Page 3 of 25 [ 395 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 25  Next

BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

21 Apr 2017, 7:29 pm

Academics who teach in the pseudo sciences -- "political science", sociology, economics, psychology often have a leftward political bias in their overall world view. These folks accept as axiomatic that the state or government leads the way for society and that state or government intervention and redistribution is necessary for the society to function at all.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

21 Apr 2017, 7:56 pm

Darmok wrote:
Political orientation of law professors at universities in the US -- since the country overall is about 50/50, this doesn't look like the country, does it:

Image

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... -2013.html


Their methods are questionable at best.
"We compare the ideological balance of the legal academy to the ideological balance of the legal profession. To do so, we match professors listed in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers and lawyers listed in the Martindale-Hubbell directory to a measure of political ideology based on political donations. We find that 15% of law professors, compared to 35% of lawyers, are conservative. After controlling for individual characteristics, however, this 20 percentage point ideological gap narrows to around 13 percentage points. We argue that this ideological uniformity marginalizes law professors, but that it may not be possible to improve the ideological balance of the legal academy without sacrificing other values."

It does not take into account professors who did not make political donations or who's political donations were unknown, and how do they determine whether or not a professor has made political donations, and to whom anyway? Also, how do the researchers determine the political orientation of a particular organization in instances where stereotyping exists? For example, many conservatives consider the ACLU liberal when the mission of the ACLU is to uphold civil liberties, and ensure the law is followed as it is written. It's perceived as liberal due to a tendency among many conservatives to view that which they don't agree with as liberal. To these conservatives, the ACLU might represent a liberal agenda, but to a law professor, the ACLU might represent an organization that advocates for the proper following and application of the law.

You might be aware that the former NFL player who is now dead, Aaron Hernandez, was recently acquitted of murder while serving time for another murder. His attorney released a statement "Justice was served." A conservative with no legal background may think Aaron Hernandez should have been found guilty of this murder on the basis of the fact that he's a bad guy. But to a lawyer/law professor, finding someone guilty of a crime when the evidence does not support that guilt (regardless of whether or not the person is actually guilty), is a miscarriage of justice.



EclecticWarrior
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,001
Location: Cool places

21 Apr 2017, 8:09 pm

My university is very left-leaning. However, it's not as bad as the SJW horror stories coming from the US where people have been silenced and even suspended just for criticising certain far-left beliefs (even the extremely racist and sexist beliefs- yes, the left is capable of these things too). I've heard tutors here spouting off things that would lead to complaints in the US- and these people do generally lean left. I'm left-wing too, very vocal about my socialism, but I believe that the US university trend of silencing "uncomfortable" and "triggering" (this is a term that is being disgustingly overused outside the MH contexts it originated in) speech is dangerous.


_________________
~Zinc Alloy aka. Russell~

WP's most sparkling member.

DX classic autism 1995, AS 2003, depression 2008

~INFP~


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,932
Location: Adelaide, Australia

22 Apr 2017, 9:58 pm

EclecticWarrior wrote:
My university is very left-leaning. However, it's not as bad as the SJW horror stories coming from the US...
Are you not in the US?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,242
Location: Long Island, New York

01 May 2017, 8:15 am

CUNY professors to skip school to protest Trump

Quote:
A cadre of left-wing CUNY professors plans to throw out Monday’s lesson plans and spend the day bashing President Trump.

The leaders of CUNY’s education-workers union have declared a “May Day Moratorium” at the city’s taxpayer-funded university system in conjunction with the annual day of socialist protest.

A letter from the head of CUNY’s Professional Staff Congress urges fellow instructors to “teach resistance” by “integrating into our classes an examination of Trump’s policies as they are relevant to your subject, whether it be biology, finance, nursing or history.

CUNY political-science professor and City Councilman Joe Borelli (R-Staten Island) expressed outrage at the plan, which he said “assumes all the students are liberal.”

Borelli said any faculty members who participate “should be disciplined, and adjuncts who aren’t tenured should not be asked to come back.”


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

09 May 2017, 11:05 am

Here's Why Black Harvard Students Are Holding Their Own Graduation Ceremony

"This is not about segregation."


Uh-huh.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2017/0 ... duati.html


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


BaronHarkonnen85
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 297
Location: Tennessee

09 May 2017, 11:09 am

The social sciences have be come infested with social constructionists and anti-positivists who reject the scientific method.


_________________
--Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
The "Enlightenment" was the work of Satan


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 May 2017, 11:29 am

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
The social sciences have be come infested with social constructionists and anti-positivists who reject the scientific method.

As someone with a recent degree in the social sciences, I would strongly disagree. However, I'm always willing to be proven wrong. So, make with the evidence to back up your claim Mr. positivist...


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


rabidmonkey4262
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 864

09 May 2017, 11:55 am

Scientists and others who follow a peer-review system are pressured to have data to back up their opinions. If you don't have data, you don't have a right to an opinion; it will not be taken seriously. Academics follow the data. If the numbers lead to a specific political conclusion, then it's important to not dismiss that. Ideologues will try to tell you all kinds of bs. It's up to you to find out if there are sound statistics behind their conclusion.

So, if a bunch of people who have dedicated their lives to studying history tell you that the president is unsound, then their opinion has value. They have studied source material and analyzed trends. They're reaching that conclusion from an informed perspective based on a lifetime of study. Similarly, if a climate scientist comes to the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic, then their opinion has more value than some politician. It takes years of scientific research to come to these conclusions. Don't trust some random person on the internet when you can ask a legitimate professional instead.


_________________
Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 May 2017, 12:42 pm

Shahunshah wrote:
Hey everyone so I am center-left I like Hillary Clinton and hate Donald Trump. However I think that both sides have valid points and I consider myself a moderate.

Anyways so I come from a city which is extremely liberal and joined up with the Model United Nations for the youth. I met some interesting people there, many both right and left wing. I was Somalia and Chad, which was fun.

As part of an event we watched a panel of a professor, a lawyer and a lecturer. They were their to offer perspectives on globalization. However all of them were left leaning, praising diversity as being great and the way of the future.

It eventually came for us to ask questions and my one was picked first. I was in a room of 200 people and sounded sort of anxious as a result and asked this "In France you have an Arab Muslim population which is struggling to integrate. The unemployment is 20% for them. People like Marine Le Pen are gaining in support. Do the French people who back her have a legitimate grievance against them due to the increase in terror attacks and people lashing out?"

I didn't phrase it well. I probably should have said "Understandable concerns" instead of "Legitimate Grievances." But that does not excuse their response, they said in response they got upset and said "No these people do not have legitimate grievances and populists like Marine Le Pen should not be listened to." One of them simply didn't answer.

I felt a little like in this instance as though this panel was spreading their viewpoint onto many people without showing them the other side. This is bad as it prevents people from making an informed judgement, but what's more scary is that they did not bother to understand the other side.

Is their a level of left wing dominance in academia in many places and if so how do we fight it?


As a far-left social scientist, let me say, those people are idiots and they should be kicked in the nuts repeatedly for their stupidity.

The problem with Muslim immigrants comes from European Pluralism.

Quote:
Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism

The problem is that bit in bold, which mostly never happens. Then cultural pluralism becomes an excuse to let immigrant communities segregate in their own little ghettos because the wider culture doesn't want to deal with them. The result is a second generation of children of immigrants who feel alienated from society and this often manifests with Muslims in acts of terror.

The problem in France is not immigration, but Frances failure to assimilate their immigrants. It is a huge problem all over Europe, because most countries are pretty homogeneous in culture and ethnicity. Assimilating these immigrants will change things on both sides and this scares a lot of people, but it can be done.

I live in the southern US and my local region was totally white in the 1970s. In the 80s 80s we absorbed a large number of Hmong 'boat people', and in the 90s and 2000s we have absorbed a HUGE number of Hispanic and Marshallese immigrants who have come here for jobs. For the most part it has worked out fine because they have assimilated.

We changed them and THEY CHANGED US too. When I go to the farmer's market Hmong Grandmas sell me fresh veggies and baked goods, and when I stop off for a beer after a bike ride I always go by the neighborhood Taqueria first for a chorizo burrito to have with my brew. When neighborhood kids get together for a pick up basketball game, they talk smack in (at least) three different languages. It's fine, really.

So, the real problem with Europe and immigration is that they need to figure out how to become a melting pot, and that won't be easy.

But yeah, Marine Le Pen is full of s**t, even if those stupid f*****s could not explain why. And no, most people in academia are smarter than those folks on your panel and not just empty-headed ideologues.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

09 May 2017, 12:47 pm

Campus progressives are now eating their own.

Last week a junior professor at Rhodes College, published a scholarly article, asking why society is increasingly willing to embrace people who identify as “transgender,” even as it rejects those who identify as “transracial,” eliciting a spasm of fury from her fellow academics.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447419/rebecca-tuvel-controversy-campus-radicals-free-speech-social-justice

When even questions are off limits, it is clear that someone fears the answers.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 May 2017, 12:56 pm

rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
Scientists and others who follow a peer-review system are pressured to have data to back up their opinions. If you don't have data, you don't have a right to an opinion; it will not be taken seriously. Academics follow the data. If the numbers lead to a specific political conclusion, then it's important to not dismiss that. Ideologues will try to tell you all kinds of bs. It's up to you to find out if there are sound statistics behind their conclusion.

Yes. Recently, I was working on a grant proposal to fund a program to treat veterans with comorbid PTSD/SUD and I could not find a single research study to support this line of treatment. Most of the research was inconclusive, because of small sample sizes and few/poorly designed studies. So, I had to rewrite the proposal and emphasize our program's evaluation methods and potential future contributions to research.

As much as I want to help my clients, I don't just lie and pull stuff out of my ass to do it.

Even some leftie academics have integrity... :P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

09 May 2017, 1:40 pm

Shrapnel wrote:
Last week a junior professor at Rhodes College, published a scholarly article, asking why society is increasingly willing to embrace people who identify as “transgender,” even as it rejects those who identify as “transracial,” eliciting a spasm of fury from her fellow academics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447419/rebecca-tuvel-controversy-campus-radicals-free-speech-social-justice

When even questions are off limits, it is clear that someone fears the answers.

This is an interesting case and it's getting a lot of attention, which is good. The feminist left's mob abuse is straight out of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

The viciousness of the attacks was fueled by the mob mentality of Facebook. Dissenters, even those who just wanted a civil discussion of the issue, were shut down immediately or afraid to voice their opinions in public. Some who in private were sympathetic to Tuvel, felt compelled to join in the attacking mob. The thought police were in full force. Both Tuvel and the journal were under pressure to retract the article and apologize. In a private message to me, one of my academic friends said one editor’s Facebook apology for publishing such an “offensive” article, “sounded like something ISIS makes its captors read in a hostage video before beheading them.” Joking aside, there was (and still is) tremendous pressure to condemn Tuvel and her article. Some who joined in the protests later admitted in private that they hadn’t even read the article. And at least one person who signed a petition demanding that Hypatia retract the text in question, later, when the media tides were turning, wanted to remove her signature from the damning letter. I wonder how many of those who signed that letter had actually read the article. Just this morning, I received a text from someone I respect, lamenting the cruelty on social media, but telling me she was sure she would disagree with the article and find it offensive, even though she hadn’t yet read it.

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/if-thi ... ht-police/

Exclusive photo of the professor in question:

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

09 May 2017, 3:53 pm

rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
Scientists and others who follow a peer-review system are pressured to have data to back up their opinions. If you don't have data, you don't have a right to an opinion; it will not be taken seriously. Academics follow the data. If the numbers lead to a specific political conclusion, then it's important to not dismiss that. Ideologues will try to tell you all kinds of bs. It's up to you to find out if there are sound statistics behind their conclusion.

So, if a bunch of people who have dedicated their lives to studying history tell you that the president is unsound, then their opinion has value. They have studied source material and analyzed trends. They're reaching that conclusion from an informed perspective based on a lifetime of study. Similarly, if a climate scientist comes to the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic, then their opinion has more value than some politician. It takes years of scientific research to come to these conclusions. Don't trust some random person on the internet when you can ask a legitimate professional instead.


I believe what you're referring to is STEM.

The humanities are in an alien universe of their own.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,846
Location: Post Falls, ID

09 May 2017, 4:40 pm

rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
Scientists and others who follow a peer-review system are pressured to have data to back up their opinions. If you don't have data, you don't have a right to an opinion; it will not be taken seriously. Academics follow the data. If the numbers lead to a specific political conclusion, then it's important to not dismiss that. Ideologues will try to tell you all kinds of bs. It's up to you to find out if there are sound statistics behind their conclusion.

So, if a bunch of people who have dedicated their lives to studying history tell you that the president is unsound, then their opinion has value. They have studied source material and analyzed trends. They're reaching that conclusion from an informed perspective based on a lifetime of study. Similarly, if a climate scientist comes to the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic, then their opinion has more value than some politician. It takes years of scientific research to come to these conclusions. Don't trust some random person on the internet when you can ask a legitimate professional instead.

That would be great if it were accurate. The problem today, especially with many political facing issues is that scientists have a conclusion in mind before they do the research. Instead of trying to find the truth, they are trying to prove their predetermined conclusion. And anyone who questions their evidence, conclusion, process, etc is heavily criticized.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

09 May 2017, 9:06 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
rabidmonkey4262 wrote:
Scientists and others who follow a peer-review system are pressured to have data to back up their opinions. If you don't have data, you don't have a right to an opinion; it will not be taken seriously. Academics follow the data. If the numbers lead to a specific political conclusion, then it's important to not dismiss that. Ideologues will try to tell you all kinds of bs. It's up to you to find out if there are sound statistics behind their conclusion.

So, if a bunch of people who have dedicated their lives to studying history tell you that the president is unsound, then their opinion has value. They have studied source material and analyzed trends. They're reaching that conclusion from an informed perspective based on a lifetime of study. Similarly, if a climate scientist comes to the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic, then their opinion has more value than some politician. It takes years of scientific research to come to these conclusions. Don't trust some random person on the internet when you can ask a legitimate professional instead.


I believe what you're referring to is STEM.

The humanities are in an alien universe of their own.


You don't know what you are talking about.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus