I thought that this article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune mades some very good arguments.
quote:The relative scarcity of Republican professors is widely asserted as proof of willful prejudice.
Of course, there are other possible explanations. Perhaps fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to endure the many years of poverty-stricken graduate study necessary to qualify for a faculty position. Perhaps conservatives are smarter than liberals, and recognize that graduate school is a poor investment, given the scant job opportunities that await newly minted PhDs. Or perhaps studious conservatives are more attracted to the greater financial rewards of industry and commerce.
Beyond the ivy walls, many professions are dominated by Republicans. You'll find few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of high-level corporate executives, military officers or football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will no doubt explain that the seeming disparities are merely the result of market forces.
And they are probably right.
It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions -- such as academics, journalism, social work, and the arts -- that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas.
So what do you think? Is it any more reasonable to assume that conservative professors and journalists are rare because of unfair prejudice than it is to assume that liberal CEO's are rare because of prejudice?
[ December 02, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Drivel and supposition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others.
I think this sentence right here establishes both the bias and the inaccuracy of the article.
On a larger scale, I've seen the hostility first hand to non-liberal professors and met ones who have moved to private industry because of the pressure from liberal academic establishments.
I'd also be interested to see the statistics on liberal or democratic CEOs.
Finally, there's a significant difference between the two situations when it is the ideas themselves and those who propogate them being supressed within academia. Especially with all the pious talk of academic freedom and the supposed "threat" to it posed by young over-zealous student activists.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think there might be something in the "natural inclinations" theory. I think you can see it even in academia, if you look at the different disciplines. Engineering professors are notoriously conservative for example.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions -- such as academics, journalism, social work, and the arts -- that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas.
Oh yeah. That's a marvelously unbiased passage.
I have a friend who is a conservative history professor outside of Utah, and the environment is distinctly hostile to his thinking. His field is African history, and two years ago, the department head publicly stated that she would like to remove from department everyone of non-African descent. He is often accused of being unsympathetic to current situation of blacks in America, and that really hurts. Believing in other methods of solving the problems is NOT the same thing as being unsympathetic.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Note I was not saying that the excerpt was unbiasedly written. But I think there may be something in the more idealistic vs. more practical mindsets mentioned.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love English, and I went into college with the purpose of getting a PhD in English lit. I left, literally, because there's only so much I could take of the prevelant religion in that English department. I wanted to study what made great writing great and how the history of English literature shaped writing today.
What I got, after the survey classes, was class after class of identifying unknown authors whose major value now what that no one had heard of them before, and identifying how they were oppressed and still managed to express themselves.
Go through the lit class catalog for half a dozen universities sometime. I went to visit SMU and interviewed with the head there when I first moved to Dallas. One of my questions was just how Methodist was Southern Methodist University, and he just laughed and said there was no common religion at all (Good.), except for maybe Freud (Not Good.). I didn't do it because I didn't want to change everything about my thinking, and I didn't want every day to be a fight.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others.
Aside from the tipping their hand just a bit in their personal prejudices, the author fails to realize that the data does not support his assertion. In Jim Collins' Good to Great, the research shows that the men and women who led companies from being merely Good to record-breaking Great do *not* seek victory at the expense of others and are generally fairly humble people with a singleminded vision for their corporation: to be the best in the world at what they do. That requires the ability to work with a team that will all pull in the same direction with you. That means they have to be people who can get along with others. The data also showed that the success of one company did not mean that they had to drive their competition out of business. Instead, they focused on being the best themselves and let their competition with less vision sink themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The chair of the department sounds more like a neocon than a liberal to me.
Why? Because she was narrow, exclusionary, and tunnel-visioned?
I suppose that's one way to make sure all the bad guys are on the other side.
--
I suppose the problem here, once again, is the definition of "liberal".
[ December 02, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Engineering professors are notoriously conservative for example.
"notoriously conservative" compared to whom? My observation as an engineering professor is that engineering professors are on the average considerably more liberal than engineers in industry and considerably less liberal than philosophy professors.
On the campuses where I have worked and studied, and among my many collegues from around the US and the world, there have been more democratic engineering professors than republican engineering professors by at least 2/1. This is despite the fact that I have never seen an accusation that there is any type of political screening in highering engineering professors. I have served on numerous hiring commitees and have never seen any evidence of any political bias in highering science or engineering professors or in recruiting graduate students for science and engineering programs.
My observation is that at the undergraduate level, engineers tend to be more conservative than the general university population but no more conservative than the general population. Among graduate students, conservatives are rare. Most of the conservative students go straight to industry rather than working on a graduate degree. If conservative students do seek a graduate degree they are more likely to go into an MBA program than an MS program.
At the PhD level, I know very few right wing Engineers. I know some who are republicans, but even they are on the extreme left of the republican party.
I think that this authors hypothesis has merit. Choosing an academic career means choosing a career which is very demanding and yet does not have the rewards of either money or fame available in many other career paths. People go into academia out of a love for knowledge and teaching -- traits which are more common among bleeding heart liberals than right wing reactionaries.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
as a conservative in academia, I can assure you that I have seen prejudice against conservatism in academia. Some of it is just the little things such as comments about 'warmongering republicans' directed at you, or purposely scheduling activities when you have stated that you can't make it because you have church...but in certain professors, their overall interactional tone is negative towards you if you are known to be a conservative.
[ December 02, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: People go into academia out of a love for knowledge and teaching -- traits which are more common among bleeding heart liberals than right wing reactionaries.
Where the hell do you get that from?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"The advantage of a classical education is that it enables you to despise the wealth it prevents you from achieving."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes. In fact, neoconservatism is exactly that viewpoint which places all of the bad guys to be on the other side by defining bad as "someone who thinks differently than I do".
Wow! We've reached new depths in this thread, haven't we?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
This is precisely why I've come to the conclusion that neo-cons are the equivalent of the boogey man.
For now on, Democrats who don't like affirmative action will blame affirmative action on neo-cons, those who don't like high spending will again blame neo-cons, and so on and so on, until neo-con comes to represent liberal concepts that some liberals don't like and therefore are more easily blamed on people who are members of the Republican party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Where the hell do you get that from?
When was the last time you heard Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh wax poetic on the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake or donate their time to an inner city school? In my 12 years as a college professor I have known many right wing engineering students. I have yet to hear one of them say they loved learning for its own sake, yet I have heard many liberal students make such comments. I have known only one outspoken right wing student who went on to get a PhD. The rest have all been anxious to get the big salaries in industry as soon as possible and start moving up the corporate ladder.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was being a little sarcastic.
The ONLY information you have about this department head is that she is reported as being extremely liberal, she was very racist, and she was in a position of authority.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake or donate their time to an inner city school?
I work for the Boy Scouts, a wildly conservative organization. My boss's wife works in an inner city school. The computer programmer on my team tutors kids after school. My boss's boss run a teenager's troup. And there's me.
There's no one in that group (except for maybe me) that could be remotely described as liberal.
You are too much in your narrow world, Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Katie, I never said no conservatives did such things, I said that spokesman for the right wing revolution (Hannity and Limbaugh) don't talk about such things.
I know plenty of conservatives who volunteer their time for all sorts of good causes, including tutoring children in inner city school. I never said they didn't.
My point was my idea that liberals were more likely to be passionate about knowledge and teaching is based on what the prominant right wing personalities and liberal personalities say publically.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Like Michael Moore?
Please - you're cherry picking the worst examples and applying individual attributes to the aggregate.
Dagonee
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I have to agree with the article in a sense. I think that more academics are liberal because a person who goes through that sort of lifestyle sees that as the philosophy/way that best fits him/herself.
People who end up doing well in the business world may well see the conservative way as more of their own because of the way they came up in the world and what they have seen of the world.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
You cut the article off a little too early. The author admits his bias. He also admits that a little diversification of university campuses certainly couldn't hurt:
quote: After all, teachers at all levels -- from nursery school to graduate school -- tend to be Democrats. Surely there cannot be a conspiracy to deny conservatives employment on kindergarten playgrounds.
Alas, there have in fact been instances of political discrimination in academic hiring and promotion. And yes, conservatives, both faculty and students, have been snubbed or mistreated on overwhelmingly liberal campuses. More seriously, certain professors, and in some cases entire departments, have crossed the line from legitimate scholarship to overtly politicized advocacy, most frequently coming from the left. These situations should be vigorously addressed as individual cases, and remedied where necessary. But none of this is proof of systematic intimidation or blacklisting, as alleged by Horowitz and others.
The reality is that universities, by their nature, tend to be liberal institutions (not only in the United States, but in many countries around the world).
Conservatives may bemoan the social forces behind this phenomenon, but there is nothing sinister about it. Nonetheless, liberals (like me) should admit that faculties face a resulting risk of intellectual conformity, which can be stultifying and confining even when it is unintentional.
Most major universities would likely benefit from the presence of more conservative scholars, who would sharpen the dialogue and challenge many assumptions. I might even be persuaded to support some form of recruiting outreach or affirmative action for Republicans -- but surely my conservative colleagues would never stand for it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You asked me where I got the idea -- I told you. Why do you have a problem with my answer? Are you suggesting that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren't influential right wingers? That people love what they have to say, but don't actually agree with it?
The fact of the matter is that even in Utah, where most of the teachers are educated at the conservative strong hold of BYU, teachers are more likely to be democrats than the population at large.
You will note that the author of the article admits that there are problems with some programs on college campus that have lost their objectivity. He agrees that colleges need more diversity of political opinion. He simply maintains that liberal bias on college campuses is the result of the fact that most professors are liberal and not the cause.
Do you have any evidence to support the opposite? And since you object to my using anecdotal evidence, I won't accept your annecdotes as evidence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Michael Moore has great influence and following. Do you support him as a fair representative of the average liberal?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I like watching Rush or Sean, for the exact reason that I don't believe what they're saying. Some people yell at the TV during football games. I don't like football, so I yell at the TV while watching Fox News.
I think Al Franken is probably a better candidate for the liberal flagbearer. A lot of liberals I know don't like Moore because he's so flaky. A lot of people in Vermont like Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders or Pat Leahy. They're more obscure, though.
[ December 02, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You asked me where I got the idea -- I told you. Why do you have a problem with my answer? Are you suggesting that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren't influential right wingers? That people love what they have to say, but don't actually agree with it?
Because it's unsupported and ill-conceived. Who, exactly, are the popular media liberals who support knowledge for knowledge's sake? You've already ignored the Michael Moore counterexample.
quote:Do you have any evidence to support the opposite?
Does this mean you're basically just making s*&^ up and challenging others to disprove it? Your comments have shown repeated misunderstanding of conservative philosophy and what it takes to be successful in business. You're casual, sweeping, inaccurate generalizations are something I've seen far too often from liberal professors.
No, I don't have any evidence. You'll note I also haven't made an unsupported claims.
You have.
Dagonee
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Where the hell do you get that from?
quote:you're basically just making s*&^ up
Dag, I've never seen this potty-mouth side of you before. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This thread has tossed around more myths and stupid generalizations than most. It really ticks me off. I apologize.
Dagonee
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The Rabbit:
I think it's unwise to conflate liberal in the sense of liberal humanism with liberal in the sense of Democratic policies and agendas.
Where English departments -- and other departments in the humanities and those in the social sciences -- have lost their way is in mistaking one for the other and being intolerant of those who refuse to accept both agendas.
And while the discrimination may not be overt, there's no doubt that *what* you choose to study in the humanities and social sciences has a huge impact on your career prospects and has the effect of weeding out those with, shall we say, certain affections and tendencies -- any glance at the conference program for the MLA or the list of the hottest hires in the field proves that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Dagonee. There are gross and very, very unfair generalizations contained here within. If that kind of sheer ignorance is the result of an all-academic career, is there any wonder why it's held in less high esteem?
The Ivory Tower is a pejorative term because of the self-imposed and willful ignorance it entails.
----
Personal rant: My favorite examples of Ivory Tower ignorance are the business professors. I think no one should be allowed to get a doctorate in business until they have proven their ability to either start or run a successful company for five years.
I had the horrible misfortune to be partnered with a business doctorate candidate in my internship my senior year of college, and he couldn't make a profit as the only seller of ice in Tahiti. He'd also banged around various universities for fifteen years and had collected a list of degrees.
Part of our project was to create an e-commerce site (this was in 2000), and we came to conflict almost immediately because he wanted to create the entire thing in Flash. With animations on every page, and every product would have a theme song. When you were on that page, the midi file would play. He was the business half of the project, and I was the design half, but he was very sure that being distinctive was the way to go. It was the most laughably-egregious example of principles gone wrong I've ever seen.
A 2000 e-commerce site in Flash! With theme songs!!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If you agree then why would you use it in a way that makes it seem like you're trying to make someone who is most likely a Democrat into someone who is "conservative," unless you are trying to be sarcastic which considering the use of the term by many liberals is hard to tell.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: Among graduate students, conservatives are rare. Most of the conservative students go straight to industry rather than working on a graduate degree. If conservative students do seek a graduate degree they are more likely to go into an MBA program than an MS program.
At the PhD level, I know very few right wing Engineers. I know some who are republicans, but even they are on the extreme left of the republican party.
You are making assumptions about WHY they don't want to join the programs...or WHY they leave after getting a masters rather than getting a PhD. I can't speak for all conservatives of course...but being in an environment that is hostile can wear you down after a while.
Also, some of the people that you "know" are liberals, might not be as liberal as you think. There is at least one graduate student in my department that many think is liberal, but is really a conservative who is "in the closet" so to speak. It is anecdotal of course...I am not sure if hiding your political offiliation is common, but I know it does happen.
I don't think it is what people would think of as a "black list" but it also is not an example of conservatives being money grubbing jerks who don't want to go into academia. It is simply natural for people to want to avoid environments that are openly hostile to them.
I remember in one class reading an article for class that was "proof" that liberals were better people that conservatives. It went through talking about how liberals gave more money to charity, and conservatives gave almost nothing away. They also amusingly made the claim that it shown how the religious right was hypocritical since they talked about being compasionate, but didn't give money to charity. Of course they waited until the end of the article to put in fine print that the study did not include money that was given to churches, or any religion based charity.
It just seems funny that the author goes through bashing conservatives and talking about how we prefer to make money at the "expense of others" and is surprised that these same people that he ridicules don't want to join him as colleagues
[ December 02, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
quote:reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others
Yeah um welcome to acadamia. I mean let's be honest it's all about that.
*scoffs at free exchange of ideas*
Oh yes I know I'm bitter.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was a chemistry major. I didn't go into academia because I wanted to teach -- and heaven knows many academics don't DO that! (If you don't believe me, let me tell you about some of the professors I had at UCLA -- one of the best schools in the country!)
Anyway, as a science-type person, I think it's fairly simple. The current majority of academics are liberals. And like dissolves like.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know Rabbit, when I said "conservative" I was thinking of something entirely different than "republican" OSC is conservative for example.
When I meant engineers were conservative. I meant (and probably should have clarified) that I was talking more about personal choices and lifestyle than political affilliation. Conservative doesn't automatically mean close minded. But I'd say you certianly find a high percentages of stable marriages where one partner is an engineer. Engineers also tend to like large margins of safety if they are in the public trust, though for doing an experiment they'll live more on the edge and only put in a 2x margin of safety rather than a 3x.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Guys, I know you don't like the answer, and Kat, I thought the quote was stupid the first time you paraded it out last year and I still think it's stupid, but the author is on to something. If you are having a hard time looking for college english departments who study great white authors, I just don't think you are looking too hard because I'm pretty sure that you can trip and fall and hit thirty on the way to the ground 30 in Massechusetts alone.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the Bay Area, California is both notoriously liberal and notoriously well-read?
quote: as a science-type person, I think it's fairly simple. The current majority of academics are liberals. And like dissolves like.
Do you really think it's that simple. I think it's like saying that ecologists happen to be bike riders, when compared to the average American.
I submit that if all liberal professors and conservative business awoke with switched positions, a generation later, liberals would still find their way into academia and conservatives, business, that is, of course, once the economy and educational structure collapsed from the sudden swap.
Personally, I don't think that there is a conservative bias on behalf of the businessmen. I just think that ones vocation speaks to their priorities and commitments. I'd only make a marginal mid-level executive because 1) I don't get a rush out of money 2) I don't get a rush out of making people want things that they don't need 3) I think that most people have what they need if they stopped to look at what they have-- and anything else, I'd feel immoral selling at a profit-maximizing price 4) I think that private corporations, for the most part, distract from attention to the biggest problems of our age.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge vs. knowledge for the sake of commodity.
Do you think that it's a coincidence that most good American writers lean to the left? By the way, and I know this is going to get some flack, I don't think that it's a coincidence that most 21st century Christian fiction is dreck, or that the guy who just made a name for himself banning books in Alabama is a republican. Or that even the most considered and eloquent writers on the board, and yeah, I think they are Sara and TomD, would sooner hang themselves than vote for Bush and Cheney.
[ December 02, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, yes, I do. It's also part of why the proportion of female tenured professors -- a good 30+ years after my mom was among the first female graduate math students at Princeton -- is so low.
Change is slow. Change in academia is glacial. So much for not being conservative. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
How do you account for the arts? I'm sure we could take a look back through the pulitzers and the nobel literature prizes and I'd be surprised to find out if it were even close to 2 to 1, liberal to conservatives.
There is something for the questioning, the concerning, the considering, the thoughtful attention to people, especially in institutions bereft of pure faith, that's going to draw liberals. I bet you that there is a 2 to 1 advantage in funny comics, also.
[ December 02, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
*Donns the Kevlar/Mylar fireproof suit and sunglasses* *breaks the box labeld "in case of fire..."* *from it, I remove marshmellows and a long stick*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The funny thing is that lifestyle-wise Tom D is far more conservative than I am.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think Al Franken is probably a better candidate for the liberal flagbearer"
Mind if I nominate John Stewart instead? In my experience, he speaks for more of the self-declared liberals I know than Franken does.
-------
*laughs with Anna* Oh, I know. I keep telling people that I'm a moderate, and they never believe me. It's because I'm an agnostic who powerfully dislikes and distrusts the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party; somehow, they confuse this with my positions on social and economic policy.
That said, I think conservatives here are offended by the generalizations that knowledge for its own sake, particularly coupled with self-sacrifice for the good of the community, stands as a primarily "liberal" value. And to some extent they're right to be offended by this; I know many caring, giving, intellectually curious conservatives. But in the same way that it's not entirely unfair to say that liberals are a bunch of godless communists, even if it's a gross distortion that's not backed up by data, it's not entirely unfair to say that the typical conservative is less likely to be interested in a life of service and pure research, particularly in the soft sciences and/or humanities.
Now, it's not necessarily constructive to make this generalization, any more than it is to indulge any other stereotype. But if you are, as this author is, attempting to rebut a similar generalization -- that educational facilities are little liberal factories, or that the media is some monolithically liberal conspiracy -- by pointing out that the careers in question are likely to attract people who are drawn to traditionally (and stereotypically) liberal values, I think there's some reason to make the argument.
Unfortunately, what the author here misses is that the conservatives making the complaint about the Ivory Tower or the Liberal Media in the first place don't really care why either organization is the way it is; to indulge in stereotype again for a moment, that kind of examination of a root cause is a classically liberal value, and not one that most pundits really want to indulge. What they want, when making these points, is to successfully marginalize both the media and the "educated elite" in popular discourse; if people are taught to distrust the educated, to distrust the primary sources of information, it's possible to do a complete end-run around that system.
But the problem is that it's not just the pundits making this kind of scummy power play; there's legitimate room for complaint. Because liberal thought too often calcifies into a kind of neo-inclusionary, victim-oriented orthodoxy, and conservatives are marginalized or driven underground in some of these institutions in exactly the same way pundits seek to drive "intellectuals" underground in popular consciousness. As the author points out, this is regrettable -- but I think the author doesn't place enough emphasis on the depth of this problem, as it's my opinion that this kind of oppression, however meaningless it is outside the halls of academia, winds up simmering within those incestuous, semi-Beltline institutions until it produces people like Ann Coulter and David Brock and others who've admitted that their own primary motivation in penning polemics is to tear down the orthodoxy that they felt smothered them during their formative college years.
[ December 02, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The funny thing is that lifestyle-wise Tom D is far more conservative than I am.
I don't know about Tom, but I don't drink or smoke and I never have, and I'm betting that The Rabbit isn't a hellcat, either. Being liberal doesn't mean that you partake in all of the things that you see in movies or read in books, it may mean that you just don't want those books censored.
[ December 02, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm trying to figure out what I'm arguing here. I think my thesis is that while I mostly agree that conservative and liberal inclinations do have an outcome as to whether a person ends up in academia (and or traditionally liberal or conseravative fields)it has a lot more to do with personal lifestyle choices and personal conservative vs. liberal lifestyles, rather than political affiliations whatsoever.
For example Of COURSE an engineer that is a university professor is going to have a more personally liberal lifestyle choice than one who goes into industry. For one thing they are going to be a heck of a lot poorer for a lot longer. The personally conservative approach is to ensure financial security and stability among other things
However, when you take that same engineering professor and compare them to a liberal arts department in university setting you will probably find them to have vastly more conservative lifestyles than the liberal arts types. Even including even your gay computer science prof whou will be living a generally staid life compared to the Gay liberal arts prof.
AJ
[ December 02, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1) I don't get a rush out of money 2) I don't get a rush out of making people want things that they don't need 3) I think that most people have what they need if they stopped to look at what they have-- and anything else, I'd feel immoral selling at a profit-maximizing price 4) I think that private corporations, for the most part, distract from attention to the biggest problems of our age.
Well, as someone who was a high level executive, I can tell you that the first two are detriments to being a good businessman, the third is not a necessity, and private corporations provide most of the services people in this country depend on every single day of their lives.
quote:Being liberal doesn't mean that you partake in all of the things that you see in movies or read in books, it may mean that you just don't want those books censored.
I've encountered in my life at least as much liberal-advocated censorship as I have conservative. And I grew up in Virginia Beach, home of Pat Robertson.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:private corporations provide most of the services people in this country depend on every single day of their lives.
Yeah, then the problem I have is with advertising. I like the private sector, and it's not just that I suffer the private sector, I actually like that we have a vibrant private sector.
I just wish that more good businesses, like In and Out, got the recognition they deserved.
[ December 02, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In and Out Burgers? Or is there another In and Out I haven't heard of?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In and Out Burger: The company that puts Bible Verses on their soft drink cups.
AJ (this isn't to say that they don't make kick a$$ burgers that I miss horribly here in Chicago.)
[ December 02, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yep, In and Out Burgers put John 3:16 on their cups and treat their workers like princes and princesses. We wouldn't even need minimum wages laws if companies behaved with their sense of duty.
[ December 03, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's part of the problem, Irami: by law, a publicly-held company's only actual duty is to maximize profits for its shareholders.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I love their burgers. It's a necessary stop whenever I'm in San Diego or Las Vegas. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here's part of the problem, Irami: by law, a publicly-held company's only actual duty is to maximize profits for its shareholders.
Flat out not true. I just got to that part of my Corporations outline.
Even if it were, there's a serious business case to be made for keeping employees very happy, acting responsibly toward te community, and concentrating on long-term growth and profit.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think In N Out is publicly held.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Even if it were, there's a serious business case to be made for keeping employees very happy, acting responsibly toward te community, and concentrating on long-term growth and profit.
The problem is that's it's derivative, there is a prior, more amoral goal.
I'm not advocating a moral clause to be introduced into business law, I would submit that while education is essential moral, business is only derivatively so.
Actually, the problem with NCLB is that it is trying to make education beholden to an amoral test.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, it wouldn't matter if it were publicly held - fiduciary duty is much the same, assuming there are any minority shareholders.
The big difference comes in the applicability of securities regulations, mandatory disclosures, etc.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I'm finally calm and collected enough to rebut Rabbits point that really really ticked me off:
quote: This is despite the fact that I have never seen an accusation that there is any type of political screening in highering engineering professors. I have served on numerous hiring commitees and have never seen any evidence of any political bias in highering science or engineering professors or in recruiting graduate students for science and engineering programs.
Utter baloney. I would rather have a competent male professor any day over the several incompetent female PhD's that were unfortunately hired as proffessors where I went to college. Why were they hired? Cause they were female. If that isn't politics, what is? A female graduate engineering student is either a commodity for a department trying not to look bad, or a hinderance by those people who were unfortunately exposed to an incompetent female in the field. I think both competency and incompetency in engineering is equally distributed across the genders. However because women are in the severe minority, the incompetent ones are more glaringly obvious and do a severe disservice to us all.
Of course the joke in industry is that the incompetent engineers are the ones that end up in academia, and too often there is a ring of truth to that too.
AJ
[ December 02, 2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
TomD: actually, I'd say most of the (relatively easily fixable) problems in the corporate world today are because people (particularly those in corporations) think that is true when it most definitely isn't.
There is a good trend in modern business-speak wrt "stakeholders" (all those with an interest in the business; employees, customers, stockholders, et cetera), but the exact results of it are still quite unclear.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
One of my female faculty made an interesting point once. She said that you'd know there was an equal ratio of men to women in the field when women could be incompetent and no one would really care. She was right too. I have had tons of totally incompetent male faculty. But no one seemed to notice. Or if they did, it was just another dumb prof. But when I've had really incompetent female faculty everyone assumes she's hired b/c she's a woman. And while this might be true one wonders why the incompetent males are hired.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A few people have said that philsoophy departments lean to the left. They are quiet about it because, well, a whole lot of them are above the fray. It's not by coincidence.
When everything is at stake, everything at stake, it doesn't look so good when it comes back. It's like putting everything that is important to you through a game of telephone.
It's the uni in the [/i]Uni[/i]versity, and the Ph in PhD. Being conservative, by definition, means setting a default metaphysical understanding equal to carrying traditions with you without examination. They are putting more at stake, by definition.
This doesn't mean that conservatives will not survive or thrive in graduate school, but they have to put more at stake in graduate school than in business with none of the material rewards.
Graduate school can't be amoral. It's impossible. It can be, but then, what are you doing? And it can't be unconsidered, because then it's not philosophy.
I'd get kicked out of the military and the office suite for asking the same questions, "What sense does this make?" It's kind of like Jon Stewart breaking the rules on Crossfire. It's what you are supposed to do. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble.
[ December 03, 2004, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Better go to bed then. The morning is wiser than the evening.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Being conservative, by definition, means setting a default metaphysical understanding equal to carrying traditions with you without examination.
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Reasoned theoretical argument supports liberal positions in an immediate way far more often than conservative positions. The whole idea of liberalism is the idea of using reasoning to determine better theoretical paths to take. Since graduate programs teach you to base beliefs on reasoned theoretical argument, it should be no surprise that people in academia are often liberal.
Previous practical experience supports conservative positions in an immediate way much more than liberal positions. That's just what conservativism is all about - tradition, experience, and practicality. In the business world, it is your experience that gets you places, and thus it should be no surprise that people there think in a conservative fashion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Except that those uses of the words "liberalism" and "conservative" do NOT reflect the way they're used in a political sense. And the political sense is what's at issue here.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Politically they don't always follow that rule, but they still TEND to follow that rule. The Republican platform is based on experience/tradition much moreso than the Democratic platform, which is based much more on reasoned-based theory, even though both go both ways on many occassions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh please. Talk about convenient and politically-loaded definitions.
You could say that the Republicans' platform is based on what works, and that the Democrats' platform is based on what would be nice if it worked.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, no - that would imply conservative ideas are always right and liberal ideas are always wrong, which is wrong.
It'd be more accurate to say conservative ideas tend to be what has worked and liberal ideas tend to be what we think might work better. That may be loaded, but which side it is loaded in favor of will change depending on what you think is more important.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Democratic platform, which is based much more on reasoned-based theory, even though both go both ways on many occassions.
I echo the "oh, please." Nicely put, Kat.
Just because the reasoned-based theories of Republicans happen to agree with some experience/tradition doesn't mean they're not reason-based.
What's with this thread? Does it have the "make up crap about people you don't agree with" flag set?
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Catholics eat their babies.
That's why Mormons get along with them swimmingly .
[ December 03, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I agree with conservatives a lot. However, conservative views ARE less theoretically-based - that's just the way it is.
In fact, if it were otherwise, we'd have good reason to reject conservative views fairly quickly, because academia really are the masters of reasoned argument and theory. If conservative ideas were based largely on reasoned theory, and academia soundly rejected those theories as poor reasoning, conservatives wouldn't really have much of a case. It is because conservativism can turn to experience and tradition that they have good reason to reject academia's opinion, because academia is weak in those areas.
[ December 03, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:academia really are the masters as reasoned argument and theory.
Are you and Rabbit in this thread supposed to be examples of that?
It's easy to consider yourself the master of reason if you ignore everything that's wrong with your argument.
<from the other thread>
Maybe that's why there are so many liberals in academia? Because academia is about providing thoughts for other people to take action. Research for someone else to use, theory for other people to think about, teaching so that the people actually act have the background to do so wisely. There is definitely value in that, but it's a dependent position. Perhaps those who feel the need to act do not see academia as a way to do that.
[ December 03, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, conservative views ARE less theoretically-based - that's just the way it is.
No, it's not the way it is. Locke was pretty theory-based; Burke was pretty theory-based; Buckley certainly is theory-based; Will is theory-based.
You are so far off base on this one.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Those are philosophers and academics... of course they are more theoretically based. There are people of this sort for any belief system, even fundamentalist religions who hold tradition above everything.
I'm talking about political conservativism as a whole - what your average conservative believes or what the party platform is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And you're still flat out wrong.
Beyond your bald assertion, where's your proof?
What's your theory behind it?
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It's not theory - it's experience.... Just listen to what conservatives and liberals say. Conservatives will talk about losing family values, the government becomming too large, the proven need for a stronger military, the failure of gun control, the dissolution of character... all of these are based most prominently on experience-based and tradition-based arguments. Liberals talk about the need for the government to do more, becoming a more tolerant society, how it would be better to have fewer guns on the street, the need to help the downtrodden more, building a more civil foreign policy, loosening morality codes... all of these are based most prominently on theoretical ideas about what we can change to become better in a way we've never been before.
Or, just look at which institutions align with which sides. Religious groups, traditional and established industries, the military, even the boy scouts... all areas in which tradition and experienced are valued most highly, and all lean conservative. Then you have academia, the media, artistic institutions, "new" industries (dotcoms, for instance)... institutions that highly value ideas and reason. It is not just accidental that they align this way.
Now, if you are saying I'm flat out wrong.... where is your evidence?
[ December 03, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I must say, Xap is particularly full of it in this thread.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Maybe it's just that Vermont politics are crazy (and they are), but I just don't see that in local conservative and liberal representitives.
There are liberals who want to initiate a single-payer health care system in Vermont, but they turn around and say they want to block sustainable power like Biomass and wind.
Similarly, there are conservatives (like the Vermont-flavored Howard, before he got hit with gamma rays and became the raving Hulk you see today) who pushed for stronger environment impact studies before construction.
I'm not sure I buy your theory, because I see too many exceptions to it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Conservatives will talk about losing family values,
Based on the theory that family values are good.
quote:the government becomming too large,
Based on the theory that the government should perform limited functions.
quote:the proven need for a stronger military,
First, conservatives are NOT united on the need for a stronger military.
quote:the failure of gun control,
This is the clearest argument against what you're saying - the reason for opposing gun control is almost entirely theoretical - that personal autonomy supports personal ownership of arms.
The arguments about whether gun control works are responses to gun control advocates claims.
quote: The argument points to a certain truth about President Bush's free-market economic policies that Bush supporters say is unappreciated: In crafting a broad agenda for his second term, Bush is trying to adhere strictly to economic theory, perhaps even more so than during the Reagan administration's early battles over deregulation and taxes.
In a speech yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute, N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, spoke repeatedly of "standard economic theory," "textbook economic theory" and "scholarly literature in economics" to bolster his arguments.
Indeed, theories on economic efficiency, savings incentives and government debt finance -- arcane in the nation's capital if not in the academy -- will likely dominate debate over the president's push to revamp Social Security and the tax code in the coming years. It will pit Bush's philosophy that taxation and government spending distort economic decision-making and impede growth against arguments that government should steer some decisions for the broader good.
"I can say without equivocation: This president has been pretty heavily influenced by economic theory," said R. Glenn Hubbard, who was Bush's first Council of Economic Advisers chairman.
Critics say the White House's theoretical arguments may fly in the face of empirical evidence. They argue that health care, for instance, is fundamentally different from auto care: If insurance does not motivate to get routine checkups, the ultimate cost to the health care system of treating late-stage cancer is far higher then replacing a transmission. And while the business deduction for health insurance costs may violate some standard textbook tenets, said Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago, consider the alternatives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Religious groups, traditional and established industries, the military, even the boy scouts... all areas in which tradition and experienced are valued most highly, and all lean conservative. Then you have academia, the media, artistic institutions, "new" industries (dotcoms, for instance)... institutions that highly value ideas and reason.
Do you even believe this baloney? You're saying that academic institutions don't value tradition, and that industries don't value ideas?
Have you ever been to either a college or a factory? They LIVE off of those things. The patent office wasn't created for philosophers, and there's a reason the joke about the Great Bench at Yale went over so well on Gilmore Girls.
[ December 03, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay, you can technically call anything theoretical I suppose. But the idea behind each of those is still primarily to protect something we've learned to be true over our history. The arguments against gun control stem from the TRADITION of gun ownership in this society, and from arguments that in practice people need guns. The arguments for it are that we can have a happier, safer society if there are no guns - something built on many more hypotheticals, because we cannot point to any experiences or tradition that makes this true, and rely on our intuition that it should be that way. The others fall along the same lines... Conservatives typically argue that character is something that was once valued, and that losing it it causing us problems - a tradition-based argument. Family values are along the same lines. The argument for small government comes from our experience and tradition with a small government in the past, suggesting that it worked then and will become worse as we add more.
quote:I must say, Xap is particularly full of it in this thread.
Fugu, why must you say it? Is it intended to add anything to the discussion other than a unsupported attack on me?
If you have a reason why I'm wrong, then you can explain, but just calling a person wrong or "full of it" on Hatrack illustrates nothing.
quote:You're saying that academic institutions don't value tradition, and that industries don't value ideas?
No, I'm saying academic institutions value ideas more than tradition, and that traditional industries value experience more than ideas.
[ December 03, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I would just like to point out that baloney was originally spelled 'bologna.'
Proving that kat is no more a conservative than I am an emu.
SQUAWK!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, this is more of the same - Xap telling other people what they really think and why.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, part of the problem is that Mankiw wrote most of those textbooks. Seriously, tak a look at all the economic textbooks he's authored. Unsurprisingly positions he advocates agree with . . . other positions he advocates.
However, Bush's economics have most certainly not been textbook, in the sense of agreeing with the general economic community consensus. In textbook economics, tax cuts are not pushed in identical ways (if they're pushed at all) under both good times and bad. In textbook economics, there are no trade barriers. In textbook economics, an entity tries to regulate how much it spends by how much it takes in, instead of not vetoing a single pork bill (or any bill, for that matter). In textbook economics, we pay attention to the value of the dollar instead of watching it plummet and commenting on the pretty colors.
In particular, I'm mystified at where the "government spending distort[s] economic decision-making and impede[s] growth" part comes into Bush's philosophy, as I've certainly seen no evidence of it. I mean, the man has not vetoed one single bill, and there have been bills stuffed to their gills with extraneous government spending and no other substantial effect!
While a lot of economists didn't like Kerry's plans, huge numbers of economists hate Bush's policies too: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277 There's ten Nobel prize winning economists, for instance, whose basic position boils down to "Bush's economics suck so bad, that even were Kerry a mediocre to bad president by the standards of the last century or so, his economic policies would be better" (my summary, but I think you'll find it born out).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, other people are doing plenty to dissect your idiocy, Tres, I was just letting them know my support for that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bologna is the food. Baloney is the argument.
quote:Main Entry: 2baloney Function: noun Etymology: bologna : pretentious nonsense : BUNKUM -- often used as a generalized expression of disagreement
[ December 03, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Being based on theory doesn't require that it be based on accepted theory.
Or even good theory, although I don't feel like arguing that. My point is that theory is used as the basis for as many conservative policy preferences as liberal.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Is firmly cheering Dagonee, kat and fugu on, on this one.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(my comment on Bush's economics is a side note in this discussion; however, while whether Bush's tax reform plans are based on theory remains to be seen, his tax cuts were not: he was for them no matter what the situation, he provided no economic justification for them beyond what boiled down to "more tax cuts equals more money for people equals a better economy", which is hardly particularly steeped in theory, and evidenced by the fact that the budget office that made projections based for his budgets was consistently even further off (making things project far rosier than they actually turned out) than the congressional budget offices, which had changed their economic models when they stopped working, which the bush controlled estimates failed to do despite demonstrable problems -- actually, I suppose that could be considered relying on bad theory . . .)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Fugu, you did it again now. You know name calling is bad form here. (Certain individuals who I disagree with on the matter would call it trolling. ) If that's all the "support" you have to offer, don't offer it.
...
I'm curious... why are all the complaints about my suggestions on conservativism? Lots of people think conservativism is just as theory-based as libralism, but nobody is trying to argue that liberalism is just as grounded in experience and practicality as conservativism?
[ December 03, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know I liked tresopax, but over the last few weeks xaposert has destroyed a lot of the respect I ever had for tres. It's only been recently too. I wonder why.
AJ
I guess it is because you aren't actually *listening* to what people are saying anymore Tress. You have been telling them what they think even when they say they don't think that, repeatedly and often in the last month. Who are you to say what they think, or to judge? And your logic has been getting worse and worse and the errors have been more and more egregious. Why? You are better than this. Look at your own landmark.
AJ
[ December 03, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm curious... why are all the complaints about my suggestions on conservativism?
Because I don't presume to speak for others.
Plus, it wasn't a suggestion.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres, its only trolling if its not true, or only done to provoke a (positive, as in more posting, reaction). I'm smart enough to know you'll continue spouting idiocy no matter what I say, so I'm certainly not doing it just to promote a reaction. And its definitely true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Awww, c'mon Dag, you've got some "liberal" positions . Actually, I tend to reject the idea that conservatism and liberalism are philosophically separate. I rather think that much of traditional liberalism and traditional conservatism are the results of ultimately similar philosophies upon wildly different premises. But that's just an idle thought.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have to say personally, that while I have no idea whatsoever as to the facts. The radical marked decrease in xaps's posting quality and logic over the last month honestly makes me worried and concerned for the actual person behind the posts and wonder whether there is actually something stressful or troubling going on in his real life.
AJ
[ December 03, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since I feel like, to further my idle thought:
The currently somewhat en vogue idea is that liberalism and conservatism are two sides of some sort of spectrum, or possibly separate ideals depending upon which sphere one talks about (social or economic), but in those spheres two sides.
This, while it applies well to many peoples' primitive positions, does not apply easily to millions and millions of people who have thoughtful, nuanced positions which take positions that draw on those commonly held by both positions without drawing exclusively from one or the other.
My suggestion deals better with those cases.
Instead, position can then come to be explained by what premises people choose to accept, and the criteria they use to evaluate those, which while they may commonly cause the results of those premises to line up somewhat with what we call liberalism and conservatism, are not along any sort of spectrum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Catholics eat their babies.
That's why Mormons get along with them swimmingly .
Is that why I've always enjoyed Dagonee's posts? I knew there was a reason. And as I've learned here, there's no way it can be because of reasoned arguments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Awww, c'mon Dag, you've got some "liberal" positions.
True. While I think calling me conservative is probably incomplete, if not wrong, a colorable case can be made.
There is no case that can be made that I'm a liberal. Even my justifications for my "liberal" positions are based on premises that would be roundly rejected by most liberals.
quote:Actually, I tend to reject the idea that conservatism and liberalism are philosophically separate. I rather think that much of traditional liberalism and traditional conservatism are the results of ultimately similar philosophies upon wildly different premises. But that's just an idle thought.
I think the labels are at best misleading. But as used in this thread, they have some meaning, and there are likely no better labels available.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
fugu, as far as position based on premise, I can definitely say the same thing holds true in Christian theology. Though I'm not as fluent in the more "liberal" christian denominations (and I'm now finding I like their theology much better) if you tell me the premises you are coming from I can probably tell you what denomination your theology concides with or has similarities to. (This is particularly fun for the conservative "independent" Christians who don't wish to be affiliated with a denomination.)
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm upset because you're invoking the "The differences between white people and black people" comedy bit but you're not being funny. It could be like "See, conservatives drive like this: 'I'm the King of the Road! My reconverted Abrahms tank SUV makes me the Lord of Creation! Y'all better bow down before me, you puny...oh crap, I need to stop for gas again, probably because of something Clinton did. I'm going to go look for something to shoot while the tank fills up.' but liberals drive like this: 'Tee-da-lee-da-lee. My car powered by the sun, wind, and my own smug self-righteousness makes me a better preson than you. Oh crap, it's starting to cloud up. Save me oh mighty meaningless series of coincidences.'" That's not all that funny really (you need to voices for it to work), but it's much funnier than what you've been doing and about as accurate.
If you sift through all the irresponsible partisan crap (like that execrable Standford study), there is actually some reliable information about trait differences between people who self-identify as liberal or conservative. One of the biggest things you might notice in these things is that they speak of tendencies towards certain traits, not of a definite characterology. In most cases, these tendencies aren't all that profound either. Of course, it's much easier and apparently useful to just come up with how you want to see the other side and present that as fact. That's why prejudice has stuck with us for so long.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: When everything is at stake, everything at stake, it doesn't look so good when it comes back. It's like putting everything that is important to you through a game of telephone.
I agree completely. Especially in a degree that does this kind of thing: English, History, Philosophy.
Students who have violent aversions to the Bible, for instance, discover that in order to properly discuss literature they have to internalize those ideas at least for the time while they read the book.
Students who are very religious have the same problem with the same book. All of a sudden, things are showing up that they never realised existsed and their belief system is being challenged.
By nature, a University presents you with a multitude of ideas at once and once you've entered nothing is going to be quite the same; usually you end up more moderate, but not necessarily. I think that because University professors have gone through this process for not only four or six years but seven or eight or more they tend to be more moderate.
To the conservative eye, this looks like liberalism. To the liberal, it looks like the beliefs of a moderate.
Does that make sense?
[ December 03, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I don't dispute they have use in the general conversation, I'm just meandering off on a side track, in the hope that something interesting will come of this thread instead of just people (justifiably) smacking down Tres.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought my emu comment was interesting. . .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It rocked my world, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:makes gun with thumb and forefinger, points it at fugu, winks, clicks tongue:
Knew it would. Knew it would.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
*shivers* Creepy. Very creepy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm curious. Is this actually such a big issue? The only time I came in contact with political ideology in a college classroom was when an idiot student tried to use it in place of learning the material. Was this just a function of my college and/or majors? Did/do other people run into this on a regular basis?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, it was a very large issue in my English literature and history departments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Huge issue. Freshman Comp (which I placed out of, so this is reliable second hand from many people) had serious issues with TAs grading down based on political views.
Some of it included comments (you can't make a civil rights case for restricting abortion), some were more subtle, but it was real.
I saw it in poly sci often, although maybe it's more reasonable to see there. I saw it in all 3 english lit classes I took, to a large, constant degree. My impression was that outspoken liberalism was the accepted norm in the department.
In my math classes, not so much.
Dagonee
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I'm actually with Squicky. The student body here is very liberal, but I haven't encountered any professors who were liberal, except in passing. The furthest extent of which was my Tolkien-scholar professor wore a pin saying, "Send Bush back to Mordor" which I got a kick out of.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I guess it is because you aren't actually *listening* to what people are saying anymore Tress. You have been telling them what they think even when they say they don't think that, repeatedly and often in the last month. Who are you to say what they think, or to judge? And your logic has been getting worse and worse and the errors have been more and more egregious. Why?
On a matter of posting style, I tend to like to interrelate different issues I'm talking about. I generally think all the different things we talk about here (or anywhere) are connected with common ideas, and more often than not the most critical things being discussed are not the issues being discussed directly in front of us, but the ideas lying behind them that stretch across topics. Truthfully, I don't think us learning something about the definition of conservative (or anything like that) is going to change lives all that much. However, other matters that may be underlying the debate over those issues, like the meaning of troll (and, in conjunction with that, what it means to be a bad person) are much more relevant to real lives and our discussions here. That is just an explanation of how I like to post here.
If you are unhappy with what I've been saying recently, I'd speculate that it might be certain underlying ideas that I've been repeatedly bringing up recently that you disagree with. One of these is the issue of self-understanding: whether or not you understand yourself and your beliefs. The other is (and this is one I like to talk about all the time) the right way to go about discussing contentious and important issues like politics and religion, etc.
One point I have been making in a few threads is one that I think is important: That people do not necessarily completely understand what it is they believe, what motivates their own beliefs, and what their beliefs imply. For instance, when I used to like moral relativism and heavy tolerance a lot, I didn't realize many of the implications I was making. I didn't see that my belief also entailed the uselessness of moral debate, which my belief did in fact directly entail (and was framing my way of thinking, unwittingly), but I did not realize until later. I've done the same thing many many times, and I think everyone does.
More contraversially, I think it is important that we are willing to discuss that possibility in discussions like this - which entails potentially telling people they don't understand their own beliefs completely. It would be much nicer and more polite to not do this, to assume everyone knows exactly what they believe, but I think that not only becomes dishonest and disrespectful (because people are probably still thinking it even if not saying it), but it also seriously blocks the discussion. In the case of an earlier abortion thread, I argued that some people did not understand what they meant by pro-life, for instance. In that case, I thought my point was right and they thought theirs was right, and I concluded that (in my view) their own understanding about their own beliefs differed from mine in a way that would block any ultimate agreement or understanding between us. In short, I concluded that we could not agree until one of us understood our own beliefs in a different fashion. And the only way to try to go about doing that (continuing the discussion) is by both of us trying to point out what the mistake was in what the other person thought about their own belief system.
This has come up in a few threads, and on each occassion I have thought the heart of the disagreement was not over the facts, but over the way our own understandings of what we believe created two different conflicting views. The only way I know of to bridge that gap (without resorting to rhetorical tricks) is by directly confronting it and stating that I think what the other person has misunderstood their own beliefs and concepts. Otherwise there is a brick wall that will not fall no matter how badly we bang our heads against it. If you think by pro-life you mean one thing, and I think you mean something else, we won't be able to agree about pro-life questions.
So, is it more important to be very polite or more important to get to the heart of the matter? I know many people (perhaps you) will say the former. However, I have to say that I'm a bit harsh in that I think that we have to be willing to be direct to get somewhere in these discussion (at least here, and in other situations where truthfulness is a shared goal.) To me, that is what respectfulness is all about - not about hiding certain things I think you are wrong about in order to avoid offending you. I don't like to do it more attackingly than necessary, and I like to make sure I give the reason why I feel the way I do (because if I can't figure out my reason, I'm probably wrong), but I think I'm disrespecting you and the discussion if I just end it without probing further. Many people do consider this insulting, as if by questioning their understanding of their own ideas, I am calling them stupider than myself. My point is that this is not how it should be interpretted - that it is JUST as possible that my understanding is way off. If you say Christianity doesn't understand it's own beliefs, I should NOT be offended as a Christian, because if you believe that it is probably helpful for both of us if we discuss it. And it doesn't mean that you'd be considering me a moron or a fool or inferior. My beliefs about my beliefs are a valid thing for you to try to refute, and so are your beliefs about your beliefs.
We should both be keeping in mind that those refutations are simply opinions themselves, and in fact it is YOU who are the ultimate judge of what is correct for you, and I am the ultimate judge of what is correct about me, despite what you or I may try to propose about one another.
This is a weird and complicated point, I guess, but it's one I've been attempting to illustrate in a couple of threads. This is not one of them, however - I'm not really telling anyone anything about what I think they believe here, or anything like that. That someone suggested that is probably just because of points I've made elsewhere, because it's not my intention.
I'm actually curious as to why people dislike my distinction so much, at least as far as the conservatives go. I thought it really was just a pretty standard way of talking about how conservatives and liberals go about arguing things differently. In fact, I think it probably says the same sort of things in my high school government textbook.
Believe me, though, I am listening, and just because I suggest you don't understand something doesn't mean I don't think it might be myself who is confused.
Edit: Almost forgot... Fugu -
[ December 03, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you think by pro-life you mean one thing, and I think you mean something else, we won't be able to agree about pro-life questions.
Hubris. Pure and simple. It's one thing to mean something different by "pro-life" than someone else; it's another to insist, in the face of repeated denials and explanations, that the other person doesn't mean what they say they mean. A profitable discussion of the issues that surround the term "pro-life" are easily possible without your blind insistence that people don't mean what they say they mean.
Your failure to respect the existence of the opinions of others is apalling.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay, I sense I may have just caused a tangent but...
quote:Your failure to respect the existence of the opinions of others is apalling.
This is exactly what (in my lengthy and I suspect confusing post above) I was trying to refute: The idea that you disrespect an opinion by disagreeing with it. I think the only way to really respect an opinion is by airing your disagreements with it, and giving it the chance to answer them, rather than giving up on it without giving it the chance to respond to what you think is wrong.
I will never be offended if you call me wrong. However, I would feel disrespected if you gave up on the possibility that I could understand what you see wrong in my beliefs, and left rather than explain.
[ December 03, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're not disagreeing with the substance of the opinion - which I explicitly stated was fine and agree is a form of respect.
You're disagreeing with the existence of that opinion - "You don't really mean that."
It's condescending and disrespectful.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The meaning of the opinion, not the existence of the opinion. The meaning of it is part of the substance - often the part that is most central to a disagreement.
I actually took a whole course in college (Episdemology) that was pretty much completely about a bunch of folks who were disagreeing on what we all meant when we talked about "knowledge" - each saying the others didn't mean what they thought they meant by it. It was an interesting course, and actually the topic is pretty important for a number of other issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The meaning of the opinion is the opinion.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"What Xap's Opinion Means to You," by Scott R.
quote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being conservative, by definition, means setting a default metaphysical understanding equal to carrying traditions with you without examination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't
Looking back to the past for answers concerning the future, as opposed to looking at the matter and thinking, "What sense does this make."
For the record, I disagree with too a lot of what tres says and I'm sure that the Rabbit disagrees with a lot of what I say.
_________________
quote:The meaning of the opinion is the opinion.
That's true. It also explains why opinions are nearly worthless. Meaning is from the german root mein, which most people know has the sense of my.
Opinions are, usually, just someone mying everything, imposing on the thing that which doesn't belong. This imposition often precludes paying attention to the thing as it reveals itself. I imagine this is why so many blogs are crap.
[ December 03, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What is the rubric by which you judge what makes sense?
I don't get the disdain for experience here. That's the entire point of the scientific method - to actually test the theories and go with the one that can't be disproven.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmmm, thank you for clarifying Tres. I need to muse a bit more on what you said. The one point I do want to currently address is this:
quote: This is a weird and complicated point, I guess, but it's one I've been attempting to illustrate in a couple of threads. This is not one of them, however - I'm not really telling anyone anything about what I think they believe here, or anything like that. That someone suggested that is probably just because of points I've made elsewhere, because it's not my intention.
I would say you most definitely *have* told people what you think they believe in this thread and if it *isn't* your intention, you truly need to rethink your delivery because it is turning the thinking people of hatrack off, because that is what they think you are saying in plain English.
For example:
quote:Religious groups, traditional and established industries, the military, even the boy scouts... all areas in which tradition and experienced are valued most highly, and all lean conservative. Then you have academia, the media, artistic institutions, "new" industries (dotcoms, for instance)... institutions that highly value ideas and reason.
The particular part that got me, was that you actually think the media values ideas and reason in anything. However in addition you were specifically telling dkw and kat, among other people, that they are conservative when they may or may not be. You have been having a pattern of making sweeping generalizations that I can't figure out why you make, when they are so sweeping as to be useless, and also are indelicate at the least and outright offensive at the most to others on this board.
That is different than "discussion" I've had knock down drag out discussions with many people, and even in the intensity of the discussion I haven't offended them. It is possible to questions ideas and assumptions, without offending. What hurts is that you don't apparently care to take the extra time it might take to do it, even if it is part of what causes the culture of Hatrack to function smoothly. You have in the past been far more polite while still firmly defending ideas, which is why this current trend is disturbing to me.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Looking back to the past for answers concerning the future, as opposed to looking at the matter and thinking, "What sense does this make."
The contention that conservatives don't look at a matter and think "What sense does this make", to whatever extent is implied by "as opposed to," is at the heart of my objection to your generalizations.
The use of traditions of the past as one factor to inform the sense does not mean the questioning does not happen.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The meaning of the opinion is the opinion.
Well, yes and no. Here's another example:
I believe God is good. I used to think by this I meant that God determines what is good, by definition. But then I realized, that if this were true, then what I'd really be saying is something kind of trivial like "God is God". So, now I don't think I really meant that God determines what is good, although I still believe God is good. I was just confused. In that case, I was wrong about what I thought my believe meant.
quote:The particular part that got me, was that you actually think the media values ideas and reason in anything. However in addition you were specifically telling dkw and kat, among other people, that they are conservative when they may or may not be. You have been having a pattern of making sweeping generalizations that I can't figure out why you make, when they are so sweeping as to be useless, and also are indelicate at the least and outright offensive at the most to others on this board.
That's why I used words like "some" or "lean" or "often". These are suggestions about how I usually tend to see a group act, although it may not hold true for any given member. I don't think this is unfair.
I also didn't think those leaning were all that contraversial. In fact, I remember on one of my college government exams I had a question that read something to the extent of "Does the media lean liberal or conservative?" (multiple choice)
[ December 03, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What is the rubric by which you judge what makes sense?
What the thing is that you are dealing with. The scientific method is good for science, but it is essentially concerned with effects of the thing, not with the thing in itself.
You don't figure out what a marriage is by testing it-- though maybe the high divorce rate tells us that we may have forgotten that-- you figure it out by thinking on it.
I know it's a cheap, but Jon Stewart on Crossfire was a perfect example. He went on the show and asked them, "What are you doing here? Are you sure it is what you think it is? And how is this appropriate to the task?" and it was great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Stewart didn't go far enough in creating. He questioned the current system, but he didn't create a new one. He had the idea for a better system, but he didn't make one.
Having ideas and never acting on them doesn't create a better world. Like the conflict between Adams and LeVerrier - who discovered Neptune? Both figured that Uranus' orbit could be explained by another planet, but LeVerrier actually had someone go and look through a telescope to where the planet should be. Until they saw it, it was a theory. Half of being a discoverer was the theory - figuring out it must be there. But if that theory languishes in notes that no one reads, it may as well not have happened. LeVerrier discovered Neptune because he got off the chair and put an eye to the telescope. He acted.
It's like the theory of being a hero. To be a hero, you actually have to do something. It's not enough to understand what it means to be a hero, just like it's not enough to understand what a good marriage should be. You have to actually do it.
[ December 03, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:I believe God is good. I used to think by this I meant that God determines what is good, by definition. But then I realized, that if this were true, then what I'd really be saying is something kind of trivial like "God is God". So, now I don't think I really meant that God determines what is good, although I still believe God is good. I was just confused. In that case, I was wrong about what I thought my believe meant.
What changed here is interesting. It was your definintion of God not your definition of good.
But, that's really a tangent. I guess what I'm saying after reading your lengthy explanation is that I understand what you are trying to do. And I don't object to you doing it. But as of now, you aren't very good at it, and your delivery probably needs some work cause rather than causing people to question themselves, they are questioning how much of an idiot you are and whether personal problems in your own life have possibly caused you to become vitrolic.
I also think you are addressing the wrong audience. Most people don't stay at hatrack unless they *do* have the ability to question their own ideas. Yeah we all get stuck in ruts from time to time. But I think you are finding ruts where none exist.
AJ
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I think it's been well established on Hatrack that I'm not too often successful in convincing people.
Although, I've never been able to figure out if this is because (a)I'm wrong, (b)I'm not good at it, or (c)I shouldn't expect to be able to, even if I were right and good at it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Mmmmmm that is a tasty burger.
Mind if I have some of your tasty beverage to wash this down with?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Jon Stewart didn't go far enough in creating. He questioned the current system, but he didn't create a new one. He had the idea for a better system, but he didn't make one.
He turned people to the question, and that's the work. There are 300 channels, do you think the answer is to make a new one?
quote:To be a hero, you actually have to do something. It's not enough to understand what it means to be a hero, just like it's not enough to understand what a good marriage should be. You have to actually do it.
For the fourth time, I want to caution you from writing, "What it is to be a hero," and change it to "what it is to be," I'm making big claims and I don't need your help to push me over the edge. You don't need to understand what it is to be a hero, but you do have to understand your connectedness to the morally relevant issue. Enough on that. See, I'm one of those guys who thinks that if you have this understanding, doing it when the issue presents itself is like breathing. The only people who freak out are the ones without this understanding. The guy who is perplexed by the question of whether he should whore around on his wife is the one who doesn't understand.
[ December 10, 2004, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: See, I'm one of those guys who things that if you have this understanding, doing it when the issue presents itself is like breath.
I couldn't more firmly disagree, or have you read about the lives of soldiers in combat?
In order to *do* you have to make a pracice of *doing*. Not of *thinking*. That is why rituals are so important in religions.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*hugs* Xap. I'm sorry I probably sounded harsh, but I don't think I was the only one becoming increasingly frustrated on where you were coming from.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jo,
I've a read a lot of WWII authors. And I like ritual, that's why I like christmas and halloween, but only because they allow for an open space for people to come together to think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Time to get together and think?
Goodness.
Don't invite me to your holiday soiree, Irami-- I'm afraid I'd spoil the contemplative mood.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think thinking is what people are supposed to do when the pastor says, "Let us pray."
I don't know how much of praying should be spent asking for stuff and thanking God for the stuff that He has given. This is fine, but shouldn't there be a difference between God and Santa Claus.
_________
[ December 03, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think thinking is what people are supposed to do when the pastor says, "Let us pray."
I don't know how much of praying should be spent asking for stuff and thanking God for the stuff that He has given. This is fine, but shouldn't there be a difference between God and Santa Claus.
Hmm. You are a singularly cheerless person today, aren't you?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I can lighten it up.
This smiley rocks my world. I can't look at it without laughing, and I've been begging for an opportunity to use it.
[ December 03, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's very sexual, really.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I e-mailed an acquaintance of mine and asked what he thought of this issue. He's LDS, been teaching history at universities for ten years, and is in the field of African history. Politically, he says he's moderate, but everyone says that, right? I don't know him well enough to say otherwise. Anyway, I thought the response was interesting.
quote:You raised a question that I am not sure I can do justice to right now. I can say that university professors often think in the abstract because they are living a leisurely existence not experienced by most adult Americans. They don't always grasp the reality of ordinary people's lives, or feel estranged from every day folk with whom they share little in common. So I see it as partly a cultural rift. Some professors are highly informed and can be depended upon for solid analysis, but too often my colleagues cannot even follow basic rules of logic in their analyses of contemporary events. They have their own knee jerk responses and their own set of prejudices along with the 'red state people,' whom they regard as bumpkins.
I guess I'd call myself a moderate who is irritated by the group-thinking of my guild, and their learned distrust of the instincts of middle America. Most of what passes for discussion in the halls is just simple mockery and derision, and little else. I don't come from Texas or even identify at all with neo-conservative arrogance, but what I am seeing is a steady decline of civility in our political culture. Nietzsche lives!!
For most of the 20th century left-leaning intellectuals have had history on their side--most of the progressive agenda was gradually adopted, at least through the 1970s. I don't see a lot of new ideas these days coming from the left, except on the cultural front.
[ December 08, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You called him an acquaintance not a friend, so I feel comfortable saying that there is something strangely poser about that message.
And with respect to civility in our political culture, in the last generation, unpopular political figures were assassinated.
I don't know what he wants. I think we are a little entitled. I'm not talking about welfare or prisons, it's easy to talk tough to poor people and felons, this administration just has a soft spot for the upper class that I don't understand. I don't know if Bush is scared of us, but it's good to be wealthy with this admin, it seems as if the government works for us. Bush can talk tough to everyone in the world, but he gives us a credit card without a limit. I don't quite get it.
As to the new left, there isn't new. Good schools, fewer guns on the street, fewer people in jails, fewer people on dope. Free speech. Equal pay for equal work. I don't know how much of politics is inventing yourself. I'd rather stay with the hits.
[ December 10, 2004, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Concerning political civility, I agree that it is not getting either worse or better.
quote:You called him an acquaintance not a friend, so I feel comfortable saying that there is something strangely poser about that message.
I'm puzzled by what you mean by poser. What do you think he is posing as that he is not in actuality?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is something of an aloof posturing in his talk about, strangely enough, what he says is the sincere befuddlement of his fellow faculty. There is a distance between himself and the issues that doesn't seem to be authentic. I can't put my finger on it.
To be honest, I'd rather someone be sincerely befuddled than detached in his manner. The sincerely confused are at least wrestling the matter, his way seems more dismissive.
quote:I guess I'd call myself a moderate who is irritated by the group-thinking of my guild, and their learned distrust of the instincts of middle America. Most of what passes for discussion in the halls is just simple mockery and derision, and little else. I don't come from Texas or even identify at all with neo-conservative arrogance, but what I am seeing is a steady decline of civility in our political culture. Nietzsche lives!!
For most of the 20th century left-leaning intellectuals have had history on their side--most of the progressive agenda was gradually adopted, at least through the 1970s. I don't see a lot of new ideas these days coming from the left, except on the cultural front.
First of all, anyone who is looking for new ideas for the sake of new ideas instead of new ideas for the sake of truth is a charlatan. Then there is something wierd about dropping the Nietzsche reference. Maybe it's because I've read a healthy amount of Nietzsche, but there is a high-handed derision that goes along with that statement. I don't know if we are supposed to take the author seriously, or laugh at a joke. I take Nietzsche seriously as a philosopher, not that I see the truth in everything he says, but I respect him as a thinker.
In the end, I didn't know to what extent your acquaintance took himself seriously. I guess that's what I meant by poser. It's one thing to not take yourself seriosly, it's another to not take yourself seriously when you are deriding the serious confusion of others.
[ December 10, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: I can say that university professors often think in the abstract because they are living a leisurely existence not experienced by most adult Americans. They don't always grasp the reality of ordinary people's lives, or feel estranged from every day folk with whom they share little in common.
I find this statement very offensive. The university professors I know work extremely hard -- usually 60+ hours a week. The studies I've seen of the issue suggest that the average University Professor works between 55 - 70 hours a week (depending on the study). While I enjoy my work, I would hardly call that a "leisurely existence".
College professors in the humanities often have lower starting salaries than high school teachers. Most college professors have spent 10 years or more of their adult lives as students, with little or know income. We suffer illnesses, have family problems, loose our jobs, have children, go to church and so on. What is it about "ordinary people's lives" we don't grasp?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's pretty much how the statement "It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others" made me feel.
Or "People go into academia out of a love for knowledge and teaching -- traits which are more common among bleeding heart liberals than right wing reactionaries."
Dagonee
[ December 10, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
There is work and then there is work. Yes, I know many professors who spent gazillions of hours in a lab or poring over books and doing literature research.
And then there are the people I work with. Some of whom are paid quite well because of the skillful work they do, but they work with their hands and have manufactured the same part for the past 20 years without any intellecutal stimulation other than their own thoughts as they do what they do. And then they get carpal tunnel and trigger finger. University professors as a whole are not generally plagued by such afflictions, for obvious reasons... Do you really think that 70 hours of research and teaching a week can in any way compare with 40-50 hours a week of hard manual labor?
AJ
[ December 10, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To clarify, the two are adding apples and oranges, and yes I think one is likely completely out of touch with the other, though neither is wrong and both are honorable.
AJ
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Do you really think that 70 hours of research and teaching a week can in any way compare with 40-50 hours a week of hard manual labor?
I'm not sure, but even the two are fundamentally different, don't you think the research and teaching would put you more "in touch" on matters of ethics and politics than the hard labor? They may in fact be out of touch with one another, to a certain degree, but that alone is no reason to reject academic viewpoints.
Just looking historically, which is more indicative of good political decision-making - research or hard labor? I'd argue the research, given that hard manual labor is something most of our greatest leaders did not have a lot of experience with - they were mostly rich and/or educated guys... particularly the Founding Fathers.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm not judging one side or the other. I'm saying that there generally *is* a fundamental disconnect though, and I could see how 70 hours of research could be viewed as less "work" than 40 hours of manual labor. And I think that judgements of one "side" of the other are suspect in both directions, though the perceptions of the realities of each are interesting footnotes.
I don't think that one or the other has a particular "handle" on being "in touch" with politics or ethics, because the day to day lives of each are so different that the theoretical academic ethics and politics are so far removed from the practicical every day ethics and politics of manual labor, as to be generally completely irrelevant.
AJ
[ December 11, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think that one or the other has a particular "handle" on being "in touch" with politics or ethics, because the day to day lives of each are so different that the theoretical academic ethics and politics are so far removed from the practicical every day ethics and politics of manual labor, as to be generally completely irrelevant.
The ethics don't change, I find that it's the bad people who tell you ethics do. There is a funny thing about that. Three years ago, I didn't know anything about unions, and I was working at a grocery store in town. I didn't have health care and the pay wasn't great, but I needed a job. It's huge store with 230 employees, about a third are recent immigrants from China and Mexico. A few of us got together over the course of a year and researched and organized a Union. None of us had ever done it before, but there is the internet, one guy had written for his college newspaper, and I had studied philosophy and had done a little campaigning. Through studying philosophy, I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I had confidence in my convictions. We hammered away from that little bit of academic knowledge. Because of that impoverished know-how, everyone at the store now has health care, and the people I worked with are making eight or nine dollars an hour more. During the union drive, the management of the store did a good job of scaring the bejeezus out of the workers, but there was a core of about six organizers, two were fired over the course of the campaign.
The only reason we could do it was because five of us had been to college and the sixth was an older gentlemen with a sense of dignity that would not cower, even though they fired him and he had five kids and a sick wife. We got the union, the guys who were fired settled their cases with a healthy payoff, and now the workers at the store have great healthcare and fair wages.
It's not a coincidence that five out of the six of us studied humanities in college. It's not a coincidence that so many revolutionaries go to school, then go back to their home town and right all the systemic wrongs that are entrenched in their society.
There isn't a difference between business ethics and ethics. It has been my experience that the bosses try to tell people that there is, in an effort to keep the workers down. But there isn't a difference.
[ December 11, 2004, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, you can say many things about his attitude, but "poser" is the oddest moniker I could imagine.
He's been in academia all his life and a professor of history for ten years. Teaches, publishes, and spends every summer in Zanzibar as a student of the revolution there. He's writing the memoirs of the Che Guevera of Zanzibar. What, exactly, is he faking?
What you're commenting on is perhaps the estrangement he feels from his colleagues because of ideological differences, but surely you're not saying that because he's not part of the group-think in his field, he doesn't actually belong in it. That would be a perfect example of the very problem under discussion here.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)