5 ms·

I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. But why? I mean, this statement seems like a religious belief. There is no

I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. But why? I mean, this statement seems like a religious belief. There is no obvious reason to believe it true. Many interesting properties have a significant partisan valence. For example, authoritarianism correlates strongly with political conservatives in north America [1], so why shouldn't science aptitude as well? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but there is nothing like what you describe, so your thought experiment is useless" To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) There is a lot of correlative science going on in this area, and I would be very careful not to confuse correlation with causation. I would also be careful (and I know you know this if you know anything about politics) about exactly how such studies are conducted: the questions used, the implied bias, etc. Somebody who was not careful could take reams of this "science" of correlation and string all sorts of theories about people, such as right-wingers are more happy yet stupider and more authoritarian. Or whatever. I'd be very careful walking down this road, and not simply because of the flaky nature of the science. It's beginning to look like scientists are making an effort to explain why people could be so stupid to be conservatives, and that's not a good place to go. Not because you'd piss off folks, but because there is a great danger of political science itself becoming an echo chamber. Once you box-up any opposition, you can lord over the poor unwashed masses, whether you mean to or not. And that is really bad for both the science itself and the way the science is conducted.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Right, this is a religious belief you have. It is a belief for which you've provided no evidence to support. You're making an assumption here. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) Absolutely, and stupid people have done precisely that. But I've read Altermeyer's book and there are lots of researchers who are careful. The Wikipedia link I gave above gives a good summary. In brief: - the issue is not that conservatives are stupid; there's no correlation between authoritarian tendencies and intelligence - lots of conservatives are not authoritarian at all - most (almost all) authoritarians who have political preferences are conservative
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    I don't think we're going to get very far, but I'd simply point out that I made an assertion that began with "if you started with no parties at all" and then provided an example to support my thesis. I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers. It's interesting you would say that. I find that there are basically two camps of thought when it comes to the soft sciences: those who use the past to try to spot patterns and extrapolate from them, and those who feel that we should rest more on theories than some sort of loose induction around fuzzy concepts. Both of these schools have their various uses and drawbacks. I'd much rather be less rigorous, more flexible, and longer-term in my analysis, but I can respect an approach that relies more on structure. Just be careful. I'm not going to argue with you about this. Suffice it to say that rules-based extrapolations of the sciences has a mixed heritage at best. I'm happy that you are so assured of yourself. Unfounded self-doubt is a terrible thing. Carry on.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but there is nothing like what you describe, so your thought experiment is useless" To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) There is a lot of correlative science going on in this area, and I would be very careful not to confuse correlation with causation. I would also be careful (and I know you know this if you know anything about politics) about exactly how such studies are conducted: the questions used, the implied bias, etc. Somebody who was not careful could take reams of this "science" of correlation and string all sorts of theories about people, such as right-wingers are more happy yet stupider and more authoritarian. Or whatever. I'd be very careful walking down this road, and not simply because of the flaky nature of the science. It's beginning to look like scientists are making an effort to explain why people could be so stupid to be conservatives, and that's not a good place to go. Not because you'd piss off folks, but because there is a great danger of political science itself becoming an echo chamber. Once you box-up any opposition, you can lord over the poor unwashed masses, whether you mean to or not. And that is really bad for both the science itself and the way the science is conducted.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Right, this is a religious belief you have. It is a belief for which you've provided no evidence to support. You're making an assumption here. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) Absolutely, and stupid people have done precisely that. But I've read Altermeyer's book and there are lots of researchers who are careful. The Wikipedia link I gave above gives a good summary. In brief: - the issue is not that conservatives are stupid; there's no correlation between authoritarian tendencies and intelligence - lots of conservatives are not authoritarian at all - most (almost all) authoritarians who have political preferences are conservative
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I don't think we're going to get very far, but I'd simply point out that I made an assertion that began with "if you started with no parties at all" and then provided an example to support my thesis. I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers. It's interesting you would say that. I find that there are basically two camps of thought when it comes to the soft sciences: those who use the past to try to spot patterns and extrapolate from them, and those who feel that we should rest more on theories than some sort of loose induction around fuzzy concepts. Both of these schools have their various uses and drawbacks. I'd much rather be less rigorous, more flexible, and longer-term in my analysis, but I can respect an approach that relies more on structure. Just be careful. I'm not going to argue with you about this. Suffice it to say that rules-based extrapolations of the sciences has a mixed heritage at best. I'm happy that you are so assured of yourself. Unfounded self-doubt is a terrible thing. Carry on.