants do not vote Republican.
CalChris 10y ago
Yeah, my engineering classes at Cal were mostly close readings of Karl Marx.
- dleslie 10y ago
  Engels really grokked angles.
newyankee 10y ago
I see that in most of the first world countries 'self'made' is a very incorrectly used word, no one can be completely 'self-made'
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  No idea why you're getting down voted here. It's absolutely true. If you start a business, hire a bunch of people, and are very successful, congrats. You've probably worked very hard. But self-made? No. Your business benefitted from having your employees educated (at least K-12), being protected from crime by all levels of law enforcement, being protected from foreign invasion by the military, being protected by fire by the local fire department. Your goods can be shipped via roads built and paid for by the government. Etc. No man is an island.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    Everyone (within first world geopolitical borders, at least) has access to all of those things though. Self-made still refers to the part that sets the individual apart. The dictionary seems fairly clear on that.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, everyone in the first world doesn't have equal access to those things, even within any given country, and the people described as "self-made" disproportionately come from the segment with better-than-average access to them.
      - randomdata 10y ago
        I think you may be attaching way too much meaning to the definition of self-made, or perhaps haven't actually looked up the definition. It doesn't mean that someone was able to succeed in a vacuum.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        I'm not even discussing the definition of self-made, I'm pointing out that, in fact, the claim made upthread that access to certain things is universal in the first world and they the self-made vary from the norm in other ways simply is (1) based on a false premise, and (2) is not accurate of the situations where the term is used, even accepting that the proposed definition is exactly what it is meant to convey.
tyleo 10y ago
Can you please elaborate on your first point, or provide a few examples of reasons that academia tends toward liberal group think?
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  I can't find it since I'm at work right now but Jonathan Haidt has some great work on this. Liberal group think is present, but only really dominates the social sciences/humanities. But in these fields liberal group think has increasingly dominated since 2000. He has some stuff on departments going from 3:1 liberal:conservative to more like 10:1.

lcfcjs 10y ago

The reason is because they are more intelligent, more likely to follow the news and less likely to believe everything they read on the internet or watch on TV.

nextstep 10y ago

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" --Stephen Colbert

pizzetta 10y ago
I think Nature has more of a Libertarian bias, or maybe that's just me.
- rc_bhg 10y ago
  I don't see anyone calling nature fair and equitable though. It's survival by luck and chance. You happen to find and catch the food, then you get to live.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  You mean Social Darwinism?
- tomlock 10y ago
  Depends on what you mean by Libertarian, or what you mean by Nature. Social primates generally have collective senses of justice (if my friend gets a grape I should get a grape too). Even on a single-cell level self-sacrifice for the collective (slime moulds). Of course, its totally possible to argue that these traits could be Libertarian traits too. Aren't we the only creatures on earth with government?
  - Danihan 10y ago
    That sense of collective justice only applies to the in-group, within family or tribal units. Your tribe might fight another tribe to the death over some territory, or for some grapes. Also, collective justice isn't exactly something you want to appeal to in general. The mob might lynch you for being too annoying, for instance.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      I'm not "appealing" to it, I'm making the point that nature isn't particularly aligned with Libertarian ideals. I wouldn't consider family or tribal preferences to be particularly cogent with the philosophy of Libertarianism, for instance.

startupdiscuss 10y ago

I suspect liberals and conservatives will have different opinions of this. (They're smarter! They're brainwashed!) However, it is worth breaking down what it means to be liberal or conservative. It is odd that if you tell me an American's opinions on guns, I can give an above-chance estimate of their opinion on immigration, or abortion. The real question is, why are liberals so liberal?

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
I think first past the post voting makes people vote for parties whom they only agree with on a few large issues out of a huge platform. People then spend a lot of time rationalizing their vote by reading/digesting opinions from their in-group, slowly transforming into a straight-line party voter.
- startupdiscuss 10y ago
  That is a rational possible explanation. If that were the case, then (in answer to the article), one would need just one liberal view that the highly educated can agree with (for instance, lower cost of higher education, lower debt on students), and then you would get the other views along with them.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    No, you'd need one liberal view that you vote on. That is, the one view that you hold as more important than all other views must be liberal.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Or, you are like me (Libertarian), and many others who believe that a minimalistic government that only meets the needs of common defense, upholding court decisions and essential infrastructure are best on a number of levels. Most of us are also in favor of VERY high levels of transparency in both government and businesses in order to establish fairly open trade. Most of us would prefer to see transactional taxes over income taxes. What consists of essential infrastructure is up to some debate, I might be convinced that education is, roads are, internet is (communications), electricity is... but not too much else. I feel that healthcare and other social welfare programs could lean towards family care requirements, which would allow for much lower costs for everyone else that doesn't have family for care. I'm not hardline either, I'm open to pragmatic options for many things... but the direction should be towards freedom and not away from it.

m52go 10y ago

> Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority were not. I'm not a member of either major party, but I'm tired of people labeling the left as the party of 'logic and reason' and the right as the party of stubborn, mindless tradition. Both party platforms are bent to suit political whims, so ultimately, both parties are laughably contradictory in their values. There's plenty of rational reason on the right. If you don't agree, read Thomas Sowell and I bet you'll be forced to reconsider. As a side note, why the hell can't I copy text from the article? Very annoying. Had to search for text in the developer console just to copy the quote above.

goalieca 10y ago
Perhaps the left has no innate sense of reason. That seems logical. What I fail to understand is how so many republicans deny logic. It seems not that the left is the side of logic but that the right is on the side of illogic. They deny much of our understanding of evolution, climate science, criminology, sociology, and even economics.
- creaghpatr 10y ago
  A lot of people simply conflate logic and reason in the first place.
- m52go 10y ago
  I perceive this to be because of unfair characterizations by opposing media. Example: do all conservatives think climate change is a hoax? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones do believe this based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed conservatives, from what I've seen, don't reject the science entirely. They question specific numbers and trends that make the case for climate change weaker than the liberal one. So to clarify: conservatives are skeptical of specifics, while liberals accuse them of wholesale rejection. What do you see on The Daily Show? The latter. Example from the other side: are all liberals socialists? Maybe some uncritical, uneducated ones want outright socialism based on hearsay and because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed liberals, from what I've seen, don't want socialism. They have more nuanced views on social programs that, when better understood, are really just public welfare programs to promote equality of opportunity in a society with lots of excess capital. So to clarify: liberals want reasonable social benefits, while conservatives accuse them of being radical socialists. What do you see on Breitbart? The latter. Neither side is innocent. But liberals have claimed a monopoly on the terms 'logic' and 'progressive' as well as virtually all of academia and mainstream media...so it's hard to fight back. Which is yet another reason Trump's win was so incredible & unexpected. Please realize this is based on no hard evidence, just personal observation.

gnipgnip 10y ago

You may as well ask: "Why are parish school students so Christian". This is not to say that they viscerally believe in these qualities... oh nooo. It's just that if you want to play the game, you optimize for the environment (I may have picked that up from Alan Watts). Simple RL really. Idiots, and loudmouths, on the other hand will get ostracized and have pots broken over their heads; one shouldn't be surprised if something one writes on a public forum will get one fired from school/work (may have happened to the younger me once). This is not the depressing thing though - no the depressing thing is that the rules of the game are never explained clearly. In this sense, the Western liberal dogma is essentially the Christian one of grovelling expiation. You know... one can be as bad in action, but words and "belief", expressed tirelessly over and over, are key to salvation [1]. Terrible, terrible messaging to the naive younglings. This probably explains why some (generally poor) idiots in the Midwest send tons of money to "harvest Asia in the name of Christ" (well atleast to those in power), while jumping up an down to keep these "loved" people away from their neighborhood. Then there is the New Age movement, "meditating" and "yoga-ing" for "peace" "health" and "environment" (and lots of greens), while showing total disdain for the path [2]... Namast.. No, fk you! All this facade gets really really tiring. [1] The laity in much of Asia believe in very similar things to be fair... although they don't get bonked on the head with a book everytime they are out of line. [2]　acharya: "Guru" lit. he who walks the path

CM30 10y ago

Makes me wonder if this will change soon. I mean, look at the whole 'alt-right' thing, the readership on sites like Breitbart, The Donald subreddit, etc. They're not made up of older folk with religious tendencies any more, but young college students/graduates posting memes on social media sites. I think it's quite possible we could see highly educated people become more conservative in the foreseeable future. Especially with all the comments about protests and social media shaming and crazy professors...

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
With the universities dominantly liberal (at least in the humanities departments), I wonder if the alt-right isn't a form of rebellion, kind of like punks with brightly-colored mohawks were a generation ago. We're going to pick something not just different, but something that you find repulsive.

dkhenry 10y ago

Let me propose another theory. In the awesome book "How not to be wrong" ellenberg walks through a scenario with dishonest roulette machines as a way to explain Bayesian Inference and shows how powerful your priori are in interpreting new evidence that you are shown. If you hold a non neutral viewpoint on something, natural variations of a neutral truth will take an extremely long time to adjust your view of reality. It just so happens that most highly educated people get their initial priori set from the institutes of learning that have increasingly become sounding chambers for liberal ideologies. So its no surprise that it takes a preponderance of evidence to migrate those views back towards a neutral reality ( if in fact reality is neutral ). A similar situation can be established for rural and uneducated people. They get their priori set from their parents and peers who have a very distinct view of government and governance. All the other talk I see of reasons for the homogenization of the educated class into a specific political view just reads like chest thumping to me.

fredley 10y ago

In my view, liberalism equates to a view that most people are trustworthy, and will do good things. Authoritarianism assumes people are bad and need to be controlled. Liberal/Authoritarian is somewhat independent of left/right, politically. Highly educated people spend more time around other highly educated, and likely richer people, creating an environment where you view almost everyone as inherently good, and trustworthy. Less educated people spend more time around other less well educated, and likely poorer people, creating an environment where you view more people as potentially dangerous. I've been watching The Century of the Self recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

WkndTriathlete 10y ago
I think that part of the problem - with the article, and with the perception by most of society in general - is that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are now heavily overloaded and may have either positive or negative connotations, depending on the current audience. As a result, I think both words are largely devoid of any real meaning today except as a compliment or an epithet. My political leanings tend to be pretty moderate. I used to think of "liberal" as someone for changing society faster than a "conservative", but with the two major political parties in the US today using fast legal changes to inflict the most damage on the party not in power my definitions of those two words do not hold, either. I do not think that either major political party in the US represents my interests, nor I do not expect that to change anytime soon.

f4rker 10y ago

Many highly educated are not liberal. Liberals feel free to speak out, it's safe. Not true for non liberals.

tomlock 10y ago
The article focuses mostly on the results of anonymous surveys.

Danihan 10y ago

If you're smart enough, you'll get to a point sooner or later where you are no longer working class. You won't be getting paid a low hourly wage, nor will you be living paycheck to paycheck. Once you are not working class, you'll gradually become very out of touch with working class issues and perspectives. It's nearly impossible to see life as an ongoing, harsh competition where everyone is hustling each day to survive, when you aren't living that way. You become liberal instead, like all your friends, and espouse egalitarianism and socialism. Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. They are competing for a paycheck every day of their lives. They have no extra money to give away, period. Handouts for people they consider to be lazy disgust them. The upper class remain liberal. Harsh competition is just so low class, isn't it? So primitive, so gauche. Why can't we all just work together for a greater good? Handouts for the poor only help the most vulnerable among us. How could you be against that?! It's an intractable polarization, in my opinion.

tomlock 10y ago
If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary? Also do you consider unions to be liberal?
- splintercell 10y ago
  > If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary? Different priorities. A lot of astronauts and NASA scientists don't believe in anthropogenic nature of climate change. Are they backward, anti-reason, anti-science religious individuals? Perhaps you can help me understand why?
  - tomlock 10y ago
    What are you basing that claim on? >Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. This flies in the face of the facts surrounding who voted for who in the last election - if you consider Democrats to be liberal. What different priorities do you feel the generally worse-off working class minorities in America have?

balabaster 10y ago

It's because the highly educated spend such a vast amount of time discovering how little they know that they realize their opinion is worth almost nothing... and through this learn to realize that everyone else's opinions are just as valid. This seems to be a very liberal stance. As long as you're not forcing your political beliefs on me, or anyone else, I'm okay with you. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I feel that people on the extreme ends of each wing are crazy selfish and want everything their own way without considering anyone else. It's not just that the highly educated lean towards liberal, it's also that those who spend the time and effort educating themselves tend to be much more moderate than those on either end of the political spectrum. The more moderate Republicans tend to appear more educated. The more moderate Liberals tend to appear more educated. The highly educated appear to be more readily able to find common ground and compromise with one another than those who are not so highly educated.

DarkKomunalec 10y ago

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-... might explain part of it.

hyperliner 10y ago

>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering of professionals into exclusive neighborhoods, or the early immersion of professional-class children into a world of literacy, art and science — its move left is evident even on questions of economic redistribution. My own analysis of data from the General Social Survey shows that in recent decades, as class inequality has increased, Americans who hold advanced degrees have grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences, whether through changes to taxes or strengthening the welfare system. >>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have become more redistributionist, if less so than others. One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud Minnesota. So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can afford to be. Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of others. On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or higher education. The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those interested: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali... The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys. Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"

curun1r 10y ago

> alongside the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile to science and at war with the university. This seems like the main reason. Republicans have attacked the importance of education, trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" instead of the traditional intellectual betters that the left would rather see running the country. Education is often a transformative experience that becomes part of your identity and when your identity is attacked, you react tribally and defend your tribe. The interesting thing is that I see both sides wanting to make their sides feel superior through what they value as important. Democrats view that every race, gender and life choice is equally valued means that the most intelligent and most educated will naturally rise to the top and feel most important. The Republicans message of anti-intellectualism, racism, sexism, homophobia and such will make a whole different group of less educated people feel superior. But both groups have an underlying need to feel superior to others. That seems endemic to our species. It's just that as access to education increases, the educated are now a large enough bloc to use that attribute to satisfy that deep-seated need.

splintercell 10y ago
> trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" Yeah and that's nothing but accidental properties of their candidates. It's like how almost all Presidents have good hair(ok after this election I should say 'not bald'). Is being not-bald an essential property of being the President? No, but if the other side keeps putting up candidates who are bald and your guys all have good hair, then you will talk about how your candidate appears more 'trustworthy'.
cr0sh 10y ago
Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"? I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well, oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I hope that my posting history here also reflects this. Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI tech. I could go on but I won't. Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me. Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range, then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either - but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose). Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.

narrowrail 10y ago

The definition of liberal has morphed quite a bit over the centuries. I hail from the camp now known as "Classical liberalism"[0]. I value freedom and consider the government to be a necessary evil to be minimized. From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal altogether. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

narrowrail 10y ago
I certainly thought I was adding to the discussion here, but perhaps not. Should I have mentioned I strongly support science? I'm not sure what I wrote that is so offensive.