Conservatives who loathe liberalism at universities

[_MrStakhanovite]

Yes, it's much like that. I think it's safe to say that these doctors knows whether or not they're liberal.

The question is not about the participants ability to self identify, but the useage of the word liberal and how it was quantified. Was there a specific litmus test used by the researchers? If so, what were the questions? Did they define what exactly it meant to be a liberal before the participants identified, or were the participants allowed to assume what the word meant?

Another misleading statement. Who is "advocating" sexism here?

Let’s look at the exchange here:

No? I guess liberals don't exist. I hate to pull a Simon, but No True Scotsman comes to mind.

Pulling a Simon is defiantly what you are doing. Can you point out where in my post that deals with Liberals existed or not? Can you map out for me how my argument deals with the existence of liberals existing or not existing?

You're defining "liberal" so narrowly so as to exclude all the liberals. An ad hoc approach, for sure.

I’m not even sure how your response qualifies as an answer, but I’m defining a part of institutional domination of Liberalism to be the non-existence of institution wide sexism, not exactly a narrow nor uncharitable definition. That means it’s necessary, but not sufficient.

The only conclusion I can draw from your response (non-response?) is that I need to include sexism into some kind of definition of liberal.

This next exchange is equally puzzling:

Do we see signs that liberals dominate Academia? No. For already stated reasons.

Of course. That's why, all across the country, hyper-conservative college professors have been shutting down pro-LGBT messages and groups..

So in the absence of Liberal domination of Academia is hyper-conservative? Not to sure about that dichotomy, and your example is poor, because shutting down pro-LGBT messages and groups would be against federal executive order law, so you wouldn’t see it on any public campus. Ever.

You're doing an awfully poor job of it. Your "logic" is mopologetic. Sloppy, ad hoc, self serving and embarrassingly clunky. You're better than this.

Sweet, maybe you’ll get around to showing all of this.

[Guest]

Yes, it's much like that. I think it's safe to say that these doctors knows whether or not they're liberal.

The question is not about the participants ability to self identify, but the useage of the word liberal and how it was quantified. Was there a specific litmus test used by the researchers? If so, what were the questions? Did they define what exactly it meant to be a liberal before the participants identified, or were the participants allowed to assume what the word meant?

I've explained this to you twice now. They self-identified as liberal, which is as exact as any other way of detecting something as subjective as liberalism.

I’m not even sure how your response qualifies as an answer, but I’m defining a part of institutional domination of Liberalism to be the non-existence of institution wide sexism, not exactly a narrow nor uncharitable definition. That means it’s necessary, but not sufficient.

The only conclusion I can draw from your response (non-response?) is that I need to include sexism into some kind of definition of liberal.

The only conclusion I can draw from your response (non-response?) is that liberals must be 100% effective in practice at applying their ideals (even when they don't have, for example, direct hiring responsibility), otherwise they forfeit word "liberal."

So in the absence of Liberal domination of Academia is hyper-conservative? Not to sure about that dichotomy, and your example is poor, because shutting down pro-LGBT messages and groups would be against federal executive order law, so you wouldn’t see it on any public campus. Ever.

You've made your first legitimate point. Yes, the alternative isn't hyper-conservatism.

Speaking of dichotomies, how about the dichotomy of 100% perfect application of liberal ideals (conveniently ignoring, of course, the effect of administration vs faculty in the whole mess), otherwise it isn't liberal? Yeah, it's a no true Scotsman.

You're doing an awfully poor job of it. Your "logic" is mopologetic. Sloppy, ad hoc, self serving and embarrassingly clunky. You're better than this.

Sweet, maybe you’ll get around to showing all of this.

Done and dusted.

[_Buffalo]

All of this is, of course, a distraction from the central issue. That is, why are university professors so liberal?

The answer is obvious. Education is incompatible with conservatism. The more highly educated you become, the less likely you are to be conservative. There is a similar relationship between, say, scientific education and superstitions about frogs causing warts.

[_Morley]

.... Education is incompatible with conservatism. ....

This is quite a statement. Do you seriously believe it?

[_Buffalo]

.... Education is incompatible with conservatism. ....

This is quite a statement. Do you seriously believe it?

Perhaps a slight hyperbolization. If we track education and liberalism, the result is a positive slope - liberalism and education are positively correlated. We get a negative slope when tracking education and conservatism. There's a good reason for that.

The conclusion is that the cure for conservatism is greater education. While there are certainly educated conservatives, after a certain threshold the conservatism seems to drop off.

[_asbestosman]

Psst. Buffalo. Correlation is not causation.

[_Buffalo]

Psst. Buffalo. Correlation is not causation.

Psst. You don't get causation without correlation.

[_asbestosman]

Psst. You don't get causation without correlation.

I can always count on you to affirm the consequent.

[_Buffalo]

Psst. You don't get causation without correlation.

I can always count on you to affirm the consequent.

I'm here to help.

[_Morley]

Psst. Buffalo. Correlation is not causation.

Psst. You don't get causation without correlation.

Sure. However, what Abman says remains true: Correlation is still not causation. You're suggesting a correlation as if it were the cause. Or am I misreading?

There could be other reasons university faculty tend to self-identify as 'liberal.' You know, other than that they have giant, throbbing, over-educated brains squirting out of their ears.