
Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? (2016) - teslacar
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/why-are-the-highly-educated-so-liberal.html?#546
======
m52go
> Evidence and logic were valued; appeals to traditional sources of authority
> were not.

I'm not a member of either major party, but I'm tired of people labeling the
left as the party of 'logic and reason' and the right as the party of
stubborn, mindless tradition. Both party platforms are bent to suit political
whims, so ultimately, both parties are laughably contradictory in their
values.

There's plenty of rational reason on the right. If you don't agree, read
Thomas Sowell and I bet you'll be forced to reconsider.

As a side note, why the hell can't I copy text from the article? Very
annoying. Had to search for text in the developer console just to copy the
quote above.

~~~
goalieca
Perhaps the left has no innate sense of reason. That seems logical.

What I fail to understand is how so many republicans deny logic. It seems not
that the left is the side of logic but that the right is on the side of
illogic. They deny much of our understanding of evolution, climate science,
criminology, sociology, and even economics.

~~~
m52go
I perceive this to be because of unfair characterizations by opposing media.

Example: do all conservatives think climate change is a hoax? Maybe some
uncritical, uneducated ones do believe this based on hearsay and because it's
'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed conservatives, from
what I've seen, don't reject the science entirely. They question specific
numbers and trends that make the case for climate change weaker than the
liberal one.

So to clarify: conservatives are skeptical of specifics, while liberals accuse
them of wholesale rejection.

What do you see on The Daily Show? The latter.

Example from the other side: are all liberals socialists? Maybe some
uncritical, uneducated ones want outright socialism based on hearsay and
because it's 'fashionable' in their social groups. But more informed liberals,
from what I've seen, don't want socialism. They have more nuanced views on
social programs that, when better understood, are really just public welfare
programs to promote equality of opportunity in a society with lots of excess
capital.

So to clarify: liberals want reasonable social benefits, while conservatives
accuse them of being radical socialists.

What do you see on Breitbart? The latter.

Neither side is innocent. But liberals have claimed a monopoly on the terms
'logic' and 'progressive' as well as virtually all of academia and mainstream
media...so it's hard to fight back. Which is yet another reason Trump's win
was so incredible & unexpected.

Please realize this is based on no hard evidence, just personal observation.

------
startupdiscuss
I suspect liberals and conservatives will have different opinions of this.
(They're smarter! They're brainwashed!)

However, it is worth breaking down what it means to be liberal or
conservative.

It is odd that if you tell me an American's opinions on guns, I can give an
above-chance estimate of their opinion on immigration, or abortion.

The real question is, why are liberals so liberal?

~~~
problems
I must hang around too many libertarians, most of the pro-gun people I know
are also very much pro-choice and will even discuss total open border policies
at times.

~~~
startupdiscuss
Oh yeah, there are plenty of exceptions. Libertarians being a large one.
That's why I had to switch from "certainty" to "large probability" to "above-
chance" when I was editing.

~~~
liberte82
Are they exceptions, or do they just fall into the Libertarian category of
prepackaged opinions?

~~~
tracker1
Can't speak for everyone, but I am definitely more pragmatic than many
hardline Libertarians... I'm okay with some government institutions remaining,
as long as the direction is towards freedom from where we are instead of away.
I'm okay with DoE, but would like to see more economically sound spending even
if that means creating open options to compete with the incumbent publishers.
That's definitely not a typically libertarian pov, but it's pragmatic in terms
of lowering spending reducing complexity and something that might work and
gain broad enough support.

------
fredley
In my view, liberalism equates to a view that most people are trustworthy, and
will do good things. Authoritarianism assumes people are bad and need to be
controlled. Liberal/Authoritarian is somewhat independent of left/right,
politically.

Highly educated people spend more time around other highly educated, and
likely richer people, creating an environment where you view almost everyone
as inherently good, and trustworthy.

Less educated people spend more time around other less well educated, and
likely poorer people, creating an environment where you view more people as
potentially dangerous.

I've been watching _The Century of the Self_ recently.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self)

~~~
WkndTriathlete
I think that part of the problem - with the article, and with the perception
by most of society in general - is that the words "liberal" and "conservative"
are now heavily overloaded and may have either positive or negative
connotations, depending on the current audience. As a result, I think both
words are largely devoid of any real meaning today except as a compliment or
an epithet.

My political leanings tend to be pretty moderate. I used to think of "liberal"
as someone for changing society faster than a "conservative", but with the two
major political parties in the US today using fast legal changes to inflict
the most damage on the party not in power my definitions of those two words do
not hold, either.

I do not think that either major political party in the US represents my
interests, nor I do not expect that to change anytime soon.

------
dkhenry
Let me propose another theory. In the awesome book "How not to be wrong"
ellenberg walks through a scenario with dishonest roulette machines as a way
to explain Bayesian Inference and shows how powerful your priori are in
interpreting new evidence that you are shown. If you hold a non neutral
viewpoint on something, natural variations of a neutral truth will take an
extremely long time to adjust your view of reality.

It just so happens that most highly educated people get their initial priori
set from the institutes of learning that have increasingly become sounding
chambers for liberal ideologies. So its no surprise that it takes a
preponderance of evidence to migrate those views back towards a neutral
reality ( if in fact reality is neutral ). A similar situation can be
established for rural and uneducated people. They get their priori set from
their parents and peers who have a very distinct view of government and
governance. All the other talk I see of reasons for the homogenization of the
educated class into a specific political view just reads like chest thumping
to me.

------
rrdharan
Should have a (2016) on it?

> The Democrats may find they need to give up a little of their wonkiness if
> they want resounding victories. It’s not in their long-term interest to be
> too much what Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the party of the Ph.D.s.”

Yeah, about that...

------
curun1r
> alongside the perception that conservatives are anti-intellectual, hostile
> to science and at war with the university.

This seems like the main reason. Republicans have attacked the importance of
education, trying to sell candidates "you want to have a beer with" instead of
the traditional intellectual betters that the left would rather see running
the country. Education is often a transformative experience that becomes part
of your identity and when your identity is attacked, you react tribally and
defend your tribe.

The interesting thing is that I see both sides wanting to make their sides
feel superior through what they value as important. Democrats view that every
race, gender and life choice is equally valued means that the most intelligent
and most educated will naturally rise to the top and feel most important. The
Republicans message of anti-intellectualism, racism, sexism, homophobia and
such will make a whole different group of less educated people feel superior.
But both groups have an underlying need to feel superior to others. That seems
endemic to our species. It's just that as access to education increases, the
educated are now a large enough bloc to use that attribute to satisfy that
deep-seated need.

~~~
cr0sh
Why can't you be intellectual and educated, yet still "have a beer"?

I was born and grew up in Bakersfield, California - redneck central (well,
oakie); while I don't have a real degree (due to bad choices as a younger
individual, among other reasons), I don't consider myself unintelligent, and I
hope that my posting history here also reflects this.

Like many here, I'm a self-learner, and a software developer. I enjoy
electronics and robotics as hobbies. I'm currently working on a Udacity
nanodegree in self-driving car technology. I have past experience in ML/AI
tech. I could go on but I won't.

Yet - I enjoy wrenching on vehicles on occasion, visiting junkyards and
pulling parts, plus having a beer and burger now and again. I'm not one for
sports, but if a game is on and you want to watch it, I'll watch along with
ya. Would I prefer reading something a bit more "intellectual" or pursuing
similar things? Sure - but that's only one part of me.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Let's go out shooting at the range,
then afterward I'll help escort some women into PP (not that I've done either
- but I am both for 2A rights and a woman's right to choose).

Not every person is two dimensional, and while I am certain you understand
that, for some reason such understanding is in the minority it seems.

~~~
WalterSear
>Why does it have to be one or the other?

Intellectual prowess helps you run the country. "Like to have a beer with,"
doesn't.

And 'like to have a beer with' isn't' the same as charisma. The demographic of
people one would 'like to have a beer with' overwhelmingly skews to people
like oneself. In other words, it's a form of in-group signaling, and,
ultimately, a soft word for prejudice.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Being the kind of person that "the other side" would like to have a beer with
will definitely help with running the country - perhaps as much as being an
intellectual will, and maybe more.

~~~
WalterSear
Not charisma. It's never the kind of person 'the other side would like to have
a beer with'. It's always a white redneck who would say racist things when
drunk.

------
balabaster
It's because the highly educated spend such a vast amount of time discovering
how little they know that they realize their opinion is worth almost
nothing... and through this learn to realize that everyone else's opinions are
just as valid. This seems to be a very liberal stance. As long as you're not
forcing your political beliefs on me, or anyone else, I'm okay with you.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I feel that people on the extreme
ends of each wing are crazy selfish and want everything their own way without
considering anyone else. It's not just that the highly educated lean towards
liberal, it's also that those who spend the time and effort educating
themselves tend to be much more moderate than those on either end of the
political spectrum. The more moderate Republicans tend to appear more
educated. The more moderate Liberals tend to appear more educated. The highly
educated appear to be more readily able to find common ground and compromise
with one another than those who are not so highly educated.

------
CM30
Makes me wonder if this will change soon. I mean, look at the whole 'alt-
right' thing, the readership on sites like Breitbart, The Donald subreddit,
etc. They're not made up of older folk with religious tendencies any more, but
young college students/graduates posting memes on social media sites.

I think it's quite possible we could see highly educated people become more
conservative in the foreseeable future. Especially with all the comments about
protests and social media shaming and crazy professors...

~~~
AnimalMuppet
With the universities dominantly liberal (at least in the humanities
departments), I wonder if the alt-right isn't a form of rebellion, kind of
like punks with brightly-colored mohawks were a generation ago. We're going to
pick something not just different, but something that you find repulsive.

------
nextstep
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" \--Stephen Colbert

~~~
pizzetta
I think Nature has more of a Libertarian bias, or maybe that's just me.

~~~
tomlock
Depends on what you mean by Libertarian, or what you mean by Nature.

Social primates generally have collective senses of justice (if my friend gets
a grape I should get a grape too). Even on a single-cell level self-sacrifice
for the collective (slime moulds).

Of course, its totally possible to argue that these traits could be
Libertarian traits too. Aren't we the only creatures on earth with government?

~~~
Danihan
That sense of collective justice only applies to the in-group, within family
or tribal units. Your tribe might fight another tribe to the death over some
territory, or for some grapes.

Also, collective justice isn't exactly something you want to appeal to in
general. The mob might lynch you for being too annoying, for instance.

~~~
tomlock
I'm not "appealing" to it, I'm making the point that nature isn't particularly
aligned with Libertarian ideals.

I wouldn't consider family or tribal preferences to be particularly cogent
with the philosophy of Libertarianism, for instance.

~~~
Danihan
What would you call someone who wants unlimited freedom for people within
their in-group, but authoritarianism for anyone outside of their in-group?
Libertarian? Authoritarian? Colonialist?

A lot of Trump supporters are that way. They want endless liberty and
greatness for American, but if you aren't American you can fuck right off --
you're lucky we don't just come take your country over.

~~~
tomlock
I wouldn't consider most Trump supporters to be particularly Libertarian
either.

------
narrowrail
The definition of liberal has morphed quite a bit over the centuries. I hail
from the camp now known as "Classical liberalism"[0]. I value freedom and
consider the government to be a necessary evil to be minimized.

From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine
if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal
altogether.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

~~~
narrowrail
I certainly thought I was adding to the discussion here, but perhaps not.
Should I have mentioned I strongly support science? I'm not sure what I wrote
that is so offensive.

------
gnipgnip
You may as well ask:

"Why are parish school students so Christian". This is not to say that they
viscerally _believe_ in these qualities... oh nooo. It's just that if you want
to play the game, you optimize for the environment (I may have picked that up
from Alan Watts). Simple RL really.

Idiots, and loudmouths, on the other hand will get ostracized and have pots
broken over their heads; one shouldn't be surprised if something one writes on
a public forum will get one fired from school/work (may have happened to the
younger me once). This is not the depressing thing though - no the depressing
thing is that the rules of the game are never explained clearly. In this
sense, the Western liberal dogma is essentially the Christian one of
grovelling expiation. You know... one can be as bad in action, but words and
"belief", expressed tirelessly over and over, are key to salvation [1].
Terrible, terrible messaging to the naive younglings.

This probably explains why some (generally poor) idiots in the Midwest send
tons of money to "harvest Asia in the name of Christ" (well atleast to those
in power), while jumping up an down to keep these "loved" people away from
their neighborhood. Then there is the New Age movement, "meditating" and
"yoga-ing" for "peace" "health" and "environment" (and lots of greens), while
showing total disdain for the path [2]... Namast.. No, f __k you!

All this facade gets really really tiring.

[1] The laity in much of Asia believe in very similar things to be fair...
although they don't get bonked on the head with a book everytime they are out
of line.

[2] acharya: "Guru" lit. he who walks the path

------
cs1717p
Two things:

One, academia (for many reasons) tends toward liberal group think.

Two, interestingly, many of the most intelligent and successful (especially
self made) people tend to be libertarian or conservative.

~~~
newyankee
I see that in most of the first world countries 'self'made' is a very
incorrectly used word, no one can be completely 'self-made'

~~~
the_gastropod
No idea why you're getting down voted here. It's absolutely true. If you start
a business, hire a bunch of people, and are very successful, congrats. You've
probably worked very hard. But self-made? No.

Your business benefitted from having your employees educated (at least K-12),
being protected from crime by all levels of law enforcement, being protected
from foreign invasion by the military, being protected by fire by the local
fire department. Your goods can be shipped via roads built and paid for by the
government. Etc. No man is an island.

~~~
randomdata
Everyone (within first world geopolitical borders, at least) has access to all
of those things though. Self-made still refers to the part that sets the
individual apart. The dictionary seems fairly clear on that.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, everyone in the first world doesn't have equal access to those things,
even within any given country, and the people described as "self-made"
disproportionately come from the segment with better-than-average access to
them.

~~~
randomdata
I think you may be attaching way too much meaning to the definition of self-
made, or perhaps haven't actually looked up the definition. It doesn't mean
that someone was able to succeed in a vacuum.

~~~
dragonwriter
I'm not even discussing the definition of self-made, I'm pointing out that, in
fact, the claim made upthread that access to certain things is universal in
the first world and they the self-made vary from the norm in other ways simply
is (1) based on a false premise, and (2) is not accurate of the situations
where the term is used, even accepting that the proposed definition is exactly
what it is _meant_ to convey.

~~~
randomdata
Which countries in question do not provide roads, public education, police,
military, and fire fighting services to the population at large?

How can we discuss where the term is used inappropriately without discussing
what the term means?

------
Danihan
If you're smart enough, you'll get to a point sooner or later where you are no
longer working class. You won't be getting paid a low hourly wage, nor will
you be living paycheck to paycheck.

Once you are not working class, you'll gradually become very out of touch with
working class issues and perspectives. It's nearly impossible to see life as
an ongoing, harsh competition where everyone is hustling each day to survive,
when you aren't living that way. You become liberal instead, like all your
friends, and espouse egalitarianism and socialism.

Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative. They are competing
for a paycheck every day of their lives. They have no extra money to give
away, period. Handouts for people they consider to be lazy disgust them.

The upper class remain liberal. Harsh competition is just so low class, isn't
it? So primitive, so gauche. Why can't we all just work together for a greater
good? Handouts for the poor only help the most vulnerable among us. How could
you be against that?!

It's an intractable polarization, in my opinion.

~~~
tomlock
If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand
why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary?

Also do you consider unions to be liberal?

~~~
splintercell
> If you consider democrats liberal then perhaps you could help me understand
> why 88% of african-americans voted for Hillary?

Different priorities. A lot of astronauts and NASA scientists don't believe in
anthropogenic nature of climate change. Are they backward, anti-reason, anti-
science religious individuals? Perhaps you can help me understand why?

~~~
tomlock
What are you basing that claim on?

>Meanwhile, the working class remain staunchly conservative.

This flies in the face of the facts surrounding who voted for who in the last
election - if you consider Democrats to be liberal. What different priorities
do you feel the generally worse-off working class minorities in America have?

~~~
dragonwriter
> if you consider Democrats to be liberal.

The long- (since at least Clinton's "Third Way" politics in the early 1990s)
dominant faction (and the one whose standard-bearer won the nominating
contest) of the Democratic Party is center-right.

While that's less right-wing than the Republican Party, the Republican nominee
was a political outsider that deliberately—alongside some fairly explicit
endorsements of some far-right and extreme nationalist positions, to be
sure—largely adopted vague language filled with direct appeals to liberal
values and interest groups, and specifically targeted those dissillusioned by
the progressive defeat by the center-right faction of the Democratic Party.
(This kind of ambiguity and rhetorical gesture to the left has substantial
precedent from the authoritarian right.)

~~~
tomlock
I also wouldn't broadly say that Democrats are liberal. I think most political
dichotomies contain broad churches. As a result I also think claims that x
political view is derived from y quality of those people are simple and clumsy
ways of attempting to understand the world.

------
DarkKomunalec
[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-
finds-...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-
psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias) might explain part of it.

------
hyperliner
>>> While there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic
and educational capital to preserve its advantages — think of the clustering
of professionals into exclusive neighborhoods, or the early immersion of
professional-class children into a world of literacy, art and science — its
move left is evident even on questions of economic redistribution. My own
analysis of data from the General Social Survey shows that in recent decades,
as class inequality has increased, Americans who hold advanced degrees have
grown more supportive of government efforts to reduce income differences,
whether through changes to taxes or strengthening the welfare system.

>>> On this issue, the views of the highly educated are now similar to those
of groups with much lower levels of education, who have a real material stake
in reducing inequalities. Even higher-income advanced degree holders have
become more redistributionist, if less so than others.

One of the benefits of higher education is access to higher income. As a
person reaches a certain level of income, his or her ability to entertain
broader issues and discussions tends to become more and more disconnected from
the impact of the policies that such issues would derive into. So it is easy
for a liberal to say that "coal mines need to be put out of business," while
sipping a late at a San Francisco coffee shop instead of being a poor miner in
Kentucky. Or the liberal can say "we need more Somali immigrants" from the
comforts of the New York apartment and not the small community in St. Cloud
Minnesota.

So the answer for many liberals is that they are liberal because they can
afford to be.

Now, social liberalism has given us interesting discussions and expanded the
rights of the population at large. Think inter-race or gay marriage, for
example. So in these cases, these educated elites have been able to articulate
how these changes for the most part do not affect the rights or life style of
others.

On the other hand, liberalism has also advocated for expanded role of the
federal government without helping really address economic disadvantages in
certain communities. I wonder if there is data to support the conservative
notion that liberals are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype
of the liberal elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media,
press or higher education.

The article "The smug style in American liberalism" is a good read for those
interested: [http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-
liberali...](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism)

The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo
because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population
that does not value liberty and the responsibilities that liberty conveys.
Obviously that is also a generalization, so it would be interesting to write
an article about "Why are the Highly Educated so Conservative?" or as another
commenter mentioned here "Why are the Conservatives so Conservative?"

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> I wonder if there is data to support the conservative notion that liberals
> are not job creators. It seems that there is a stereotype of the liberal
> elite as a person who has benefitted from cushy jobs in media, press or
> higher education.

Perhaps liberalism is a job creator for the kind of people who tend to be
liberals.

> The conservative viewpoint would say that the liberal likes this status quo
> because it is "easier" to maintain their status as elite with a population
> that does not value liberty...

Which is really ironic, since the original meaning of the word "liberal" was
"in favor of liberty (in the form of the freedom of individuals)".

------
f4rker
Many highly educated are not liberal. Liberals feel free to speak out, it's
safe. Not true for non liberals.

~~~
tomlock
The article focuses mostly on the results of anonymous surveys.

