Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#91

Post by seigenblues »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politic…

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here.

Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick.

(btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any other 1st world country)

You started off almost saying something, but i'm not sure your thesis holds ('...in a two party system, any group...') Take the converse. I could also say that the group of anti-intellectuals has completely affiliated themselves with the Republican party, damaging themselves and the Republicans. Same thing, right?

Anyway, you reminded me of the 'everything that happens is good for John McCain' meme, which might be worth researching. One particularly egregious example is here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/07/29/life-imitates-farce/

cheers, and let's try not to bullshit ourselves.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#92

Post by joe_the_user »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #86
sandipc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.

Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's…

Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well.

The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#93

Post by yummyfajitas »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #83
njs12345 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many economists would certainly support the idea of a minimum wage, so I hardly think it's fair to portray it as a settled matter..

You're failing to differentiate between supporting a policy versus the truth of a scientific argument. It is pretty much accepted that minimum wage increases unemployment, although the effect may be small as pointed out elsewhere. But you may also believe that we should offer a well-designed safety net to those who lose their jobs as a result, and that these people can thus improve their skills to benefit themselves…

And just to clarify, the effect of minimum wage on employment is small because virtually no one earns less than minimum wage anyway.

A law saying "hey everyone, keep doing what you are already doing" won't have much effect, positive or negative.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#94

Post by hugh3 »

iwr wrote: post #72

What does it mean to be a "scientist" in the US? Is it strictly a person in academia who is in the pursuit of research grants? Does it also include private sector researchers and engineers?

Private sector scientists, yes. Private sector engineers, no.

Of course it's hard to draw a hard-and-fast line between the two, so let's just consider scientists as people who would say they're a scientist, and engineers people who would say that they're an engineer.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#95

Post by yummyfajitas »

joe_the_user wrote: post #92
yummyfajitas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's…

Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.

Most opponents of stem cell research are being rational. If you take as an axiom "fertilized eggs are people too", it's not hard to conclude that stem cell experiments are immoral.

In much the same way, given the axiom "blacks are people too", the rational conclusion is that Tuskegee was immoral.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#96

Post by DanielBMarkham »

seigenblues wrote: post #91
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politic…

Yes, politics certainly puts humans at their most irrational indeed! It's quite some gymnastics you're turning here. Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick. (btw, that philosophy -- american 'liberalism' -- would barely deserve the name in any…

Somehow, you've ended up saying that when educated citizens overwhelmingly support one governing philosophy, it's not only somehow bad for the educated citizens, it's also bad for the philosophy! That's a neat trick.

It would be, if I had conflated "philosophy" with "political party"

But I didn't.

Cheers.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#97

Post by kazoolist »

narkee wrote: post #10
CWuestefeld wrote: post #4

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor…

>It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left I think that this just deflects the question. Why is it that universities are left-leaning? The implication is that knowledge acquisition is co-related with left-leaning politics? I'm not about to go into the implications of such an assertion, lest a political flame-war break out, but I think answering that more general question will explain the…

My theory is that universities are compromised of the elite, and I think it's a natural fit for elites to think "hey, I'm pretty smart about my field; I bet there is some other really smart guy about [economics/the environment/healthcare/agriculture/...] and we just put that guy in charge of that he can design a great system for that that we can all live under and it will be just great!"

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#98

Post by MichaelSalib »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #69
MichaelSalib wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts…

voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more? (I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)

One hilarious example of this effect at work can be found at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_... -- the gist of it is that polling indicates that a decent number of Bush voters in 2004 believed that Bush held policy positions that he never held and in fact never claimed to have held. It is not that Bush lied to these voters about his issue preferences: they just liked him for other reasons and ascribed their own issue preferences to him.

John Sides explains a related phenomena here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/08/me_talking_to_politico_... whereby voters don't necessarily know much about most issues and end up adopting issue positions held by parties they trust. See the link towards the end of that piece.

In general, there's been a ton of political science work on how election outcomes are largely determined by non-issue factors, like economic conditions. An electorate that voted based primarily on issues should have stable preferences that don't swing wildly based on the state of the economy.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#99

Post by MichaelSalib »

Jun8 wrote: post #81
MichaelSalib wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts…

Why does my ignorance "sadden" you? I would be first to point it out (although I wouldn't say that I'm more ignorant in these matters than the average intellectual) and one does not have to be omniscient either. You cite some very interesting results. If these are indeed so well known in the political science community, please post links to a few introductory papers.

I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that. I'm sure you're a very smart person who is probably doing some fascinating work that I would totally dig if I knew about it. It is just that I see a lot of really basic political science ignorance around me, and it grates after a while.

I mean, I'm sure you would never write something like "I think hand-washing causes AIDS!" because even if you didn't understand any biology, you probably get that there's a field called biology and that claims about biology really shouldn't be made unless one has some familiarity with the field and has spent some time studying, etc. It really bothers me that in the US at least, all of the media institutions that cover politics and policy literally act like the field of political science doesn't exist. And so everyone just makes up crap about questions that experts have actually studied empirically. But that's not your fault and I shouldn't have let my frustration with the ignorance of large powerful organizations leak cause me to express displeasure with you. Again, my apologies.

Re: Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

#100

Post by MichaelSalib »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #37

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politic…

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

Post reply on HN