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

101–110 of 120 posts

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

#101

Post by DanielBMarkham »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #99
Jun8 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me.

I know several Political Science majors.

Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform?

It sounds like you were saying that it should be treated as a hard science, but that can't be right, can it?

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

#102

Post by DanielBMarkham »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #100
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.wik…

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved.

Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds.

Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but there is nothing like what you describe, so your thought experiment is useless" To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told)

There is a lot of correlative science going on in this area, and I would be very careful not to confuse correlation with causation. I would also be careful (and I know you know this if you know anything about politics) about exactly how such studies are conducted: the questions used, the implied bias, etc.

Somebody who was not careful could take reams of this "science" of correlation and string all sorts of theories about people, such as right-wingers are more happy yet stupider and more authoritarian. Or whatever. I'd be very careful walking down this road, and not simply because of the flaky nature of the science. It's beginning to look like scientists are making an effort to explain why people could be so stupid to be conservatives, and that's not a good place to go. Not because you'd piss off folks, but because there is a great danger of political science itself becoming an echo chamber. Once you box-up any opposition, you can lord over the poor unwashed masses, whether you mean to or not. And that is really bad for both the science itself and the way the science is conducted.

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

#103

Post by wonderzombie »

As others have pointed out, it's funny how this is a problem for Democrats and/or scientists. Shouldn't _Republicans_ be worried about that? I guess this presupposes that you believe in all that "scientific method" nonsense as opposed to, say, Intelligent Design.

I should also point out that, if anything, an inquisitive, questioning turn of mind would indicate _more_ willingness to explore alternative ideas, not less! The assumption here appears to be just the opposite: scientists are, for whatever reason, categorically unwilling or incapable of considering alternative political ideas. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest that an entire class of people that disagrees with you is guilty of dishonesty or shenanigans.

Bonus hilarity: he won't come right out and say it, but this sure does sound like he's asking for Republican affirmative action in science and universities. lol, as the kids say.

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

#104

Post by kazoolist »

philwelch wrote: post #53
hristov wrote: post #32

That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican than to the democrat side.

Yes! It's not difficult to meet physicists or engineers with conservative politics. But thoughtful, intelligent conservatism has more or less left the scene, which means thoughtful, intelligent conservatives don't really have much representation. (In other words, American politics is deeply suffering at the loss of William F. Buckley.)

"Thoughtful, intelligent conservatism".

Please remove you head from the sand.

I'll put up Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, and George Will up against whoever you want from the Left any day.

Furthermore, I submit that I think the Left often makes the error of mistaking the Right's distaste for having the "intellectual elites" run their lives for a distaste in intelligence informing their lives.

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

#105

Post by MichaelSalib »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #102
MichaelSalib wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.wik…

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but t…

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved.

Right, this is a religious belief you have. It is a belief for which you've provided no evidence to support. You're making an assumption here.

To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told)

I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers.

To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told)

Absolutely, and stupid people have done precisely that. But I've read Altermeyer's book and there are lots of researchers who are careful. The Wikipedia link I gave above gives a good summary. In brief:

- the issue is not that conservatives are stupid; there's no correlation between authoritarian tendencies and intelligence

- lots of conservatives are not authoritarian at all

- most (almost all) authoritarians who have political preferences are conservative

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

#106

Post by MichaelSalib »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #101
MichaelSalib wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you…

Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics?

Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-)

More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of political science that everyone agrees has been empirically settled are completely at odds with how Americans and American media discuss politics.

I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever poli scientists say -- I'm saying that everyone should agree to the poly sci consensus on the few issues that have been well studied for which a huge consensus exists. That change alone would force us to rewrite 95% of political media coverage.

Here's one example: http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/

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

#107

Post by DanielBMarkham »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #105
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Of course, there are many other factors, and we can endlessly speculate as to what they might be. But for purposes of the relationship between one group and one party, whatever the group or party, my example holds. Of course, a fine counterargument to that is "but t…

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Right, this is a religious belief you have. It is a belief for which you've provided no evidence to support. You're making an assumption here. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after t…

I don't think we're going to get very far, but I'd simply point out that I made an assertion that began with "if you started with no parties at all" and then provided an example to support my thesis.

I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers.

It's interesting you would say that. I find that there are basically two camps of thought when it comes to the soft sciences: those who use the past to try to spot patterns and extrapolate from them, and those who feel that we should rest more on theories than some sort of loose induction around fuzzy concepts.

Both of these schools have their various uses and drawbacks. I'd much rather be less rigorous, more flexible, and longer-term in my analysis, but I can respect an approach that relies more on structure. Just be careful. I'm not going to argue with you about this. Suffice it to say that rules-based extrapolations of the sciences has a mixed heritage at best.

I'm happy that you are so assured of yourself. Unfounded self-doubt is a terrible thing. Carry on.

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

#108

Post by DanielBMarkham »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #106
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you…

Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-) More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of politica…

You'll have to forgive me, but I expect you to earn your chops. Coming into a thread and announcing that you're so sorry folks are uninformed isn't a very good way to get started in a discussion.

And over several posts, I've yet to see a single theory expounded and supported, although you've made mention of a prominent book and fallen back on consensus.

I'm not trying to "bust your chops" or trash you or anything. It's just very difficult to have a conversation when there is no point to be argued aside from "people mostly don't understand political science like they should" which could apply to any one of a hundred sciences.

I hope that came out well. I'm really not trying to sound snide. I just have no idea where you are going with this aside from posturing. It's perplexing.

I'm done here. Don't want to waste other folk's time (or mine) Thank you for your time. Look forward to continuing the discussion at a future date. Sounds like you've read and studied quite a bit. Would love to see you show off some of that knowledge. At another time.

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

#109

Post by evgen »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #101
MichaelSalib wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you…

It is worth noting that "political science" covers a lot of ground... Much like economics, there are some sub-fields that deal with "small" questions with a great deal of empirical rigor and and other sub-fields that are more theoretical and philosophical. The closer the sub-field is to stats & neuro-physio/psychology the more it resembles other hard sciences. The past decade has seen a lot of interesting work in this area and a lot of it has turned out to be something of a surprise in terms of deflating the "rational actors making reasoned choices" myths that many people subscribe to.

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

#110

Post by bh23ha »

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…

There should be as many scientists roughly in each party.

Political parties are not static. They move and evolve and change, and grow and shrink and may become tiny and spend years in the political wilderness.

When a party is reduced to a regional rump, and has several litmus test for their tiny, tiny tent. When one of the most important test is are you anti or pro science, you can't seriously expect a lot of scientist to belong to club which is fervently against anyone who dares to believe in evolution.

Post reply on HN