How come conservatives aren't a larger part of the intellectual community?

I'll make a eunuch out of him yet...uh, for the purposes of academia (phew, it kept it on topic)

E_S

 

Boy.

The whole board must be familiar with my anatomy by now methinks!!

 

nothin wrong with knowin a little more about yer fella's anatomy.

cheers!

 

i wonder how long it would be before the mods reign hell upon us?

 

They're taking their time!

 

Marv, in answer to your Q - it's 3.9068905...

Let's take this to the bar and grill before we go too far.

E_S

 

ah yes... log2 15. almost forgot about that.

 

One more kick, and you're all toast! Bannings for everyone!

 

//chargrined

Yes sir.

E_S

 

Now, what was this thread about again? ?

 

Now, what was this thread about again?

I'll repost what I said on the last page before all the kicking got started. Maybe someone else will reply this time.

It's my experience, being at University, that the proportions of Leftist/Rightist lecturers tends to drift somewhere around 75%/25%. That 75% are GENERALLY concentrated in humanities and arts subjects (English, Politics, Sociology, etc., and pretty much all of them except history, which seems to be a Conservative subject (mostly because Conservatives are traditionalists and history is the subject expression of this)). Conservatives tend to group closer towards the 'bread and butter' subjects like Maths and Science.

I can't offer any reason for this, except that, within it's ideologies, leftism is much more complex than the Right (fascism and nationalism are easier to understand than, say, Marxism and Anarchism in their economic and social forms). For that reason, since University-types are more apt to study them, and thus understand them, they're better influenced.

As an alternate reason, consider this: people who study math and the "hard" sciences tend to be more well-rounded.

Hear me out, first. I am a Computer Engineering student. My courses have a stronf emphasis on math and physics (as well as their applications to engineering). I need to take calculus, differential equations, matrix algebra, discrete math and statistics. I also have to take at least 3 semesters of calculus-based physics. However, I am still required to take a fairly strong series of english classes (both composition and literature), social sciences (in my case I took government), communications, and economics.

Compare this with an English or History major at my school. They only need 2 math classes (nothing more complex than algebra), 2 science classes (which are, frankly, a joke) and that's it. While I have to become functional in their disciplines, they need to learn almost nothing about my fields. There is no way that they can possibly receive as well-balanced an education that way.

Take my brother, for instance (sorry, bro). He got his degree in Political Science, but is currently working on becoming an author/screenwriter. As a scene in one of the movies he has written, he wanted to do something that is impossible according to the laws of physics. It was something that you cover in high school physics. We have had many arguments/discussions about that scene, but he still does not seem to understand why it wouldn't work.

As one person said on SlashDot, "If you can't discourse on the structure of a sonnet and the second law of thermodynamics with equal ease, then you're uncultured, period."

Kimball Kinnison

 

As an alternate reason, consider this: people who study math and the "hard" sciences tend to be more well-rounded.

Um, I don't know about that. I mean, I understand your point, but to label liberals less "well-rounded" as Conservatives seems a bit... elitist. I mean, I take this as the rough equivelant of my saying 'there are less conservatives in the intellectual community because they don't understand politics.'

Hear me out, first. I am a Computer Engineering student.

I doubt the same is true across the board. In the British University system, entrance depends solely on the amount of A-Levels you get, and at what grade (the average amount of A-Levels taken is 3, and they can be in basically any subject) - as well as extracurriculur qualifications. The Arts courses generally ask for people with A-Levels in Arts; the Sciences generally ask for people with A-Levels in the Sciences.

Compare this with an English or History major at my school. They only need 2 math classes (nothing more complex than algebra), 2 science classes (which are, frankly, a joke) and that's it. While I have to become functional in their disciplines, they need to learn almost nothing about my fields. There is no way that they can possibly receive as well-balanced an education that way.

Are you referring to High School or college here? In general, I think High School is irrelevant, as the teachers appear to be an equal number of left/right in my experience.

As a scene in one of the movies he has written, he wanted to do something that is impossible according to the laws of physics. It was something that you cover in high school physics. We have had many arguments/discussions about that scene, but he still does not seem to understand why it wouldn't work.

Well, his strength is obviously politics and the Arts (obviously, if he's a screenwriter, his discipline may also span to English, History and Performing Arts). Your strength is probably in computing and the Sciences. I don't see how one is more well-rounded than the other. If it was high school physics he messed up on, that's his fault, and not indicative of the general leftist behaviour. However, I'd point out that, barring an extra-curriculur interest in politics for yourself, he probably knows far more about it than you. You just have different strengths.

I think this can be said to be generally true:

Liberals: Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Law, Education, English, History, Modern Languages, Journalism, Psychology, Religious Studies, Theology, Sociology, etc.

Conservatives: History, Economics, Business & Management, chemistry/biology/physics, marketing, law, etc.

There are crossroads in subjects like economics and law, etc., which are both subjects that hover somewhere between the arts and the sciences.

You'll notice that a lot of the subjects in the liberal category are ones that encourage continued academia, whereas the Conservative ones can generally be applied more practically.

This doesn't mean Conservatives are more "realistic" or whatever else codswallop has been offered - just that their inclination is more towards practical subjects, whereas liberals tend towards more intellectual subjects.

I don't think either one is better than the other, per se... but there are other reasons, I imagine, why there are less Conservatives:

- Universities and so on are places of reason; a higher proportion of Conservatives are religious, or more devoted about their religious beliefs, and, being places of reason (I'm not saying religion is unreasonable; only that rational and reasonable thought doesn't usually allow for superstition), they aren't generally compatible.

- Conservatives have a history of being involved in business and the market; this can be followed much better actually IN business, rather than in the lecture hall.

- Universities are some of the best places to find instances of rebellion, subversion and progressiveness; none of these sit particularly well with conservative thought.

- It can be said t

 

Heh...it's a bit strange, though. I consider myself much more of an arts/humanities-type person, but I'm on the right. That's not to say that I don't have any liberal ideals, but I'm certainly not left-wing. Although I would have to agree that historians/history professors tend to be conservative. Personally, I think we learn best from the past.

 

Personally, I think we learn best from the past.

That's one of the fundamental liberal/conservative differences: Conservatives believe paradise was in the past, liberals believe it is in the future.

Which is kind of strange. Considering that there are a lot of Conservative historians, you'd have thought they'd have realised that the past wasn't quite as rosy as they might think.

- Scarlet.

 

Err...I didn't say that I believed that 'paradise' was in the past, and I don't think most conservatives do, either. The difference is that conservatives base their beliefs on past events and experience, whereas most liberals seem to grab their ideals out of thin air, so to speak.

As far as the whole issue of 'paradise', I don't think any conservative would consider that to have been in the past. That's just rubbish. After all, there are many conservative historians, and I'd reckon they know their history well. Anyone who knows history, knows that the world was never perfect. And it most definitely isn't perfect today, either. I think that the human race is still a very long distance from true civilization, but as long as we are human, we will never reach a perfect society. Maybe this makes me conservative or whatnot, but I believe it to be impossible. In fact, we may very well die out before we reach true civilization.

 

Um, I don't know about that. I mean, I understand your point, but to label liberals less "well-rounded" as Conservatives seems a bit... elitist. I mean, I take this as the rough equivelant of my saying 'there are less conservatives in the intellectual community because they don't understand politics.'

I never said one thing about either liberals or conservatives in my post. I simply pointed out that those who study math and the "hard" sciences tend to be more well-rounded from an educational standpoint. I know many Physics majors who are quite literate (both reading and writing), yet I also know far too many English majors who have trouble with basic algebra (on the high school level). I have met both conservative and liberal Physics professors in my time as well.

I doubt the same is true across the board. In the British University system, entrance depends solely on the amount of A-Levels you get, and at what grade (the average amount of A-Levels taken is 3, and they can be in basically any subject) - as well as extracurriculur qualifications. The Arts courses generally ask for people with A-Levels in Arts; the Sciences generally ask for people with A-Levels in the Sciences.

What does that have to do with the fact that I am a Computer Engineering student (as you quoted)? More on what you said later.

Are you referring to High School or college here? In general, I think High School is irrelevant, as the teachers appear to be an equal number of left/right in my experience.

College. (We don't have majors in high school here.)

Well, his strength is obviously politics and the Arts (obviously, if he's a screenwriter, his discipline may also span to English, History and Performing Arts). Your strength is probably in computing and the Sciences. I don't see how one is more well-rounded than the other. If it was high school physics he messed up on, what's his fault, and not indicative of the general leftist behaviour. However, I'd point out that, barring an extra-curriculur interest in politics for yourself, he probably knows far more about it than you. You just have different strengths.

I am not talking about how people have different strengths, but how they should have a certain funtional level in basic disciplines. I am (at the least) conversational on politics, philosophy, literature, history, law, and economics, in addition to being an engineer and computer programmer. The only way I have managed that is through a program working towards a Bachelors of Science degree (I have a year and a half left). Contrast that with a "liberal arts" education that almost completely ignores math and sciences. That is not a "well-rounded" education, no matter how you look at it.

I pointed out my brother's physics situation as an example. The scene we debated goes back to Newton's Laws of Motion, one of the most basic principles of physics. Such a significant lack of understanding in such a basic field of science shows that the B.A. that he received did not result in a well-rounded education.

You'll notice that a lot of the subjects in the liberal category are ones that encourage continued academia, whereas the Conservative ones can generally be applied more practically.

I beg to differ on that. Science and Engineering is based on continued academia. No scientist or engineer would dare stop trying to stay current in their field. They are not skills you can just put down and return to years later. They require constant research and study.

Universities and so on are places of reason; a higher proportion of Conservatives are religious, or more devoted about their religious beliefs, and, being places of reason (I'm not saying religion is unreasonable; only that rational and reasonable thought doesn't usually allow for superstition), they aren't generally compatible.

And yet, about half of all physicists consider themselves to be "religious". I doubt you could find a field farther from believing in superstition than physics (or the other hard scie

 

Nice post, KK. I concede on most points, though I may debate your brother in a little while.

A well-reasoned and argued post.

- Scarlet.

 

And yet, about half of all physicists consider themselves to be "religious". I doubt you could find a field farther from believing in superstition than physics (or the other hard sciences). How do you explain that?

Many scientists (myself included) take a Spinozan outlook on the nature of G-d. This ties back in to your point about scientists typically being extremely well-rounded and having solid backgrounds in philosophy, among other things. G-d is defined to be whatever set the universe in motion (a sentient being, the big bang, whatever the hell else you want). Therefore the universe reflects the nature of G-d, and the study of it is one of the most noble things a person can do from a theological point of view.

 

Just my view on the "Liberal=Liberal Arts" vs. "Conservatives=Physical Science/Engineering" comments:

I have a Ph.D in physics. I interact with many astrophysicists, geologists, engineers, chemists and physicists. It is my personal experience that the majority of the people I interact with are liberal in their politics. It could be related to the fact that, with our backgrounds, we could go into industry and earn bucketfuls, but we choose to earn less and pursue a career in academia, devoted to pure research and teaching. I know that I certainly was happy to give up the extra dollar signs to pursue my field of expertise in an environment not dominated by stockholders and large corporate concerns. Not that academia doesn't have its own issues, of course.

 

To define my statement, what I meant by experiance was how old one is. I took a college level Political Science class in high school and most everyone was conservative, but that is due to the area in which I live. There was some study in my book that showed that the more college you have the more liberal you become, and after that the older you are the more conservative you become. I take from that, that conservatives have more experiance, but it could just be we are all senile. Of course I am only 19, so...