Pew Poll: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans

[Quid Est Veritas?]

Define "scientist". Does this just mean people who do research/teach at a college? Or does it also mean others who consider themselves scientists, albeit applied scientists, like engineers, doctors, pharmacists, high-school science teachers, mathematicians, etc?
And is the research supposed to suggest that Republicans are dumb, that Democrats are adherants of science, or that only six percent of the scientists polled identified as "Republican"?
Most of the scientists I know seem do not seem strongly political. Or if they are, do not necessarily consider themselves to "belong" to a specific party. They tend to be fairly independent.

[WillT]

I admit I had to look up "anthropogenic".

Which apparently even the spell-checker doesn't recognize. Stop using scientific words to make yourself sound smart!

Sorry, I wasn't trying to obfuscate. It's just the more "technical" way to say man-made.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Define "scientist". Does this just mean people who do research/teach at a college? Or does it also mean others who consider themselves scientists, albeit applied scientists, like engineers, doctors, pharmacists, high-school science teachers, mathematicians, etc?
And is the research supposed to suggest that Republicans are dumb, that Democrats are adherants of science, or that only six percent of the scientists polled identified as "Republican"?
Most of the scientists I know seem do not seem strongly political. Or if they are, do not necessarily consider themselves to "belong" to a specific party. They tend to be fairly independent.

 

I guess there's less of a push by conservatives to fund scientific research... unless you're Newt Gingrich  rotfl

Edited June 8, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

Scientists haven't figured out a way to mechanize victory, so while having more of them in a certain could be useful, the nation is still roughly 50/50, and scientists are not the magic coin.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hypothesize that if the poll were based on specific social and political positions rather than party affiliation, the results would not be so skewed. I say this as someone with many so-called conservative values who wouldn't touch the GOP with a ten foot pole. I find the mainstream conservative movement to be a divisive propaganda machine.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I never said it was a conspiracy. Just that it explains the apparent survey results.

So do you think that this trend does not exist prior to becoming a paid scientist? I mean, if you could survey that same sample pre-education/career. I would guess that it's part of a bigger and more basic trend. For example, perhaps high intelligence correlates with liberal values. I think it's reasonable to suppose that high intelligence correlates with likelihood of becoming a scientist, at least. Perhaps social class and access to education have something to do with it. How does political party affiliation look there? Are so-called liberal parents more likely to support a child's interest in science and/or an academic career? There are many possible things to consider and I think the least likely candidate explanation would be something so crass. I think there are many things going on concurrently and that scientists are just normal people when it comes to political/social values and thus an explanation that includes intelligent, educated people in general is more likely.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Please disregard my previous post. I'd edit it if I could. 
 

So ... 

 

Here's how I'd edit it:

 

Nihil,

 

Do you think that people in general decide their political affiliation based on such an instrumental calculus? I would suspect that it correlates with upbringing, personality, values, and so on. So do you think that this trend does not exist prior to becoming a paid scientist? I mean, if you could survey that same sample pre-education/career. I would guess that it's part of a bigger and more basic trend.

For example, perhaps high intelligence correlates with liberal values (I'm sure it's more complicated than this). I think it's reasonable to suppose that high intelligence correlates with likelihood of becoming a scientist, at least. Perhaps social class and access to education have something to do with it. How does political party affiliation look there? Are so-called liberal parents more likely to support a child's interest in science and/or an academic career? I'll bet there are many things going on concurrently and that scientists are just normal people when it comes to political/social values and thus an explanation that includes intelligent, educated people in general is more likely.

ETA: Tee-hee, this is funny (I've only skimmed it so far). http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/

This too: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationship

Edited June 21, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe I am a little cynical. :P I think a sort of instrumental calculus does have some bearing, though obviously not the whole story. I mean, you would be surprised to find a union boss who does not vote for big labour. It just seems plausible to me that the scientific community, being dependent on public money, would as a whole be somewhat less likely to vote for a candidate who would scale back their available funds.

 

In terms of the trend existing or not prior to being a scientist, I would say it probably still does, perhaps because of the affinity a future scientist feels towards the scientific community.

 

I do not think there is much of a stereotype here between the sciences and politics. Or if there is one, I am not aware of it. GOP republicanism does not really exist here, so that may be part of it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I think people who self-identity with a political party tend to share many values in common. I think party affiliation is rarely based a calculation of self-interest, especially for the intelligentsia. It seems to me to say something about moral psychology and identity. Also, if you take science as a whole the overwhelming majority of research is not even publicly funded, it's funded by industry. Specific fields receive a lot of public funding, but I think these are largely related to military. If scientists as a group happened to be pro-military and unregulated industry, you might erroneously conclude it was out of self-interest. 

I don't think treating "scientists" as a category so distinct from the "intelligent and highly educated" is justified. Are the intelligentsia significantly left-leaning? If so, why? Is this the case (when looked at in terms of values rather than country-specific political party) around the world? Again, why?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Geezum. Disregard that last post. I'd like to edit it but it's not letting me. This is how I would edit it:
 

I think people who self-identity with a political party tend to share many values in common. It seems to me that party affiliation is rarely based a calculation of self-interest, especially for the intelligentsia. It seems to me to say something about moral psychology and identity. It has been my observation that this is part of why fruitful dialogue between republicans and democrats is so often difficult.

Also, if you take science as a whole the overwhelming majority of research is not even publicly funded, it's funded by industry (source: 'funding of science' wiki page). Specific fields receive a lot of public funding, but these are often related to military. If scientists as a group happened to be pro-military & unregulated industry, you might erroneously conclude it was out of self-interest.

I don't think treating "scientists" as a category so distinct from the "intelligent and highly educated" is quite justified. Are the intelligentsia in general significantly left-leaning? If so, why? This would be interesting in any case. Does this trend apply (when looked at in terms of values rather than country-specific political party) around the world? I.e., is it a general cultural phenomenon? Why, or why not?

You: "In terms of the trend existing or not prior to being a scientist, I would say it probably still does, perhaps because of the affinity a future scientist feels towards the scientific community."
Kids, including teens, do not usually deviate from their parents or community on the political ideology spectrum. Without any data I would assume that this trend is the same for young people who become scientists. Anyway, future affinity and a calculation of group interest seems a rather implausible hypothesis.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know it's PC to say "everyone's arguments have some merit" blah blah etc, but id say the reason scientists are not republicans is because scientists are known to be more objective thinkers which i know is not PC. even if you accept that IQ and political affiliatio don't follow each other, objectivity probably does. 

their lack of being republican shows that objectively the party is deficient, at least the hard line ideologies that define or are associated with the party. 

 

for example, for us to live in a fair society by any reasonable standard, we can't be hardline republican. making it everyman for himself, whle at the same time making laws that disfavor the poor when they cannot otherwise help themselves, is unfair. food is a fundamental of life, as is health care etc, at least if you aren't that way cause you're lazy etc. which is mostly stereotypes etc. 

 

truth is usually a balance of conservative and liberal priciples etc, and most people probably dont disagree in details, where the devil is. so could it be said that liberals taken to their extreme are no good? yes it could. but liberals are almost never extreme, they don't push blatant socialism. are there conservatives who push laissez faire capitalism? yes, and it's a formidable segment of society, the tea party has many members who are this way. and it's common in "academic" circles. 

i usually describe it as a phase people go through, but it's not just a phase for some people. 

 

surely there's some truth to the idea that they dont like that republicabs usually are the ones who disfavor the funding research for scienteits etc. but im sure that's not the main reason, especially when you consider the dismal numbers who are republican.... such low numbers must mean it's something other than funding issues, something more substantive. they surely aren't all biased on something petty like that, not objective thinkers like scientists. 

Edited June 21, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

I hypothesize that if the poll were based on specific social and political positions rather than party affiliation, the results would not be so skewed. I say this as someone with many so-called conservative values who wouldn't touch the GOP with a ten foot pole. I find the mainstream conservative movement to be a divisive propaganda machine.

 

So, do you find the liberal Democratic machine to be preferable, or more trustworthy?

 

(Just curious.)

[Laudate_Dominum]

So, do you find the liberal Democratic machine to be preferable, or more trustworthy?

 

(Just curious.)

 

Yeah, dude. The democrats have science and truth on their side. 

 

 

*sarcasm*

 

 

(Dem & Rep: The two leading brands of bull shat.)

Edited June 22, 2013 by Laudate_Dominum

[Socrates]

Yeah, dude. The democrats have science and truth on their side. 

 

 

*sarcasm*

 

 

(Dem & Rep: The two leading brands of bull shat.)

 

Fair enough.

[Socrates]

An off-topic aside:

 

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to as the "mainstream conservative movement."  I'd consider myself part of the conservative movement, though I'll leave it up to others to judge how "mainstream" I am, because I really don't care.

 

I'm not sure there's really any one, cohesive organized "conservative movement" forming a single propaganda machine.  Anyone familiar with conservatives will know that conservatism is made up of various different contentious and sometimes violently opposed groups - paleocons, neocons, libertarians, traditionalists, social conservatives, etc.

 

Conservatism and the conservative movement are separate from and not to be identified with the GOP establishment.  Most GOP pols and power players are corporatists rather than conservatives (though they may talk conservative to get votes.)  I (and many other conservatives) are increasingly disgusted with the current GOP leadership, though likely largely for very different reasons than you are.

 

Many in the popular "mainstream" conservative media (including Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin) are now openly disgusted by and critical of the current Republican leadership, so I think it inaccurate to think the conservative movement simply a propaganda machine of the GOP (whether you happen to agree with or like such people or not).

 

/Off-topic aside

Edited June 22, 2013 by Socrates