[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you guys think that more educated people generally vote more for Democrats?

College liberalization. That tends to fade as the get older, though.

[besson3c]

You know I don't buy that theory that the masses fall victim to some sort of mass propaganda which transforms their natural sensibilities to become liberal. I don't think the answer is that simple. There are also many majors which have very little, if not nothing to do with politics.

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

College liberalization. That tends to fade as the get older, though.

“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
-- not Winston Churchill

(I tried to google up who actually he said it, but it seems that it was a mostly unknown 19th century Frenchman who said "republican" - meaning "wanting to overthrow the king", i.e. a radical - which sort of mangles the meaning when discussing modern American parties. And the wording was less snappy anyway.)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You know I don't buy that theory that the masses fall victim to some sort of mass propaganda which transforms their natural sensibilities to become liberal. I don't think the answer is that simple. There are also many majors which have very little, if not nothing to do with politics.

You're not getting it. It isn't "mass propaganda", it's liberal indoctrination in college. >3/4ths of US university professors are ideologically farther Left than the average Democratic party member, so it's basic understanding that students would adopt their views, at least at first, given the impressionable nature of young people. That changes as they get older and get away from the walled garden of academia, however, and try to make their way in the real world (where capitalism is king).

[subego]

I think there's also an angle where urbanites skew left, and that's where the majority of college educated people end up.

[subego]

The Silver prediction seems crazy volatile right now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're not getting it. It isn't "mass propaganda", it's liberal indoctrination in college. >3/4ths of US university professors are ideologically farther Left than the average Democratic party member, so it's basic understanding that students would adopt their views, at least at first, given the impressionable nature of young people. That changes as they get older and get away from the walled garden of academia, however, and try to make their way in the real world (where capitalism is king).

Not buying this at all for the same reasons stated, substituting "indoctrination" with "propaganda". You're aware that there are many majors that have no political classes or subject matter at all, right?

The ideological tendencies of professors, I think, is a symptom of this phenomena, not its cause.

[subego]

I think there is only a small percentage of students in college who immerse themselves in their non-political major so deeply it is to the exclusion of the environment around them.

Before I transferred to art school, I was an astrophysics major. You betcha I talked politics with my liberal arts roommates/friends.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think there is a small percentage of students in college who immerse themselves in their non-political major so deeply it is to the exclusion of the environment around them.

So these students are hanging out with politically active professors, or liberally indoctrinated students in political majors?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not buying this at all for the same reasons stated, substituting "indoctrination" with "propaganda". You're aware that there are many majors that have no political classes or subject matter at all, right?

and you've not been to a US college recently to see how it permeates almost every course, either. They're barely adults, in some cases not even, and the people who are teaching them how and what to study are pushing an agenda, it's no wonder they adopt these views. (Unless they stay and teach, then they continue the indoctrination process.) I find it interesting that you mocked me for talking about the loons in these schools, then refuse to see the impact they have on those who have attended and society as a whole. Well, here it is, they have a decidedly Leftist slant, at least until they realize the world is different than they were led to believe.

The ideological tendencies of professors, I think, is a symptom of this phenomena, not its cause.

That makes no sense.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So these students are hanging out with politically active professors, or liberally indoctrinated students in political majors?

Nope, it's what college has become; politics everywhere, all the time, with identity politics taking the lead. You actually have to work to avoid , otherwise it finds you.

[P]

Not saying you're wrong, but it is certainly not like this in Scandinavia. At the technical university I was at, people were probably to the right of society average, but mostly uninterested.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So these students are hanging out with politically active professors, or liberally indoctrinated students in political majors?

Most liberal arts majors are political in some form or fashion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

Not saying you're wrong, but it is certainly not like this in Scandinavia. At the technical university I was at, people were probably to the right of society average, but mostly uninterested.

It would be relevant to the colleges or universities with a liberal arts focus.

Here, I think that's most of them.

[subego]

Just taking a wild stab here...

Many (or most) US institutions of higher learning create something of an artificially diverse environment. The closest people available for administrators to ask how best to make it work are in the Sociology department.

These institutions aren't just the sum of their curriculum. They're all doing things unrelated to the curriculum to foster an environment they feel is most conducive for the social growth of their students.

[subego]

Personally, I was indoctrinated far less in college than at my hippy-dippy Montessori school, but I went to both a long time ago.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Silver prediction seems crazy volatile right now.

Sam Wang is shitting on his model. I don't think he's the only one, either. Out of all the models out there Silver's is the most pessimistic.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It would be relevant to the colleges or universities with a liberal arts focus.

Here, I think that's most of them.

I don't think it's as simple as that: US conservatives are special snowflakes compared to conservatives in most other countries. Not only has US politics as a whole been shifted to the right compared to most other developed nations, US conservatives have very often wagered on the wrong things (e. g. their opposition to gay marriage or global climate change), and have come to show a disdain for science. No matter your leanings it irks any scientist worth their salt if you claim the scientific consensus on a subject is due to a “global conspiracy” where scientists are just out for “grant money”, to give just one example. (Given how difficult the job market in academia is and how comparatively meager the salaries, this accusation is especially infuriating.)

The other major contributing factor is that most academics tend to travel a lot, and in other countries things that are considered “socialist” by American conservatives are normal (e. g. universal health care). When you have had the chance to get to know other countries and cultures you also tend to be less afraid of “the other” and “the unknown”.

Originally Posted by P 

Not saying you're wrong, but it is certainly not like this in Scandinavia. At the technical university I was at, people were probably to the right of society average, but mostly uninterested.

In other countries, e. g. Italy, the political slant of certain universities is well-known. For certain, universities aren't all left-leaning. In Germany, it is very rare that whole universities have a political slant. Natural sciences are relatively neutral (apart from medicine), certain business and law schools on the other hand have a slant (often to the right) while sociology departments (not surprisingly) attract more people from the left.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by P 

Not saying you're wrong, but it is certainly not like this in Scandinavia. At the technical university I was at, people were probably to the right of society average, but mostly uninterested.

Thankfully most technical schools in the US aren't as corrupted, but anything with a liberal arts focus is under a constant barrage of influence. My nephew counted over 300 political signs walking from his dorm to the first quad, <1/4 mile away, and he's at a Southern/SEC school. Every board, trash can, and post he walked by was packed with them, all from Left-based organizations, and if you get caught taking them down, fortunately he didn't (at night he and some friends have stripped them all clean several times), you'll receive disciplinary action. It's worse in northern and western universities.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sam Wang is shitting on his model. I don't think he's the only one, either. Out of all the models out there Silver's is the most pessimistic.

If pessimism is a Trump victory, then yes.

[Chongo]

Hillary is making a pitch for Ph'nglui vote.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Uh'e llll phlegeth, sgn'wahl hafh'drn bug h''bthnk sgn'wahlyar y-lw'nafh ooboshu shugg kadishtu, grah'n lw'nafh chtenffagl vulgtm bug li'hee f'ah.

[subego]

Can't unsee the clown nose.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think it's as simple as that

Hence me proposing additional mechanisms I believe are at play.

The main point is schools focused on liberal arts aren't analogous to those focused on science.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If pessimism is a Trump victory, then yes.

Apparently the correct term is volatile. But in this specific instance, compared to everyone else, Silver's model is the most pessimistic. I have to take him at his word that the model is the same one as previous years, but listening to pundit-Nate its hard not to feel his embarrassment over the Trump primary tough talk might have affected his model somehow.

[Chongo]

Trigger Warning?

[The Final Dakar]

...and the debate loser is: Lester Holt

[besson3c]

Did Hillary get through the debate without fainting due to her concussion?

[The Final Dakar]

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hence me proposing additional mechanisms I believe are at play.

The main point is schools focused on liberal arts aren't analogous to those focused on science.

First of all, do you know of any data that shows that liberal arts colleges are far more liberal than full universities or technical universities in the US? So what mechanisms are at play? And what exactly is the mechanism that you propose? The only thing in your posts that I could find was that you claimed “liberal arts majors are always political in some fashion”, and that is at best just an observation which does not say whether college makes young people more liberal or whether college attracts more liberals. That makes a difference whether or not to “blame” colleges and universities for being bastions of liberalism.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did Hillary get through the debate without fainting due to her concussion?

Her left eye kept twitching. Don't worry, there's still time for her to blow a gasket between now and 11/08.

[OAW]

And why is Trump always sniffing? People tell me all the time he might be doing coke.

#twocanplaythatgame

OAW

[OAW]

This pretty much sums it up ...

Donald Trump's tenuous relationship with the truth didn't stop at the doors of the first presidential debate of 2016.

The Republican nominee repeatedly tussled with Hillary Clinton over his own past statements, his tax returns and even the murder rate in New York City.

But Trump also stubbornly stood by two lies that he's stood by in recent weeks and was bound to be asked about at the debate.

In a lengthy exchange with moderator Lester Holt, Trump repeatedly insisted — falsely — that he opposed the Iraq War. And he continued to claim that Clinton was involved in spreading the "birther" conspiracy theory that shot him to political prominence.

While Trump made several brazenly false claims in just 90 minutes onstage, Clinton stuck to the facts.

From misrepresentations to half-truths and flat-out lies, Trump has talked around and away from the truth more brazenly than any major party presidential nominee in modern political history.

Reality Check Quick Takes: Iraq, birtherism, and climate change - CNNPolitics.com

OAW

[starman]

Who won? Polls say 64% Hillary. Trump got his ass kicked. KICKED.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No matter your leanings it irks any scientist worth their salt if you claim the scientific consensus on a subject is due to a “global conspiracy” where scientists are just out for “grant money”, to give just one example. (Given how difficult the job market in academia is and how comparatively meager the salaries, this accusation is especially infuriating.)

There's an excluded middle between "global conspiracy" and "the quality of science is unaffected by its reliance on money".

The importance of money is the very cause of the difficult job market complained about above. Is the claim this somehow has a positive effect on the quality and nature of scientific pursuit?

If it does, I withdraw any sympathy I have for the job market being difficult, for it is that difficulty which apparently helps separate good science from bad. It's quite the capitalist take on the pursuit of scientific disciplines.

Of course, I don't actually withdraw my sympathy, because I think the above idea is a crock.

[subego]

Originally Posted by starman 

Who won? Polls say 64% Hillary. Trump got his ass kicked. KICKED.

I missed it. No swears? Sounds low energy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's an excluded middle between "global conspiracy" and "the quality of science is unaffected by its reliance on money".

The importance of money is the very cause of the difficult job market complained about above. Is the claim this somehow has a positive effect on the quality and nature of scientific pursuit?

I don't follow here, what do you mean by “importance of money”? For people who aim for a career in academia, on average money is actually not that important. They would earn a lot more if they had left academia and pursued a career in the industry. The reason why the job market in academia has become more difficult is that universities and research institutions have inflated the number of post doc positions (which are temporary) and reduced the number of tenured positions. So you have increased the number of people who are trained to become tenured professors, but decreased the number of people who can actually make it. Researchers nowadays have to spend more time (= money) hunting for grants, reducing the time to be productive.

I can chew your ear off when it comes to the situation in academia, but honestly, the situation in the US isn't all that different from other countries, and therefore doesn't really explain (one way or another) why US universities have a more pronounced and consistent slant to the left than other countries.

Originally Posted by subego 

If it does, I withdraw any sympathy I have for the job market being difficult, for it is that difficulty which apparently helps separate good science from bad. It's quite the capitalist take on the pursuit of scientific disciplines.

Of course, I don't actually withdraw my sympathy, because I think the above idea is a crock.

???

[subego]

The money isn't of import to the academics, it's of import to their employers.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The money isn't of import to the academics, it's of import to their employers.

I still don't follow your argument as to how this is relevant to US colleges and universities being less conservative than average.

[subego]

My argument is relevant to what I quoted.

There is an excluded middle between "global conspiracy" and "the quality of science isn't negatively affected by its dependence on money".

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by starman 

Who won? Polls say 64% Hillary. Trump got his ass kicked. KICKED.

From what I've heard, the only one that has Hillary won is CNN. Time is 52-48, CNBC is 65-35 Slate is 54-46 for Trump. The Drudge poll isn't even close.

Just looked at CBS NY, 79-21 Trump

Schieffer: Debate Didn’t Sway Many Voters « CBS New York

[BadKosh]

Lester Dolt was obviously trying to screw up Trump and make it easy for Hillary. Biased assclown! I figured the MSM doesn't have a clue as to being unbiased. Thats why I don't watch their BS.

[Chongo]

CNN's poll "sample" was 41% (D) 26% (R).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My argument is relevant to what I quoted.

There is an excluded middle between "global conspiracy" and "the quality of science isn't negatively affected by its dependence on money".

You're speaking in riddles: If according to you the middle is excluded (whatever you mean by the middle), why are you mentioning it? And what does the last bit even mean? You need money to do science, you need to pay for salaries, equipment, travels, etc. But that's true of any job.

[Chongo]

2016 presidential debate snap polls show Trump beating Hillary Clinton by a landslide | Daily Mail Online

[The Final Dakar]

The debate was a pretty good metaphor for America. A rich white man disputing facts brought up by a black man, and looking put upon when dealing with an outspoken woman.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, Trump denied he said he didn't pay any taxes right after a nationally televised debate where he bragged he didn't pay any taxes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're speaking in riddles: If according to you the middle is excluded (whatever you mean by the middle), why are you mentioning it? And what does the last bit even mean? You need money to do science, you need to pay for salaries, equipment, travels, etc. But that's true of any job.

I'll restate my thesis.

To the administrators of colleges and universities, the quality of science the institution produces is secondary to the return on investment. This order of priorities negatively affects the quality of science produced. No global conspiracy needed.

[starman]

Fact Check And Analysis Of The First Presidential Debate With Donald Trump And Hillary Clinton : NPR

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

To the administrators of colleges and universities, the quality of science the institution produces is secondary to the return on investment. This order of priorities negatively affects the quality of science produced. No global conspiracy needed.

That's not how universities work: their prestige derives from the quality (and quantity) of the scientific output. The scientific output is the return of investment. There are potentially other, secondary goals which range from target numbers for number of women or internationals hired, but these take a back seat to scientific output. In countries where universities aren't free, the scientific reputation is what attracts paying students (especially from abroad). Grant money is useful only in so far that it allows universities to hire more researchers who teach and increase the scientific output.

[besson3c]

Clinton Won The Debate, Which Means She’s Likely To Gain In The Polls | FiveThirtyEight