http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
Interesting poll by Pew showing large majority of scientists consider themselves to be liberal.
I guess we could have a field day discussing what this means...
Printable View
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
Interesting poll by Pew showing large majority of scientists consider themselves to be liberal.
I guess we could have a field day discussing what this means...
or not................
meaningless. I would be willing to bet if you took a poll of people with H.S Diplomas and College Grads and those with Grad Degrees you'd find the higher the education the more liberal the person, in general. Also with college grads the field they majored in will dictate the degree of being liberal or not. Actually many science majors are more conservative than say Social Science majors.
I agree. Besides, let's not confuse degrees with intelligence. I don't know about you, but some of the dumbest people I've ever met have had all manner of degrees and letters after their name. At the very least, a degree simply means you're persistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Yes and Freeman Dyson never got a PhD eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
But you can't compare the two opposite tails of the distributions as if they're the same....
I'd say on average degrees and intelligence are very strongly correlated. But then who wants to be labeled 'average', or even worse 'below average' :)
I know who!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Every single politician who's after the vote of the 'average Joe' :)
I'm dissatisfied with politicians because none of them pander specifically to meQuote:
Originally Posted by gugi
yeah, it's hard out here for an elitist :boohoo:Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Why is this meaningless? It's rather telling, in my book.
You see, I think you are right--there is a general positive correlation between level of education and political liberality; and of course, for the uneducated that is a particularly damning fact. "Book Smarts is for sissies!", and "colleges breed liberals" and all that nonsense (the assumption that education makes people LESS capable of making up their own minds about their political affiliation is rather weak, but there you go) are pretty common creeds coming from both the popular conservative base and the (rather ironically) highly educated conservative "elite."
This, in turn, tells me that ignorance is valued by conservatives, as is a lack of critical thinking skills. Which of course makes for an easily manipulated voting public...
It doesn't tell you that, you just heard what you were told to hear!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
So you're telling me that what I was told was, in fact, what I was told to hear, rather than what I was ACTUALLY told?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
My God! Thank you for telling me!
They may be strongly correlated, but I think it's a stretch to say that because most people with degrees are more intelligent, and also liberal, then intelligent people are liberal or it is intelligent to be liberal. It's a pretty blanket assumption to make it seem that liberals are intelligent and conservatives are unintelligent. Once again, both sides have their share of the not so bright.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
i only referred to the intelligence and degrees, the political affiliations are something completely different.
plenty of smart conservatives/liberals and plenty of dumb conservatives/liberals.
and of course, to infer intelligence/education from political orientation is a rather strong indicator for the lack of the former as it takes a bit more sophisticated statistics than the general public (or is that the average six pack joe and his plumber name-sharing friend) is accustomed to :)
so, naturally, i'm quite glad to see everybody here agrees it would be sketchy to do so, even if they can't quite prove it with numbers....
I actually agree that it's meaningless, and I'll explain my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
Simply saying "scientists" is simply too broad of a term. Most of the members of M.U.F.O.N. are considered "scientists." However, they're also nut jobs.
Dr. Phil. Scientist, and moron.
Cryptozoologists...
Homeopathologist...
Al Gore...
I could go on, but why bother? I'm sure you get the point: simply being a "scientist" does not mean that a person is intelligent or even sane.
Now, if they were to say that there is a strong correlation between being a physicist with at least one Phd, and published in at least 2 professional journals and a particular view, I'd find that both meaningful and quite interesting.
As far as a correlation between further education and intelligence, once again there is no meaningful information without a more specific look at the statistics.
Person A might have a Phd. in Women's studies, any racial study, psychology (not a medical degree in psychiatry, just psychology), or any of dozens and dozens of other essentially useless degrees which require nothing more than spending enough years sitting in class rooms and regurgitatting what you're told.
Person B has a humble Associates Degree in mechanical engineering.
Who do you think is more inteligent?
Then, it also fails to take the age of the participants in the survey into account. The educational system in the United States is INCREDIBLY liberal. When I was in college, just a few years ago, I had to stomach a constant diet of liberal propaganda from teachers, administrators, fellow students, special interest groups that were welcomed on campus, etc. It's very difficult to NOT be swayed when you are continually barraged by one particular viewpoint for 19 years (the bare minimum amount of time for most people to go from kindergarten to a Phd)
Did they compare the statistics between people who were still furthering their education, to people who were recent graduates, to those who had been out of school for 5, 10 and 20 years?
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Any man in his youth who is not a liberal has no heart. Any man in his age who is not a conservative has no brain."
Last but not least, having majored in mathematics in college, I'd like to point out that statistics are more or less useless without VERY carefull and highly controlled interpretation. I'll give just one amuzing example of this, but there are countless examples to be had.
About 4 or 5 years ago, a major study was done to compare the sexual habits of men and women. (At UCLA if I remember correctly)
Only heterosexual adults were included in the study.
Only sexual encounters after the age of 18 were counted.
Only very specific types of sexual encounters with the opposite sex were counted.
The questions were designed to remove all ambiguity, and were worded in such a way that there was no room for interpretation by study participants.
The study was 100% anonymous.
The study found that the average woman had been with 3.4 sexual partners, while the average man had been with 7.1 sexual partners.
For about a week, this study was touted as irrefutable proof that men are far more sexually promiscuous than women, until a senior mathematics professor (from Harvard if I remember correctly) pointed out that because roughly 51% of the population is female, and 49% male, it is mathematically impossible for the results from men and women to be that different. Even considering the "prostitute effect" as he called it, where in a tiny number of women are prostitutes who could have each had hundreds or thousands of partners, and yet been a small enough group to be under-represented in the study, there's no way that men could be averaging more than double the number of sexual partners.
So, a study that claimed to prove that men are more promiscuous than women, and appeared to do so when taken at face value, really proved something else entirely. Namely, it proved that Americans will lie about how many sexual partners they've had even when anonymously participating in a scientific study.
There's no way I'm going to get involved into an argument here. Many liberals are intelligent. Many conservatives are also intelligent. It just is very clear that liberals are a little bit intelligenter. Well okay maybe that's a little strong. Perhaps liberals aren't actually that much intelligenter than conservatives. The brain is a muscle very much like the pancreas. If one doesn't take it out and exercise it in public it may be very strong but no one sees it. You know like those guys that grunt real loud at the gym. It may be simply that conservatives simply to be gentle and humble, like to appear less intelligent, conserving their brain strength for emergencies. While liberals are more liberal with the demonstrations of intelligence. See, that's where the terms liberal and conservative come from.
This reminds me the great thinker of the last century, Soupy Sales when he pondered, "Does a crowded elevator smell different to a midget?"
does this poll differentiate between privately funded andthose looking for a government handout?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
THAT may be where the true answer lies
untrueQuote:
Originally Posted by JimR
clearly clearly untrue
I have worked very hard to learn ways of manipulating people
and using logic (or convincing by way of reason) works sometimes
but if you try logical fallacies, and spin their head in circles, you will do much better
liberals are extremely fond of their false logic, and their constituents lack the thinking skills required to sort it all out
example
I worked for this money, it is mine.
or
In times like these, what we really need to do is help each other.
A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.
I'll see your examples and rise you a unified one:Quote:
Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr
You worked for this money, it's mine.
Billy boy, You gave me an idea for a thread. Check it out: http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...e-me-idea.html
Thanks for your reply; I agree. You would be surprised at the number of supposedly educated people who would disagree with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
The more general these polls the less they mean. Similar to the one that says so many thousand scientists agree global warming is false. Well anyone with a basic degree in the sciences is a scientist so how does having a B.S in Geology make you an authority on global warming? Rubbish.
"I actually agree that it's meaningless, and I'll explain my position. Simply saying "scientists" is simply too broad of a term. Most of the members of M.U.F.O.N. are considered "scientists." However, they're also nut jobs."
---Here's a quote from the Pew website as to how they conducted their poll:
About the Scientist Survey
Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.
Founded in 1848, AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields. AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
Each person sampled was mailed a letter on stationery with logos of both the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and AAAS. The letter was signed by Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center and Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS. These letters were intended to introduce the survey to prospective respondents, describe the nature and purpose of the survey and encourage participation in the survey. The advance letter contained a URL and a password for a secure website where the survey could be completed. The letter also included a toll-free number for respondents to call if they had questions.
http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-101.gifSubsequent requests to complete the survey were sent to those who had not yet responded. These requests were sent by e-mail for those who could be contacted this way (three e-mail reminders were sent) and by postal mail for members who had told AAAS they preferred not be contacted by e-mail (a postcard and letter reminder were sent).
A total of 1,411 of the 5,816 sampled members in the e-mail group completed the interview for a response rate of 24%. In the mail group, 1,122 members of the 4,182 sampled completed the survey for a response rate of 27%. The overall response rate for the study was 25% (2,533 completes/9,998 sampled members). Nearly all respondents completed the survey online; however, a very small number requested to complete the survey in another mode; twenty interviews were completed by telephone.
Nonresponse in surveys can produce biases in survey-derived estimates because participation may vary for subgroups of a population, who may differ on questions of substantive interest. In order to correct for these biases, weighting is often employed.
To evaluate the possibility of nonresponse bias in the scientist survey, respondent characteristics from the obtained sample were compared with known characteristics of the population, based on membership and demographic information in the AAAS membership database. For most characteristics the sample was very representative of the population of all members. The most notable differences were that the sample underrepresented student members and overrepresented those with emeritus status. There also were differences in response rates between those who could be contacted by e-mail and those for whom no e-mail address existed or e-mail contact was not permitted. To correct these potential biases, the data were weighted so that the sample matched the two parameters of contact mode and member category from the AAAS membership database.The following table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the scientist survey:
The AAAS includes scientists from such areas of study as dentistry, general science, geography, history and philosophy of science, linguistics, political science, and social science. Nothing against dentists, but uhh, my dentist isn't exactly on the cutting edge of oral health research.
Furthermore, it appears that all you have to do to gain membership is prove that you have a PhD. So, yet again, all it means is these "scientists" are persistent.
"it appears that all you have to do to gain membership is prove that you have a PhD"
guess they're handing out PhD's to just about anyone these days...
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
There are many PhD's that require years of hard work, original research, high intelligence, etc.
However, there ARE many PhD's that require nothing more than having the money to pay for enough years of college, and the patience to sit through enough classes.
So, one more time with feeling, simply having a PhD doesn't not guarantee that a person is intelligent, or even sane.
Not to discount the people that have or get PhDs, but persistence pays off when it comes to this stuff. I've met enough blathering idiots who can add Dr. to the front of their name that I'm not convinced it's something out of my (or anyone else's) reach.
Trust me. It isn't out of most peoples reach, just out of the realm of what they are willing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
Judging from my university experiences, I can understand why. It made me very sad to see people write their thesis over things unrelated to their degrees, and even worse, things they didn't care about. All the while doing a ton of work and paying for it with both tons of time and money. Anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Sorry BillyJeff, I didn't mean to be a threadjacker:fim:
I recently graduated from Kettering University which is about 80%+ mechanical engineering majors (supposudly graduates more mechanical engineers than any other college in the US), with the balance being probably 10% or so electrical engineers, and then a variety of physics, math, computer science, and the occasional "management" major (often people who started as engineers, but had academic difficulty).
Anyway, in my experience the vast majority of those in the school were very sharply on the conservative side of the spectrum. Also basically all the engineers I've worked with are pretty conservative.
It depends greatly on which university awarded the degree. Or if any university did, given the number of people in the UK who routinely falsify their CV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
a degree from a university in the Philippines can be had for less than $50
next time I'm there I'm going to get one that says I'm a gyno
just to hang on the wall ;)
I find this poll very interesting. I must say all the people I work with are what you North Americans class as "liberal".
Just from a purely definitional perspective, it would be worrying if scientists were generally Conservative, as they would never feel the need to investigate anything new! :D
And though I am loathe to wade into the PhD debate, my belief is that a PhD after your name simply says you have jumped through the hoops necessary for modern academia, and nothing more. It is a highly structured and quite political process in and of itself, and any relationship between "intelligence" (whatever that means) and obtaining a PhD is certainly not causal.
James.
I think if you talk to people who have been through the University system its a well known fact that Science majors are conservative and I don't mean in their fields but politically speaking and Engineering people are really politically conservative.
not handing out... selling. if you have enough money, you can buy a phd. most schools are quite willing to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
you can also work very very hard for a very very long time.
no way to tell which, unless you know that person's history. I will say this: most of the engineers I know (with 5 year degrees) are much MUCH smarter (analysis, problem solving, critical thinking) than most of the doctoral candidates I know, unless the doctoral candidate is in a "hard science" like math or physics. a phd in history or sociology isn't very difficult, judging by some of my classmates at school.
but hey, that's just my experience, YMMV. I'm not conservative or liberal so I don't care, but it's important to point out that a phd doesn't necessarily mean you have any degree of intelligence.
Science majors especially Physics, Chem and Engineers are a totally different breed of cat than humanities or social science majors. Some of these science guys appear to be way more intelligent partly from stereotypes and partly because society seems to value that kind of knowledge. However people in these others areas often time have a different type of smarts which the science majors often times totally lack.
There is also the brand of smarts known as good old horse sense. I have known my share of college graduates totally lacking in this most crucial type of intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I've been doing biomedical basic research field for over 15 years and have worked with, trained, collaborated with etc. a ton of different scientists. Some do have excellent common "horse" sense, in fact the best ones always do. Others do not have good common sense. I think that the ones who took a stint outside of academia for a while and lived in the real world outside of school maybe have a bit more common sense than the others, but its really variable. So I think its hard to generalize about scientists, they are as varied as any other group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Unfortunately a lot of people think of Jerry Lewis as a prototype of what a scientist is like. Laaaady, laaaaaady! Unfortunately, this nerd image (and perhaps having frog dissections as the traditional intro to science in grade school) has really turned off a great many American students who might have made great discoveries had they looked science as a career.
OK done with my rant, and my attempt to steer this thread further off topic.
:)
When I would interview potential employees I found 3 basic types:Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorPete
1) No college but all practical experience
2) no practical experience but has college degree
3)Practical experience and college degree
Generally speaking, of the 3 categories, I found no.#3 the best to hirer and no. #2 the worst to hirer.
This is of course a broad generalization.
I agree, for students, physicians as well as scientists that I evalute/hire, those who excel in school plus have valuable non-academic experience are generally the best candidates. I think the same is true for law and MBA programs who are also looking for that valuable outside of academic experience.