Why is liberalism so popular among US scientists compared to the public?

[Humes fork]

Quote:

More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals.

Source.

Why is this? Please avoid answers such as "Reality has a liberal bias" or "Smart people are liberals".

American liberalism consists of tolerance on social issues as well as economic egalitarianism. While I can see perfectly why scientists would be the former, since opposition to gay marriage for example is built upon extremely poor intellectual foundations, I don't necessarily see why scientists would favor economic egalitarianism.

That the right (in the US anyways) has taken up a lot of anti-scientific positions doesn't (fully) explain it either, since the left is pretty good at it too, with the organic hype, as well as anti-vaccination. Alabama is much better at vaccination than Washington. Though creationists and global warming deniers are better organized.

[Tricky]

For one thing, when conservatives go on cost-cutting binges, one of the first things they look to cut is education and grant money. Indeed, the present conservative mood in the US is deeply anti-science. So it's no shocker that scientists tend to reject conservativism more so than other professions.

However, it depends on the use of science. I work for a oil company, and many or even most of my fellow scientists will probably vote Republican. Not all though.

[Brainster]

Not hard to see the answer; just look at the poll on page 4 where government is listed as the top answer for source of funding.

[Random]

Science is supposed to be objective and scientists are supposed to have open minds. This makes the modern incarnation of conservatism a bad fit. I would really like to see a similar poll from pre-1960s though. The Civil Rights Acts of the mid-60s and the Southern Strategy really jumbled around political parties and social-economic and liberal-conservative nomenclature.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Not hard to see the answer; just look at the poll on page 4 where government is listed as the top answer for source of funding.

and in one simple, ignorant, sentence condemns the integrity of scientists. Well done

[Halfcentaur]

I would think because science is so focused on looking to the horizon line of change, what can be improved or altered through understanding and challenging what is preestablished.

Conservatism is about honoring what is old and what seemed to already work.

Science deals with constantly picking away at what we think works, and it seems to me the conservatism is about settling down.

Just throwing ideas at the wall.

[Dessi]

I think scientific consensus does not match up with some conservative political beliefs, such as climate denialism, evolution denialism, denying issues related to energy crises, denial that children fair well when raised by gay couples and other denigrating myths about gay people, denying the effectiveness of contraceptives.

For fairness, I don't think there's much scientific buy in regarding anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaxxer beliefs held by fringe lefties.

There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and education, affluence, IQ. There's a good chance median of all those measures among scientific community exceeds national median.

[maxpower1227]

As a science major who has become a liberal within the last 5 years or so, I can say that modern conservatism's dogmatic and counterfactual denial of the climate science and evolution was a large factor in my ideological shift.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I think scientific consensus does not match up with some conservative political beliefs, such as climate denialism, evolution denialism, denying issues related to energy crises, denial that children fair well when raised by gay couples and other denigrating myths about gay people, denying the effectiveness of contraceptives.

For fairness, I don't think there's much scientific buy in regarding anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaxxer beliefs held by fringe lefties.

There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and education, affluence, IQ. There's a good chance median of all those measures among scientific community exceeds national median.

When I grow up I want to be able to articulate my thoughts as concisely and clearly as this, rather then the abrupt snarky way I do now.

The sad part is I'm probably twice your age so the likelihood is slim.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

and in one simple, ignorant, sentence condemns the integrity of scientists. Well done

I don't see it as condemning their integrity. Conservative policies oppose government funding of science, as they fail to see any productive use in it. It's pretty obvious that any scientist whose funding happens to come from government would find it incredulous that their funding source would make their contributions to scientific knowledge useless.

I would also say that on the other end, many scientific discoveries have negative implications to the pre-existing industry. The tobacco industry comes to mind as one. Unfortunately many other industries haven't quite accepted the implications of more recent scientific discoveries.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

and in one simple, ignorant, sentence condemns the integrity of scientists. Well done

I don't see that. I suspect that the operational definition of "scientist" for the purpose of this study includes a bias toward "academic". There's a self-selection bias in government work.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by daenku32

I don't see it as condemning their integrity. Conservative policies oppose government funding of science, as they fail to see any productive use in it. It's pretty obvious that any scientist whose funding happens to come from government would find it incredulous that their funding source would make their contributions to scientific knowledge useless.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying the incredulous scientists would become liberal as a result?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Dessi

There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and education, affluence, IQ. There's a good chance median of all those measures among scientific community exceeds national median.

Carefully now:...
"There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and..."
a) education
b) affluence
c) IQ.
This I doubt. You mean wealthy people vote D? Really?
As I understand it, the relation between political identification and years of school is U-shaped (dropouts and PhDs vote D, BS vote R). I cannot recall where I read that.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

and in one simple, ignorant, sentence condemns the integrity of scientists. Well done

Not really. I said the same thing essentially, and I am both a scientist and a liberal, and I freely admit that scientists want the government to support their work. I will also say that this has been a relationship that has been mutually beneficial for many years, but you really can't deny that science wants government funding. Brainster's take on this may be slightly different, but it is not incorrect to say that scientists feed at the government trough. I personally think that is a good thing, and countries that support science will succeed, while those that choke off its funding will fail. That's a good reason to keep the trough full.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Source.

First of all you are probably referring to the US political spectrum correct?

Why is this? Please avoid answers such as "Reality has a liberal bias" or "Smart people are liberals".

American liberalism consists of tolerance on social issues as well as economic egalitarianism. While I can see perfectly why scientists would be the former, since opposition to gay marriage for example is built upon extremely poor intellectual foundations, I don't necessarily see why scientists would favor economic egalitarianism

At the end of the day scientists follow the science. You may not want to hear it, but the real question isn't "why aren't scientists more conservative" it's "why aren't conservatives more scientific"

Originally Posted by Humes fork

That the right (in the US anyways) has taken up a lot of anti-scientific positions doesn't (fully) explain it either, since the left is pretty good at it too, with the organic hype, as well as anti-vaccination. Alabama is much better at vaccination than Washington. Though creationists and global warming deniers are better organized.

You may want to remember that the only recent big name politician to buy into the anti-vaccination movement was Republican Michell Bachman.

Even for examples where it's more accurate it's still false equivalence. While there are some less then scientific people on the left in general they are not part of the mainstream political process.

[maxpower1227]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Not really. I said the same thing essentially, and I am both a scientist and a liberal, and I freely admit that scientists want the government to support their work. I will also say that this has been a relationship that has been mutually beneficial for many years, but you really can't deny that science wants government funding. Brainster's take on this may be slightly different, but it is not incorrect to say that scientists feed at the government trough. I personally think that is a good thing, and countries that support science will succeed, while those that choke off its funding will fail. That's a good reason to keep the trough full.

I agree with everything you said, and saw your first reply before I read Brainster's, and yet when I read Brainster's reply I still read a different context into it. I think the reason is that I've often seen similar arguments from conservatives to explain why various other voting blocs - namely the poor and African-Americans - tend to vote Democratic. There seems to be this meme that those groups vote Democratic because they are kept in a state of dependence on government for their well-being, as opposed to the rugged individualists on the right who oppose welfare and other social programs aimed to help the less fortunate. I was hearing hints of those talking points between the lines of Brainster's post.

That's how I subconsciously read it, anyway.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I agree with everything you said, and saw your first reply before I read Brainster's, and yet when I read Brainster's reply I still read a different context into it. I think the reason is that I've often seen similar arguments from conservatives to explain why various other voting blocs - namely the poor and African-Americans - tend to vote Democratic. There seems to be this meme that those groups vote Democratic because they are kept in a state of dependence on government for their well-being, as opposed to the rugged individualists on the right who oppose welfare and other social programs aimed to help the less fortunate. I was hearing hints of those talking points between the lines of Brainster's post.

That's how I subconsciously read it, anyway.

I can understand how you would get that perception. I think it was probably slanted that way intentionally. But even with slanting, I think Brainster is not the knee-jerk conservative like some we have seen here. Sure he has his perspective, but he doesn't normally go off the deep end. I respect him.

I think it is good when people here who fundamentally disagree can find points on which they agree, rather that flaming anyone on the other side. Maybe we can have a debate rather than a fight.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Tricky

...science wants government funding.

Actually science wants funding, no matter where the precise source. Government is merely the best (but not perfect) bet for getting adequate funding without being told what the result has to be.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Actually science wants funding, no matter where the precise source. Government is merely the best (but not perfect) bet for getting adequate funding without being told what the result has to be.

Okay, that's true too. So much of science, though, doesn't have obvious marketability, and so funding for a lot of "pure science" is often hard to find. Funding for finding a bacon substitute that tastes exactly the same will never want for funding.

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I think scientific consensus does not match up with some conservative political beliefs, such as climate denialism, evolution denialism, denying issues related to energy crises, denial that children fair well when raised by gay couples and other denigrating myths about gay people, denying the effectiveness of contraceptives.

For fairness, I don't think there's much scientific buy in regarding anti-nuclear, anti-GMO, and anti-vaxxer beliefs held by fringe lefties.

There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and education, affluence, IQ. There's a good chance median of all those measures among scientific community exceeds national median.

So reality has a liberal bias, and smart people are liberals?

I can dig it.

[jj]

As usual, the OP has both undefined nouns (liberalism) and asserts facts not in evidence.

First, what is "liberalism".

After we get that sorted, maybe we can move ahead.

[tyr_13]

This is a pretty good discussion so far. In addition to what has already been pointed out, I've noticed that a liberal taking a stance counter to our best scientific understanding of a given subject is at least as likely to be countered or rebuffed by another liberal as by a conservative. This produces the perception, a correct one in my estimation, that American liberalism as a construct doesn't inherently build on any anti-science but rather simply has members who also embrace some anti-science. That is to say, they embrace some sort of anti-science and are liberal, not that they embrace some sort of anti-science as a liberal. There are some anti-science stances that have more advocates in the liberal camp than in the general population, but other liberals tend to vocally oppose them on these issues. Check out any thread on nuclear power if you want to see some fairly left liberals agreeing whole heatedly with some fairly right conservatives.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Not really. I said the same thing essentially, and I am both a scientist and a liberal, and I freely admit that scientists want the government to support their work. I will also say that this has been a relationship that has been mutually beneficial for many years, but you really can't deny that science wants government funding.

I can only assume the communication problem is with me. I'll try again.

Question:

Quote:

Why is liberalism so popular among US scientists compared to the public?

Brainster's answer:

Quote:

Not hard to see the answer; just look at the poll on page 4 where government is listed as the top answer for source of funding.

Unless I misread him, he's stating that scientists act, behave, and vote for liberals primary because their careers are enriched if liberals are elected.

I feel that is an attack on the integrity of scientists. I'm not denying the govt funds science, I have no idea why that came across but regardless.

Tricky -
Are you a liberal because you want govt funding, Brainster says you are. You okay with that?

[not_so_new]

This....

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

So reality has a liberal bias, and smart people are liberals?

I can dig it.

Check out my link above, pretty interesting take on that line of thought.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Originally Posted by Tricky

Not really. I said the same thing essentially, and I am both a scientist and a liberal, and I freely admit that scientists want the government to support their work. I will also say that this has been a relationship that has been mutually beneficial for many years, but you really can't deny that science wants government funding.

I can only assume the communication problem is with me. I'll try again.

Question:

Quote:

Why is liberalism so popular among US scientists compared to the public?

Brainster's answer:

Quote:

Not hard to see the answer; just look at the poll on page 4 where government is listed as the top answer for source of funding.

Unless I misread him, he's stating that scientists act, behave, and vote for liberals primary because their careers are enriched if liberals are elected.

I don't read it that way. I think he beleives scientists are in favor of funding of science by the government, but I don't think he's saying this is the only reason. Admittedly it is an important one. When the thing you have worked for and studied for all your life is deemed unimportant, you may develop political leanings. But as I say, I work with a lot of very conservative-voting scientists. They suck at the government teat too, but in the form of tax breaks, so it's like what Brainster says, but turned around. You support the party that protects your job. In the case of research scientists, it's the Democrats. In the case of oil company scientists, it's the Republicans. But a lot of oil company scientists still value pure science, so it's not perfectly equal.

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Tricky -
Are you a liberal because you want govt funding, Brainster says you are. You okay with that?

No, I'm a liberal because I prefer their policies. I grew up hating racism in my home state of Alabama, and liberals made racism less of a problem. I am in favor of equal rights for women, gays, atheists and all sorts of minorities. Liberals champion those rights. Conservatives oppose them.

True, I like government funding for science, and so Brainster is right in that part, but that is not the reason I proudly call myself a liberal. It's only a small part of it. And Brainster knows it. We've butted heads on many issues, and I suspect he respects me as much as I respect and disagree with him.

[TellyKNeasuss]

1) Scientists tend to politically liberal by American standards, but what qualifies as "liberal" in the USA isn't necessarily considered to be "liberal" in other developed countries.
2) There is a possible logical reason to in favor of economic egalitarianism. There is some evidence that relatively small levels of wealth inequality tend to be associated with prosperity while high levels of wealth inequality tend to be associated with economic stagnation.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Why is this? Please avoid answers such as "Reality has a liberal bias" or "Smart people are liberals".

You mean that we're supposed to answer this without giving the correct answers? Well, that's a toughie.

Of course, when it comes to the US form of conservatism, it is the Republican Party which wants to pander to creationism. How could any self-respecting scientist not cringe if politicians that are supposed to represent them come out with that kind of silliness?

[R.Mackey]

I guess one could make the argument (if it isn't mere coincidence, say an artifact of demography) that scientists tend to examine and simplify and model complex systems. "Liberalism" in this context could be interpreted as a desire for more government influence over society to achieve stated performance goals, which could be an extreme macro-view of a typical scientific approach.

Having said that, in my shooting classes we find that the largest bloc of students are engineers, something like 35% of all attendees... engineers seem to like high performance hardware that makes loud noises. Who knew?

Just a thought. [Professional scientist, classic liberal, probably neutral w/respect to the OP]

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

and in one simple, ignorant, sentence condemns the integrity of scientists. Well done

A scientist would reject out of hand any analysis that didn't include this as a possibility.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I would think because science is so focused on looking to the horizon line of change, what can be improved or altered through understanding and challenging what is preestablished.

Conservatism is about honoring what is old and what seemed to already work.

Science deals with constantly picking away at what we think works, and it seems to me the conservatism is about settling down.

Just throwing ideas at the wall.

I think thats a pretty good argument. Most people remember the good old days. Many sciences drive for good new days

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

I don't see that. I suspect that the operational definition of "scientist" for the purpose of this study includes a bias toward "academic". There's a self-selection bias in government work.

Thank you. Of course those attached to the government tit are not inclined to think it silly. They probably depend on a psychological build-up to justify themselves as useful mentally. "I get money from taxpayers -- I am useful dammit!"

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Funding for finding a bacon substitute that tastes exactly the same will never want for funding.

In fairness that's because bacon is DELICIOUS!

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

In fairness that's because bacon is DELICIOUS!

You can take it too far, though; http://baconlube.com/

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I agree with everything you said, and saw your first reply before I read Brainster's, and yet when I read Brainster's reply I still read a different context into it. I think the reason is that I've often seen similar arguments from conservatives to explain why various other voting blocs - namely the poor and African-Americans - tend to vote Democratic. There seems to be this meme that those groups vote Democratic because they are kept in a state of dependence on government for their well-being, as opposed to the rugged individualists on the right who oppose welfare and other social programs aimed to help the less fortunate. I was hearing hints of those talking points between the lines of Brainster's post.

That's how I subconsciously read it, anyway.

I am not saying it affects their integrity, I am saying it affects their voting. Any group that benefits from big government is going to vote Democratic; that's just self-interest. On the African-American issue, I encourage you to read the classic, The Making of the President 1960, which includes a very candid (i.e., currently politically incorrect) discussion of how blacks used to vote Republican (remember, Lincoln freed the slaves) right up until welfare was instituted by FDR, at which time they switched en masse to the Democrats.

And in my opinion, there is nothing particularly wrong with voting your self-interest.

[jj]

Well, since industry does precious little basic research these days, it's a good thing somebody is doing it. Of course, this lack of basic research and prototype engineering is why China is passing us like we're standing still.

Not doing basic research is a very easy way to make more profit in the 3 month timeframe to enrich the arbitrageurs, once on your way up, and the second time when you're going out of business.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Dessi

There's also a well-documented positive correlation between socially left-leaning political views and ... affluence

Aren't the Republicans the ones accused of being the party of the rich?

Originally Posted by Dessi

IQ. There's a good chance median of all those measures among scientific community exceeds national median.

Though IQ is not really a relevant measure at all.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by jj

As usual, the OP has both undefined nouns (liberalism) and asserts facts not in evidence.

First, what is "liberalism".

After we get that sorted, maybe we can move ahead.

What I had in mind is this.

[ShadowSot]

I'd be interested toknow the why's behind such a significant percentage of scientists are not liberal. It's a bare majority in favor it seems.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

I'd be interested toknow the why's behind such a significant percentage of scientists are not liberal. It's a bare majority in favor it seems.

It doesn't mean the rest are conservatives.