Why are most of scientists democrats?

He meant to say trend. And yeah, exceptions don't exactly confirm a trend but they don't nullify it either.

Good content glad you're an American you're probably soooo smart

Because most of their life experience exists on a university campus, which tend to be liberal places.

why are colleges liberal then??

>why are most of scientists democrats?
[citation needed]
[define scientist]

Remember. The US is only 4% of the World Population, so it is unlikely that most scientists are American, let alone Democrats.

that's a good thesis question for a great thesis in a useless shitty field like political studies

There you go.

Government is a bureaucracy. University is a bureaucracy. Government supports university. University supports government. Democrats want to grow government, government wants to grow university. University becomes democrat.

I kinda fuck up the high income (smart/stupid is inverse) but whatever

amazing thesis 10/10 you're now a PhD in political science

yeah no one cares about how you couldn't even make a good bait

because the professors are liberals

>why are the professors liberals?
Because conservatives don't stay in academia.

Most scientists are centrists that lean moderate democrat. They hate the current return of postmodernism in the left but have no viable alternatives.

You do know theres a shitload of stupid democrats. Its why the democrats get a lot of "other demographics" voting for them.

>Because conservatives don't stay in academia.
amazing sources and information

I support phd phd supports me. Im now democrat.

How can this be true if wallstreet bankers are supporting the democratic party's nominee like crazy?

Looks like high income just leads to democrat as it seems to be easiest party to buy.

No joke, my Thermo 1 professor took 20min out of a class to explain why Socialism increases entropy least and why that makes it the best political system.

You're asking this when the Republican candidate is literally an anti-vaxxer? kek

Why are people that have reached dianetics level 12 the biggest proponents of Scientology?

You mean Trump ? The guy who vaccinated all his kids ?
Is this really the extent of a typical liberals knowledge on whats going on in the world ?

And the democrat candidate believes what the polls show is the most common believe.

If we were back 500 years ago then Hillary's campaign would talk about the earth being the center of the universe.

A flawed belief is worth more than an empty belief, a mere immitation.

>Socialism increases entropy least
wat

this is true
i'm painfully aware that my opinion and that of my peers is flawed by the fact that we all live in the wealthy well-educated good-prospects bubble, yet i'm unable to adjust my opinion, partly because i don't see good alternatives, partly because i still think ours is better.

Complacency = less things happening = less energy wasted

Theres been one scientist utopist and he got killed by other pretending...

>partly because i still think ours is better.
Because it is

Seems to me the best way not to increase entropy would be for the human race to collectively commit suicide.

smart and high income, i would say, have a conservative majority amongst them. i'm not convinced "conservative" and "republican" are necessarily synonyms in these circles, however. especially this year.

can we be sure of this, though? i mean, whether we like it, whether it is insane and stupid or not: newt gingrich was right in saying - i'm paraphrasing - that he doesn't give a shit about facts and statistics because feelings are what gets him elected, not facts. feelings people have, however valid and true, matter simply because they determine who gets elected.

in other words: we're either not communicating well or we are simply favoring fact based decisions to an extent where people feel like they're not being heard, which is actually a valid concern to have in a democracy.

scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

According to the physicist above there is no use fighting it. The ever increasing entropy is what cause life to form in the first place. If we go, someone is bound to replace us.

>in other words: we're either not communicating well or we are simply favoring fact based decisions to an extent where people feel like they're not being heard, which is actually a valid concern to have in a democracy.

I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying. Are you saying scientists that are democrats don't convey their ideas well to the general public, and they are left wondering why they should trust us in the first place? We don't influence their emotions, but try to reason with them, but utterly fail since they only listen to their emotions?

> as it seems to be easiest party to buy
No, it just depends. Sociopaths and Legal entities don't care if you're a democrat or republican, they just pick the party that suits their needs (ie has people installed in positions they need, isn't funded by their competitors etc)

There are plenty of stupid people in both parties, but democrats are the rational choice if you're not rich. It's that simple.

welp, sorry to burst your bubble

>A flawed belief is worth more than an empty belief
depends on the case, because as a rule this is very wrong

Either way I don't care about what happens to burgerland considering both your choices are crap. It is interesting however to see that Veeky Forums can be very vulnerable and subject to this kind of populism and scamming tactics.

>but democrats are the rational choice if you're not rich. It's that simple.
"Not rich" is extremely fucking broad.

If you are welfare/food stamps/minimum wage poor, then democrats are better for you.

If you are working class poor then republicans are better.

>depends on the case, because as a rule this is very wrong

Sure but in the context of critical thinking this rule always works.

If you propose that you can measure the intelligence of someone by their political beliefs then you want to measure their critical thinking.

Someone who has poor critical thinking is better than someone who has no critical thinking at all. Heck, no thinking at all for that matter.

This thread is still probably the most scientific discussion about political science that has ever existed

close enough, yeah. i would not phrase it so harshly, though; i would rather say, we tend to quickly dismiss opinions and fears if they are not represented in hard evidence without thoroughly explaining why the evidence doesn't match the emotionally experienced reality.

i mean, there are of course they people who will say things like "i personally believe that obama is a muslim". you can't reason with them or explain anything to them. but i'm willing to bet that there's a substantial number of people who, given the proper communication on why the numbers and the research simply don't support the claim that violent crime is getting worse, or how global warming works and why it's better to reduce potential human influence on it either way, would be willing to concede to the more informed position. yet, as this communication doesn't happen, they remain in opposition to doing shit about things they don't understand and haven't had explained to them in terms that they understand.

>If you are working class poor then republicans are better.
I would disagree on that. The republicans overwhelmingly support 1%, who in their turn fuck over the working class.

Are liberals literally this retarded ? No wonder you are the only group of imbeciles who couldn't see through a conman like Bernie when everone else did.

Is having a leader who's a liar worse than having a leader who's a retard?

Leaders are supposed to lie. You just can't be retarded about it.

;^)

(you)

> it's better to reduce potential human influence on it either way, would be willing to concede to the more informed position. yet, as this communication doesn't happen, they remain in opposition to doing shit about things they don't understand and haven't had explained to them in terms that they understand.

I think this is just your privileged white guilt showing up. It was my overwhelming experience that they just don't want to understand. You can't teach anyone anything if they don't want to understand it. Even on this website, or this board, it's clearly evident. Go in a anti climate change thread and see how they respond to evidence.

>I think this is just your privileged white guilt showing up.
Are you being ironic?

You could make the exact opposite argument with something like finance and investment banking, and there are more people in the finance industry than in science. They also happen to be far wealthier on avg. Same goes for medicine.

I take it you're not a scientist

The real answer is that the right is dominated by faith and religion. That is not to say that the left is dominated by logic and reason as a rule, but those that hold those two in high regard do constantly find themselves at odds with the right.

Faith is in direct conflict with the scientific method, plain and simple. Even if you do have some scientists that have a liberal-biased conclusion in mind before a study or experiment is conducted, they're at least able to tell themselves they're open to the possibility of being wrong (this is not to imply this is common, but it does of course happen).

Religious fundamentalists HAVE to go to the right, and it's very difficult to conduct rigorous science while sharing that umbrella. It has little to do with economic policy and everything to do with fundamentalist religious ideology that trumps empirical observation and research.

You could just as easily ask "why are so many creationists Republican?" and reach the same conclusion.

If you were to ask about fiscal policy, I'd imagine there'd be a far more even split.
----
Also it seems none of you understand what entropy is, nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics... you can locally increase complexity/energy, but doing so causes loss elsewhere and a net loss of complexity in the overall system, it is unavoidable.

slightly

>Someone who has poor critical thinking is better than someone who has no critical thinking at all.

That would be the case, if Clinton had no critical thinking (fishing for voters by jumping on current social bandwagons does not mean she can't think or that she doesn't have her own opinions, quite the opposite for that matter).

Also your analogy isn't very apt because even if Clinton had no critical thinking, what we are comparing here hypothetically is the popular opinion that Clinton (or whoever for that matter) is ADOPTING (no critical thinking does not mean that a belief doesn't exist or is not represented) with an opinion that is the result of potentially poor critical thinking. As such, the comparison is popular (or apparently popular) opinion vs potentially flawed opinion. Whose result then depends on the case, like I said. This got kind of convoluted, but I hope I got my point across.

Because most republicans are anti-science, although several democrats are starting to be with their homeopathy and anti-gmo shit.

Personally I'm a technocrat, but I'll never live to see that;-; system implemented.

There is in general a correlation between education level and voting democrat, so this is likely a part of that.

Those people are mostly going to the Green Party now, thankfully... though it'd be nice if more people were scientifically literate in general.

I think its that smart people go through existential changes as they apply themselves. Then they grasp onto hippy bullshit for meaning in their lives. These liberals are too defensive to be rationally attached to their beliefs. Imho, they know they are smart, so their conclusions must be correct, so any other is false. Its irrational and especially irrational when they use bandwagon ideology to defend themselves.

This might be true for some people, but bandwagoning really goes against the culture of scientific research.

because democrats are the less retarded option.

but why are left-"liberals" so effeminate is a better question?
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1665934
>Results. Figure 10 shows that libertarians score the lowest of any group on empathizing, and the highest on systemizing. In fact, libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing. Given that these traits are known to differ between men and women, it is important to examine these effects in each sex separately. Table 2 shows that the same effects hold when looking only at men, or when looking only at women.

I think its true for most academics, but its just my opinion, id like to know more

>Religious fundamentalists HAVE to go to the right
nope, in fact Christianity has more in common with Marx than it does with Rand.

In fact socialism did originate out of Christianity. American politics are really fucked up, where you see "liberals" defending illiberal ideas like speech censorship and blasphemy laws and "right-wing" Christians regurgitating Ayn Rand.

These. But especially the first one, I think.

maybe true. i don't know what else to say. i just feel like my opinion is too heavily influenced by the people i'm surrounded with, i wouldn't necessarily say it's a bad thing either, it just makes it difficult to develop an understanding for people outside of this bubble.

I think it's probably more common in the social sciences than

Depends on how literally you interpret the Bible, which sections you value, etc. The religious right emphasize social conservatism. There's also a human bias to assume we get what we deserve, and that wealthy people are good people (we can be trained out of this/disillusioned) and televangelists capitalize on this. The interplay between the evangelical right and the Republican party might seem paradoxical if you're looking purely at what Jesus allegedly preached, but far less so when you listen to what the evangelists are actually saying.

When you prioritize the rights of zygotes and the alleged immorality of homosexuality over all else, this is what you get.

Again you're cherry picking and not really addressing American Christianity. Most Americans know very little about the philosophy of Objectivism, mind you Rand's more of a Libertarian and Tea Party hero than a Republican one.

Rand's a staunch defender of capitalism, the Libertarians and some Republicans like her for those reasons alone. Rand literally vilified religion.

I do agree that it's contradictory for liberals to make claims such as being offended trumps the right to free speech. I think that's a very dangerous line of thought. They might self-identify and vote as liberal, but that's not a liberal position to take.

On that note, I have yet to see any large denomination of Christianity practice the humility and piousness espoused in the Bible. People interpret a self-contradictory book in a way that benefits their agendas... namely social conservatism... which is completely in line with Republicanism. This is a culture that has rebranded Jesus as a white American that loves this country above all others. Much of this was a result of the Red Scare. None of this is by accident.

Because scientists, on average, are not any more intelligent than the rest of the population, so they buy into the superficially least worst angle of the two party system, despite that there's ultimately little (but some important) functional differences between the two.

The democratic party is no less a gutted shell to serve private interest than the GOP. The only differences that are allowed are the ones that don't impact donors, or are a necessary evil for the donors. Which is why a lot of people give to both sides.

I'm not cherry-picking and did address specifically American Christards. I'm just trying to point out to you how fucked up American politics. Now left vs right is a scale of equality and inequality. The religious right you speak of aren't literal Christians, they're cafeteria Christians cherry-picking what they like and don't like. Christianity at its core is an egalitarian religion, it's flatland with only god at the top. Now if we live in an egalitarian society, the people who want to keep things egalitarian are social conservatives despite being left leaning.

Because the field became godless, and attracted godless people.

in biology literally every rule has an exception somewhere. That doesn't make it invalid for the other 99.9% of life.

Democrats? Hmmmm no, i dont think scientists are bipartidists

>Because scientists, on average, are not any more intelligent than the rest of the population

This is very, VERY wrong. Have you ever talked to a scientist (actual researcher, not undergrad) and then some random person who isn't working in STEM? In my experience, the difference in tackling problems, analysing arguments and refuting them is GIGANTIC. The difference in the level of not only intelligence, but also general knowledge of science and history and politics between a scientist and some non-STEM person is so enormous that they might as well be a different species, I'm not even kidding. Boards like Veeky Forums and the rest of Veeky Forums in general (barring /pol/ and /x/) do NOT accurately represent non-STEM people in the real world in the slightest. Posters here are significantly more intelligent and knowledgeable than their normie counterparts, which is what is creating this illusion of there not being a difference between scientists and the rest of the population, if you are using this site as a microcosm for real life.

I live in central Vermont, and barely bother to interact with other human beings regardless.

you are correct though, the population I'm exposed to in everyday life is by no means a representative sampling. People here are quite cold, but have a higher average intelligence and wider experience set. When you go to a city, or a bit further south, this skew immediately evaporates.

Nonetheless, I've yet to find a scientific institution or regulatory board I didn't find wanting. Again, a bias from living in the US.

Which is why Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly funded by 1%'s. And Obama bailed out the banks, and held no one accountable. Certainly it can be said that Obama gave taxation relief to the working class, but barely anything beyond the Bush Tax cuts. Historically speaking Democrats have absolutely been hard on the working class, peaking with Kennedy, and Carter, but so have Republicans. In fact looking at the parties records for treatment of the working class tells us very little about them as both parties, despite what they say in their platforms, have both assisted and dismissed the working class at convenience.

Obama is the racebaiting version of Bush, but with less competancy.

>Because most of Republicans are anti science, so it's pretty obvious that not many scientist are Republicans
well, a lot of geologists are republican, but thats because a lot of them work in petro industry, and you can probably conclude why they choose that political alignment

despite many republicans ignoring the findings of their field of study

>Obama is the racebaiting version of Bush, but with less competancy.
bush is 10 times worse than obama.

bush is a fucking retard autist.

Bush did a good job for the first 6 years, but fumbled hard the last 2.

Cheney was running things.

>why are colleges liberal then??
This is a good watch on the matter m.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

reminder to call out /pol/ whenever they reveal themselves

Chenney running things is a meme, get over it.

Nope. People close to Bush in his administration have largely echoed this, and many weren't entirely comfortable with it.

Bush was an infantile frat boy fuck around. He didn't know shit and Cheney readily gave him "'guidance".

mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/magazine/the-final-insult-in-the-bush-cheney-marriage.html?_r=0

Again. Bush ran his office and did a decent job until 2007. He did a decent job for 6 years and fumbled his last two years.

If you have evidence against this, please respond with it.

>did a decent job until 2007
didn't know you could do 9/11 and call that a "decent job"

this
im new to Veeky Forums hi

Because they're more intelligent and can piece things together.