Are amateur astronomers more conservative or liberal?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500, AM wrote:

If I understand correctly, you live in a place with a low population,
and you don't travel to big cities very much. If you did, you would see
that there are some very smart conservatives out there. Our astronomy
club is full of them.

I get to plenty of big cities. I grew up and lived for a long time in
conservative Orange County, California. My college education was very
apolitical. I've always been a Republican, but my political views have
drifted slowly to the left (although I consider myself pretty centrist-
a social liberal and fiscal conservative, perhaps) as I got older-
mainly because I've had the time and inclination to think about things-
that is, to really contemplate the world and our place in it. Nothing to
do with my education directly, except that it encouraged critical
thinking.

I know plenty of smart conservatives, as well. I didn't say that there
aren't smart conservatives, and I didn't say that there aren't well
educated conservatives. Obviously, there are many of both. What I said
is that studies show a correlation between both intelligence and
education and generally liberal viewpoints, and that my own observations
seem to support this as well. In my opinion, this has little to do with
the political viewpoint of educators.

Certainly on this group the correlation between lower intelligence and
apparent lower education is fairly obvious in the climate change
threads. Most of those with the obvious "conservative" political
viewpoints are rather clearly unable to formulate good arguments, are
unable to respond to arguments, and don't really understand science-
either in theory or practice. And this is a forum that I would expect
would be populated by at least a little bit smarter, more educated
participant than many others.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 23, 7:26*pm, AM wrote:

So education = progressive is not a matter of intelligence, as much as a
deliberate attempt by educators to teach students to behave that way.

You raise an interesting point.

I think that today's liberals are indeed wrong about certain things.
They failed to appreciate the fact that the Soviet Union and the
People's Republic of China were countries under appalling systems of
dictatorship that were comparable to Nazi Germany. And, today, since
they're very uncomfortable with the idea that another religion's
teachings might include a lack of respect for people outside that
religion, they can't grapple with the roots of the terrorist threat.
Some more extreme liberals even take conspiracy theories about 9/11
seriously.

This doesn't sound like very intelligent behavior. So it might be
reasonable to think that people become liberal after more formal
education because they've been exposed to liberal propagandizing
longer.

I don't think, though, that it is as simple as that. For good or ill,
there will be a tendency for the more intelligent to gravitate to many
aspects of liberal thinking.

For one obvious example, revealed religion has not justified itself
empirically. This is why more than one religion continues to exist,
while there is only one medicine, one physics, one electronics. God
and the afterlife haven't been established as solid fact the way that
the I.R.S. is a solid fact. It is natural for intelligent people to
reject believing something merely because someone else has told them
so.

Obviously, young people who are superior in ability, but who are only
average in family income, will se it in their interests to support
moving the social order towards one where how much money one's parents
have matters less, and one's own merits matter more.

On the other hand, those who do well in school do tend to have parents
who are at least in the upper middle class. In that case, they're
living securely in the suburbs, and don't have to contend directly
with the crime problems of the inner city. Thus, they will tend to
view issues of race relations in an abstract manner rather than a
concrete one: seeing an injustice to be righted, rather than dangerous
competitors for jobs and for affordable living space.

If one is clever, it is tempting to think that the world's problems
are caused by the fact that the world is run by people who aren't
clever enough to see the way to fix things. This leads one to favor an
interventionist approach to social issues. People are being thrown out
of work because of shenanigans at the stock market? The country has
great resources of land, of educated people, of factories and
equipment. There is, therefore, no physical constraint to prosperity -
if things like the financial system get in the way, yank them out of
the equation.

Thus, during the Great Depression, a lot of intelligent, educated
people were seduced by Communism - what little was heard about the
show trials and such could be dismissed as lies spread about by
businessmen who wanted an excuse to have the government get the pesky
trade union movement out of their way. There was a society that didn't
cater to creationists (they hadn't heard about Lysenko either), that
was working to build a modern, scientific future, that didn't confine
women to the kitchen or tolerate race prejudice.

Children come into the world open-minded and trusting. Acquiring
shrewd, cynical, bloody-minded common sense takes a few hard knocks.
But people who get their hard knocks from different directions will
tend to be cynical about different sorts of things.

The common working-man will be cynical about his employers and
politicians who claim they want to better his lot. The bright young
man will be cynical, or at least impatient, about the established
traditions and customs fo the society around him. Some people may
manage to avoid being overwhelmed by their natural inclinations
through maturity and objectivity, but many others will drift along,
believing the same things as the others of their social class.

John Savard

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500, AM wrote:

Just be glad that there are still kid's today that see beyond the
liberal teachings and make up their own mind.

Those that become well educated tend to become liberal atheists. That's
just the statistics. Plenty don't, but the majority do. Nothing to do
with their teachers, as such, just the natural result of learning to
think. You don't have to look any farther than the American founding
fathers to see that this is nothing new.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

That's weird. I know of no study in Australia which shows a positive
correlation between education and "liberalism" (in the sense the Americans
use the term, which is the opposite of conservatism).

However, in Australia there is clearly a strong positive correlation between
voting conservative and income levels (ie wealthier people are more likely
to be conservatives), and also a positive correlation between income and
education. These together would imply a positive correlation between
education and conservatism.

Having lived in the US for many years, and being an Australian, I can tell
you that apart from population size the two countries are culturally
remarkably similar. So it would be "weird" as I put it above for education
to be negatively correlated with conservatism in the US but positively in
Australia.

I base my correlation between conservative voting and income on ABS
statistics of household income vs electoral results. Although it is not
perfect - particularly in rural areas - its interesting that the postcode
(zip code) with the highest household income - 2073 - is also in the middle
of the safest conservative electoral boundary in the country - Bradfield.

Where did you get your statistics that show that in the US (unlike in
Australia) there is a positive correlation between education and liberalism
?

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500, AM wrote:

If I understand correctly, you live in a place with a low population,
and you don't travel to big cities very much. If you did, you would see
that there are some very smart conservatives out there. Our astronomy
club is full of them.

I get to plenty of big cities. I grew up and lived for a long time in
conservative Orange County, California. My college education was very
apolitical. I've always been a Republican, but my political views have
drifted slowly to the left (although I consider myself pretty centrist-
a social liberal and fiscal conservative, perhaps) as I got older-
mainly because I've had the time and inclination to think about things-
that is, to really contemplate the world and our place in it. Nothing to
do with my education directly, except that it encouraged critical
thinking.

I know plenty of smart conservatives, as well. I didn't say that there
aren't smart conservatives, and I didn't say that there aren't well
educated conservatives. Obviously, there are many of both. What I said
is that studies show a correlation between both intelligence and
education and generally liberal viewpoints, and that my own observations
seem to support this as well. In my opinion, this has little to do with
the political viewpoint of educators.


I would like to see those studies.

As I said elsewhere, in Australia at least both education levels and income
are positively correlated with voting intentions (a proxy for conservatism),
so your belief that conservatives are generally more poorly educated than
liberals strikes me as counter-intuitive.



Certainly on this group the correlation between lower intelligence and
apparent lower education is fairly obvious in the climate change
threads.


Difficult to see how you came to this conclusion, as I can't ever recall
anybody describing their educational qualifications in this newsgroup, so I
can't imagine where you got your data from. Presumably you just fabricated
information on the educational qualifications of people in this newsgroup.

Ironically, you didn't have to fabricate data and undertake your own
analysis. The link between higher intelligence and higher educational
achievement is universally accepted; smart people tend on average to do
better in school than stupid people.


Most of those with the obvious "conservative" political
viewpoints are rather clearly unable to formulate good arguments, are
unable to respond to arguments, and don't really understand science-
either in theory or practice.

Take you for example. You say you vote Republican. Yet you don't accept
basic principles of the scientific method such as the need for theories to
have predictive ability. You believe scientific truth is determined by
consensus. You don't think AGW is a scientific theory, you think its a
metatheory (whatever that is). You think its fair enough to fabricate data
and refer to non-existent studies (both of which you have done many times
before, including in this thread), and you think ad-hominem attacks are
scientific arguments (and isn't this post of yours justt some long
ad-hominem attack on people who disagree with you?).

If you are claiming there are Republicans who don't understand science, hand
yourself a cigar.


And this is a forum that I would expect
would be populated by at least a little bit smarter, more educated
participant than many others.
_________________________________________________


By the way, I am by US standards a "liberal" on social issues - I strongly
agree with gay rights (including gay marriage), pro-choice, separation of
Church and State, etc. I am also an atheist. And an AGW skeptic.

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, who are you talking about, exactly?

On Jan 24, 7:51*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So, who are you talking about, exactly?

The concept of liberal and conservative is the blind parochialism of a
rapidly fading economic empire. Now so weak and corrupted by personal
greed that even its wealthiest companies had to bow before unelected
Chinese nobodies. Just to be allowed to trade in a manner which goes
directly against the ideals of the American Constitution. Flag waving
is the habit of those who have already lost. Forgetting that flags
only ever flutter in the headwind of rapid retreat. Those advancing to
take new ground learned a century ago that flags provide early warning
of movement. Lower your flags or become the reviled redcoats of a
vanished British empire. That too was built on inequality and the
fabulous wealth of a few. Arguing about domestic politics is as
constructive as arguing about religion. Neither activity produces so
much as a single plastic bead to trade with your neighbours for food
or fuel. Or shelter from the coming storm.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500, AM wrote:

If I understand correctly, you live in a place with a low population,
and you don't travel to big cities very much. If you did, you would see
that there are some very smart conservatives out there. Our astronomy
club is full of them.

I get to plenty of big cities. I grew up and lived for a long time in
conservative Orange County, California. My college education was very
apolitical. I've always been a Republican, but my political views have
drifted slowly to the left (although I consider myself pretty centrist-
a social liberal and fiscal conservative, perhaps) as I got older-
mainly because I've had the time and inclination to think about things-
that is, to really contemplate the world and our place in it. Nothing to
do with my education directly, except that it encouraged critical
thinking.

I know plenty of smart conservatives, as well. I didn't say that there
aren't smart conservatives, and I didn't say that there aren't well
educated conservatives. Obviously, there are many of both. What I said
is that studies show a correlation between both intelligence and
education and generally liberal viewpoints, and that my own observations
seem to support this as well. In my opinion, this has little to do with
the political viewpoint of educators.


I would like to see those studies.

As I said elsewhere, in Australia at least both education levels and
income are positively correlated with voting intentions (a proxy for
conservatism), so your belief that conservatives are generally more poorly
educated than liberals strikes me as counter-intuitive.



Certainly on this group the correlation between lower intelligence and
apparent lower education is fairly obvious in the climate change
threads.


Difficult to see how you came to this conclusion, as I can't ever recall
anybody describing their educational qualifications in this newsgroup, so
I can't imagine where you got your data from. Presumably you just
fabricated information on the educational qualifications of people in this
newsgroup.

Ironically, you didn't have to fabricate data and undertake your own
analysis. The link between higher intelligence and higher educational
achievement is universally accepted; smart people tend on average to do
better in school than stupid people.


Most of those with the obvious "conservative" political
viewpoints are rather clearly unable to formulate good arguments, are
unable to respond to arguments, and don't really understand science-
either in theory or practice.

Take you for example. You say you vote Republican. Yet you don't accept
basic principles of the scientific method such as the need for theories to
have predictive ability. You believe scientific truth is determined by
consensus. You don't think AGW is a scientific theory, you think its a
metatheory (whatever that is). You think its fair enough to fabricate data
and refer to non-existent studies (both of which you have done many times
before, including in this thread), and you think ad-hominem attacks are
scientific arguments (and isn't this post of yours justt some long
ad-hominem attack on people who disagree with you?).

If you are claiming there are Republicans who don't understand science,
hand yourself a cigar.


And this is a forum that I would expect
would be populated by at least a little bit smarter, more educated
participant than many others.
_________________________________________________


By the way, I am by US standards a "liberal" on social issues - I strongly
agree with gay rights (including gay marriage), pro-choice, separation of
Church and State, etc. I am also an atheist. And an AGW skeptic.

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

So, who are you talking about, exactly?




Peter,
you've just labeled yourself as a kook or a shill!

YOU DISAGREE WITH CHRIS

seriously Chris must feel very poorly of himself (as do most liberals) he
must denigrate others to feel superior...it's a sad commentary but he is to
be pitied for having such a shallow life.

(Too_Many_Tools) wrote:
I ask because I am always surprised by how closed minded many of the
amateur astronomers I meet seem to be.

Interesting... though an entirely different thing than being conservative
or liberal (neither of those has the market cornered on dogmatism).

In your experiences, do your fellow amateur astonomers tend to be more
conservative or more liberal?

Not so much, from what I've seen.

--
djb@ | Dan Birchall, Night Operation Assistant, Subaru Telescope/NAOJ.
naoj | Views I express are my own, obviously not those of my employer.
..org | I need to practice "First Responder" skills. Go hurt yourself?

On Jan 23, 7:13*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
In your experiences, do your fellow amateur astonomers tend to be more
conservative or more liberal?

Every one that I know would be considered liberal. Conservatives tend
to not be interested in thoughtful activities like the sciences and
the arts, but are drawn to activities like hunting, auto racing,
professional wrestling, etc., anything involving violence, loud
noises, flashing lights, etc. They are also generally opposed to
scientific inquiry since many of its findings are in contradiction to
the Bible, and are instinctively disdainful of education. As someone
once said, a conservative is someone who believes that the moon
landings were fake, but that pro wrestling is real.

On Jan 23, 11:18*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:26:24 -0500, AM wrote:
If I understand correctly, you live in a place with a low population,
and you don't travel to big cities very much. If you did, you would see
that there are some very smart conservatives out there. Our astronomy
club is full of them.

I get to plenty of big cities. I grew up and lived for a long time in
conservative Orange County, California. My college education was very
apolitical. I've always been a Republican, but my political views have
drifted slowly to the left (although I consider myself pretty centrist-
a social liberal and fiscal conservative, perhaps) as I got older-
mainly because I've had the time and inclination to think about things-
that is, to really contemplate the world and our place in it. Nothing to
do with my education directly, except that it encouraged critical
thinking.

I know plenty of smart conservatives, as well. I didn't say that there
aren't smart conservatives, and I didn't say that there aren't well
educated conservatives. Obviously, there are many of both. What I said
is that studies show a correlation between both intelligence and
education and generally liberal viewpoints, and that my own observations
seem to support this as well. In my opinion, this has little to do with
the political viewpoint of educators.

Certainly on this group the correlation between lower intelligence and
apparent lower education is fairly obvious in the climate change
threads. Most of those with the obvious "conservative" political
viewpoints are rather clearly unable to formulate good arguments, are
unable to respond to arguments, and don't really understand science-
either in theory or practice. And this is a forum that I would expect
would be populated by at least a little bit smarter, more educated
participant than many others.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Well said Chris.

Your experience mirrors my own.

TMT

On Jan 24, 5:16*pm, wrote:
As someone
once said, a conservative is someone who believes that the moon
landings were fake, but that pro wrestling is real.

There are some "conservatives" who fit that stereotype, but there are
others who do not.

An intelligent person can still believe at least certain conservative
ideas:

The First Amendment cuts both ways. Laws which prohibit homosexual
acts between consenting adults do impose the views of a particular
group of religions. But for the public education system to teach
children that homosexual family arrangements are normal at a young age
is to indoctrinate them against the religious beliefs their parents
may wish to transmit to them, and also violates religious freedom.

People have the right not to be the victims of crimes. If they become
the victims of crimes anyways, they have the right to expect that
their assailants will be punished for it. Any failures on the part of
the police are not the victim's responsibility, and therefore should
not be used as excuses for depriving victims of their rights.

It is true that it is not a child's fault if his parents were poor.
But it also is not their neighbor's fault that someone without the
means to support a child went ahead and had one anyways. Therefore, it
is not sound to treat any kind of transfer of wealth from those who
have earned it to those who are in greater need as a right; instead,
any such measures must be judged in terms of what the community can
afford at a given time.

This isn't to say that the liberals aren't right about a lot of things
too - but things have changed a lot since the early 1960s, and it's
not unreasonable to suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in
some areas.

John Savard