> This is outright wrong. Oh good. I'm glad internet rando has straightened that out. >Academics are not selected for bravery, they're selected for conformity

> This is outright wrong. Oh good. I'm glad internet rando has straightened that out. >Academics are not selected for bravery, they're selected for conformity. Haha, this is laughable. You know which academics are held in highest regard? Those that moved the field from a previous belief to a new belief based on better evidence. > They're very politically partisan That's demonstrably false; like the population at large, they are not exceptionally politically partisian - this is how a certain US political party projects it to account for appealing to the uneducated or to ignore evidence. The majority of academics are the same as regular populace, except they try to follow accurate evidence. That one US party actively tried to downplay and ignore evidence makes the causality go the other direction, in the same manner that when the same party embraced evidence a few decades back that they claimed academia was more in their camp. Heck, even JD Vance writes on this - he realizes the right lost academia, not by academia moving left or right, but from the right moving away from evidence. > or Marxian Anyone thinking some large percentage of academics are "Marxian" is a sure sign of not understanding either term.