Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[Billy000]

OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

With all due respect, Billy...if someone HAS a liberal bias then in their mind they may think they are being "objective" when in fact they are not. Bias is not impossible. Bias is not unlikely. Bias occurs on a daily basis. You need look no further than this board. Posters from both ends of the political spectrum back up those who support their political agendas...even when those others post some really ridiculous stuff. You think college faculty members are really all that different?

Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.

 

[francoHFW]

Half the dupes believe Obama is marxist or Kenyan or muslim, or aren't sure- or 22% believe he's the anti-christ or aren't sure. That is ignorance, dupes. Also, see sig pp3.

 

[francoHFW]

6% of scientists are GOP. The GOP doesn't CARE about facts or truth, just money, power, and hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

With all due respect, Billy...if someone HAS a liberal bias then in their mind they may think they are being "objective" when in fact they are not. Bias is not impossible. Bias is not unlikely. Bias occurs on a daily basis. You need look no further than this board. Posters from both ends of the political spectrum back up those who support their political agendas...even when those others post some really ridiculous stuff. You think college faculty members are really all that different?

Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.

Given that psychology is a fake science there is every reason to suspect that it is driven by bias.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes... because there can be no bias among those giving the review.

OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

Billy, that's like saying oreilly wrote a book or paper and rush limbaugh and sean hannity reviewed it....would you by that? They are peers and objective, correct?

My dad is a prof, he's had several papers and I know how it works......but science(the hard kind) is objective, social science is not.....it's just not objective, they use studies and try to acertain from behavior, it led to a field called profiling....now they want that banned......which I think that's the only thing social scientists really gave us worth anything

 

[Cecilie1200]

You idiot me mentioning Mitt Romney just paints the obvious picture that I don't hate the rich yet you are still harping on this idea that i do. You just like the idea of entertaining liberal stereotypes which shows you lack basic critical thinking skills.

Put me in my place? You are such a fucking teenager.

I take that back. I got a $5000 scholarship from AmeriCorps.

You know i am not lying. Don't give me that shit.

Dude, seriously, reading through your posts, it becomes quite clear that you're not very intelligent.

Look, there ia a little thing called a comma.....Educate yourself, and learn how to use them.

Christ, the quality of education being provided by these liberal "professor" types, is absolutely atrocious.

If you can't explain why I am not intelligent then don't bother saying it. Pointing out my grammar? Really? That is so weak.

Let me get this straight. FIRST, you claim he "can't explain" why you're not intelligent. THEN, you demonstrate that he DID, in fact, explain it, and you just don't like the explanation.

I believe that if your lack of mastery in what is presumably your mother tongue is not enough demonstration that you're not intelligent, this little display amply makes up for that lack.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In what way has deregulated capitalism lost millions of jobs?

The Impact of the September 2008 Economic Collapse - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Jobs – 5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.

So now your contention is that deregulation caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash? It's amusing how you manage to totally ignore the part that regulations that LED to the housing bubble don't seem to come into play in your viewpoint of what caused the economic meltdown. Giving home loans to people that normally would have had a hard time qualifying as rental tenants is suddenly a conservative initiative? Really? It's tragic that bankers...a part of our system that were always characterized BY their being conservative...were coerced into making sub-prime loans by pressure from the Government...loans that wouldn't have even been considered by competent bankers a generation ago.

Three words for you, my friend: Cites Paul Krugman.

'Nuff said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your erroneous allegation has been repudiated by credible sources including a nobel prize winning "liberal economist".

$9 minimum wage: Jump start or job killer?- MSN Money



Paul Krugman: Raising The Minimum Wage Is 'Good Policy'

You cited Paul Krugman as a source. Your argument - not to mention your entire existence - is invalid.

You don't think a liberal blogger is a good source? Hmm...I think you might be right...

I think Paul Krugman specifically is barely a good source of body heat for the room. As a source for intelligence, I would go to my teenager before I would go to Paul Krugman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, if you're lazy and dumb to do the research yourself, I guess I'll explain it to you.

Liberalism wants to LIMIT the extremes of wealth and poverty. Socialism wants to ELIMINATE the extremes of wealth and poverty. Considering the rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is shrinking, we need liberal policies. That's right. (Small) government influence. See my signature for the facts on the wealth in this country.

Here is another important distinction. Modern day socialism rejects the idea of capitalism. Liberalism does not. Liberals do not want to change our economic system. However, the idea of corporate America having unchecked power is a scary thought. We need laws to LIMIT their power.

If true, then why after all 40+ years of all these liberal policies are the rich getting richer? Every 4 years democrats tell us this.....so apparently their programs suck at it.....second of all who is against SOME laws.....liberals want more than a few....the problem with liberalism, is none of the people who preach it, practice it....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

Liberals are full of shit.....they tell others what to do and some of you drones fall for it.....look I dont care how much a person makes, if he's not killing people or doing something crazy bad(and no that does not include profit).....good for whoever is making cash.....I'm honest and consistant you arent!


Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Your article doesnt say much. Religion is key in this issue. Liberals tend to be secular. That is why they give less to charity. However, religious liberals, on average, give just as much as religious conservatives do. Who out of all is the most stingy? SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

This isn't me talking. Your article made all of the above clear.

Your article also makes it clear that conservatives favor cutting social justice programs. What does that say about them?

That they know a ridiculous scam when they see one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True, but still government run, and also true, people like me would be screaming that they were despicable. But that's the basic argument here, some people want to change things hopefully for the better and some want to keep them as they were 159 years ago. Others al would want America to pass laws to keep medical care the same for the next 159 years, to allow the future generations to decide what is best for them?
As conservatives discover every day it is difficult to keep things the same, change seems inevitable. Liberals want to direct the change, conservatives stop the change.
The arguments conservatives have against change are such arguments as: what we have now is the best, changes will destroy America, change is un-American, our founders did not want change, and so on. But America and the world keep changing the the poor-houses are gone and medical care will change, no matter.

The really intelligent people not only understand that change is inevitable, they also understand that progress is unpredictable. They understand the fundamental fact that, because no one can actually see the future, that the idea of guiding change is absurd.

Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.

Most of us also run smack up against the fact that we really have very little control over anything in our lives AT LEAST once. And so do governments. The difference is, the government doesn't have to acknowledge that reality if it can lie about it convincingly enough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.

Almost half of the world has below average intelligence, the fact that that group of people do something is not indicative of it being a good idea.

and who measures that one? just because you know how to spell and use grammer correctly lets you judge? oh pppppppppppllllllease.another moron that dont know the differance between knowledge and wisdom.

Let's just say that criticizing someone else's intelligence publicly in that nearly incoherent form is NOT a demonstration of wisdom, hmmm?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most of us base our lives on predictability, perhaps progress and that we have some control over guiding change in our lives, and so do governments.

Almost half of the world has below average intelligence, the fact that that group of people do something is not indicative of it being a good idea.

this statement still blows my mind are you liberals that stuck up? you can learn anything from any animal on earth if you just watch. guess thats the differance between liberals and cons we pay attention...

Did you just call Quantum a liberal? And this is supposed to establish your creds as a purveyor of wisdom, is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That is such bullshit. What exactly gives you this insight? How would you know about the psychology of students and professors? The only way you would know such a thing is if it was published in a social science study! Otherwise, you are making guesses. Social science studies go through the same rigorous process like any hard science study. The pursuit of objectivity is just as important. There is no bias. I will admit that the conclusions in social science studies are less concrete than studies of hard science, but peer reviewed studies are peer reviewed studies. Bias is impossible if a study is peer reviewed.

Dude I've kicked your ass many times in this thread as have others....you dont need to publish, that's a libtard requirement...who gives a shit.....Everyone knows humanities is a very liberal field.....very liberal....if you dont, then you have no business discussing this subject. how do I know, well I went to college and my dad is a professor of REAL science.....that's how I know....oh btw it's call medicinal chemistry(and this is why I laugh at balls brunswick, he psycoanalyzed me and was waaaaaay off, liberals are hilarious, they take way more assumptions and stereotypes than a conservative)....you dont know shit, and I've already crushed you on liberals preaching but not practicing charity....and on this subject, you will lose big...........keep on comming hombre!

Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there, and I'm VERY sure that if you do, I will make you regret it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

With all due respect, Billy...if someone HAS a liberal bias then in their mind they may think they are being "objective" when in fact they are not. Bias is not impossible. Bias is not unlikely. Bias occurs on a daily basis. You need look no further than this board. Posters from both ends of the political spectrum back up those who support their political agendas...even when those others post some really ridiculous stuff. You think college faculty members are really all that different?

Okay but what you don't seem to understand is that unless the psychologist is examining some politically related topic, there is no reason to think his liberal ideology is making his findings biased. Also, just because liberalism is prevalent higher education, it does not mean that every professor is liberal. It doesn't even mean that most of them are liberal. Psychologists for the most part don't even give a shit a politics. It isn't their field.

Billy, there's EVERY reason to believe his liberal ideology is biasing his judgements. Do you truly think "liberal ideology" is just about politics? It's an entire mindset that permeates every aspect of one's thoughts and behaviors - just as conservatism is, I will freely admit - and of which politics is only one manifestation. Dr. Thomas Sowell calls the liberal mindset "the vision of the anointed", and has written many excellent books exploring the way that knowing what it is and who has it allows you to predict how those people will react on virtually any given topic.

 

[Billy000]

OMG, this guy did he really say the bold part? Really? He really loves the academy and is into it......bias is impossible.....LOLOLOLOLOL, this guy is a joke. I supopose he thinks there is no bias with the Nobel Prizes either....especially the Peace prize.

I will concede that "impossible" was a poor choice of words. Bias is still possible. However, it is unlikely. You obviously don't know how it works. Studies are reviewed by people independent to the research to itself. There is no reason for them not to be objective. This premise that they wouldn't be because they are "liberal" is ridiculous. Like it or not, psychology is a legitimate field. You thinking It's not means nothing because you don't know anything about it. Psychologists are not insecure about the work they do. They don't have good reason to not be objective when they review a peer's study.

Billy, that's like saying oreilly wrote a book or paper and rush limbaugh and sean hannity reviewed it....would you by that? They are peers and objective, correct?

My dad is a prof, he's had several papers and I know how it works......but science(the hard kind) is objective, social science is not.....it's just not objective, they use studies and try to acertain from behavior, it led to a field called profiling....now they want that banned......which I think that's the only thing social scientists really gave us worth anything

Why can't you just admit you don't know how it works? The social sciences use the scientific method like any hard science. A hypothesis is generated. Variables are identified, defined and controlled before experiments are conducted. The data is obtained objectively and then computed and conclusions are drawn. They don't "use studies" that have already been done to ascertain behavior. That is not even close to how it is done. Take my word for it.

The closest thing you are describing would be a literature review that is included within a study aside the experiment. Relevant research already published is reviewed and tied into the hypothesis.

 

[Billy000]

Dude I've kicked your ass many times in this thread as have others....you dont need to publish, that's a libtard requirement...who gives a shit.....Everyone knows humanities is a very liberal field.....very liberal....if you dont, then you have no business discussing this subject. how do I know, well I went to college and my dad is a professor of REAL science.....that's how I know....oh btw it's call medicinal chemistry(and this is why I laugh at balls brunswick, he psycoanalyzed me and was waaaaaay off, liberals are hilarious, they take way more assumptions and stereotypes than a conservative)....you dont know shit, and I've already crushed you on liberals preaching but not practicing charity....and on this subject, you will lose big...........keep on comming hombre!

Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there, and I'm VERY sure that if you do, I will make you regret it.

Are you threatening me over the internet?

 

[Wicked Jester]

You idiot me mentioning Mitt Romney just paints the obvious picture that I don't hate the rich yet you are still harping on this idea that i do. You just like the idea of entertaining liberal stereotypes which shows you lack basic critical thinking skills.

Put me in my place? You are such a fucking teenager.

I take that back. I got a $5000 scholarship from AmeriCorps.

You know i am not lying. Don't give me that shit.

Dude, seriously, reading through your posts, it becomes quite clear that you're not very intelligent.

Look, there ia a little thing called a comma.....Educate yourself, and learn how to use them.

Christ, the quality of education being provided by these liberal "professor" types, is absolutely atrocious.

If you can't explain why I am not intelligent then don't bother saying it. Pointing out my grammar? Really? That is so weak.

Obviously, the point sailed right over your head.

Look, if you're going to start a thread, that basically tries to state that somehow liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, which is laughable to say the least, then maybe you should show your so-called superior intelligence, by at least demonstrating basic grammar skills.

In a nutshell, if you're going to attempt to talk the talk, then at least show you have the ability to walk the walk. Otherwise, you end up looking as uneducated as TruthMatters, Rdean, and many other liberals on this board.

You seem like an OK guy, try not to lower yourself to their below ground crawlspace. You're better than that.

 

[Billy000]

Dude, seriously, reading through your posts, it becomes quite clear that you're not very intelligent.

Look, there ia a little thing called a comma.....Educate yourself, and learn how to use them.

Christ, the quality of education being provided by these liberal "professor" types, is absolutely atrocious.

If you can't explain why I am not intelligent then don't bother saying it. Pointing out my grammar? Really? That is so weak.

Obviously, the point sailed right over your head.

Look, if you're going to start a thread, that basically tries to state that somehow liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, which is laughable to say the least, then maybe you should show your so-called superior intelligence, by at least demonstrating basic grammar skills.

In a nutshell, if you're going to attempt to talk the talk, then at least show you have the ability to walk the walk. Otherwise, you end up looking as uneducated as TruthMatters, Rdean, and many other liberals on this board.

You seem like an OK guy, try not to lower yourself to their below ground crawlspace. You're better than that.

Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Given how poorly written this post is, I seriously doubt you have been to college.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to go there, and I'm VERY sure that if you do, I will make you regret it.

Are you threatening me over the internet?

No, dimwit, but you're definitely correct that you're cuckoo. Do you always jump to ignorantly, childishly extreme conclusions?

 

[Wicked Jester]

If you can't explain why I am not intelligent then don't bother saying it. Pointing out my grammar? Really? That is so weak.

Obviously, the point sailed right over your head.

Look, if you're going to start a thread, that basically tries to state that somehow liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, which is laughable to say the least, then maybe you should show your so-called superior intelligence, by at least demonstrating basic grammar skills.

In a nutshell, if you're going to attempt to talk the talk, then at least show you have the ability to walk the walk. Otherwise, you end up looking as uneducated as TruthMatters, Rdean, and many other liberals on this board.

You seem like an OK guy, try not to lower yourself to their below ground crawlspace. You're better than that.

Again, I never said I was smarter than anyone. I am not making a statement that says every liberal is smarter than every conservative. If I was, maybe you would have a point.

Soooo, just what the hell is the point of your OP?

The funny thing is, just a couple of posts back, you slammed another poster on THEIR grammar, and tried to say they couldn't have possibly gone to college because of it, yet your grammar is no better.....I guess, that I could say the same of you, seeing as though your grammar is so atrocious, eh?

And, I guess it begs yet another question,....just what kind of university would graduate somebody in the field of psychology, or whatever, with such atrocious grammar being so obvious?

Seriously, how old are you, btw?