[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So much of this subject is based on inaccurate stereotypes. Luckily real people and real life are a lot more complex than half the **** that these types of topics get boiled down into.

Most cities are often just microcosms of the nation at large. The closer to the 'inner' core of the city, you're likely to find the most liberal element. Out in the suburbs or as close to rural (read: in many cases hella desirable as opposed to just plain hell) as possible, you'll start finding more conservatives. Here in LA, witness the difference between central Los Angeles and Simi Valley or Huntington Beach. The more conservative types (and of course plenty of liberals as well) living in the 'burbs, the beaches, or the hills are just as close to all the "new experiences" and "change" of the city as anyone else - when they want to be- it's just they often prefer, and are often intelligent/wealthy enough to get their dose of it during the business hours, then live somewhere else beyond earshot/eyesore/smell/ of it afterward.

Anecdotally speaking, the most intelligent people I know in the city moved from elsewhere- often small towns across the country, or the world. They more often enjoy a distinct advantage over their ubran counterparts in having gone to better, less crowded local schools, therefore were better prepared for college. After college, they moved to the city where they could make better use of their talents than in whatever burg they came from. But if they were conservatives from whatever small town they came from, or liberals, their political orientation doesn't just magically change because they moved to a city.

When it comes to education, I think it's easy to see how people growing up in the worst of urban environments with overcrowded/underfunded schools will leave one at a major disadvantage vs. someone who grows up in a normal (not rich, not poor) rural environment. Even city suburban schools aren't exactly known as places where everyone automatically thrives, more stereotypically as bored slacker-producing wastelands.

Urban areas definitely attract intelligent people -from everywhere else- for job and business opportunities, but to conclude it's the more natural breeding ground of more intelligent people in the first place, is a gross oversimplification of reality.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So much of this subject is based on inaccurate stereotypes. Luckily real people and real life are a lot more complex than half the **** that these types of topics get boiled down into.

Indeed an excellent point. Thats why we must towards trends in large populations as opposed to "what individuals might do"

Most cities are often just microcosms of the nation at large. The closer to the 'inner' core of the city, you're likely to find the most liberal element. Out in the suburbs or as close to rural (read: in many cases hella desirable as opposed to just plain hell) as possible, you'll start finding more conservatives. Here in LA, witness the difference between central Los Angeles and Simi Valley or Huntington Beach. The more conservative types (and of course plenty of liberals as well) living in the 'burbs, the beaches, or the hills are just as close to all the "new experiences" and "change" of the city as anyone else - when they want to be- it's just they often prefer, and are often intelligent/wealthy enough to get their dose of it during the business hours, then live somewhere else beyond earshot/eyesore/smell/ of it afterward.

I think there might be more to it than that but it is another factor to consider on the road to understanding society.

Anecdotally speaking, the most intelligent people I know in the city moved from elsewhere- often small towns across the country, or the world. They more often enjoy a distinct advantage over their ubran counterparts in having gone to better, less crowded local schools, therefore were better prepared for college. After college, they moved to the city where they could make better use of their talents than in whatever burg they came from. But if they were conservatives from whatever small town they came from, or liberals, their political orientation doesn't just magically change because they moved to a city.

Also an excellent point.

When it comes to education, I think it's easy to see how people growing up in the worst of urban environments with overcrowded/underfunded schools will leave one at a major disadvantage vs. someone who grows up in a normal (not rich, not poor) rural environment. Even city suburban schools aren't exactly known as places where everyone automatically thrives, more stereotypically as bored slacker-producing wastelands.

good point. what happens to all the poorly educated kids who never go to college? migrate outward? No. They stick to the cities.

Urban areas definitely attract intelligent people -from everywhere else- for job and business opportunities, but to conclude it's the more natural breeding ground of more intelligent people in the first place, is a gross oversimplification of reality.

I wouldn't stop there. I'd say its not only oversimplified but misguided too. Another factor to consider...see my previous post about lower classes and liberalism. (all you leftwingers out there don't see that as an attack, its a well-established theory in the sociological world).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Show me something to support your assertions. All the studies I've ever researched don't support your arguments at all.

What studies?

What assertions?

That urban cities such as New York, San Francisco, Austin, and Los Angeles tends to be more diverse?

Or

That cities that are more diverse tend to be more liberal?

[hyteckit]

Most universities value diversity.

They believe having students of different backgrounds, culture, and religion ensures a diversity of thought.


It's no coincidence that the two most liberal states, California and Massachusetts, also have one of most top ranked universities.

Cities that center around these universities are quite liberal, because these universities attract diversity.


Again, cities that are more diverse tend to be more liberal.

[hyteckit]

On a sidenote:

Party Affiliation among Scientist

Republicans: 6%
Democrats: 55%
Independents: 32%


Latest Pew Poll

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Liberal ideologies are intertwined with socialism and communism.

Non-sense. Even though I realize you came to convince yourself of that, it's nothing but marketing.
Originally, liberalism (before it got associated with the New Deal) has formed the basis of modern states: individual liberties and rights, tolerance, and loads of other things that are now (mis)labeled as traditional conservative values. The move away from monarchies towards parliamentary democracies is inextricably intertwined with liberalism.

Obviously, you could argue that this has little to do with more liberal politicians and you'd be right. In the same way, though, you won't be able to find many `true' conservatives either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Urban areas definitely attract intelligent people -from everywhere else- for job and business opportunities, but to conclude it's the more natural breeding ground of more intelligent people in the first place, is a gross oversimplification of reality.

I'm not sure anyone has argued that urban areas is a breeding ground for intelligent people. First of all, intelligence is not the same as education (although more intelligent people are usually better educated). It's basically as you say: urban areas are magnets because they have more jobs and usually more jobs that require brain rather than muscle.

[hyteckit]

So to answer the question about why urban populations are generally more liberal.

Answer: urban areas generally have more diversity


FACT: Most modern universities and colleges are located in urban areas


Universities play a major role in urbanization. Universities bring many people of diverse backgrounds to the area. Urban cities and businesses then start cropping up around it in order to serve the growing population of students and teachers, as well as taking advantage of the human capital.


Most universities value diversity, so the urban cities around it tend have lots of diversity.

Urban areas with lots of diversity tend to be more liberal.

Why?

Well, conservatives tend to shy away from diversity.

Liberals tend to welcome it.

Also, the more exposure to different things, the less resistance to change.



Conservatives prefer rural areas where there are less diversity and are less susceptible to change.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So to answer the question about why urban populations are generally more liberal.

Answer: urban areas generally have more diversity


FACT: Most modern universities and colleges are located in urban areas


Universities play a major role in urbanization. Universities bring many people of diverse backgrounds to the area. Urban cities and businesses then start cropping up around it in order to serve the growing population of students and teachers, as well as taking advantage of the human capital.


Most universities value diversity, so the urban cities around it tend have lots of diversity.

Urban areas with lots of diversity tend to be more liberal.

Why?

Well, conservatives tend to shy away from diversity.

Liberals tend to welcome it.

Also, the more exposure to different things, the less resistance to change.



Conservatives prefer rural areas where there are less diversity and are less susceptible to change.

Actually, data suggests a bias against conservatives being employed in the more elite colleges and universities;
documented liberal bias

and are subsequently, overwhelmingly more liberal than conservatives even claim;
washingtonpost

So... you don't have Universities creating diversity - creating liberalism. You have Universities squelching diversity and intolerance having hijacked liberalism, has permeated the areas around it.

I think "less resistant to change" is often mistaken with "less need for change". Someone else alluded to this above. As the needs of a more congested populace increase, the change becomes necessary. Most folks (even in congested cities) are low-change personalities, but will call for change as a means of addressing changing needs. i.e. the development of liberalism in urban areas is not the product of Universities as much as it is a needy, entitlement personality. Evidenced also by achievement gaps in all facets of productivity between urban and rural settings, even when the disadvantaged are accounted for.
http://books.google.com/books?id=a5S...t&resnum=7

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Have to totally disagree.

Both conservatives and liberals seem to want more government control in return for more protection from the government.

Liberals want more protection for equality, diversity, and civil liberties.

Conservatives want more protection for conservative Christian values.



The central tenet of liberalism is equality and diversity.

Liberals are willing to trade less freedom for more equality and diversity.

Liberals want to decrease spending on national defense and increase spending on social and public services.



The central tenet of conservatism seems to be conservative values.

Conservatives are willing to trade less freedom (for others mainly) for more conservative (Christian) values.

Who wants to ban prostitution, sex toys, sodomy, gay marriages, dancing, and so forth? Conservatives.

How many conservatives actually want a smaller government? No many. Maybe Ron Paul supporters.

Conservatives want to decrease spending on social and public services and increase spending on national defense and social services related to Christian values such as abstinence education.



Libertarians are the ones who want less government control, less spending, and more freedom.

You are comparing Republican and Democratic values, NOT conservative or Statist ones.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Why are so many people assuming it's just the educated-wealthy who are the defining liberals in big cities?

What about the (huge) blue collar union based workforce? They're not concentrated in the rural areas any longer (We really don't mine in this country now), so they're just in areas with factories and industry, better known as cities. I think this would have a much larger impact than the 29% of Americans with college degrees. Sure, the college educated tend to flock towards the cities, but most major cities had a brain drain (OK, it's more to do with white flight in America than any sort of brain drain, but I'm trying to be sensitive), and the college and university graduates no longer live in the city proper, but rather in the 'burbs where they can get the land they want to raise a family.

[Dakar V]

(regarding the OP) I'm sure racial demographics play a small role as well.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

(regarding the OP) I'm sure racial demographics play a small role as well.

This suggests that specific "races" inherently have specific political biases. Cultural factors are more likely what you mean, with specific ethnic and "racial" groups making up the majority of those cultures.

I'd like to point out that our planet has one sentient, fire-making, talking/writing, tool-making race. They're called "humans." Using 400 year old terms like "race" when you mean groups with simple morphological or pigmentation differences from other groups helps perpetuate the idea that these groups are fundamentally different, when in fact they are not.

Yes, it's a pet peeve. No, I don't care if it sounds like a rant. Yes, I'm done, thank you.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This suggests that specific "races" inherently have specific political biases. Cultural factors are more likely what you mean, with specific ethnic and "racial" groups making up the majority of those cultures.

I'd like to point out that our planet has one sentient, fire-making, talking/writing, tool-making race. They're called "humans." Using 400 year old terms like "race" when you mean groups with simple morphological or pigmentation differences from other groups helps perpetuate the idea that these groups are fundamentally different, when in fact they are not.

Yes, it's a pet peeve. No, I don't care if it sounds like a rant. Yes, I'm done, thank you.

Poh-tay-toh, poh-tah-toh. Any rational person knows what I meant. Sorry if I don't subscribe to more PC terminology on the issue, but this is the internet and I really don't give a damn.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Poh-tay-toh, poh-tah-toh. Any rational person knows what I meant. Sorry if I don't subscribe to more PC terminology on the issue, but this is the internet and I really don't give a damn.

Whether you think of it as a poh-tay-toh or a poh-tah-toh, you're still talking about the same root vegetable, and the name isn't going to change how you prepare or eat it. There IS a difference in the way people treat others when they think in terms of "race."

Why, in the '40s and '50s, was it effective for people of color to adopt Latin names? Because being Latin was not as "non-white" as being black. That skin color difference led to the disparity in treatment and opportunity seen by people of African descent when compared to those of non-African descent, from as far back as Europeans knew that there were people on the continent to their south to the present day, and it's all because Africans were originally seen as not human the same way Europeans were.

Separating what we think of as "race" from the behaviors we see is important. We're talking about public behaviors, from work ethic to educational performance to political viewpoints. Those items are CULTURALLY based, culturally learned, culturally reinforced. You cannot attribute any specific behavior to a minority group based on membership in that group without expressly recognizing that the behavior you're referring to is cultural. Using "shorthand" terms like "racially based" is either an intentional dodge or a demonstration of a lack of rigor in one's thinking-neither is helpful in a real discussion of differences and disparities between groups.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Whether you think of it as a poh-tay-toh or a poh-tah-toh, you're still talking about the same root vegetable

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There IS a difference in the way people treat others when they think in terms of "race."

Unless you think this applies to me, for the purposes of the thread at hand, who cares.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Using "shorthand" terms like "racially based" is either an intentional dodge or a demonstration of a lack of rigor in one's thinking-neither is helpful in a real discussion of differences and disparities between groups.

Well thank goodness for me I didn't use the term "racially biased.".

You know what's helpful for real discussion? Not getting hung-up on one word when the meaning was obviously clear and the intent was lacking malice.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

My point exactly.

Unless you think this applies to me, for the purposes of the thread at hand, who cares.

Well thank goodness for me I didn't use the term "racially biased.".

You know what's helpful for real discussion? Not getting hung-up on one word when the meaning was obviously clear and the intent was lacking malice.

My point was that potatoes are not people, and the way you treat a vegetable has nothing to do with how far that vegetable can go socially or how far it can strive.

But you're right. I was in a pretty odd mood when I started this derail and I didn't think it through well enough to make it either a separate thread or to just drop it altogether. I apologize. I did not intend to suggest that YOU or anyone else posting here was actively and maliciously using language to oppress anyone, only that our society-all human societies-has allowed itself to subtly dehumanize groups of people through outmoded and useless labels.

Again, I'm sorry it looked like I was targeting you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[Doofy]

OK, so here's your curve-ball.

Conservatives aren't more resistant to diversity. They simply have a stronger "crap filter" and realise that just because it's "new" or "different" it doesn't make it better.

Lib: "It's all good".
Con: "No it isn't. 95% of it is crap".

Also, in parallel with this libs tend to have different attention stimulus points so they need the change, the new, the different.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, so here's your curve-ball.

Conservatives aren't more resistant to diversity. They simply have a stronger "crap filter" and realise that just because it's "new" or "different" it doesn't make it better.

Lib: "It's all good".
Con: "No it isn't. 95% of it is crap".

Also, in parallel with this libs tend to have different attention stimulus points so they need the change, the new, the different.

That would be the ideal for Conservatives. Unfortunately a lot of 'em (maybe 95%) are too lazy to actually think about it and try to evaluate the crap from the non-crap.

Conversely, the Liberal mindset is "possibilities." Sure, it's possible that every new idea could change the world. But having a hopeful outlook also means you need a good crap filter yourself, or you back stupid stuff and wind up looking like a loon. So about 95% of Libs completely lack active crap filtering, and they wind up resembling a flock of lake birds...

Oh, and Sturgeon's law states that "99% of everything is crap." There is some disagreement in the literary community as to the authenticity of the last word in this quote.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Meh. Where does this idea that liberals are really for anything 'new' come from?

Most of the liberal ideas put forth are as old as the friggen hills- it's just that liberals think they're new.

Nothing on Obama's agenda is anything new- all of it's repackaged crap from the 'class-envy' and 'redistribute the wealth' playbook.

The liberal mindset isn't "possibilities" any more than anyone else's mindset. The liberal mindset is far too often "Liberal possibilities" with anything that challenges that filtered out.

[OreoCookie]

Boy, there are a lot of crappy wishful thinking stereotypes floating around here. The terms liberal and conservative are nothing more than marketing shills.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Meh. Where does this idea that liberals are really for anything 'new' come from?

Most of the liberal ideas put forth are as old as the friggen hills- it's just that liberals think they're new.

Bingo. They think these ideas are new because they've got no effective crap filters.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Boy, there are a lot of crappy wishful thinking stereotypes floating around here.

No smoke without fire.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No smoke without fire.

`I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.' - Adam Savage