/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11024125]

why are most university professors liberal?

[Anonymous No.11024128]

>>11024125
Class interest.

[Anonymous No.11024131]

This is only true for professors of philosophy, history, and other humanities subjects. Professors of business, economics, science, and engineering tend to lean more centrist or conservative.

[Anonymous No.11024135]

>>11024131
Lol

[Anonymous No.11024172]

>>11024131
what about professors of math?

[Anonymous No.11024175]

To get a job you need to be liberal.

[Anonymous No.11024268]

>>11024131
>>11024135
I phrased that poorly. There are a higher number of conservative science/engineering professors compared to humanities professors. However, there are still more liberals

[Anonymous No.11024284]

>>11024125
People who succeed in academics (i.e. those who become professors) are generally focused almost entirely on their research and don't have the time or interest to give a shit about what's going on in politics. "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone" is essentially an ultra-dumbed down one-sentence summary of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.11024359]

Because everything they do relies on government funding
Not the kind of person you should hang around

[Anonymous No.11024362]

Because only dumb and/or irrational people are conservatives.

[Anonymous No.11024368]

>>11024125
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html
Some people have thought about this as "class conflict" between cultural and intellectual capital.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001373
There's also been some academic study of this.

I feel like I remember Nozick wrote something interesting on this too but I can't find it.

[Anonymous No.11024370]

Their jobs don't produce any wealth, so they can have dumb ideas while living in an ivory tower.

[Anonymous No.11024372]

>>11024125
Because people who succeed in their trade don't become professors.

[Anonymous No.11024388]

>>11024125
Univeristies have become echo chambers

[Anonymous No.11024417]

>>11024131
>philosophy professors are liberal

Nah man, this is a very naive statement. Most philosophers are centrists or classical liberal types. This goes wayyyyy back before the current iteration of the culture war to the early analytic philosophers like Russell and Moore who denounced the relativism and scientific scepticism of the early continental philosophers, most notably the adherents of German Idealism on the one hand, and early nihilists/existentialists on the other. This disparity was only magnified by the positivist epistemology and social philosophy, which basically provided the foundation for the development of contemporary economic theory in the works of Hayek on macroeconomics, and even more importantly, the decision theory and game theory of von Neuman, Oskar Morgenstern, Syndney Morgenbesser, Kenneth Arrow, and Amartya Sen.

This takes us to about mid century. At this point, philosophy departments in the anglo-american world are thoroughly centrist/liberal, and this tendency will only continue to grow in response to the emergence of contemporary thinking on political liberalism and ethics by philosophers like Rawls, Parfitt, and Nozick on the one hand, and the emergence of cognitivism in linguistics and philosophy of mind on the other. I won't say too much about the former trend, but regarding the latter, it can be roughly said to originate in the formal work of Alan Turing, Noam Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, the ecological psychologists and phenomenologists like Gibson and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. By about the 60s, several results and finding in (proto)cognitive science came down conclusively againt the tabula-rasa crowd. This of course cause an immediate wave of nativist speculation in cognitive science and philosophy regarding the origins and flexibility of human cognition, and obviously spawned a lot of criticism of cultural relativism.

Moving in the 21st century, the story gets even more complex, but the same essential trend continues.

[Anonymous No.11024418]

>>11024125
The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System's trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System's basic values.

Because they are the teachers of young people, the university intellectuals are in a position to help the System play its trick on the young, which they do by steering young people's rebellious impulses toward the standard, stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women's issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media, or through personal contact, of the "social justice" issues for which students rebel, and they imitate the students. Thus a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotyped mode of rebellion that spreads through imitation of peers—just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.

[Anonymous No.11024469]

High IQ

[Anonymous No.11024482]

>>11024418
What is the most redpilled group of people?

[Anonymous No.11024487]

>>11024125
There's no other suitable ideology for them, and the overall popularity of liberalism is probably due to the increasing influence of the university since the 18th/19th centuries. Think about it: they have to work with colleagues from all over the world, they have students from all over the world; are they supposed to be vitriolic racists? How could they? Also paying at least some lip service to common sense norms of being polite will make you seem "liberal" even if you're more or less a political (like I am for example). I don't really concern myself with politics. I'm kind and polite to people I encounter. I think a lot of professors are like this too.

[Anonymous No.11024492]

>>11024482
Idk but that post (>>11024418) is a quote from Kaczynski, not anon.

Me personally, I'd say the most redpilled people are dudes in private industry, consulting, etc. who have a prestigious academic background, but work primarily in the private sector.

[Anonymous No.11024849]

>>11024125
universities are a form of social justice. liberals are all about social justice. without university many people would get jobs by connections alone

[Anonymous No.11024860]

Because conservatives are close-minded retards who would rather shill their own beliefs than educate, then if you ever call them on it they'll just go "m-muh sjw tho" when SJWs don't espouse anything that could be considered liberal

[Anonymous No.11025023]

>>11024125
Because you have to pass high school to become a uni professor

[Anonymous No.11025028]

>>11024125
because the coldwar never really ended and Russia and China have been winning this entire time.