Quote:When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three. As the New York Times reported:

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity," Dr. Haidt concluded.... "Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/libera...ng-against

In other news, water is wet, there's no subsitute for a mother's love, and repeated visits to Taco Bell will wreck your lower GI.

Jesus christ Smaug, could you be any more wrong??!

For instance, when I ate Taco Bell consistently I could eat coal and sh*t out a diamond.

(10-03-2012 11:39 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Jesus christ Smaug, could you be any more wrong??!

For instance, when I ate Taco Bell consistently I could eat coal and sh*t out a diamond.

In about 4 minutes, I'm sure. Congratulations.

It's like p90x for your innards.

Quote:When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three.

Granted, I completely believe that academia skews overwhelmingly left. It's almost on par with "water is wet" and "the sky is blue" in its obviousness.

But I just wonder if there was a bulk of people (regardless of their political lean) who simply abstained from raising their hands during his polling. It's not unreasonable for some to not want to 'show' themselves amongst a group of colleagues.

3/1,000 seems extreme, even for such left leaning societies such as that one.

Just proves that Conservatards are too stupid to become professors.

(10-03-2012 11:45 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

Quote:When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three.

Granted, I completely believe that academia skews overwhelmingly left. It's almost on par with "water is wet" and "the sky is blue" in its obviousness.

But I just wonder if there was a bulk of people (regardless of their political lean) who simply abstained from raising their hands during his polling. It's not unreasonable for some to not want to 'show' themselves amongst a group of colleagues.

3/1,000 seems extreme, even for such left leaning societies such as that one.

If true, isn't that an indicator of the point the author was making, that those conservatives who kept their hands down did so out of fear of backlash?

(10-03-2012 11:48 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 11:45 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

Quote:When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three.

Granted, I completely believe that academia skews overwhelmingly left. It's almost on par with "water is wet" and "the sky is blue" in its obviousness.

But I just wonder if there was a bulk of people (regardless of their political lean) who simply abstained from raising their hands during his polling. It's not unreasonable for some to not want to 'show' themselves amongst a group of colleagues.

3/1,000 seems extreme, even for such left leaning societies such as that one.

If true, isn't that an indicator of the point the author was making, that those conservatives who kept their hands down did so out of fear of backlash?

Ah, indeed, you're right. I read the blurb too quickly.

(10-03-2012 11:45 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Just proves that Conservatards are too stupid to become professors.

Heh, or too sane...

Quote:EAST LANSING, MI -- Classes taught by a Michigan State University math professor who, according to witnesses, went on a series of tangential rants and stripped naked in front of students have be reassigned to other professors.

John McCarthy's two fall semester sections of Calculus I will be instructed by other professors in MSU's Math Department "indefinitely," spokesperson Jason Cody said.

McCarthy, 57, reportedly shouted about Steve Jobs, God, religion and other topics during one of his classes Monday afternoon, then stripped naked and continued screaming in the Engineering Building's hallway in what students called an apparent mental breakdown.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index....class.html

Obvious caveat: Of course this is an isolated event and not meant to paint a picture of a profession or ideology. But I just came across that article just now and thought it'd fit here.

I'm sure if you gave "social psychologists" a secret ballot, you'd get more than 3 out of 1,000 expressing non-approved "right-wing" opinions. But I think it would still be a tiny (~10%) minority. Probably more than that would express "left-wing" views of the Dennis Kucinich/Barney Frank variety.

The strangle-hold that the Left enjoys over the academic world has been a simple fact of life in America for a long time, and it will take a long time to recover from it.

(10-03-2012 11:31 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Quote:When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three. As the New York Times reported:

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity," Dr. Haidt concluded.... "Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/libera...ng-against

I posted about this some time ago.

Cons surrendered the academy several decades ago. Wasn't a big problem...until they allowed the culture to send so many people through it, particularly teachers and journalists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/j...fraud.html

If cons (and by that I really mean libery-minded) want to make a difference, they will facilitate removing these people from their bully pulpits.

That means:

Giving jobs to people who have skills even w/o the Diploma (i.e. took the engineering/math/comp sci courses w/o the gen ed crap so didn't graduate)

Pursuing roles of influence in schools, whether it be as an administrator, teacher, PTA member, school board, or even guest lectures explaining how economics really works, what the Constitution says, etc.

Pursuing and supporting alternative schooling: homeschool, charter school, private schools, and being vigilant that they don't get corrupted as the public schools did.

Withdraw financial support to charities that don't respect liberty. (We did this, but I'm frustrated b/c I don't know where to give now.)

This is the lib story...

More men than Women in Engineering? Must be institutional discrimination and a reason to add quota's, push diversity, and create govt programs.

More Women then Men in Nursing... meh..

I would argue that it's more due to the distortion of the term 'conservative' over the past few decades than a true change in ideology. The more the republicans push conservative social policies, which have never been popular in educated circles, the harder it makes educated people to self identify with the token 'conservative' party, which translates into not identifying themselves as 'conservative'. If you asked this with a party of Goldwater-esque republicans I would imagine the results would be less striking.

I know the majority of my Poli Sci professors would self-identify as Libertarian

(10-03-2012 12:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  This is the lib story...

More men than Women in Engineering? Must be institutional discrimination and a reason to add quota's, push diversity, and create govt programs.

More Women then Men in Nursing everything else... meh..

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/women-e...42-to-100/

(10-03-2012 11:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Cons surrendered the academy several decades ago. Wasn't a big problem...until they allowed the culture to send so many people through it, particularly teachers and journalists.

Yep. Go back and see what % of the population had a college degree in 1962 compared to 2012. That is one of the most profound shifts that have come over society.

Quote:If cons (and by that I really mean liberty-minded) want to make a difference, they will facilitate removing these people from their bully pulpits.

That means:

Giving jobs to people who have skills even w/o the Diploma (i.e. took the engineering/math/comp sci courses w/o the gen ed crap so didn't graduate)

Pursuing roles of influence in schools, whether it be as an administrator, teacher, PTA member, school board, or even guest lectures explaining how economics really works, what the Constitution says, etc.

Pursuing and supporting alternative schooling: homeschool, charter school, private schools, and being vigilant that they don't get corrupted as the public schools did.

Withdraw financial support to charities that don't respect liberty. (We did this, but I'm frustrated b/c I don't know where to give now.)

All of these recommendations are both true and important, but I want to draw special attention to the point about alternative schooling. The Blob of bureaucrats, ideologues, and time-fillers who (combined) control public education in this country (K-12, And state colleges/universities) will Never willingly share their power or give up their control. They want Everyone to be placed in their hands from age 5 to age 22. They want to define what the word "education" means and they want to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to get ahead in life without passing through their gates.

Defeating this empire will be the work of a lifetime, and probably of several lifetimes. Supporting the alternatives (which means voting for candidates not beholden to The Blob) like homeschooling, private schools, parochial schools, etc., is probably the most effective thing that any adult can do to bring that about.

(10-03-2012 12:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  This is the lib story...

More men than Women in Engineering? Must be institutional discrimination and a reason to add quota's, push diversity, and create govt programs.

More Women then Men in Nursing... meh..

That has definitely been the prevailing attitude for the past 30-40 years.

I will admit that the winds of change may be starting to stir, however: I didn't hear this from media, just from an individual, so I don't know how to check up on this or verify it. But, FWIW, I have heard that the College of William & Mary has begun giving preference in admissions to male applicants because the imbalance in the undergraduate student-body was becoming so lopsided towards females, that the administration didn't know what else to do. I wasn't told any of the details of how such preferences are put into practice. Colleges spend a lot of money keeping that sort of thing ultra-secret. But just the idea that W&M has even begun considering such a thing would mark a significant turning-point in the "progressive" universe of academia.

You b@stards better leave that imbalance alone because god knows being a guy in college has never been better.

(10-03-2012 11:45 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Just proves that Conservatards are too stupid to become professors.

My dogs are half black, could feed themselves but choose not to, hump the same sex, have babies like rabbits they can't support and would probably vote Obama.

My fish are completely dependant to eat and are lazy. Democrats for certain.

But, "Conservatards" couldn't be professors, apparently. Liberals are obviously more intelligent... Like fish and dogs.

(10-03-2012 11:45 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Just proves that Conservatards are too stupid to become professors.

Those that cannot do, teach.