• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bias in the Schools.

Well, let me amend my theory to include your perspective, then.
Perhaps it's not so much that conservative-minded individuals aren't personally fulfilled by their occupations while left-leaning individuals are.
Perhaps it's that libs tend to find individual human interactions more fulfilling, while conservatives find fulfillment in- as you stated- endeavors such as construction and demolition, business, architecture and engineering, industry, manufacturing, technology, etc.

So now you're saying conservatives aren't dedicated family men and women with circles of valued friends and acquaintances.

Only liberals have human emotions? Creative people who create useful things aren't well integrated humans, only "real" artists who create impressive works of art like "Piss Christ" and "Madonna of Elephant Dung" are relevant?

Any other brain-washed stereo-types you'd like to post for the record?
 
Their bridges don't fall down.

A liberal never built a good bridge?

Their buildings don't collapse.

There's no such thing as a liberal architect? Hope you have proof for that...

Their airplanes perform as designed.

Liberals don't work at Boeing?

Their efforts put footprints on the moon.

A liberal never worked at NASA?

Their lights come on at night.

Not a single liberal works at a power plant?

Hyperbole

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Hyperbole | Define Hyperbole at Dictionary.com
 
So now you're saying conservatives aren't dedicated family men and women with circles of valued friends and acquaintances.

Conservatives may well be dedicated to family and friends.
Aren't they the "family values party", after all? ;)

It is my observation that they are not dedicated to the families of strangers, however.
Their efforts are for themselves and their own families.
Their efforts are not for the families of strangers, or the good of society as a whole.

It's kind of the whole nationalism/globalism thing, on a smaller scale.
Conservatives are family-focused nationalists; liberals are society-focused globalists.
Conservatives are insular, liberals are inclusive.
Conservatives are narrow in their focus, liberals are broader in their focus.
A conservative might care about his children. A liberal will care about "children" in general.
A conservative might care about helping his homeless brother; a liberal will care about helping the homeless in general.

That's the sense I get, anyway.
 
Last edited:
To just name a couple to bust your stereotype.

Those statistics don't prove anything. Correlation is not causation, which is the whole point of this thread. For instance, rural areas have the most conservatives. The cost of living is very low in rural areas, so those people can afford to give more money to charity. Is that true? Who cares.

You can throw out guesses and state your opinion, but who knows. You just have to call 'em like you see 'em, and what I said is what I've seen.
 
Well, I was with you for a minute there, but I can't figure out any way to reconcile this latest outpouring of yours with my theory.

Suffice it to say we agree that conservatives are more apt to measure success in tangibles (money, monuments, things) while liberals are more apt to define success in ways that are less concrete and less tangible: a class of students taught; a suffering old person comforted; a permanent home found for a parentless child. Stuff like that.

Nope. don't agree with that at all.

The satisfaction of opening the door of a house you just built yourself is not a tangible artifact.

The house is tangible, the personal feeling is not.

Now you're finishing up by implying that conservatives don't like children, and you're saying that liberals find intangible personal satisfaction in stealing money from others to provide homes etc for the poor. Of course, conservatives find personal satisfaction in GIVING money to charities that touch their hearts.

And you want to pretend that stealing money is morally superior to giving to charity.
 
Those statistics don't prove anything. Correlation is not causation, which is the whole point of this thread. For instance, rural areas have the most conservatives. The cost of living is very low in rural areas, so those people can afford to give more money to charity. Is that true? Who cares.

You can throw out guesses and state your opinion, but who knows. You just have to call 'em like you see 'em, and what I said is what I've seen.

You're actually arguing that rural areas have MORE disposable income than urban areas?

That's just too funny!
 
Conservatives may well be dedicated to family and friends.
Aren't they the "family values party", after all? ;)

It is my observation that they are not dedicated to the families of strangers, however.
Their efforts are for themselves and their own families.
Their efforts are not for the families of strangers, or the good of society as a whole.

They donate money to charities to help strangers all over the world.

So much for your argument.

It's kind of the whole nationalism/globalism thing, on a smaller scale.
Conservatives are family-focused nationalists; liberals are society-focused globalists.

Whatever that means.

Now you're conflating the notion that the United States should be given away and raped by the world with the opposition to that evil idea.

You're not providing any useful information, merely posting double-speak to avoid the fact that conservatives donate their own money, liberal steal via taxation and give that away instead.

Conservatives are insular, liberals are inclusive.

Conservatives didn't want the US in the european war of 1914. The liberal dragged us into that war for no valid purpose, and as a result of that action the US suffered, a Great Depression and a SECOND world war. It's you people on the Left who ascribe some fraction of blame on the US for the atrocities committed by Islam. It's many on the left who argue that the US shouldn't be the police force of the world (which is correct).

And then YOU want to argue that insularity isn't a good thing?

Conservatives are narrow in their focus, liberals are broader in their focus.

There's focused, and there's fuzzy. My practice in photography says that narrow focus leads to greater depth of field, wider focus makes the close details lose importance as the individual blends into the mob.

Thanks for the imagery.

A conservative might care about his children. A liberal will care about "children" in general.

Yeah, liberals really really care about children as they insist that women continue to be allowed to murder millions of them every year before they're born.

They sure care a lot.

A conservative might care about helping his homeless brother; a liberal will care about helping the homeless in general.

But only when a Republican is president. You seen any poster-font headlines about the homeless with your Messiah as president with the Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress, when the nation's real unemployment rate is well over 10%, and climbing? They're there. There's more of them, every day. They're not being discussed by the uncaring liberals who's only real concern is the concentration of political power by chosen elites. For them, the homeless only exist when they're useful.

As soon as the Democrats lose the House this November, the media will begin to regale the nation with stories about freezing and starving "homeless" again, stories that went unnoticed last December because they simply weren't covered by the left-stream media.
 
Last edited:
But only when a Republican is president. You seen any poster-font headlines about the homeless with your Messiah as president with the Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress, when the nation's real unemployment rate is well over 10%, and climbing? They're there. There's more of them, every day.

Actually, it's ironic that you tell me this.
Yesterday, I saw a photograph of an old, dear friend in an art exhibit, of all things, about the homeless.
I mean, there was a photo of her.
I recognized her right away, although I haven't seen her in over a decade, but I still had to check her name to make sure it was her.
Last time I actually saw her in person, she was a drug addict and a prostitute.
I had assumed she was no longer living.
It was a relief to see a picture of her, and know that she's still hanging in there, although she looks much the worse for wear.
So yes, I'm aware that homeless people are out there, have been out there, and will continue to be out there.
Some of them are people I once cared about, although I can't afford to care about them anymore.
 
A liberal never built a good bridge?

A conservative never wrote a good novel? (R.A Heinlein, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle)

There's no such thing as a liberal architect? Hope you have proof for that...

There's no such thing as a conservative college perfesser?

Liberals don't work at Boeing?

Conservatives don't work in Hollywood?

A liberal never worked at NASA?

Conservatives never worked for the public school system?

Not a single liberal works at a power plant?

No conservatives make their own candles?

Hyperbole

Exactly. How about if you try to understand the concept of the bell curve in statistics.
 
Actually, it's ironic that you tell me this.
Yesterday, I saw a photograph of an old, dear friend in an art exhibit, of all things, about the homeless.
I mean, there was a photo of her.
I recognized her right away, although I haven't seen her in over a decade, but I still had to check her name to make sure it was her.
Last time I actually saw her in person, she was a drug addict and a prostitute.
I had assumed she was no longer living.
It was a relief to see a picture of her, and know that she's still hanging in there, although she looks much the worse for wear.
So yes, I'm aware that homeless people are out there, have been out there, and will continue to be out there.
Some of them are people I once cared about, although I can't afford to care about them anymore.

It's glad to see you care so much about your dear old friends you're willing to walk away from them and leave them in the gutter, then come out and say others don't care about strangers.
 
That sounds incorrect to me. If you have evidence, I'd be glad to see it.

Here.

Select "Feelings about the Bible" from "Religion Variable" and "Highest Degree Earned" from "Breakdown."

Source of data is the General Social Survey from 1972-2004.

Note: Nearly 60% of those with Graduate degrees think the bible is the Inspired Word of God, so PhDs aren't godless heathens. They just, understandably given their education, like to have evidence before believing something.
 
Last edited:
What I find frightening is the rare engineer who truly believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I make damn sure I read his reports really carefully to make sure he's as inerrant as his bible. Errancy in engineering can be fatal to someone.
An Engineer that believes in the bible? ****, there are some nutcase Engineers that are TRUTHERS and believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center intentionally.

Idiocy is not bound by demographics.
 
You're actually arguing that rural areas have MORE disposable income than urban areas?

That's just too funny!

The cost of living is lower in rural areas. That's a fact. Whether or not the average household income is greater than the difference between urban and rural cost of living probably differs by state and region. But the data would take a long time to analyze and nobody will do it because it doesn't matter.

Who cares why your data from the "Conservative Thinker" says what it does? Maybe it's because generous people don't like to call themselves liberal. Maybe it's because the data is wrong. Maybe it's because liberals are inherently less generous than conservatives. Why does it matter? So that you can sit back and bask in your deep seeded hatred? I bet that's a lot of fun. You're also generalizing, but in a much more vicious way. Like this: Yeah, liberals really really care about children as they insist that women continue to be allowed to murder millions of them every year before they're born. That's just a dumb straw man that ignores the actual debate. You portray your opinions as fact, which is usually the sign of somebody who's very insecure -- in my opinion. And that personal attack on 1069 was completely uncalled for. If conservatives are indeed great people, you're doing a terrible job showing that.
 
Political science =/= politics. Political science in the academic setting is basically an opportunity for 1400 SAT dbag TAs to jerk off about their thoughts about politics. It's a joke and embarrassing to anyone who actually considers themself to be an intellectual.

Of course political science =/= politics. Hence the science part.

Otherwise, do you have an explanation for my earlier question that doesn't resort to name-calling?
 
The difference between liberals and conservatives boils down, in a large but not exclusive part, to this:

Conservatives can measure their success by what works.

Their bridges don't fall down.
Their buildings don't collapse.
Their airplanes perform as designed.
Their efforts put footprints on the moon.
Their lights come on at night.

Liberals measure their successes by their feelings.

They're pop music singers.

They're Nobel Peace Prize winners who are awarded the prize for doing absolutely nothing to earn it.

They're former college law review journal editors who can say a white cop acted s stupidly when he arrests their old bigoted friend.

They're terrorists who attempt to bomb the Pentagon before they become close personal advisors to former college law review journal editors. They don't stop being terrorists, though.

They can pump a fifty billion of someone else's dollars into a failed company, and proclaim success when the company uses part of that money to pay back four billion of the fifty.

Other liberals measure their success by refusing to see what the first batch of liberals are doing and saying.

The good liberal has his eyes wide shut, just like Big Brother demands.

That's a lot of writing for someone to not answer the question posed by the thread...
 
Here.

Select "Feelings about the Bible" from "Religion Variable" and "Highest Degree Earned" from "Breakdown."

Source of data is the General Social Survey from 1972-2004.

Note: Nearly 60% of those with Graduate degrees think the bible is the Inspired Word of God, so PhDs aren't godless heathens. They just, understandably given their education, like to have evidence before believing something.

So 70% of people with graduate degrees believe that the bible is either the literal word of god or is inspired by the word of god. That's not really a surprise and is somewhat different from the image you were conveying.

Of course political science =/= politics. Hence the science part.

Otherwise, do you have an explanation for my earlier question that doesn't resort to name-calling?

I'm just not sure what you're expecting. You asked why liberals would be attracted to political science. I'd say it's probably for all the reasons I've mentioned throughout this thread. I don't know what else you expect me to offer beyond that. If you think you have the answer, I'd like to hear it.

Why are doctors more likely to be conservative? Why are lawyers more likely to be liberal? Why are people who have jobs outside academia more likely to be conservative?
 
Last edited:
So 70% of people with graduate degrees believe that the bible is either the literal word of god or is inspired by the word of god. That's not really a surprise and is somewhat different from the image you were conveying.



I'm just not sure what you're expecting. You asked why liberals would be attracted to political science. I'd say it's probably for all the reasons I've mentioned throughout this thread. I don't know what else you expect me to offer beyond that. If you think you have the answer, I'd like to hear it.

Why are doctors more likely to be conservative? Why are lawyers more likely to be liberal? Why are people who have jobs outside academia more likely to be conservative?

I'm not sure I have the answer, which is why I started the thread, but I don't think you've provided an adequate explanation, either. Near as I can tell, your explanation is that liberals already dominate the social sciences, so they only hire other liberals, and I've asked you how liberals got to dominate the social sciences in the first place. It's that part that I can't seem to find an answer to.

Yes, conservatives are the majority in some fields, and liberals in others. But few have as much of a discrepancy as large as within poli sci, sociology, anthropology, etc.

For the record, I don't believe that liberals are more charitable or care about their fellow humans more than conservatives. Nor do I believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Trust me, I've met plenty of dumb people from both sides of the spectrum. If anything, the dumbness seems to be concentrated on the extremes of both sides.

I am, however, starting to think that it's less about intelligence, and more about the fact that, when one scientifically looks for trends, causation, and explanations of social phenomena, one is likely to find that a liberal worldview is preferable in terms of policy formation and simply finding the greatest good for the greatest number.
 
I'm not sure I have the answer, which is why I started the thread, but I don't think you've provided an adequate explanation, either. Near as I can tell, your explanation is that liberals already dominate the social sciences, so they only hire other liberals, and I've asked you how liberals got to dominate the social sciences in the first place. It's that part that I can't seem to find an answer to.

And I already addressed that here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/79425-bias-schools.html#post1058933884

If you don't think those other explanations are satisfactory, that's fine. I haven't seen you offer anything either, and am not really interested in arguing over whose unsupported theorizing is more accurate.

I am, however, starting to think that it's less about intelligence, and more about the fact that, when one scientifically looks for trends, causation, and explanations of social phenomena, one is likely to find that a liberal worldview is preferable in terms of policy formation and simply finding the greatest good for the greatest number.

And for the reasons I've already mentioned, it's not really a surprise that you think that way.
 
And I already addressed that here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/79425-bias-schools.html#post1058933884

If you don't think those other explanations are satisfactory, that's fine. I haven't seen you offer anything either, and am not really interested in arguing over whose unsupported theorizing is more accurate.



And for the reasons I've already mentioned, it's not really a surprise that you think that way.

Fair enough. You've often repeated that certain types of people are attracted to certain fields, but I don't think I've seen an explanation of why liberals would be attracted to the social sciences. Other than we're all a bunch of dbags who want to sit around discussing obscure political questions all day (ironic, coming from someone on a political debate forum...). Or that these fields are already dominated by liberals, so only liberals are attracted to them, which is, as I've pointed out, circular reasoning.

My alternative explanation of, the more you learn about politics, the more liberal you become, seems a little more plausible than impugning the members of an entire field as lazy and over-educated.
 
My alternative explanation of, the more you learn about politics, the more liberal you become, seems a little more plausible than impugning the members of an entire field as lazy and over-educated.

Actually, just the opposite for me. The more I learned about politics, and the more educated I became, the more conservative I became. Note: I am neither liberal nor conservative, but I did used to be much more socialist than I am now. As I became more worldly, more educated, more experienced... that changed.
 
if you ask me, liberals are more likely to go into a job that involves directly helping people, which i suppose could be broadly applied to teaching, just a theory.
 
Fair enough. You've often repeated that certain types of people are attracted to certain fields, but I don't think I've seen an explanation of why liberals would be attracted to the social sciences.

I thought I mentioned this several times, but I'll copy paste it for you so that there's no confusion:

Moreover, the imbalance also comes about from the opposite direction. If a field has a set of general tenets, why would we expect that both political parties would be equally likely to agree with the tenets of that field? For whatever reason, one party might reject certain principles of a field that academics in that field choose to believe. That would result in more members of that field choosing to align themselves against that party.

...

Again, why would this be a surprise? If one political party has positions that are more in line with the general tenets of a field, why wouldn't there be an imbalance? It's entirely plausible that conservatives are more likely to agree with the tenets of economics while liberals are more likely to agree with the tenets of philosophy. If that's the case, you would expect to see academics in each field self-identifying accordingly.

If you think I'm wrong or otherwise disagree with my point, that's fine, but don't ignore it and then pretend like I haven't offered anything beyond my first point.

Other than we're all a bunch of dbags who want to sit around discussing obscure political questions all day (ironic, coming from someone on a political debate forum...).

As I pointed out (and you acknowledged), political science =/= politics. I find politics interesting and enjoy discussing it. I do not find political science interesting and do not enjoy discussing it. Not sure how that's ironic.

My alternative explanation of, the more you learn about politics, the more liberal you become, seems a little more plausible than impugning the members of an entire field as lazy and over-educated.

Again, it's not really a surprise that the position that is favorable to liberals seems more plausible to you - people are predisposed to believe things that support their own viewpoints. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're simply repeating what you already concluded in your first post.
 
OK, let me try this again, you've said:

"If a field has a set of general tenets, why would we expect that both political parties would be equally likely to agree with the tenets of that field? For whatever reason, one party might reject certain principles of a field that academics in that field choose to believe. That would result in more members of that field choosing to align themselves against that party.

Again, why would this be a surprise? If one political party has positions that are more in line with the general tenets of a field, why wouldn't there be an imbalance? It's entirely plausible that conservatives are more likely to agree with the tenets of economics while liberals are more likely to agree with the tenets of philosophy. If that's the case, you would expect to see academics in each field self-identifying accordingly."

You still haven't said why social science would be "a field [with] a set of general tenets" that happen to be liberal. I'm not disagreeing with you when you say that people and groups tend to stay with those of the same ideological disposition. I'm asking where that disposition came from in the first place.
 
Actually, just the opposite for me. The more I learned about politics, and the more educated I became, the more conservative I became. Note: I am neither liberal nor conservative, but I did used to be much more socialist than I am now. As I became more worldly, more educated, more experienced... that changed.

Meh, everyone spends a few years of their lives as socialists/marxists. I went through the same thing. In that respect, I guess I got more conservative too.
 
I'm not sure. Being an art student of course, nearly all of them were very, very liberal (like pyscho liberal) whereas I had a political science teacher that was very conservative, a conservative psychology teacher, but then writing teacher was I assumed liberal. He looked like David Cross so that's a big confirmation in my book.
 
Back
Top Bottom