Has anyone else noticed that Engineers tend to me economically very rightwing while Mathmaticians and Physicists tend...

>The Psychology of Modern Leftism - Ted K.
>"One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general."

Rekt.

post the rest

Mathfags/physicists tend to be turbo autists that dont really know how the world or human nature works

This is because engineers have to work in the realm of practicality
Engineers use what works best in practice
Mathematicians and Physicists use what works best in theory

archive.org/stream/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto_djvu.txt

I haven't read the whole thing, but skimming through it reads like 20 years ago he predicted everything /pol/ rants about.

“I at first favored Hillary Clinton for president, but after she was out of the picture, I favored Obama,” Kaczynski wrote in an April 2009 letter to Lydia Ecceles, a Boston-based artist who spearheaded a write-in campaign in 1996 focused around putting the Unabomber in the Oval Office.

“I mean, I don’t think any of our politicians are worth a damn so when I say I ‘favor’ a politician for an office, I just mean that I think he or she is the least of the available evils,” he added.

washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/25/ted-kaczynski-the-unabomber-i-favored-clinton-and-/

I'm a student of Mathematics and I'm pretty right wing but I'm definitely not an ancap. More of a traditionalist like Evola.

What does economically literate mean?
Everyone I see repeating the economically literate meme mindlessly regurgitates the state-capitalist dogma that's been force feed to them

He's schizophrenic you imbeciles.

He isn't schizophrenic, he still knows what is real. He probably has schizoid personality disorder. I would know I have it. I am ideologically very similar to Ted. I went through what snapped him when I was just a lad. I still experience it, if I thought for a second that violence would solve anything I would resort to violence. So I can't say I blame him, he just made a tactical error. The real problem is anarchism has been completely disenfranchised and obfuscated just like everything else promoting radical social change.

More like Schizotypal Personality Disorder.

I think pure science people also suffer from living in a bubble.

It's a bubble of intelligent, productive people who are not working for money. Hence they think that other people would do the same if their basic needs were met, instead of being lazy pigs.

When studying very abstract mathematics, there are many unknowns, and not everything is clear. In right wing psychology, everything is clear cut and hard lined, and there needs to be some concrete example; this is why conservatives don't make it very far in mathematics.

Wrong post
But both of you are dumbos

He is economically left.
Way to demonstrate you have no idea about left wing economics.
He was basically espousing post-left anarchism, which is ironically still left despite disowning the paradigm

That's cause engineers are practical.

For the record I have a B. Math and I think the state is criminal.

ted is a slav, so he's able to look at big picture things and consider many variables at once, which lets him see a more accurate picture of reality.

niggers anglos and arabs can't do that because their heads are too underdeveloped

>I went through what snapped him when I was just a lad.
You weren't MKUltra'd you autist.

If you're raised in a traditional, right-wing household, the predominant idea is that money and success are one in the same. If your career doesn't generate private money from mutual transactions, then you're really providing no net benefit to society. This lends itself to the high-paying and well-respected (engineers can still side with blue-collar workers) jobs of engineering.

If you're raised in a progressive, left-wing family, the prominent idea is that societal benefit can't always be measured by monetary compensation and that altruism isn't naturally rewarded by the marketplace. This lends itself to the modestly-paying, yet worldly and big-picture research positions.

>post-left anarchism

Being a tree hugging nature freak and anarchist doesn't mean he was left wing. He's certainly an enemy of communism, seeing as he is adamantly opposed to industrial society. He's also against socialism, since he is anarchist. His political ideology doesn't even fit on the left/right paradigm really.

>Yeah, 'cuz engineers are not that bright compared to mathematicians and physicists. Checks out.
Tell that to Paul Dirac or John Bardeen.
It's really more about different kind of people chooose different paths in life. It's not engineers do that, but the kind of people who do X, think like Y, etc. have good opportunities in engineering for example.

That doesn't mean every engineer or physicist or mathfag or whatever are like that.

>I guess it makes sense. One side is funded by the public to do research for the public good while the other is just a professional rendering a service for money.
Nope. Both can do research and many PhD engineers stay in research. Same for physicists, they can do research in the industry for money. This has absolutely nothing to do with degrees and/or whether someone is a mathematician, physicist or engineer.
>Mathematicians have potential to earn much more but forgo that path of life to do research instead.
Some do, some don't.
You're full of anecdotal evidence.

/pol/ rants about everything and is often self contradictory. You could make the same assessment about just about anything.

This. Though I wouldn't go as far as calling him anarchist exactly, maybe closer to anti-fascist. He believed that with sophisticated technology it would be possible to monitor and control the masses, so he was primarily against everything that he believed necessitated advanced technology. The communal aspect of communism (even the ideal communism over an anarchist system that Marx and Bakunin agreed on) necessitates efficiency and therefore technology so he's opposed to it. Socialism he's obviously opposed to because it's basically a dictatorship marketed as a transitionary government to communism. At the same time he has a lot of problems with right wing ideology because of the large emphasis in security and market forces.

Part of what makes him confusing is that he's not for anything but rather he's against something and he chooses to fight it in the most roundabout indirect way possible.

>anarchism is against socialism
Wew lad
Tree hugging nature freak and anarchist here. All anarchism is socialism. Socalism taken broadly means an economic system where the producers control the means of production. In the primitive society Ted advocates, that obviously would be the case.
Maybe try to realize when you have no idea wtf you are talking about and keep quiet until you do next time.
>this
Lmao
>markets are exclusively right wing
Lmao
>Socialism he's obviously opposed to because it's basically a dictatorship marketed as a transitionary government to communism
Wew lad
>part of what makes him confusing is
That you don't know what you are talking about
I'm talking about the anthropocene, he would have been a comfy acedemic if the world he loved wasn't eroding beneath him.

As someone who lived in Qatar for 4 years and lived amongst arabs from all over the middle east, you are right about them. There is something in their mind which makes them incapable of looking at reality in an accurate way, and they are also incapable of appreciating abstract and philosophical pursuits. They are without question the most morally deficient, greedy and materialistic people on earth. It's genetic, honestly.

>anecdotal evidence
You aren't even rational enough to be an empiricist, lmao

butthurt arab cries sample size = 1

get a grip and calm down.

>socialism is where producers control the means of production

lmao

That holds true for liberterian socialism(anarchism)

without institutional control, be it public or private, producers controlling the means of production is communism.

which only works in small groups

Why are you lumping mathimatcians and physist together? Most physist I have worked with are more conservative or libertarian. Met lots of wacky pure math people that are libtarded.

Anarchism is liberterian socialism

>right liberterian
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anarchism could be communal or it could be a whole bunch of ted kaczynskis

Primitive human life was communal. I don't know enough about teds political philsophy to speak on his behalf about this however

or it could be ancap

whatever that would actually look like

>There is something in their mind which makes them incapable of looking at reality in an accurate way, and they are also incapable of appreciating abstract and philosophical pursuits
It's called being religious.

Ancap isn't anarchism. Capitalism and anarchism are mutually exclusive

basically living on ur own in the bush

not theoretically, production chains and "private" groups could form but basically when its anarchism there isn't really much difference between a commune and a group of people joined by vested interests

That isn't what he advocated that was his own lifestyle. The reason for that is basically this

This is where the difference between market anarchism and ancap are important. Capitalization is an inherently authoritarian process.

all i remember now is that he was really against technological progress

The main point of contention between Bakunin (anarchist contemporary of Marx) and Marx was whether or not socialism was necessary to get to communism. Marx described socialism as a dictatorship by the proletariat and that's what Russia established after the Russian revolution. Bakunin argued that socialism restricted freedom and one should go directly to communism.

There are capitalist forms of anarchism that essentially boil down to replacing governments with businesses.

Markets are not exclusively right wing. That claim was not made nor was it necessary to the argument. Only that right wing politics deal a lot with increasing market efficiency and wealth which in turn lead into the same problems Kaczynski has with left wing politics, namely advancement in technology.

You are literally retarded and should take your frog posting back to your containment board.

There really is no underlying rule. People change industries, titles and roles all the time, and political opinions aswell.

Direct your pattern-noticing, creative time (roughly age 23-28) towards your work, it will serve you better in the long run.

I know alot of physics who are conservative such as myself.

>means an economic system where the producers control the means of production
Ted doesn't want there to be a means of production. Also, every kind of socialism is collectivist. Saying you're an anarcho socialist literally means you are a communist, which Ted is opposed to because it's predicated on industrialization. Why are commies so smug about politics when they've basically just jumped on the "free shit and equality lmao" train without thinking? Try reading his fucking manifesto, the guy is all about individualism, that's why he went to live off the land in the fucking mountains as a hermit.

yeah it's because they've made a tradition of marrying their cousins for hundreds of years. They're the most inbred fucked up people on the planet

But what happens when you have both?

I have both a math and civil engineering degree and lean heavily left. Voted for Bernie last election then Hillary.

But where are the STATS and not ANECDOTES

I saw a couple that weren't saying much besides petro engineers with USA being Republican (gee I wonder why) and one I can't find that lumped engineers together and made them pretty much in the middle.

>rightwing
>leftwing
Both of these are for brainlets. All truly educated people are centrists.

well said

Older engineers are more likely to be right-wing. Younger engineers are a bit of a mixed bag. I and several others I know are leftists there are some right leaning and or neutral.

I have masters in math and am working on my PhD in Accounting right now and I align heavily to the right. I voted for Trump because Hillary and Sanders would've ran our nation into the ground. It's really sad because I used to be what one would consider a "liberal". Now, the left has moved so far left and abandoned their basic principals of rationality and science in lieu of feelings.

It really is sad and good at the same time though. With that being said, I believe the next election will be the election to finally usher in "third party" political parties (hopefully Technocracy.) It's time for experts specifically to take the reigns of our society and save us from doom. Stop the conservicucks and the absolutely insane liberals and retake our country politically in a way which will allow us to begin piecing together a much larger alliance that will ensure our dominance (as well as expenditure permanently.)

Truth!!!

>accounting
Probably a stats flunkie.

I think we should step down from using labels on people to encourage dismissing everything they may have said.

not necessarily true, I was raised by a primarily right wing family (told my dad Obama was the best president for laughs and sparked total warfare).

He always preached that despite how much money you make just be sure that your profession is a benefit to society as a whole.
If you do profit from a system that doesn't use benefit society use your money to help those around you etc.

>no empirical scientist were religious

lel lel lel lel

But he was legit diagnosed with Schizophrenia. If you think you should trust a Schizo you're dead wrong. They can't be trusted and they shouldn't be allowed to live.
webm related is the average day for a Schizo. Nothing out of the ordinary for this dude. Just another Wednesday f4m.

This, schizophrenics are subhuman and should be euthanized via firing squad

>b-but muh ethics
Fuck off, these people aren't human

To be honest, Bipolar disorder is worst than Schizophrenia. I mean that unironically. You know what mental disorder most serial killers/spree killers have? It isn't autism, it ain't schiz, and it definitely ain't "Psychopathy", it's Bipolar disorder. You know that guy who shot up the theatre for no reason? Bipolar disorder. Literally comes down to that. Bipolars during depressive states are usually suicidal and are so unmotivated that they don't contribute anything to anyone for like 6 months state. But once it revs into mania... Like holy shit it's hard to describe. I'm not even talking about hypomania, even then people are described as insanely hyper. But during mania not only do people experience psychotic symptoms but they also experience disassociation, incredible anger, and severe mood swings out of this world. Basically someone with Bipolar could just have a single bad day and just decide to kill as many people as they please. Mania can totally limit impulse control and most rational thought to the point where these people aren't even conscious sometimes. Some people with mania are even described as being on Meth or PCP even if they're not. I guess with Schizos it's more random and unpredictable when they're going to have a psychotic episode, but with Bipolar disorder, you can have 6 months to a year of total fucking chaos. It's like hell on Earth and that's LITERALLY 1/4 of all people with Bipolar commit suicide and 1/2 of them are unemployed. Bipolars are literally less useful than severe autists. I knew this one 20 year old with severe autism who legit acted like he was 4 yet he could still work a normal job without getting upset and wanting to kill people just for fun.
And guess what I have...

>And guess what I have...
Autism

...and Bipolar.

How do you be economically centrist? I'm centrist overall but economically I'm pretty right.

Hey, you know that bipolar is an adjective, right?

So is "autistic" you dumb creature.

Are you implying that I have autistic?

>I have autistic

>Ted Kaczynski
However smart or accomplished this man was he was an idiot in other ways. He wrote a long chunk about how middle-easterners don't respect life and backed it up with an anecdote about a co-worker who jokingly pointed a knife at him.
Don't tarnish all engineers with that brush.
Though i have noticed that engineers are socially inept in general, if that ever combines with the sort of arrogance and resentment you see on /pol/ it does brew up a really mean, opinionated mindset with no inclination to inform itself. It's just a chemical imbalance or a decade of ignominy from there to the sweeping reforms for society type of lunacy that most real people grow out of.

Not true. I am a physicist and I know many that are economically right. My collegue in a our lab is an engineer and is a fucking marxist.

under r8d perst

yes left wing hates working

>How do you be economically centrist?
You realize that in order to create a nice environment to live in, a country needs to implement policies that reward hard work and creativity with much higher pay and also create social mobility by giving disadvantaged people the chance to improve their lot through free/subsidized education, temporary benefits, etc...

Nigger have you read his manifesto? Almost the entire thing is just railing against "lefties". Just cause was a neo-luddite doesn't make him a leftist.

Materials engineers aren't
I'm from the deep south and I went into materials and everyone here is pretty chill with just the right amount of left-wing without being retarded

Yeah, thanks to a life sentence in isolation he is.

>Ted doesn't want there to be a means of production.
He's he does, he just wants to end the so called techno-industrial complex, I call it the great evolutionary trap.
>every kind of socialist is collectivist
Blatantly false, you have market socialism, mutualism, mixed socialist voluntary economies, social ecology, anarcho-communism, all the anarchist individualists are socialists, all anarchism is libertarian socialism. You clearly lack basic knowlege on this subject.
>saying you are are an anarcho-socialist means u commie
Wew lad. All anarchism is liberterian socialism. Anarcho-socialism is not a thing.
>Why are commies so smug about politics when they've basically just jumped on the "free shit and equality lmao" train without thinking
You seem pretty smug for someone who didn't even read through the Wikipedia pages he learned this from. Im being charitable assuming that you are even that respectable.
I can't speak for commies because I am something like a market social ecologist, sure I think communism can work well in certain applications. It shouldn't be the exclusive economic system, and it should emerge from radical democracy at a decentralized level.
>free shit and equality.
To the contrary I belive that you should be the sole benafactor from the work you do. I detest workers getting paid a wage for the work they do while the bossman makes money from it and off of land he has never set foot on.
>Try reading his fucking manifesto, the guy is all about individualism, that's why he went to live off the land in the fucking mountains as a hermit.
Have you read his manifesto?
Individualism doesn't necessarily translate to an individualist political philsophy. The reason he went into the mountains is called schizoid withdraw. I experience it, it's comfortable.

Lmao, bipolar has a higher propensity for spreg outs as you clearly evidence. Schizophrenics literally cannot distinguish what is real and what is not. That is why it has been ranked as the third most debilitating condition behind quadriplegia and dementia and infront of paraplegia and blindness.
Yeah bipolar seems like it sucks, but it's not the worst. I have schizoid personality disorder like Ted probably does, Adam Lanza did. Many bad hombres have been diagnosed with it, that's because non violent schizoids rarlely go in for help and struggle to be self aware. Einstein seems to be a likely case. Schizotychs are pretty special, but usually incompetent to live. That's why theoretically 90% of homeless in America have a cluster A personality "disorder". I imagine it's common amoung Veeky Forums users aswell, social interaction without emotional connection, that's almost as good as fantasy.
This song explains everything,
youtu.be/ZupDIa9e2LE
>I've been running on remote control
>I keep pretending that it's someone else

Mood disorders can be difficult but self/thought disorders are extremely debilitating.

Wtf, here on Brazil everybody from Science school is rightwings for fuck, and everybody from Liberal Arts is leftwing.

One week ago I was taking a ride with my physics teacher and he said that stating "being gay is normal" for a child is sick

>conveintly leaves out all other liberterian socialist besides Bakunin.
>even contemporaries such as Proudhon
You do know that liberterian socialism was developed independently well before and after Marx right?

>There are capitalist forms of anarchism
No there are not.
As absentee ownership, and the capitalization of means of production and labour is inherently hierarchal and requires authoritarian social institutions in order to maintain that hierarchy, some kind of state power sensu alto as in private armies and police force. Any so called "anarchist capitalism" would destory it's integrity almost immediately and we would be left with feudal or nation-states again.
>essentially boil down to replacing governments with businesses.
That wouldn't be anarchism, anarchism is the absence of authoritarian, hiearchal social institutions.
oh wait you said all that for me.
Ain't nobody that knows nuthin sayin that anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism.
wew, if I asked you for your wallet in a bombastic manner would you give it to me?

>every kind of socialist is collectivist
>>Blatantly false
If people own the means of production collectively, which is literally the defining characteristic of socialism, then it's collectivist. Otherwise, what is to stop someone from claiming land and telling everyone else to fuck off? You cannot be an individualist and a socialist.

>Anarcho-socialism is not a thing.
Again you don't know what you're talking about. Anarcho-socialism is synonymous with communism. "anarcho-communism" is a redundant terminology because communism is by definition a stateless society. Socialism, however, can be authoritarian; when you qualify it with "anarcho" you are talking about a stateless socialism, which is communism.

Do you think there is a difference between anarcho-socialism, libertarian socialism, and communism? If so, what is the difference? I'd love to hear it.

>I detest workers getting paid a wage for the work they do

They have every right to go start their own operation then. Oh wait, the evil bossman is providing them a setup which greatly amplifies their productivity.

It is quite simple. Mathematicians and physicists have a hard time finding employment outside of government subsidized areas, while engineers do not.

This is true. Especially just considering the undergrads and bachelor degree holders. PhDs in math and physics have some skills but undergrads have nothing at all. Unless they learned some programming then maybe they could get lucky. Most engineers learn stuff employers want in undergrad, including programming.

>obviously doesn't know what they're talking about yet being smug about it.
lol, fake it till you make it only works on brainlets. Go back to /pol/, you dimwit.

lmao there were countless other anarchists before then though Proudhon is recognized as the father of modern anarchist theory. The point was to establish the difference between communism and socialism.

It is worth noting that even Proudhon didn't use your retarded terminology 'libertarian socialism'. In fact, it seems that most of your argument boils down to semantics; which unfortunately means that it's in a super position between an argument no one cares about and an argument everyone recognizes as wrong.

>Ain't nobody that knows nuthin sayin that anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism.
Here is an excellent example of such an argument.

Probably cuz of h1b pajeets desu

>Mathematicians have potential to earn much more but forgo that path of life to do research instead.

you're putting "mathematicians" on a pedestal. many of them aren't able to correctly model natural phenomenon to save their lives, they can only do the easy textbook examples, which is why they stay in academia, and mind you, they're not doing research, they're tutoring.

do you want to hire a programmer who can only write fizzbuzz and all the other academic examples, or one who can get stuff done?

yes my math department is full of homosexuals and trannies. there's only 2 other "normal" people who care more about getting math done than about our identities. also they are all millennials (but i am too), so there's that. they've been subverted by the stuff yuri bezmenov was talking about.

they're not even very good at math, they just quickly review whatever it is they have to tutor on for that day, then go back to talking about "drumpf". they really have no clue, do they?