2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:45 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:It shouldn't be a surprise that white, uneducated (I hate that word, it is demeaning)


If we are going down the route of college vs non-college educated, can we please also split out the STEM and non-STEM degrees? Because I feel like someone with a degree in Engineering is going to have an opinion that is further away from someone with a degree that has the words "studies" or "arts" in them than a person with only a high school diploma.

Do you think the difference is solely based on their income or something? Can you google o a source? I've heard rumors it's the experience of going through college itself that causes the schism.


No, just personal experiences. People that go into math tend to have a far different worldview than people going into art. Engineers and pre-med tend to be more religious than most other degrees (if Terrorists are anything to go by; a disturbing number of them were doctors and engineers), and I don't get the impression that anyone with a degree in Social Work is voting Republican.

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby lorb » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:46 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:... and I don't get the impression that anyone with a degree in Social Work is voting Republican.


There is many people not fitting your stereotype(s). ACU has a very significant overlap of students/graduates in their social work programme and college republicans membership.

Also I'm not sure splitting along the line of STEM/non-STEM makes much sense for demography of politics. Just as an example look at gender:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ wrote:The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.
That probably already explains most of the difference in political affiliation between STEM and non-STEM.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5651
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:It shouldn't be a surprise that white, uneducated (I hate that word, it is demeaning)


If we are going down the route of college vs non-college educated, can we please also split out the STEM and non-STEM degrees? Because I feel like someone with a degree in Engineering is going to have an opinion that is further away from someone with a degree that has the words "studies" or "arts" in them than a person with only a high school diploma.

Do you think the difference is solely based on their income or something? Can you google o a source? I've heard rumors it's the experience of going through college itself that causes the schism.


No, just personal experiences. People that go into math tend to have a far different worldview than people going into art. Engineers and pre-med tend to be more religious than most other degrees (if Terrorists are anything to go by; a disturbing number of them were doctors and engineers), and I don't get the impression that anyone with a degree in Social Work is voting Republican.

I don't think it's that Dr's and engineers are more religious imo, I think it's because those of us from developing world backgrounds (including children of people from the developing world ) have a hard time getting away from the three careers - doctor, lawyer and engineer.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

nicklikesfire
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:20 am UTC
Location: CT, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby nicklikesfire » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:53 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Engineers and pre-med tend to be more religious than most other degrees (if Terrorists are anything to go by; a disturbing number of them were doctors and engineers),


Do you have a source on the Engineers and pre-med being more religious? As for the terrorist thing, I don't know about doctors, but terrorist organizations specifically recruit engineers for their technical background.

I would bet that STEM people mostly align republican. I'm not sure why though. It might be because those people tend to make more money than other fields.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:54 am UTC

Yeah based on personal experience I kind of suspect that people in STEM fields are on average less religious. Though I admit to not having hard data.

One interesting difference between STEM and non-STEM I consistently noticed during my own time as a student though: During breaks, outside a STEM-building, you saw maybe 2-3 people smoking. Outside non-STEM buildings there were always hordes.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:57 am UTC

Angua wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:It shouldn't be a surprise that white, uneducated (I hate that word, it is demeaning)


If we are going down the route of college vs non-college educated, can we please also split out the STEM and non-STEM degrees? Because I feel like someone with a degree in Engineering is going to have an opinion that is further away from someone with a degree that has the words "studies" or "arts" in them than a person with only a high school diploma.

Do you think the difference is solely based on their income or something? Can you google o a source? I've heard rumors it's the experience of going through college itself that causes the schism.


No, just personal experiences. People that go into math tend to have a far different worldview than people going into art. Engineers and pre-med tend to be more religious than most other degrees (if Terrorists are anything to go by; a disturbing number of them were doctors and engineers), and I don't get the impression that anyone with a degree in Social Work is voting Republican.

I don't think it's that Dr's and engineers are more religious imo, I think it's because those of us from developing world backgrounds (including children of people from the developing world ) have a hard time getting away from the three careers - doctor, lawyer and engineer.

There's always the fourth career option: disappointment.

Anyway, I suspect the main reason we aren't talking about STEM vs. humanities is because pollsters seem pretty unanimous in thinking that it's not a useful demographic question to ask.

(It's also not nearly as straightforward a question to ask, given the existence of degrees that mix the two and people like me who have degrees in both. Asking about educational attainment is far less ambiguous.)

It could be interesting to see whether the race and gender imbalances in STEM fields are sufficient to explain any political differences, I suppose.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:15 pm UTC

Sometimes, it's refreshing to see that there are constants in life. Like STEM elitism.

CU, respectfully, I have to ask if you've interacted with a STEM or liberal arts majoring college grad in the last, say, 5 years?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:25 pm UTC

A lot of STEM is liberal arts anyway (specifically the sciences and mathematics).

Jobs and politics probably are loosely reflective of each other, although probably not enough to make it very useful when polling. My experience with computer programmers is that they tend to be more libertarian, which I'm guessing is due to having higher than average income as well as a personal experience which makes the idea of individualism sound attractive.
Last edited by Thesh on Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:28 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:There is a perceived enthusiasm gap between Clinton and Trump due to the large rallies he holds. Whether or not that actually materializes in the election is what I am most interested to see.
As we saw with Bernie's rallies during the primaries, rally enthusiasm often doesn't translate to better election performance.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that people enthusiastic enough to go to rallies don't get any extra votes for doing so.


Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Bernie performed better than Clinton did in 2007 as far as winning states and overall competitiveness (ie. tighter margins of victory). Those pesky super-delegates make Clinton's nomination appear to be much more unanimous than it really was. One has to wonder how much of an effect the DNC really had by throwing their weight behind Clinton early. My guess is not much if at all in the grand scheme of things, certainly less than Bernie supporters would like to believe. But all this was covered many pages ago on this forum topic.


EDIT: I was clearly wrong: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html
Last edited by trpmb6 on Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:38 pm UTC

Clinton almost won the nomination in 2008, and received a higher popular vote than Obama with 49% of the pledged delegates (caveats, of course, that election was a mess). Nothing here is comparable.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:01 pm UTC

This is a great article. He's such an interesting case study.

Regarding STEM, I know biology is a lot more liberal than other S fields. It's harder to be a bigot when you're studying, y'know, life. When I was tutoring, a tutee asked me if I was a Republican. I was gobsmacked for a few seconds, then told her I didn't know a single Republican biologist (expertly avoiding the question :wink: ). I had several religious pre-med students (scary thought [that they needed tutoring, to be clear]).

I encountered, at most, two conservative musicians while getting my music degree. Though there's definitely a lot more pressure in that environment to not speak up if you are.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:29 pm UTC

The history of social darwinism and scientific racism would suggest that it in fact quite easy to be a bigoted biologist.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

commodorejohn
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The history of social darwinism and scientific racism would suggest that it in fact quite easy to be a bigoted biologist.

Yeah, that's a comically naive assertion.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:21 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The history of social darwinism and scientific racism would suggest that it in fact quite easy to be a bigoted biologist.

Yeah, that's a comically naive assertion.

Why would you say that? It's not remotely a naive assertion - just look at Rushten and Jensen. And, you know, eugenics? You know, literally the thing gmal referenced?

Liri wrote:Regarding STEM, I know biology is a lot more liberal than other S fields. It's harder to be a bigot when you're studying, y'know, life
Actually, I think it's quite easy to be a Conservative whilst studying Biology - EO Wilson comes to mind as a really outspoken and well reasoned Conservative evolutionary biologist - but much harder to actively vote for a political party that seems to be bent on undermining your field of study on virtually every level. Shit, I worked with a PI who did research on fetal brain tissue, and discussed why morally and intellectually she could never envision having an abortion, but was staunchly pro-choice herself. I don't think that's remotely a contradictory position to hold.

I know a great many socially/ethically Conservative biologists. I know very very very few Republican biologists... none, actually, come to think on it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25782
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

I think the naive assertion was the one that biologists aren't bigoted.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:40 pm UTC

My sister is in Med School, completely full of Biology majors for obvious reasons.

She was complaining to me that they just hosted a young-earth creationist speaker... and even more ridiculously, that a small number of her friends "came out" as young-earth creationists at that time.

True, this isn't so much about bigotry as it is about an unrelated subject (young earth creationism), but its still fascinating to watch. In any case, don't assume that classes of people think one way or the other. Doctors, even brilliant African American doctors, can be young-earth creationist and a bigoted Trump Supporter.

Oh right, like Ben Carson. Or some of my sister's friends.

---------

Expertise within your field is totally tangential to bigotry. On the other hand, younger people: Gen X and Millennials, tend to be more accepting of each other for some reason. Its part of the way we grew up, and the pop-culture that we partake in. I think stories like X-Men, Rent, and Hairspray have become part of Gen X / Millennial culture. There's a lot of inclusion and praise of multiculturalism in the pop-culture of the younger generation.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:45 pm UTC

Medicine is one of the few life sciences where I think it's not unheard of to see Creationists. I've probably babbled about this before, but my senior thesis in undergrad was written with the departments Evolutionary Biologist, who ended up not getting tenure for a couple of reasons, one of which being that the he pissed off one of the departments pre-Med specializing professors, who was a member of a Christian Scientists organization, and a Creationist.

It's pretty hard to be a Creationist whilst studying Evolutionary Biology (well, hard to be good at both, really), but it's not at all impossible to be a Creationist who studies Medicine.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:47 pm UTC

For what it is worth, there's a bit of a cultural difference between biology majors looking to go to med school and biology majors who are looking to do other stuff with a biology degree.

I'm sure there are plenty of young earth creationists everywhere, but I have to imagine the relative frequency is different between people who are taking some molecular bio courses so they can have a better handle on the MCATs vs people who are super jazzed about evolution and are super excited about studying clams.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:06 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The history of social darwinism and scientific racism would suggest that it in fact quite easy to be a bigoted biologist.

Yeah, that's a comically naive assertion.


Plenty of types of bigots.

It looks like some of ya'll have confused "bigot" for "republican".

There's a whole sordid past of gay bashing, racism, eugenics, etc that had at least some support from various scientific sorts. Gmalivuk is entirely correct, history supports that it's quite possible.

I agree that biologists have a strong liberal trend, but it's definitely not the same as an immunity to bigotry.

Thesh wrote:A lot of STEM is liberal arts anyway (specifically the sciences and mathematics).

Jobs and politics probably are loosely reflective of each other, although probably not enough to make it very useful when polling. My experience with computer programmers is that they tend to be more libertarian, which I'm guessing is due to having higher than average income as well as a personal experience which makes the idea of individualism sound attractive.


We certainly do have that bent. The same tendency exists among college students, however, which haven't gotten to that "higher than average income" yet. So, that probably doesn't explain it well.

Diadem wrote:Yeah based on personal experience I kind of suspect that people in STEM fields are on average less religious. Though I admit to not having hard data.

One interesting difference between STEM and non-STEM I consistently noticed during my own time as a student though: During breaks, outside a STEM-building, you saw maybe 2-3 people smoking. Outside non-STEM buildings there were always hordes.


Religion has an inverse relationship with educational attainment(it's slightly more complicated than this, but generally, people who completed college are less likely to believe in god. This is even more true if you factor out explicitly religious degrees).

So, while personal experience leads me to believe that CS students in particular are highly likely to be atheistic, I'd expect to see similar trends in many fields.

But, anyways, the fact that we have to qualify Trump's appeal with so very many qualifiers is exactly why he's having trouble. If your base is white men who achieved some education but not too much in specific fields, you don't have broad enough appeal. He's done a lot of dumb things to offend various subgroups for little to no practical gain, so it makes sense that his support overall isn't amazing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:35 pm UTC

Found this, the Salem Hypothesis on RationalWiki, the observation that creationists with scientific backgrounds tend to be in math, physics or engineering, rather than in biology. As for my claim about engineers and terrorists, here's a cite for you.

And yes, I've interacted with quite a few STEM majors. Being one myself and all. Probably interacted with liberal arts majors but I don't know who has one; insert your own barista joke. I don't look down on all the Humanities; I have a lot of respect for the "joke" degrees like Philosophy and even Sociology (it's a dumb field filled with brilliant people), but especially History and Archeology.

Also, story time. One of my old roommates was a forensic biology major, and a bigtime young earth creationist and very religious. His room was stocked with books by Ken Ham and Michael Behe, and other probably famous crazies I don't remember.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:43 pm UTC

As someone who went to college as a creationist, some classes are indeed very odd. It's not a very useful philosophy for preparing you for biology. I managed a B in my first biology class anyways, but it felt like there was a great deal of catchup.

Dunno that I'm a great example, because biology wasn't my major, but it probably would have been possible to do that, albeit fairly difficult. The viewpoint didn't survive college anyways. The poor utility was just too obvious, and you start developing suspicions that it's all bunk. Either of those factors could be pretty significant, but I'd imagine it'd be possible for a particularly stubborn individual to make it through. Cognitive dissonance is something humans are good at.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Found this, the Salem Hypothesis on RationalWiki, the observation that creationists with scientific backgrounds tend to be in math, physics or engineering, rather than in biology. As for my claim about engineers and terrorists, here's a cite for you.

And yes, I've interacted with quite a few STEM majors. Being one myself and all. Probably interacted with liberal arts majors but I don't know who has one; insert your own barista joke. I don't look down on all the Humanities; I have a lot of respect for the "joke" degrees like Philosophy and even Sociology (it's a dumb field filled with brilliant people), but especially History and Archeology.

Also, story time. One of my old roommates was a forensic biology major, and a bigtime young earth creationist and very religious. His room was stocked with books by Ken Ham and Michael Behe, and other probably famous crazies I don't remember.


Liberal arts is not the humanities. That stereotype is perpetuated by elitist conservatives who want to equate liberals with what they perceive to be useless degrees. Physics is a liberal art. Mathematics is a liberal art. Pretty much any science, hard or soft, as well as the humanities are liberal arts (that is, things that teach general knowledge rather than applications of that knowledge like engineering).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7301
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:54 pm UTC

We certainly do have that bent. The same tendency exists among college students, however, which haven't gotten to that "higher than average income" yet. So, that probably doesn't explain it well.

Then again, students tend to identify themselves with their expected (or hoped for) future career.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:03 pm UTC

Perhaps. I don't know that anyone really planned for poverty, though. Barring a few degrees where people were definitely pursuing it for other reasons. Child education, yeah, they realize they're gonna make a little less, but there are other factors.

I'd wager that business majors had just as much expectation of future profits as CS majors, for instance.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:04 pm UTC

College enrollment rates are also proportional to familial income, which can have a huge affect as well. For example, someone who has no trouble getting into and affording a good university due to familial connections is more likely to think poor people must all be really lazy or stupid if that's how easy it was for them.

https://trends.collegeboard.org/educati ... -1984-2008
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:09 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:College enrollment rates are also proportional to familial income, which can have a huge affect as well. For example, someone who has no trouble getting into and affording a good university due to familial connections is more likely to think poor people must all be really lazy or stupid if that's how easy it was for them.

https://trends.collegeboard.org/educati ... -1984-2008


Sure, wealth provides educational opportunity, but that's not specific to CS students. Or STEM or biology or whatever. So, it might have a causative relationship with overall educational trends, but it probably doesn't explain major-specific trends.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3663
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, wealth provides educational opportunity, but that's not specific to CS students. Or STEM or biology or whatever. So, it might have a causative relationship with overall educational trends, but it probably doesn't explain major-specific trends.
I suspect it is mostly self-selecting happening. Conservative families often tend to believe STEM degrees have value while are dismissive about the value of humanities.

You can see the ratios below(taken from http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs ... _klein.pdf)
Table 3. Faculty political affiliation by type of academic division.
Democrats per Republican
Humanities 10
Arts 7.6
Social Sciences 6.8
Hard Sciences/Math 6.3
Medicine/Nursing/Health 4.8
Social Professional 4.4
Engineering 2.5
Business 1.3
Military/Sports .7
Total 5.0
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

commodorejohn
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I think the naive assertion was the one that biologists aren't bigoted.

Yes, that. Should've been clearer.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1154
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sizik » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Liberal arts is not the humanities. That stereotype is perpetuated by elitist conservatives who want to equate liberals with what they perceive to be useless degrees. Physics is a liberal art. Mathematics is a liberal art. Pretty much any science, hard or soft, as well as the humanities are liberal arts (that is, things that teach general knowledge rather than applications of that knowledge like engineering).


I think it's the "arts" part, not the "liberal" part, that confuses people.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And yes, I've interacted with quite a few STEM majors. Being one myself and all. Probably interacted with liberal arts majors but I don't know who has one; insert your own barista joke.
The question was not how many have you interacted with, but how many have you interacted with RECENTLY.

CorruptUser wrote:I have a lot of respect for the "joke" degrees like Philosophy and even Sociology (it's a dumb field filled with brilliant people), but especially History and Archeology.
Sigh.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, wealth provides educational opportunity, but that's not specific to CS students. Or STEM or biology or whatever. So, it might have a causative relationship with overall educational trends, but it probably doesn't explain major-specific trends.
I suspect it is mostly self-selecting happening. Conservative families often tend to believe STEM degrees have value while are dismissive about the value of humanities.

You can see the ratios below(taken from http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs ... _klein.pdf)
Table 3. Faculty political affiliation by type of academic division.
Democrats per Republican
Humanities 10
Arts 7.6
Social Sciences 6.8
Hard Sciences/Math 6.3
Medicine/Nursing/Health 4.8
Social Professional 4.4
Engineering 2.5
Business 1.3
Military/Sports .7
Total 5.0


See, I was going to say that this seems logical for valuing economics, but then I got to sports, which seems like a long shot bet at best.

Self selection makes sense overall, though. Pursuing what you value is pretty basic.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

TIL future Biff Tannen (the one who owns the casinos) was partly based on Trump.

That makes so much sense.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

Sports is super objective in it's execution. No sports caster ever said "GOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!, but that just, like, my opinion, man"

It's seems rather comical to be that sports and military are in the same division. Is there an actual relationship/overlap between those?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

Uuuh, not especially. I mean, sure, military academies have sports teams and stuff like everyone else, but no more so than say, military and music.

Perhaps they just happened to have similar ratios?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:37 pm UTC

My experience with engineers in the aircraft industry is a plurality of them are fiscal conservatives, and a good number of them are social conservatives. It varies by region, but even when I worked in Seattle I found this to be somewhat true (though not nearly as prevalent as when I worked in Wichita, KS, for obvious reasons).

As far as creationists being involved in biology or more specifically evolutionary biology.... Once you realize that many of these people create the image of, "God can and did do everything" you realize it doesn't matter what kind of argument you form, there is no way of changing their mind. For instance, one far right engineer I worked with explained it this way to me, while discussing dinosaurs. As far as he was concerned, dinosaurs never really existed. But God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to put dinosaur fossils in the ground for His children to find.

I imagine all of you will realize that this argument can be manipulated and changed to refute any argument placed against creationism. To this engineer, studying science/math/evolution/<insert topic> was just a way of exploring the wonderful world God created. It is for that reason that I believe a person can be both a creationist and an evolutionary biologist and still be extremely passionate about both and be perfectly oblivious to any perceived conflict of interest.

That person did forever change my view of [intellectual] creationists. They're probably wrong.. But maybe they are right, and to be quite honest, I don't really think there is any way of refuting their argument, so long as they believe that God is all powerful and can do whatever it is he pleases. It's actually this fact, that, in their view, God created such a massively complex system that fuels their belief that much more.

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:But maybe they are right, and to be quite honest, I don't really think there is any way of refuting their argument, so long as they believe that God is all powerful and can do whatever it is he pleases.
It's magic. What would you expect.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:But maybe they are right, and to be quite honest, I don't really think there is any way of refuting their argument, so long as they believe that God is all powerful and can do whatever it is he pleases.
It's magic. What would you expect.


I try not to marginalize their belief like that anymore. I've gotten to the point where I just accept it as a possibility, no matter how slim it may be. Who knows, maybe Prometheus wasn't a fiction movie but a documentary. Maybe our planet was seeded by a powerful race. (not equating seeding with an all powerful omnipotent being)

Marginalizing a group does no good. Instead I try to hold an intellectual conversation with them. The person I mentioned in my previous post was quite enthusiastic about his support, but would only discuss it if you were willing to hear with an open mind. His arguments were compelling. And even he acknowledged that there is no way to really prove or disprove his theory. He actually enjoyed the debate. I would often try to poke holes in his theory but when we discussed it there was, in the end, always a way around it using the very simple premise that God is all powerful.

So while I don't put much stock, if any, into it. It's a theory that, in my mind, was fun to debate and discuss on an intellectual level. Rather than just say "you're an idiot for believing in fairy tales." Especially since a huge population of the world still believes in those fairy tales.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2466
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Who knows, maybe Prometheus wasn't a fiction movie but a documentary. Maybe our planet was seeded by a powerful race. (not equating seeding with an all powerful omnipotent being)

Despite the protests by evangelicals, Prometheus was almost as much Christian allegory at the start as the Narnia series...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:32 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... ightening/
Clinton maintains her lead as Trump gains in the polls. How? By pillaging third party voter bases. , Trump and Clinton have managed to convince America that third parties are for losers.
McMullen is still tied in Utah though.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:39 pm UTC

Good, I hope that means Hillary is also turning more "Bernie or Bust" types, and I hope the trend continues (which I believe means Hillary is gaining in odds since she is in the lead and the percent gap remains unchanged?) as Trump's inevitable defeat discourages Republican voters, causing Hillary to win a majority of the popular vote and the Democrats to win every Senate race and a majority of House races.

It could happen... Technically the probability is greater than zero.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests