If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Well, there you go, Republicans. Definitive proof that science brainwashes people into being liberals   (slate.com) divider line 518
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

2348 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Dec 2010 at 6:13 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



518 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-09 03:49:07 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb, and guess the reason only 6% of scientists are Republican is the same reason roughly the same percentage of KKK members are Jewish.
 
2010-12-09 03:50:29 PM
Takes intelligence to become a scientist. Not so much for becoming a republican.
 
2010-12-09 03:51:18 PM
Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?
 
2010-12-09 03:55:39 PM
MaxxLarge: the reason only 6% of scientists are Republican is the same reason roughly the same percentage of KKK members are Jewish.

Case in point:
Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.
 
2010-12-09 03:56:28 PM
MaxxLarge: I'm gonna go out on a limb, and guess the reason only 6% of scientists are Republican is the same reason roughly the same percentage of KKK members are Jewish.

Done in one. Seriously - the party that embraces Creationism/Intelligent Design is basically telling scientists they're not just against science education, they're against any sort of critical thinking as well.
 
2010-12-09 03:57:30 PM
Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?


Your genius ripostes have no peer. We are humbled.
 
2010-12-09 03:58:49 PM
Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Actually, it's the other way around. The field of applied Science comes with a "You Must Be This Smart To Ride" sign on the gate, and being dumb enough to be a Republican in the first place is an almost universal disqualifier. Your flip-flop of the cause-and-effect reasoning involved is a prime case-in-point.

/global warming r only a theory
//evolushun r fake
///stem cells r dead babbys
////derp derp derp
 
2010-12-09 04:03:33 PM
While there are certainly intellectual and perspective differences, there is something to be said about the culture of science. I'm a scientist and a liberal as are nearly all of my co-workers. For us, getting into political debates and/or poking fun at conservative positions is something we do to unwind. While we certainly enjoy it, I'm sure it has some outward effect at discouraging conservatives while attracting liberals. But, I have no idea how large this effect is.

How much of this divide is caused by intrinsic vs external components would actually make for interesting research paper. I'll have to see if any exist.
 
2010-12-09 04:05:28 PM
Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?


Couldn't find a jpeg relevant to the topic?
 
2010-12-09 04:07:20 PM
Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?

yes
 
2010-12-09 04:07:38 PM
Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?


I am normally loathe to use a "Im smart and youre dumb" argument. But dude, youre making it so easy.
 
2010-12-09 04:07:45 PM
Histidine: While we certainly enjoy it, I'm sure it has some outward effect at discouraging conservatives while attracting liberals. But, I have no idea how large this effect is.

So far, it seems to be at least 94% effective.

So, y'know...keep up the good work, and stuff.
 
2010-12-09 04:08:39 PM
Histidine: While there are certainly intellectual and perspective differences, there is something to be said about the culture of science. I'm a scientist and a liberal as are nearly all of my co-workers. For us, getting into political debates and/or poking fun at conservative positions is something we do to unwind. While we certainly enjoy it, I'm sure it has some outward effect at discouraging conservatives while attracting liberals. But, I have no idea how large this effect is.

How much of this divide is caused by intrinsic vs external components would actually make for interesting research paper. I'll have to see if any exist.


I would argue that the kind of person who pursues natural sciences is the kind of person who examines things meticulously and is able to adapt theories and ideas to the data at hand. Additionally, this person is capable of recognizing multiple factors affecting an outcome and thinks more critically about situations in his attempts to explain the outcome as a result of contributing factors. Basically, the ability to see beyond black and white.

Now, this doesn't always result in a liberal, and I know many scientists who aren't, but I'd argue that type of thinking certainly contributes to an increased likelihood of someone being liberal.
 
2010-12-09 04:10:00 PM
Derp. Shouldn't have said "natural" sciences but, actually, the sciences in general. Didn't mean to exclude the computer and math and other geeks amongst us biology, chemistry, and physics geeks.
 
2010-12-09 04:12:04 PM
I'm shocked that most scientists don't affiliate them with a blatantly anti-intellectual, anti-science political party. Shocked.
 
2010-12-09 04:13:19 PM
Didn't we have this thread yesterday?
 
2010-12-09 04:14:44 PM
Superevil: Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?

Couldn't find a jpeg relevant to the topic?


Silly. jpegs are based on algorithms. Algorithms are created by nasty ebil socializt athiest (muslin) scientists.
 
2010-12-09 04:18:22 PM
I'm in graduate school for physics so I'm getting a kick out of these replies, etc...

No really, we have I think one "token Republican" professor in the department, and I'm considered strange for being a registered independent. Curiously though my engineering brethren tend to be the reverse, possibly because they actually make money in the private sector.

I always just figured it was at least somewhat due to the fact that most of our funding is from federal sources, so why bite the hand that feeds you? (Though curiously physics funding was cut a few years ago, by Democrats, because Bush once mentioned it in a speech so they decided to cut it to piss him off. Fermilab fired research scientists for the first time in its history.)
 
2010-12-09 04:25:25 PM
Andromeda
I always just figured it was at least somewhat due to the fact that most of our funding is from federal sources, so why bite the hand that feeds you?

Republicans deny the scientific consensus on global warming, push to teach intelligent design in science classrooms, and equate stem cell research with killing babies. That's for starters. Those seem like some excellent reasons for many scientists to tell them to go fark themselves.

That's before we get into the Bush administration's manipulation of scientific reports.

/also I'm really jealous that you got to spend 6+ months on an international vacation
 
2010-12-09 04:31:10 PM
patrick767: Andromeda
I always just figured it was at least somewhat due to the fact that most of our funding is from federal sources, so why bite the hand that feeds you?

Republicans deny the scientific consensus on global warming, push to teach intelligent design in science classrooms, and equate stem cell research with killing babies. That's for starters. Those seem like some excellent reasons for many scientists to tell them to go fark themselves.

That's before we get into the Bush administration's manipulation of scientific reports.


True, but that's why I mentioned how I found it interesting that most engineers I know (who are by no means less intelligent and know how the scientific process work) tend to be Republican. Probably because to quote my physics prof who started a business a few years ago, "it's harder to still be a Democrat the more money I get!"

Not condoning the scientific "culture" on the right, just finding it interesting is all.

patrick767: /also I'm really jealous that you got to spend 6+ months on an international vacation

Ha well it was cheaper than buying a car or another semester of tuition, so it was a no-brainer! :)
 
2010-12-09 04:31:44 PM
also, global climate change is irrevocably linked to environmentalism, which many conservative christians eschew because they are tangled up in the anthropic principle.

evolution is also anathema to many conservative xtians and it is viewed as a direct attack by scientists on a central tenent of xtianity.

both of these topics, and many other matters of scientific inquiry, have become major battles in the Culture War, so admitting that climate change is a problem is admitting defeat. accepting evolution is a surrender to a godless Liberal enemy.

Conservatives have 'suffered' loss after loss in the Culture Wars and are on track to lose more battles in the near future. this is why, IMO, they have taken such a histrionic tone and are now willing to outright lie in their quest to regain lost territory.

they may have recently won an election battle, but they are losing the Culture War.
 
2010-12-09 04:32:24 PM
Skail: Gato Negro: Computer geeks tend to be snotty liberals.

Who knew?

Your genius ripostes have no peer. We are humbled.


Come on, now, if it wasn't for Black Animal's constant misrepresentation of not only the facts, but even the content of nearly every article he comments on, who would we have to point and laugh at? There has to be a bottom for there to be a bell curve.
 
2010-12-09 04:33:04 PM
The more you know, the more progressive you become, apparently.

The GOP wishes science would just shut up and go away.
 
2010-12-09 04:34:03 PM
Probably for the same reason that most teachers unions support the Dem candidate.

Kinda hard to wanna vote for the people that want to cut your pay, your resources, and your benefits.
 
2010-12-09 04:38:42 PM
Andromeda: No really, we have I think one "token Republican" professor in the department, and I'm considered strange for being a registered independent. Curiously though my engineering brethren tend to be the reverse, possibly because they actually make money in the private sector.

Scientists tend to be more comfortable with challenging the status quo and redefining their perspective based upon changing data.

Engineers tend to be more comfortable with static rules that don't change and are suspicious of any changes to the status quo.
 
2010-12-09 04:39:54 PM
I've noticed that intelligent Republicans tend to gravitate more towards business and law than science and tech. It may have something to do with Republicans' interest in money. Working in a scientific field seems to be more about the work itself as opposed to massive fiscal rewards.
 
2010-12-09 04:43:08 PM
Dinjiin: I've noticed that intelligent Republicans tend to gravitate more towards business and law than science and tech. It may have something to do with Republicans' interest in money. Working in a scientific field seems to be more about the work itself as opposed to massive fiscal rewards.

I'd say this is about right- my brother went off to banking because he actually likes that stuff, then gets all upset when I don't want to talk about investing with him beyond "what do I have to do to have money for an education for my kids someday." Implies I'm a terrible person for lack of interest in getting more money, not realizing that what I want most is of an intellectual nature and thus can't be bought.

And yes, brother is hard-core Republican. It's not like he supports the intelligent design/ Sarah Palin faction, it's more a financial thing.
 
2010-12-09 04:46:47 PM
For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

Derp

nathan-lee.com
 
2010-12-09 04:52:06 PM
This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
2010-12-09 04:54:47 PM
republicans hate science. it's that simple. they hate black people, too. and how many black republicans are there?
 
2010-12-09 04:56:14 PM
SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.
 
2010-12-09 04:58:11 PM
img1.fark.net
 
2010-12-09 04:58:29 PM
This is sadly what many conservatives believe. Smart, educated, literate people are more liberal? Well clearly that means being educated and literate is bad.
 
2010-12-09 05:15:53 PM
Considering that the very basis for being a Republican is to hate the educated, it's surprising that there are 6% of scientists who hate themselves enough to be a Republican.
 
2010-12-09 05:18:28 PM
DamnYankees: Well clearly that means being educated and literate is bad.

That's the spin they're getting away with. Large sections of the Right have managed to demonize intelligence. An Ivy League education means you're an endive-eating "elitist." You're only an authentic "real" American if you're the "plain-spoken" sort who "folks jus' wanna have a beer with."

What utter bullshiat. It's just a writ-large version of the "You think yer better'n me?" crap the same ignorant meatheaded bully assholes used to pull on the playground.
 
2010-12-09 05:20:12 PM
www.neptunecafe.com
DERP!
 
2010-12-09 05:25:55 PM
brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.


It's not a bald assertion, it's totally true. If you follow the link in the article to the survey page, it says that: "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from May 1 to June 14, 2009."

So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.
 
2010-12-09 05:28:59 PM
SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.

the way i read it, it was a survey of scientists in general conducted by pew in conjunction with the AAAS. but yes, it appears that science does have a left-leaning membership.
 
2010-12-09 05:31:13 PM
MaxxLarge: An Ivy League education means you're an endive-eating "elitist."

Which is ironic if you realize that some of the people saying that are actually Ivy Leaguers. Of course, the Fox News viewer doesn't do that kind of fact checking.
 
2010-12-09 05:31:38 PM
SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.

It's not a bald assertion, it's totally true. If you follow the link in the article to the survey page, it says that: "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from May 1 to June 14, 2009."

So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.


i stand corrected, but it goes on to say that "AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields."
 
2010-12-09 05:33:23 PM
thomps: SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.

It's not a bald assertion, it's totally true. If you follow the link in the article to the survey page, it says that: "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from May 1 to June 14, 2009."

So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

i stand corrected, but it goes on to say that "AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields."


That doesn't say anything about scientists. They're just a left-leaning organization that happens to have a lot of scientists. Amiright SkinnyBrain?
 
2010-12-09 05:37:15 PM
Fark It: thomps: SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.

It's not a bald assertion, it's totally true. If you follow the link in the article to the survey page, it says that: "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from May 1 to June 14, 2009."

So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

i stand corrected, but it goes on to say that "AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields."

That doesn't say anything about scientists. They're just a left-leaning organization that happens to have a lot of scientists. Amiright SkinnyBrain?


you know, nazi germany had a lot of scientists too.
 
2010-12-09 05:38:49 PM
thomps: Fark It: thomps: SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: This was not a survey of scientists in general. It was limited to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has a left-leaning membership.
 
factual evidence is convincing, bald assertions are not.

It's not a bald assertion, it's totally true. If you follow the link in the article to the survey page, it says that: "The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from May 1 to June 14, 2009."

So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

i stand corrected, but it goes on to say that "AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields."

That doesn't say anything about scientists. They're just a left-leaning organization that happens to have a lot of scientists. Amiright SkinnyBrain?

you know, nazi germany had a lot of scientists too.


Had.
 
2010-12-09 05:39:50 PM
SkinnyHead: So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

this is when you should provide evidence that the organization leans left.

your bald assertion doesn't cut it.
 
2010-12-09 05:45:11 PM
Andromeda: Bush once mentioned it in a speech so they decided to cut it to piss him off.

It is interesting that you claim to be studying to be a scientist while throwing in this tidbit based solely on your personal conjecture.
 
2010-12-09 05:45:58 PM
Facts have a liberal bias. Objectivity has a left wing slant. America! Fark yeah!

Andromeda
True, but that's why I mentioned how I found it interesting that most engineers I know (who are by no means less intelligent and know how the scientific process work) tend to be Republican.

I work with mostly engineers. They call me one too by job title (software engineer) though my degree is CS. I wouldn't assume they know how the scientific process works. You'd be surprised.

Anyway, it sounds like I'm wrong about one thing. I thought scientists often did fairly well financially.

Probably because to quote my physics prof who started a business a few years ago, "it's harder to still be a Democrat the more money I get!"

I GOT MINE! WOOHOOO!

You're right that there's probably some economic self-interest involved, but 6% is damned low. I'm betting the anti-intellectual, anti-science positions of the GOP are huge factors.

Ha well it was cheaper than buying a car or another semester of tuition, so it was a no-brainer! :)

Wow, I can't imagine world travel for 6 months being cheaper than those alternatives. I blow through a shiat ton of money on 2-3 week trips to Europe. Granted I don't stay in hostels and I order lots beer... hmm...
 
2010-12-09 05:48:35 PM
brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

this is when you should provide evidence that the organization leans left.

your bald assertion doesn't cut it.


They took a poll of the members of that organization and found out that most members are democrats and only 6% are republican. That's a pretty good indicator that the membership leans left.
 
2010-12-09 05:49:18 PM
SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

this is when you should provide evidence that the organization leans left.

your bald assertion doesn't cut it.

They took a poll of the members of that organization and found out that most members are democrats and only 6% are republican. That's a pretty good indicator that the membership leans left.


well that's a mighty fine circle you've drawn there. mighty fine.
 
2010-12-09 05:49:39 PM
downpaymentblues: Andromeda: Bush once mentioned it in a speech so they decided to cut it to piss him off.

It is interesting that you claim to be studying to be a scientist while throwing in this tidbit based solely on your personal conjecture.


Except everyone knows that's what happened. Link (new window) Nice try though.
 
2010-12-09 05:51:05 PM
SkinnyHead: brainiac-dumdum: SkinnyHead: So it appears that this is not a survey of scientists in general. Instead, it is limited to an organization with a membership that definitely leans left.

this is when you should provide evidence that the organization leans left.

your bald assertion doesn't cut it.

They took a poll of the members of that organization and found out that most members are democrats and only 6% are republican. That's a pretty good indicator that the membership leans left.


So, wouldn't that also be a good indicator that scientists lean left?
 
Displayed 50 of 518 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report