/pol/ will defend this
http://uanews.ua.edu/2016/07/ua-study-shows-stark-differences-in-how-conservatives-liberals-see-data/
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. – Conservatives are less interested than liberals in viewing novel scientific data, according to a psychology researcher at The University of Alabama.
Dr. Alexa Tullett, assistant professor of psychology at UA, recently conducted theproject, titled “Is ideology the enemy of inquiry? Examining the link between political orientation and lack of interest in novel data.” The articlewill be published in theJournal of Research and Personalityin August.
>>80886531
>Shills will defend this
Liberals are interested in science the same way blacks are interested in raising their kids right.
>>80886531
hm, no shit sherlock
conservatives have a large amount of Christians, who usually don't take interest in science.
also 1 post by this ID, >>/trash/
>>80886531
Wow, people trying to work their way through college and make something of themselves while doing chem or physics are less likely to view topical and wholly frivolous wikipedia articles because all their time is actually devoted to doing real fucking science, while some art major scribbles some bullshit on paper and then views some vaguely-scientific huffpo article and brags to their facebook friends about it?
Really?
>>80886531
>In three separate studies, Tullett and colleagues offered participants in both the Deep South and West Coast a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media.
I'm sure if you showed liberals science about race they would be really accepting.
>“Take an issue like gun control: If you were to present people with the issue of gun control, and have anecdotal accounts, expert opinion and scientific studies, our data suggest that liberals would be more likely to care about the scientific study than conservatives. That might have implications for what kind of evidence each pole of the political continuum finds persuasive.”
>>80887070
HAHA motherfucking shit I was right.
>Take an issue like gun control: If you were to present people with the issue of gun control, and have anecdotal accounts, expert opinion and scientific studies, our data suggest that liberals would be more likely to care about the scientific study than conservatives.
What a fucking specious cunt. This is why college degrees mean fuckall nowadays. They let any retard with a fist full of cash into their 'prestigious institution'.
Liberals are interested in "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE LOOK HOW SMART I AM" science, not real hard truths that would shift their worldview and make them see they are wrong science.
These days peer review is a joke, most studies are a joke, and most "scientists" are at the mercy of govt funding
>>80886531
That's probably because the "novel science" that is mostly talked about in the mainstream media is bullshit coming from the politic/sociology/gender-studies/African-American-studies departments.
Everyone who has ever seen a college from the inside knows that these fields are more about political activism than unbiased scientific observation.
By science we mean parasiting governemnt funds from people contributing to society to smoke weed and watch glaciers break up.
>being interested in science
>being interested in a bunch of assholes who make up fantastical claims to justify their jobs or push their agenda and buying the rags that publish them
According to scientists, literally everything gives me cancer and the world is going to end any day now because of climate change.
Nah, I'd rather go outside and enjoy the sunshine with a beer and a smoke.
>>80886531
If global warming is real, then why hasn't the ice-cream in my fridge melted?
>>80887151
Yeah. I don't think I'd care to read studies about that crap either.
>>80886531
>Conservatives are less interested than liberals in viewing novel scientific data, according to a psychology researcher
>psychology researcher
>science
Lol.
>>80886531
from the article
>".....a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media"
I would assume that if they had chosen three other topics, like race/intelligents, benefits of third world aid in country development, or racial difference in crime patterns in the context of gun control.
Then they would reach the opposite conclusion. There is literally nothing to see here, this is merely clickbait for liberals..
>>80887363
>>80887483
>anecdotes and opinions
Do liberals think that that's real science?
>>80887151
Literally meme science
>>80887483
fucking this. college is just a indoctrination camp now.
>this just in: liberals write articles saying liberals are more interested in science than conservatives
>>80886531
Posting "SCIENCE IS FUCKING AWESOME" memes on your normiebook doesn't mean you are into science.
Liberals are pseudo-scientists and nothing more. The apolitical and conservative scientists are the ones doing the real work with no real fame.
flood her email with cock pics ploz
>>80886531
"Science" to millenial liberals means Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, ifuckinglovescience, and thespiritscience.com or freethoughtcatalog
Its not actual, hard science they are interested in. They're interested in the pop science of the day that tells you that race doesn't exist and weed cures cancer.
>>80887608
How high do you keep your fucking fridge cranked?
>>80887034
Hey I'm a Christian and a biochemist. Science is great. However, what liberals think is science are stupid Snapple cap fun facts. "Did you know that a starfish can theoretically live forever? Wow I love science!" They're fucking retarded.
Most people aren't interested in science, including liberals, including the "I fucking love science" normies.
They're interested in looking at neat-o pictures and watching documentaries.
>>80886531
>Liberals more interested in science than conservatives
Then why is my STEM university's student body more conservative than liberal?
>>80887749
>reading comprehension
that sentence never implied that anecdotes count as scientific evidence. it implied that if a liberal person were presented with anecdotes, expert opinions, and scientific evidence, the liberals would value the scientific evidence more than the other stuff. on the other hand, conservatives wouldn't.
>>80888088
confirmed. You know it's conservative on a more regular basis as men completely dominate the field and are far less likely to be liberal.
>>80888088
>Then why is my STEM university's student body more conservative than liberal?
Because the modern left is so batshit insane and corrupted by power that even classical liberals are called conservatives.
>>80886531
>Conservatives are less interested in science than liberals
This is generally true, with one major caveat: If science hurts a the feelings of a liberal, then the science is discarded.
The left believes in science only up to the point it disagrees with their politics.
ALL data proving differences between races and genders is immediately discarded as nonsense, no matter how high quality the data is.
It never even seems to dawn on them how very convenient it is that science always seems to align with their political beliefs.
>>80887962
This, I Fucking Love Science and Bill Nye are their "science" interests
Conservatives tend to be more hard-working types, why would they need or care about science if they're working on a farm or in a factory or something?
Gender study is not a science.
>>80886531
>novel scientific data
how was this defined?
>>80888162
>men completely dominate that feel
This is true. The student body here is like 10% female, in which some claim that the school is sexist because they don't "accept" women into here
>>80886531
>psychology
>science
lol
>>80886531
And yet almost everyone I ever met in the stem field is conservative while the "progressives" flock to the social sciences and gender studies
>>80888595
About half of psychology is meme-tier BS, but the other half is useful
>>80886531
Reminder that sociology isn't a real science.
>>80886531
>assistant professor
>>80888595
Fucking this. When will this meme die? I remember I had to take that bullshit class in my first year of college and it was so stupid. No hard evidence and almost every "major finding" is based off of assumptions and untested hypotheses.
>>80888737
Sure, but the only real applicable use is in marketing. And psychology is literally incapable of generating any sort of objective truths or facts.
>one post by this ID
OP is a faggot according to a psychology researcher
>>80888033
Atheist biologist here.
Stuff like
>"Did you know that a starfish can theoretically live forever?"
is interesting as fuck though. And if you didn't go into science to marvel at nature you did it for the wrong reasons.
That being said, liberals often only have a very shallow understanding of natural science (which, as you said, mostly limits itself to "fun facts") and most of the time only use it to earn "look how smart I am" points in public.
>copied directly from a Leddit comment:
From the paper's discussion:
Currently, conclusive statements about whether conservatives are less interested in data on non-political issues would be premature. The present data seem to provide tentative evidence for a small association between liberalism and greater interest in non-political data.
i.e. The headline of this post is sensationalistic.
Here are the methodologies for participant selection in each of the 3 studies. (Drawing generalizations from populations that may not be representative is a pet peeve of mine.)
Study1
A total of 227 undergraduate psychology students at the University of Alabama (140 females, Mage = 19.60 years, SDage = 2.52) participated for course credit.
Study2
A total of 198 undergraduate psychology students at the University of California Berkeley (157 females, Mage = 21.34 years, SDage = 3.20) completed the study for course credit.
Study3
A total of 605 mTurk workers (311 females, Mage = 37.88 years, SDage = 13.21) completed the study for monetary compensation ($0.40).
>>80888863
>incapable of generating any sort of objective truths or facts.
So is philosophy, the ground subject from which all other knowledge flows from
Most people can't correctly interpret a bar graph correctly, let alone figure out if a study's findings are generalizable. The Left is full of stupid people repeating, often incorrectly repeating, stuff they were told with no critical thinking going on in-between. I don't know why this is considered a good thing. The same people that religious repeat scientific facts also repeat conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. When most Leftist are correct on a fact, it is by sheer luck.
>>80889225
sdu?
>>80889265
wew
>>80886531
Shill harder, you are barely even trying here faggot.
>>80889280
And Philosophy doesn't actually claim it does so, more importantly nor does it have "health" professionals that have the power to "treat" people for problems.
The fact that psychologists are allowed to "treat" people is one of the greatest modern fuck ups of Western Culture. They are basically chiropractors.
>>80886531
It's true. But this just a statement of the fact that they're also interested in other things, like a stable society. Both are important.
>>80886531
I've studied this subject thoroughly myself.
Here are the fresh test results pulled from my ass.
Psychology researchers are #1 in producing examples of confirmation bias.
>>80886531
Liberals have some kind of neomania, where they jump on every new fad and love the modern for its own sake. They also have a bad view about history, where everything that was is bad and the current year is the apex of progress.
>>80889225
I fully understand the interest in nature as that what led me to choose my career. But I guess I'm trying to convey what you're saying: they're more interested in meme science and would rather follow Bill Nye than look through a microscope.
>>80886531
(((scientific data)))
>>80886531
>shilling more bullshit narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy7GOO7Y96Y
>>80889948
>Liberals have some kind of neomania, where they jump on every new fad and love the modern for its own sake.
Exactly this. Liberals are called progressives for a reason.
They overvalue potential outcomes associated with chance taking, conservatives overvalue the risk associated with chance taking.
new Science is "maybe useless, maybe very important" data, that conservatives tend to view as a probably unimportant waste of time.
Leftists are only interested in science to manipulate it for their agenda !
https://youtu.be/RB8H77vEYFU
>>80886531
Fuck you and your conservative vs liberal bullshit, you fucking kike.
Truth is all that matters.
Good people care about the truth,
and good people from all walks of life will come together when the truth enlightens them.
>>80887034
More like most "social sciences" are biased as fuck. 90% can't be replicated. People go out to twist an experiment to support their political beliefs.
The vast majority of these people at universities are liberals.
Conservatives will be very skeptical of these things that are clearly biased against them.
This study only exists so liberals can say
>lol conservatives r dumb and h8 science
Nah, they just see how biased the whole thing is.
If you treat science as gospel like many wannabe enlightened individuals do you're gullible as fuck.
If you've actually spent time in these departments and you aren't a delusional leftist your faith in social scientific research being conducted at universities will forever be destroyed
>>80888551
I doubt they just mean "new" scientific data - or even scientific data at all.
Nobody just reads scientific data unless you're a turboautist; you read an article *about* the data, even in serious science publications like Nature.
Liberals are interested in new information because old information isn't useful to them. I could talk for hours about physics, but because its fundamental, old knowledge, it wouldn't be considered in this case.
Liberals consider Social Science to be a "science"
>>80886531
>"Tullett and colleagues offered participants in both the Deep South and West Coast a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media."
"Science" and "empirical data" in the "Social Sciences"
Maybe because conservatives recognize that studies like those mentioned are just bullshit from the beginning.
>>80890459
Exactly !!!
>>80887151
They took liberally biased "information" and pushed them onto the most conservative and most liberal areas. Obviously the conservatives would be more skeptical.
This entire "study" was designed to get that result so they could hold it up and say conservatives hate science.
>>80886531
> conservatives are less interested in "novel data"
> "novel data" being a euphamism for "subjective opinions" like "the justness of the world" and "the privilege of whiteness"
It might be because the "novel data" is obviously bullshit.
>>80890593
>data on the justness of the world
>>80886531
Not surprising considering conservative retards have been denying climate change for decades.
Science must really get in the way of praising Jesus.
>>80886531
bretty interesting considering todays liberal ideology is entirely dependent on ignoring data
>>80887363
If that were true then liberals would not support gun control. The actual data supports that more guns = lower crime. Liberals tell half truths and manipulate data to try and say "muh guns r bad".
The real indicator of how much crime a place will have is how white it is. The more white the lower the crime. I bet liberals would never accept that data, would they
>>80886743
/thread
>>80888088
Because the "I fucking love science" crowd is mostly left
These people do not pursue stem degrees as well
>>80886531
Less interested in junk science propaganda peddled by the elite.
Ftfy
>>80890919
Leftists social scientists to rightist ones -->266 to 1!!
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/
>>80886531
kek this is news? If it was up to conservatives we would still be living like the middle ages. Everybody is dumb and ileterate, priests are the teachers in universitys, mess is in latin, the bible is in latin, public executions for random reasons everyday.
People working all their lifes and never moving more than 30 km away from their birthplace.
That's the conservative wet dream.
>>80891072
This whole field might be invested and biased toward one side when only 1-2% of them identify as Conservative, 10% identify as Left-leaning centrists, and 88% identify as far-LEFT LEANING. Because you know FAR LEFT-LEANING individuals are never known to manipulating DATA for their own agenda at all.
>>80886531
Conservatives are also more likely to provide funding for science.
More libtards go to college and waste their time pursuing useless majors to become teachers. Not surprising.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html
Reminder
This guys "study" is in every psychology text book
>>80891072
>http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/
Wow actual scientific confirmation of the marxist agenda that conservatives have been complaining about. I wonder if liberals will be interested in THIS particular piece of scientific data.
>>80891227
>public executions for random reasons everyday
that has never happened except with totalitarian regimes like khmer rouge and probably islam
the article is describing American conservatives anyway, and by today's standards that means anything from classical liberals to neocons
>lol conservadumbs have inferior brains and don't care about science because their ideology blinds them from our "facts"
>n-no there's no physical difference between races, they're all human and just as smart as everyone else!
lel
>>80888425
>It never even seems to dawn on them how very convenient it is that science always seems to align with their political beliefs.
That's because we base our beliefs on science bigot.
Your stat's are propaganda because you disagree with me and you can't 100% debunk all my repeatedly changing reasons to justify the differences between those groups.
And I will not believe there is a difference between these groups until we have every piece of DNA mapped out and you can find all the intelligence genes.
Until then we do the scientific thing and stick to the conclusion that every group is exactly the same.
>>80888613
Not the computer sciences. And look at silicon valley, they're progressives on steroids.
>>80886531
>in viewing novel scientific data
So clickbait shit like IFLScience?
>>80886531
Because all the grants are going to green energy wastes of time and tax payer money. Because any research that goes against the liberal truth is immediately shot down and you get blacklisted. I'd rather go weld than waste my time and energy fighting for grants only to lose it to another solar-powered, potato research project that will totally power the world once we create impossible batteries 9000 years in the future. THat's if you don't get shut down by the many government organizations first. Military R&D is probably your only outlet.
Also it's a lie that all liberals "love science," they just share random bullshit like "if you freeze a spoon, it explodes!!!" or inspirational quotes from Black Science Man or Bill Nye. Blame Biology for luring animal lovers and ecofascsists.
>>80886531
>according to a ((((((((psychology researcher))))))))
Liberals treat "science" like a religion which justifies all their interventions into individual liberty.
They only care about it in so far as it tells them that they are right to regulate private activity.
Like you have to vaccinate your kids but you're totally cool if you just want to abort them.
>leftists
>believe in alternate medicine
>believe gender is a social construct
>believe Africans and Anglo-Saxons are the same species
>believe illicit drugs will cure every disease.
>believe there's a gay gene.
>interested in science.
>>80886531
This would explain why they typically don't know jack or shit about history, philosophy, economics, or theology.
>>80888613
>In Philosophy, religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an areoplane, they had to make four.
>Conservatives are less interested in science than liberals
>Liberals are complete fucking degenerates
I wonder which one I would rather be.
>(((study)))
Liberals have turned science into a dogmatic cult where results are skewed to favor a political narrative. That is not science.
>>80886531
Got a strong feeling this is heavily angled. Conservatives might be uninterested in the latest socialist studies out to prove global warming, trans people being normal or something.
>>80886531
>1 post by this IP
>>80886531
>Conservatives are less interested than liberals in viewing novel scientific data
>according to a psychology researcher
>>80893496
>>In Philosophy....two and two might make five
Continental scum detected.
Liberals ruin science and they ruin the humanities, the foundation of any civilization and culture. I wish more conservatives would enter into the humanities though. The humanities are at the core of the ideological war and its why conservatives have lost so much in the past 20 years. What more, the preservation of society goes beyond mere financial pragmatism. The "conservation" of a society is more than its coffers, but the art, literature and values which made that society what it is. What could be more conservative than to preserve the literature, philosophy and history of your society? Conservatives need to have a humanities renaissance and to give a space for teachings besides the post-modernists and 3rd wave feminists who dominate so much.
>>80886531
Don't you that science is a liar... sometimes?
You sound like a stupid science bitch.
>>80895671
The problem isn't that we don't put emphasis on the humanities, it's that the way we study the humanities has entirely shifted.
Gone are the days where children studied the classics. No Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Dante, Milton, Melville, etc etc etc. The education systems in our country have gone to great lengths to dumb down our curriculum. It's even become a problem in private education, which, until recently, held higher standards and forced students to engage with more complex fields of science.
As a personal anecdote, I attended one of the nations most well-respected college preparatory Catholic Schools about 15 years ago (I'm an oldfag by 4chan standards). My nephew is now going through the same school. The curriculum has entirely changed. When I was there, I studied logic, philosophy, and latin, subjects which aren't even touched upon among even most private schools. This same school doesn't even offer these courses anymore. To make matters worse, our non-AP English syllabi were filled with more advanced texts, with an emphasis on classics, such as Moby-Dick, As I Lay Dying, the works of Flannery O'Connor, Hesiod, Dante, Cicero, etc. etc. etc. His syllabus for the last semester (he was a sophomore) is comprised of Y.A. MUH FEELS bullshit like Speak, House on Mango Street, and Go Ask Alice.
What's most alarming is that this trend of consistently watering down our humanities education because certain texts are 'too hard' (i.E. Shakespeare, Milton, Melville, Dante, etc.) is now forcing most colleges to water down their curriculum. At this rate, kids will be reading Harry Potter in college as a serious study (check that: they already do).
Cont...
>>80886531
>titled “Is ideology the enemy of inquiry?
No confirmation bias there surely dear?
>Dr. Alexa Tullett, assistant professor of psychology at UA
>assistant professor of psychology
>Dr
kek. We realy have to kill this meme. A PHD in vaginal studies should not allow you to slap Dr in front of your name.
>>80896985
You couple this trend with the fact that most literary critics today have gone away from formal criticism into gender or marxist criticism and we have totally degraded the worth of philosophy or literature in education to begin with. People today are more concerned with the fact that "Nigger" is written in Huck Finn that with what the novel can actually teach you. They deride Moby-Dick as a patriarchal fantasy without actually discussing the ideas which make the novel so important. They deride ancient texts because they were written by "dead, old, angry white men". Thereby creating a convenient bogey-man by which, rather than be forced to actually THINK and engage with a text, they ignore it entirely, based upon the fact that they are somehow more enlightened for the mere fact that they were born a few hundred years after these individuals.
The reason these texts aren't engaged with on a basic level anymore is because most of the texts, and the ideas and conversations the texts summon, are entirely in contrast with their progressive agenda. Dante was staunchly Catholic. Aristotle is too logical and structured to bring an emotional case against, and most of his ideas are a threat to the progressive agenda (Eternal Actual, the existence of moral objectives, etc. etc. etc.). The majority of major thinkers and writers of history have been, in modern terms, reactionary or conservative. The list is too exhaustive to go through here, but take your pick of any "old, dead, white male" thinkers and chances are they are an intellectual giant in opposition to the progressives agenda. Dostoyevsky, Locke, Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, Homer, Cicero, Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Kirkegaard, Faulkner, etc. etc. etc. Even more modern writers like Flannery O'Connor, G.K. Chesterton, Gene Wolfe, and Cormac McCarthy are largely ignored or derided for their conservative leanings.
>>80896985
I agree, "diversity" is also a large part of why humanities have become so crippled. I myself am going into the humanities, but its conflicting because I think history and literature is so important and yet my political opinions will likely contradict so much with the zeitgeist of modern liberal arts students.
Typically, people who are trained in labor or handling money are more conservative because conservatism is often about fiscal responsibility, and it makes sense why people in economics or STEM would be conservative. However, conservatism is two-fold, it is also the art and culture of a society, and it seems odd to me that people who study that wouldn't adopt more conservative views. The fields in which it makes most sense to me that they would be liberalistic are the soft sciences like gender studies and social science. I don't see how you could read the Greeks and think that hedonism is the way forward.
>>80898152
The entirety of western literature is riddled with traditionalist and reactionary thinkers. The problem with modern humanities studies (particularly at the college level) is that they don't want to actually discuss the writers and texts in question. They only want to read these books to force or re-enforce their progressive political stances. The vast majority of English professors today approach texts from a post-structuralist, marxist, or feminist theory. Gone are the days of formalism, New Criticism, or even reader-response. There is a special place in hell designated for Derrida. Post-Structuralism and Deconstructionism were the worst mistakes in literary history.
>>80898969
Ironically, I realized while reading what you wrote that the title of the article "Is ideology the enemy of inquiry?" is a very fitting description of their belief system. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
>>80898152
>I agree, "diversity" is also a large part of why humanities have become so crippled.
Diversity is fine. There are plenty of great "diverse" writers and texts. The problem arises when you deliberately distance or deride a text SOLELY on the color of a writers skin or his/her place in history. This, by definition, is a racists and prejudice notion. It's a great irony that many of these students and professors are pushing for diversity while also ignoring the foundation works of western literature based on the color, nationality, or religion of a writer. A great work will stand on its own, regardless of gender, race, nationality, or religion. I consider Samuel Delaney to be one of the most underrated writers of all time, even though I think he is a perverted faggot nigger. His skill as a writer and his genius is undeniable, and only a fool would dismiss his work on political grounds. It's astonishing to me that these same types of individuals who are championing the destruction of western literature do so solely on the basis of a writers skin color or nationality. It's hypocrisy at its finest.
To make matters worse, the writers these people want to 'replace' the greats of western literature aren't even fucking good. They primarily write SJW wank-fest fan fiction. Meanwhile they ignore of even actively campaign against geniuses like Proust (a proud faggot) and Flannery O'Connor (a woman) simply because they "don't reflect our culture"
You should check out The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. It's a fantastic overview of conservative thought through the modern era.
>>80886531
How affirmative action and GENDER QUOTAS influence US education system
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/09/yale-students-demand-removal-white-authors-curriculum/
Yale Students Demand Removal of White Authors from Curriculum
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19373/
Teach For America: Math is the ‘Domain of Old, White Men’
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/22/san-francisco-middle-schools-no-longer-teaching-algebra-1
Algebra 1 will no longer be taught in middle school under Obama Common Core
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/22537
Wayne State Drops Math Requirement, May Add Diversity Requirement
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670918/White-babies-display-signs-racism-Elite-New-York-school-tells-white-kids-ashamed-privilege-segregates-children-race.html
a diversity program that segregates pupils by race and claims that 'even white babies are capable of racism'.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2819190/i-wouldnt-change-places-with-you-8th-graders-white-boy-privilege-poem-goes-viral/
“Dear women, I’m sorry, dear black people, I’m sorry… Dear everyone who isn’t a middle or upper class white boy,
Liberal talk about science ....TOP KEK M8
>>80894339
Thanks to that gif I found this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTlK3perdI
>>80886531
You mean like the kind of science that liberals will literally prosecute you for questioning?
>>80899672
>http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/09/yale-students-demand-removal-white-authors-curriculum/
"The English department loses out when talented students engaged in literary and cultural analysis are driven away from the major. Students who continue on after taking the introductory sequence are ill-prepared to take higher-level courses relating to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, ability, or even to engage with critical theory or secondary scholarship"
>higher-level courses relating to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality,
> race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality
>higher-level
These people need to be shot.
Did it not ever occur to them that poets and writers like Shakespere, Milton, Eliot, Yeats, Chaucer, etc. were penetrating and examining ideas and thoughts which effect the ENTIRETY of humanity? The thing that makes these writers universal is their appeal to all humans. They are literally post-racial. These students can't see past their own bias enough to even begin to properly study major works. They don't deserve to be in the humanities.
>>80896985
>>80898008
>marxist criticism
My gott. No wonder it feels like left/pol/ and myself are speaking different languages when we cross swords. Thanks anon. Into a depression cycle I go.
>>80886531
Liberals seem strangely uninterested in science whenever science points out something awkward like blacks having lower IQs on average than Europeans.
What now Americuck?
>>80886531
>>80886531
>conservatives are less interested in pretending to be interested in science and reading pop science articles because they don't have egos to inflate or special snowflake identities to create.
>>80898152
I know it's something of a meme but really, cultural marxism. I've long suspected the aim of cultural marxism is (in the short term, the long term aim is Marxism) to break reality by making words all fucky, poking holes in rationality and empericism, and spreading a version of critical theory that cannot see beyond one's own borders. Everything you two >>80898152
>>80898008
say confirms this.
Fuck this I'm moving to China. Who was order number 47?
>>80886531
What the fuck is "science"?
Good thing is really easy to tell science from 'liberal science'
>>80886531
Science (which is seperate from TEM) pays less than business or trades. You can make a lot of money in science if your really smart and after a lot of time and dedication, but if you want to have a family younger, with a feeling of financial security and free time to spend with them you'll pick something with more security. I worked in science for awhile and you see young people get used and thrown around as grunts with no actual future benefit other than a reference.
>>80886531
Are you surprised?....
>>80903324
"A new study by my company and Beyond.com called “The Multi-Generational Job Search,”
found that only 2% of employers are actively recruiting liberal arts degree holders.
Compare that to the 27% that are recruiting engineering and computer information systems majors and 18%
that are recruiting business majors"
http://www.businessinsider.com/liberal-arts-majors-are-screwed-2014-5
>>80886531
liberals are only interested in science that advances their agenda, they will completely ignore science that doesn't.
>>80904015
That's why I said separate from TEM, technology engineering and math. My experience is mainly with biology and environmental science majors looking for work.
>>80886531
Because conservatives know that 99% of scientific articles are useful for them unless they are a scientist. Liberals will read them so they can think of themselves as superior and brag to there friends.
>>80904331
I agree on that
>>80886531
Science is a joke in the currently.
All that matters is publishing, nothing else.
My sister is a full on SJW and I remember her getting severely triggered when my mother implied that her psychology course wasn't real science.
>>80886531
Are you suggesting that universities have not become demonstrably hostile toward those with conservative views?
>>80905356
kek. It is not. My textbook talked about "withitness" it just means knowing what is happening in your own classroom.
Also my anthropology professor told me race is a construct and we are only different because we adapted to different climates so our skin is just different.
>nothing else
>intelligence is not an adaptation
I do not argue because I just want to get my grade and leave.
>teacher says what do you think about oscar discrimination?
>I respond with no one cares that all those people are jews.
>teacher says the holocaust was wrong
>discussion over.
>>80886531
>psychology
Dropped. Can we collectively, as the people of Earth, finally agree to stop pretending that psychology is a legitimate science?
I'm an atheist libertarian and I've always been far more interested in science than any of my peers. Fuck your skewed "statistics" that assume that 100 people that all live in a 3-mile radius represent the entire nation. All the lefties I've met are actually violently opposed to facts, citations, and accurate statistics, as if they were deadly toxins.
>>80886531
(((science)))
>>80901160
How ironic, authors from hundreds of years ago were so ahead of the curve that when "progressives" encounter their works they're angry it doesn't reaffirm their segregationist victim ideology.
Define science used in this context.
