re: Why most academics lean left

quote:

---

Your reality is steeped in racism so I'm happy to exist with only a cursory knowledge of that hellscape you call your "reality

---

By the way when you were talking about series not being a prominent proponent of ideas becoming reality....

Idea:
idea noun
\i-'de-?, -'de? also 'i-(?)de-? or 'i-de\
Definition of idea
1 : a formulated thought or opinion

Formulated. There it is. Ideas. yeah

quote:

---

By the way when you were talking about series not being a prominent proponent of ideas becoming reality....

---

Not a rebuttal of your racist hellscape.

Interesting.

A great comedic interpretation of why academia is left leaning
Just a lil respect

quote:

---

I try to make it very clear in my classes that nature, math, and all of science doesn't give two shits how you feel about anything, it comes down to the binary choice of does it work or not.

---

Then you are one of the good guys.

Does it scare you to see how the Left is now trying to interject identity politics into STEM?

quote:

---

quote:
These 'intellectuals' are caught up in the group-think that = "if only the world worked this way, everything would be easy." They are constantly looking for the anti-gravity machine or the perpetual motion system.
=====
this isn't even really true

---

Can't tell what your emphasis is here - I was using the anti-gravity machine as a metaphor not asserting that specifically what they are doing.

quote:

---

what these academics primarily rely upon to create novelty is deconstruction practices. they're trying to attack societal foundations and accepted beliefs so that they can get those ideas published. this is why they latch onto overlapping ideas like postmodernism, b/c much of that philosophy is a similar deconstruction (of truth, on a much more general level)

---

I think we are on the same page here, but I hesitate to delve into subjects such as 'postmodernism' - I am not smart enough for that.

My overall point in this entire thread is to differentiate between people who know a lot about a very limited subject matter as being "smarter" than an ordinary person who is providing for himself quite well in spite of having no certified 'college education' e.g. a welder.

I made the observation that a 'genders studies' graduate is not necessarily 'smarter' than a welder.

I hold to my belief that "__________ studies" is pretty much worthless unless you are trying to impress some ideological - rather than real world - adherents. Personally I think that is dumb, far from being smart. And I think anyone who desires to pursue such a degree is not very smart - they may become highly 'educated' in the foundations of the ideology and may learn a lot of rhetorical flourishes to regurgitate instead of debating anyone who disagrees with them - but I view that as the opposite of 'smart.'

quote:

---

they're trying to attack societal foundations and accepted beliefs

---

This is obviously their objective - tear down anything that got the country to the successful and moral status we enjoy - then take over the reins of power to rule over what others built.

I am of the belief that cultural changes ought to occur naturally, over periods of time - certainly not by legislation or fiat.

Just pondering the number of 'progressive' cultural 'advancements' that have popped up withn the past decade is enough to raise alarm bells with me - and to devote entire academic courses that search for ever more 'ways we can improve' society is the opposite of 'smart.'

It is dystopian.

quote:

---

Just jumping in as a member of academia. There are plenty of us in the hard sciences and engineering that have a great deal of private industry research dollars. We didn't go into academia because we couldn't hack it in the real world, we went into it for the freedom. We're not all SJWs (though I'm embarrassed how many pedagogical trends are trying to bring more of that trash into the classroom), and many of us are even MAGA.


I try to make it very clear in my classes that nature, math, and all of science doesn't give two shits how you feel about anything, it comes down to the binary choice of does it work or not.

---

And this is what I would expect from a university.

quote:

---

I try to make it very clear in my classes that nature, math, and all of science doesn't give two shits how you feel about anything, it comes down to the binary choice of does it work or not.

---

Awesome.

I teach in the humanities. I tell my students when they choose something to write about - I am not interested in their opinion and that they must cite sources from both sides and be prepared to discuss merits from both sides without inserting their opinion.

To this day, one of the best presentations I have ever had in a class was by a stoner discussing marijuana legalization.

Nice try.

This leaves out an important additional reason: the tenure structure.

You get tenure by publishing. Publishing especially in the "soft" arts that tend to run the most rampant with leftists (English, sociology, cultural studies, etc) are all about criticism. Feminist critique, Marxist critique, post-colonial critique, etc. You don't get published for saying how great things are. You get published for attacking institutions. These academics are professional critics.



And then they get tenure which is a whole other conversation.

I know a few guys who went to Berklee School of Music who can listen to a song and write out every part, every note, perfectly after 1-2 listens. To hear them attempt to play it is brutal.

I also know guys on Bourbon who couldn't write out the music they listen to if their life depended on it, but could play it perfectly after 1-2 listens.

This is academia vs real life in a nutshell. I always remember the scene in Back to School when Thorton Mellon tells the class how the real world operates and the professor being pissed. It's absolutely spot on.

Intangibles don't exist in academia, and thats not reality.