3 ms·

100%. One of the disadvantages of living the privileged, protected life as an academic is the inability to accurately draw conclusions about the majority of hum

100%. One of the disadvantages of living the privileged, protected life as an academic is the inability to accurately draw conclusions about the majority of humanity.

stinkytaco 9y ago
This seems like a jump. Two, actually. First, that academics, who work in a charged political environment and with college students, are sheltered. Second that the majority of humans prefer jerks. I don't know that we can substantiate either of those claims. It's true that jerks can be in positions of power, but it's hard to say that people prefer them. Indeed, it appears that many people strongly dislike them, but that they are protected by their power and other people with power (a distinct minority).
- psyc 9y ago
  Another confounding factor with humans is stated vs. revealed preferences. Anecdotally, most people I know would say they prefer nice people, but also many of them are observably drawn in by the magnetism and promises of charismatic jerks.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    I agree, but it's not a very scientific claim. There are many confounding factors here: power dynamics, social status, educational background, and cultural norms. When we are attempting to discuss personal preference you need to control for those factors, if you can even control for the amount some of those things are internalized. That's why they have done studies like this with babies, who are not yes affected by those factors. Even with bonobos, it's hard to say what these animals "liked" and what they did simply because allying yourself with someone powerful allowed some benefits.
- xya3453 9y ago
  > First, that academics, who work in a charged political environment and with college students, are sheltered. It's exactly because they find themselves in such an environment that they're sheltered. You think the majority of humanity has access to safe-spaces, policed speech and diversity initiatives? US college campuses do not reflect reality.
  - true_religion 9y ago
    That presumes that people setting up "safe" spaces to police speech aren't jerks. Many people would disagree.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    The "real" world also has fewer fraternities, entitled college athletes and less binge drinking. Academic departments are also highly charged political atmospheres, more than any place I've ever worked since I left college. Perhaps I have just been lucky, but I wouldn't go into academia for much less than a boatload of money.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
You might have a biased view of academics. Students might be especially naive but my professors have never been anything but normal people who have more exposure to the varieties of human experience than most, because it's their job.

100%. One of the disadvantages of living the privileged, protected life as an academic is the inability to accurately draw conclusions about the majority of humanity.

stinkytaco 9y ago

This seems like a jump. Two, actually. First, that academics, who work in a charged political environment and with college students, are sheltered. Second that the majority of humans prefer jerks. I don't know that we can substantiate either of those claims. It's true that jerks can be in positions of power, but it's hard to say that people prefer them. Indeed, it appears that many people strongly dislike them, but that they are protected by their power and other people with power (a distinct minority).

psyc 9y ago
Another confounding factor with humans is stated vs. revealed preferences. Anecdotally, most people I know would say they prefer nice people, but also many of them are observably drawn in by the magnetism and promises of charismatic jerks.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  I agree, but it's not a very scientific claim. There are many confounding factors here: power dynamics, social status, educational background, and cultural norms. When we are attempting to discuss personal preference you need to control for those factors, if you can even control for the amount some of those things are internalized. That's why they have done studies like this with babies, who are not yes affected by those factors. Even with bonobos, it's hard to say what these animals "liked" and what they did simply because allying yourself with someone powerful allowed some benefits.
xya3453 9y ago
> First, that academics, who work in a charged political environment and with college students, are sheltered. It's exactly because they find themselves in such an environment that they're sheltered. You think the majority of humanity has access to safe-spaces, policed speech and diversity initiatives? US college campuses do not reflect reality.
- true_religion 9y ago
  That presumes that people setting up "safe" spaces to police speech aren't jerks. Many people would disagree.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  The "real" world also has fewer fraternities, entitled college athletes and less binge drinking. Academic departments are also highly charged political atmospheres, more than any place I've ever worked since I left college. Perhaps I have just been lucky, but I wouldn't go into academia for much less than a boatload of money.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

You might have a biased view of academics. Students might be especially naive but my professors have never been anything but normal people who have more exposure to the varieties of human experience than most, because it's their job.