- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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.
So now you're saying conservatives aren't dedicated family men and women with circles of valued friends and acquaintances.
To just name a couple to bust your stereotype.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A liberal never built a good bridge?
There's no such thing as a liberal architect? Hope you have proof for that...
Liberals don't work at Boeing?
A liberal never worked at NASA?
Not a single liberal works at a power plant?
Hyperbole
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.
That sounds incorrect to me. If you have evidence, I'd be glad to see it.
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.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.
You're actually arguing that rural areas have MORE disposable income than urban areas?
That's just too funny!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?