Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#141

Post by gjulianm » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #109

gjulianm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this comment to be borderline insulting, even when my political views are very liberal. Basically, what I read in your comment (maybe I'm misreading it) is that not having a liberal view means that the person does not understand the world, has an angry response, ignores the complexities of life and does not understand anything. So, instead of just trying to understand what do these people think, feel and fear…

Yes, religion in the same bucket (and largely responsible for the existence of the bucket itself). Why look for answers when they all are in THE BOOK? > A degree just gives you knowledge in a specific area, and > does not make anyone more intelligent just by having it. In many (most?) cases a degree also means that you became familiar and aquired skills needed for problems solving and answer finding. And even if raw…

Not every religious person is a hardcore bible reader who does not question anything. In fact, most believers I've met are in the opposite end: they know most of the tales of the bible are just tales, and accept the scientific methods and explanations. They just believe there's also a god or something out there.

Regarding the degree thing, you may or may not acquire them. The degree just requires you to demonstrate a certain knowledge and skills, but not necessarily problem solving and answer finding. If you apply yourself and have good teachers, you can certainly learn it, but it's not that much different of a situation than when you're working in some job or doing things by yourself. It's not necessary nor sufficient, and definitely not even in most cases.

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#142

Post by empthought » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #141

rimantas wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, religion in the same bucket (and largely responsible for the existence of the bucket itself). Why look for answers when they all are in THE BOOK? > A degree just gives you knowledge in a specific area, and > does not make anyone more intelligent just by having it. In many (most?) cases a degree also means that you became familiar and aquired skills needed for problems solving and answer finding. And even if raw…

Not every religious person is a hardcore bible reader who does not question anything. In fact, most believers I've met are in the opposite end: they know most of the tales of the bible are just tales, and accept the scientific methods and explanations. They just believe there's also a god or something out there. Regarding the degree thing, you may or may not acquire them. The degree just requires you to demonstrate a…

> most believers I've met are in the opposite end: they know most of the tales of the bible are just tales, and accept the scientific methods and explanations.

You clearly do not live where I live.

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#143

Post by MagnumOpus » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 1:34 PM UTC

pete_b wrote: post #63

Pithy answer 2: because they are economically privileged. The headline is a broad generalisation, and as another broad generalisation poorer people are more religious and more conservative because they have harder lives, bleaker temporal outlooks and hope for a better life 'beyond'.

I think your "pithy answer" won't stand up to actuall polling.

Highly educated low-wealth/low-income people tend to be socially liberal and probably skew socially leftist (think postdocs, school teachers, humanities PhDs).

High-wealth low-education people probably skew to the right (self-employed craftsmen, sports people, "old money" heirs).

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#144

Post by blowski » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 1:35 PM UTC

throwaway7312 wrote: post #139

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also considered this question, my answer is that the party on the "right" will have a core mission of maintaining the power and wealth of the powerful and wealthy. This is, unsuprisingly, not a great vote winner for the masses. So around this core mission they need to build a platform, and so they pick the easiest way to attract voters to this cause up until the point when they get a majority that's able to ac…

You’re assuming poor American working class voters vote against their interests by voting conservative. Leaving aside the social issues for now and looking solely at economic ones, let’s ask the question whether that’s true to them in their own minds. The American liberal party (Democrats) brands itself as the party that’s going to help you out. It’ll leverage redistribution (taxes) to take money from rich people and…

I will read more about Haidt, thanks for the links.

Where do you think those different mindsets come from? Is it totally random biology, something about childhood upbringing, or some situation in life?

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#145

Post by Kurtz79 » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #130

Kurtz79 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm an upper-middle class, over-educated professional expert, and I'm strongly liberal for selfish reasons: mostly, I want to live in a climate of social peace, and would prefer to be surrounded by people who foster a mood of solidarity and benevolence, rather than a cut-throat and ever-worsening competitive mindset." That's mostly my rationale for being in favor of (moderate) wealth redistribution, which on surface…

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win.

"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more."

Do you seriously think this is an achievable goal ?

There will be always people that can't or won't work hard for a living. It might be due to their upbringing, education, DNA, personal choices, health conditions, personality. It doesn't mean that these people should be left to their own devices, for the "selfish" reasons mentioned by the OP, if not for more "noble" ones.

Resource redistribution does not aim to "solve" income inequality, but to lessen its side effects. It might be not the only way, it is definitely not perfect and you might say it is not fair, but at least it is a realistic way to tackle a difficult problem.

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#146

Post by rskar » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #130

Kurtz79 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm an upper-middle class, over-educated professional expert, and I'm strongly liberal for selfish reasons: mostly, I want to live in a climate of social peace, and would prefer to be surrounded by people who foster a mood of solidarity and benevolence, rather than a cut-throat and ever-worsening competitive mindset." That's mostly my rationale for being in favor of (moderate) wealth redistribution, which on surface…

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win.

"It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more." Well, of course, we all prosper when we all are prospering. :)

While life isn't exactly a zero-sum game, for certain moments it works that way. In any case, for now (nearly) all of us are Earth-bounded, so the limits of what our planet and our Sun can provide to us (over time) is what truly matters. There's only so much of Earth to go around, and only so much radiation to be received from the Sun. (And I am of course overlooking the occasional changes from meteors and comets and other whatnot from the heavens.)

This thing about income (and wealth) inequality is about more than mere discontents. There are plenty who fear that our global economic system (leaning heavily on capitalism with sprinkles of socialism) will soon arrive at a point of being unsustainable - a point that arrives prior to actual resource depletion.

The heart of it is in the ways that people can be so entitled to things, such as water, food, clothing, shelter, education, offspring, healthcare, etc. The worries are about the consequences of greater portions of the population being at or below subsistence levels. This is especially alarming when the statistics show it growing more significant within "First-World" nations.

The three big factors seem to be (to me, anyway): (1) Strong property rights which enables more rentiers and natural monopolies; (2) Rentiers/Monopolizers out-competing most or all others for political and economic influences and favors; (3) human labor becoming less needed over time due to the growing rise of adaptable and reliable automation.

The automation of item 3 would make a "Galt's Gulch" more tenable, but it would probably be realized as an artificial island nation. Well, one can dream of one, anyway (see http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billio...).

One can easily google on "wealth inequality" and get some sober/reasonable/academic reads on this. A good primer is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-t.... Also, look up NBER Working Paper No. 20625.

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#147

Post by antisthenes » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #130

Kurtz79 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm an upper-middle class, over-educated professional expert, and I'm strongly liberal for selfish reasons: mostly, I want to live in a climate of social peace, and would prefer to be surrounded by people who foster a mood of solidarity and benevolence, rather than a cut-throat and ever-worsening competitive mindset." That's mostly my rationale for being in favor of (moderate) wealth redistribution, which on surface…

Is resource redistribution the only way to solve income inequality? I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win.

> I always believed we weren't playing a zero sum game. It's likely that when we are all working for a living and prospering then we all prosper a little more. I don't believe that means someone rich has to lose a little more so someone poor can win.

If you studied economics, you'd very quickly realize that many areas that people compete for and responsible for inequality are zero-sum (at least in the short-run and medium-run). It is more tricky for wealth, since once person owning something more esoteric, like a portfolio does not necessarily preclude anyone else from doing so.

The most notable example, of course, is real estate, especially in the areas where zoning laws prohibit from building upwards. You might also know it as a NIMBY suburban sprawl, which is one of the biggest factors in creating inequality and misery in the US.

Another example that I haven't explored fully is political influence. The attention and decision-making of policymakers is definitely zero-sum by virtue of there being a fixed amount of them.

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#148

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #90

blowski wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they believe it? Obviously, in any one election you can say it's the headlines of the day combined with the personalities of the leaders. So are working class people repeatedly irrational in voting for right-wing parties? Interestingly, UKIP are combining left-wing economics with right-wing social policies, and have made a lot of ground with the working class. Arguably, this is Trump's constituency in the US a…

The only UKIP MP wants to increase immigration from third world countries. I'm not sure that message gets through to the voters somehow. So like Trump, they surf on a wave on xenophobia, with little interest in actually following through with their promises.

[deleted]

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#149

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #135

wrgrossman wrote: post #125

I worked at a private University (as a conservative leaning independent) for 7 years. I found the University to be a hostile work environment for conservatives. In my case as well as others, that I met while there, it was enough to dissuade us from pursuing an advanced degree. I worked with many wonderful academics, they are people that I still count among the smartest and kindest people that I have ever met. At the…

Re the 9/11 thing, if you are someone who dislikes the killing of innocent people it seems reasonable to be horrified by the original 9/11 killings of three thousand odd people and also horrified by Bush/Cheney using that as a justification to do stuff leading to the deaths of many times as many innocent people. It seems quite reasonable to avoid condoning that.

[deleted]

Re: Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal?

#150

Post by antisthenes » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 2:57 PM UTC

gallonofmilk wrote: post #19

Fej wrote: post #4

The two parties have been getting more polarized, that much is clear. The problem with the GOP from an educated person's perspective is that many, if not most of its politicians get elected through anti-intellectual rhetoric. Trump is the most extreme example of this. He makes no actual arguments and just attacks his detractors. An educated group taught to embrace science will certainly take issue with leaders who ig…

> GOP is the party of creationists and climate deniers... how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"? they're both bold assertions on a large group of people that are unlikely to be true for the majority... to be honest it just sounds smug

> how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"?

Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it, while creationists and climate deniers does.

One is a valid policy stance, while the other is just flat out rejection of reality.