
Why Are the Highly Educated So Liberal? - paulpauper
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/why-are-the-highly-educated-so-liberal.html
======
partiallypro
To start off, "liberal" is hard to define, really. I identify as "classically
liberal," but that can greatly differ from modern liberal, progressive, etc.

Friedrich Hayek tried to answer this in the 40s, when "intellectuals" were
into communism and eugenics (this video is not from the 40s obviously.)

[http://cafehayek.com/2014/10/hayek-on-intellectuals-and-
soci...](http://cafehayek.com/2014/10/hayek-on-intellectuals-and-
socialism.html)

To be frank, I think it's because those who are highly educated often believe
they know what's better for a person than the person does; economically &
politically speaking.

In terms of acceptance of minorities, especially (gay, trans or just ethnic) I
think that liberal mindset comes from an academic need to include minority
opinions into discussion.

I do think there is a bit of a shift happening and that's many professors, etc
standing up against "safe spaces" on campus. The irony of course is that many
young people vouching for these areas often identify as liberal, but yet
suppressing the ideas of others is anything but. So...you really have to be
careful in how you define "liberal," as it appears the title is shifting a bit
due to millennial deposition.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I admit I don't understand the protesting against safe spaces. My university
is probably one of the largest of my state and we have a safe space called the
"wellness office". It gives out free tea, lip balm, hand sanitizer, and
fruits. In the evenings it lets specific people from the LGBTQA+ spectrum come
and talk about things. E.g. "Bisexual and pan sexualities" or "Queer men" or
"LGBTQ People of color" would all have their own weekly schedule to meet.

I've actually been to a few to see what exactly is going on and what I found
was that those meetings tended to talk about issues that are very specific to
those groups and therefore there couldn't be much in the way of discussion for
people not in those groups. It's not too dissimilar from a meetup of people
who want to discuss specific algorithmic proofs in that it's a "safe space"
for people in that field and in that education and the quality of conversation
would be less productive for the people there if someone not in that field or
education arrived and joined in with a bunch of confusion or lack of education
about what algorithms are.

I really am confused because I've yet to encounter a "safe space" in which I
felt that there was a plan to censor people or order people that they can't
say certain things. Meetings hosted by the "safe space" at my university have
come off to me as a space to intellectually discuss topics more or less
pertaining to a demographic who would otherwise not have as productive a
conversation if they had to explain what sexuality is. I've also experienced
similar environments in editor's meetups in literature and research groups in
STEM.

Could you provide me with a study or article regarding how the existence of an
isolated space for the discussion of topics is wrong or bad? I don't mean to
attack you or say that "safe spaces" are a good thing. I just don't see the
difference between "safe spaces" for minorities differs from spaces of
intellectual discussion in STEM.

~~~
sremani
In a meet-up I can actually call out the BS of the presenter or at least
thoroughly ask honest questions. In a safe space, even if my question is
honest and to the point, its validity is determined by the state of mind of
the responder. So, that is there. The concept of safe space is nothing new,
people usually call it home or club. But to impose safe space in the center of
town square is the problem.

edit: also safe spaces promote acceptance of dogma over free thinking, which
Universities claim to be centers of.

~~~
467568985476
Have you ever been to a safe space and tried to participate in discussion? I
think the grandparent comment is spot on. Honest questions in good faith are
honored, even when they come from ignorance. What's _not_ honored is people
looking for a debate that involves "calling out BS". It's not the safe space's
responsibility to educate you on social issues. The whole point is to exclude
people who deliberately lack context and understanding so that the discussion
can be had on more complex topics.

Also, as a straight, white person myself, I understand that there are some
discussions where my opinions are irrelevant and unwanted because I simply
haven't experienced what others have and am unable to understand and empathize
as intimately. Excluding my opinion isn't a slight against free thinking, it's
a shortcut because I have nothing to contribute.

~~~
themartorana
"The whole point is to exclude people"

That's pretty much it. Also to actualize through the echo chamber.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Well, yes, if a prestigious research team in MIT excludes people who don't do
computer science at all to participate in their research, is that also an
actualization of an echo chamber? Should it also be protested?

~~~
themartorana
This is silly. If anyone not trained in computer science and not at MIT still
found a way to submit evidence or proof invalidating a hypothesis by said
research team, they would not only embrace the evidence, they'd probably be
pretty happy about it.

------
csense
I don't buy this piece's claim that the American left follows a "culture of
critical discourse": There is a disturbing trend in the modern American left
of suppressing and punishing people whose opinions do not confirm to the
liberal consensus. Free speech law blog Popehat is a good source of concrete
examples [1] [2] [3] [4].

I recently saw an article here on HN which did an excellent job of expressing
this concern [5]. Sadly it didn't get very many upvotes.

[1] [https://popehat.com/2015/12/08/no-safe-spaces-for-
conservati...](https://popehat.com/2015/12/08/no-safe-spaces-for-
conservatives/)

[2] [https://popehat.com/2016/04/22/how-inanely-censorious-can-
co...](https://popehat.com/2016/04/22/how-inanely-censorious-can-college-
administrators-get-university-of-wisconsin-superior-will-show-you/)

[3] [https://popehat.com/2015/09/23/lets-applaud-wesleyans-
studen...](https://popehat.com/2015/09/23/lets-applaud-wesleyans-student-
censors-for-honesty/)

[4] [https://popehat.com/2015/09/14/a-market-solution-to-
academic...](https://popehat.com/2015/09/14/a-market-solution-to-academic-
snowflakes/)

[5]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11545169](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11545169)

~~~
themartorana
College liberalism is - and has always been - an extreme form of liberalism.
Safe spaces and censorship on college campuses is not a reflection of the real
world.

It definitely spills over some, but it's hardly representative. That's
probably why that article didn't get much love. Many here identify as liberal
(like me) but not at all with the ridiculous censorious behavior and right to
not be offended found in many of your examples (also like me).

------
a_humean
A variation of a common refrain these days that I found funny and a little
insightful is that: "Reality has a well-known center-left technocratic
recovering-neoliberal bias."

[https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/703722154815156224](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/703722154815156224)

Much of what comes under "liberal" in the united states is often our best
response to evidence of what works mixed within a more general western liberal
political tradition broadly enabling through both negative and positive
liberty all public/private behaviours unless harm to others can be clearly
demonstrated by evidence. And much of what comes under "liberal" within in the
United States is the centre ground in Western and Northern Europe.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
I suspect this is more of a signalling game. Elites became socially liberal to
distinguish themselves from the unsophisticated middle class, in a time when
wealth wasn't a good signal. Now that everyone has a bachelors, the middle
class is dying, and liberalism is trendy among those who would previously have
been part of the not-college-educated middle class, I expect elites will
become more conservative.

Though we really need to define our terms here, there are many dogmas
associated with liberalism that are just as antiscientific as conservative
dogma, denying the predictive power psychometric tests, the very, very large
role of genetics in life outcomes and education, the implications of this on
class, the obvious benefits of nuclear power and genetic engineering, the
importance of modern agriculture over "organic" alternatives, the dressed up
faith-healing that is alternative medicine.

~~~
talideon
> uneducated middle class

The very idea that the middle class might be uneducated is... odd.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Factory workers in the 1960s were not college graduates and often not
highschool graduates. I've edited this to be more clear.

~~~
a_humean
It is very much an American phenomenon calling factory workers Middle Class.
Elsewhere in the world the middle class refers to members of the professions -
doctors, lawyers, academics, politicians, senior civil servants, successful
managers of medium and large businesses. To be middle class refers to
_working_ people of usually very high non-manual skill, high cultural and
societal status, and usually university educated. The middle class might not
own the country, but they certainly run it.

A factory worker in say France, UK or Germany is member of the working class,
and in terms of their skill, status, and economic and political power aren't
really distinguishable from a US factory worker.

------
davidhegarty
Everyone has different views on what Liberal vs. Conservative means, but if
you were to use these definitions:

Liberal: Promote group-oriented solutions to address economic disparities and
historical social injustices.

Conservatives: Promote individualist-oriented solutions to create wealth and
entrepreneurship.

... you'd start to see that the author's argument is a little circular.

'Education', in the author's sense of the word, refers to group-oriented
institutional education (e.g. traditional universities).

So really what the author is asking is 'why do people educated in group-
oriented educational institutions promote group-oriented political solutions?'

I think it would be interesting to know where 'self-taught learned people' sit
on the political spectrum?

~~~
ap22213
After pondering self-described conservatives and liberals for decades now,
I've recently concluded that they're more or less the same. Both groups seem
to highly value their families and seek to promote their interests and protect
them from threats.

The only thing that seems to differ is the definition of 'family'. At one end,
the definition is more strict and exclusive (with a family of one being the
most extreme), and on the other end, the definition is less strict and
inclusive (with a family of everyone being the most extreme).

~~~
PhasmaFelis
That's a pretty big difference, though.

------
scoofy
This is a bit of a flippant piece. Steven Pinker has a much better analysis.
He talks about the 5 realms of morality, and how they play into political life
(referenced in the blank slate, and our better angels, but i'll link to you
here in an NYT article):

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html)

>The exact number of themes depends on whether you’re a lumper or a splitter,
but Haidt counts five — harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty),
authority and purity — and suggests that they are the primary colors of our
moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but
each one tugs on the moral intuitions of people in our own culture.

The politics comes in here:

>The ranking and placement of moral spheres also divides the cultures of
liberals and conservatives in the United States. Many bones of contention,
like homosexuality, atheism and one-parent families from the right, or racial
imbalances, sweatshops and executive pay from the left, reflect different
weightings of the spheres. In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals
put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group
loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high
weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by
lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.

I think this is a better illustration of how the topic should be approached
then just talking about the politics.

------
bkirkby
"there’s ample evidence of the professional class using its economic and
educational capital to preserve its advantages"

i do think that this is a part of it. degrees and certifications are largely
an exercise in compliance. that's not to say they aren't hard work, but that
hard work is often busy work. what makes it hard is that it's not interesting
nor informative and thus is kryptonite to the intellectually curious.

people who have spent considerably and pushed through that menial task of
compliance have bought into the system that tells them that they are now more
useful to society and, therefore, deserve elevated status in our cultural and
literal hierarchies.

part of left-leaning ideology is a belief that the smart and well-educated
(the intelligensia) are better able to make decisions for the body politic
than the chaotic "invisible hands" of various complex systems left to their
own devices.

with that in mind, the question can be re-phrased "why are people who have
spent a large amount of time and money to increase the perception of their own
value to society more willing to give authority and power over to those who
spend a large amount of time and money to increase the perception of their own
value to society?"

~~~
base698
There is a whole book on this phenomena with a kitchy title:
[http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-
People/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-
People/dp/1627795391)

The book was really enlightening and went through some of reasons of the rise
of Donald Trump. The one in the forefront being liberals have removed all
protections from the working class in the form of NAFTA and other measures
like welfare reform. Instead of champanioning New Deal style policies and
safety nets they champion more education putting the responsibility on the
individual.

Also from my own view, liberals seem more concerned with transgendered people
and global warming than families with no opportunity torn apart by opiate
addiction and deindustrialization. The hatred of liberals in those circles
seems to come from a rational place.

------
koolba
Education doesn't translate to intelligence and being "liberal" is a pretty
wide catch all bucket. There are big differences between socially liberal and
fiscally liberal.

~~~
cantankerous
I'm not sure the term "fiscally liberal" describes a consistent set of beliefs
as they're held by a group of people in the United States. For that matter
neither does "fiscally conservative."

~~~
woah
For example, why do a lot of "fiscal conservatives" support wasting trillions
of dollars for decades in wars with no goal?

~~~
cantankerous
I think that's the trouble with so-called "fiscal conservativism." It holds
that government should only be spending money on "the important stuff." What
comprises the important stuff is anybody's guess.

------
Pica_soO
Because you see where blindly following your instinct judgment, (even when
conservatives glued arguments to them) got us. It might have been a good
survival trait for ten thousand years - but the last 200 years, they almost
got us killed. So you become liberal- because you know your limits, you know
how little you know, how wrong you can be, and how easy it is to stomp what
could feed your family tomorrow into the ground - just because they didnt
liked the color.

And yes, there are conservatives "technology investors" who dip there toe into
tested tech and distribute it. But they are never the guys to fling themselves
out into the void without safety net.

The reason why i have become a liberal - though raised by extremely
conservative parents- is because i was so wrong, so often back then. Its not
the usual youth rebellion to conservative realism dichotomy, quite reverse,
the longer i live, the more i realize how destructive one can be with how
little - and all that just for some retarded irk in my guts, that kept a
monkey alive 20000 years ago? Better control that irk and let that strange guy
in my neighborhood build his steam machines in the middle of the night.

~~~
gaius
_you know your limits, you know how little you know, how wrong you can be_

This really doesn't describe the liberal mindset, which is absolutely certain
of its own righteousness.

~~~
themartorana
That's everyone, sir. Conservatives calling liberals righteous is some
inappropriate first-stone-casting.

------
discardorama
It's because once you are highly educated, you realize that you are no longer
in competition with your fellow humans for resources: you'll get a job pretty
easily, and it's no longer a matter of survival.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I would disagree. If one is highly educated in a specific period of history,
or literature, or some other field with poor job prospects despite being
highly educated, there's still high competition. Also, given that so many
people with phD's want to become professors, the competition for those
positions is extremely fierce with the "publish or perish" mindset that
academia has been in.

I don't think its just a lack of competition that causes people to become more
liberal. Academia is highly competitive.

~~~
discardorama
I didn't say you could get _any_ job; just that you could get _a_ job, so it
is no longer a question of survival.

------
tlogan
The problem is that religious fundamentalist, xenophobes, racists, misogynist,
and bigots took over conservative movement. It is not that republicans and
conservative thinkers endorsed these people but they made them comfortable
under "conservative tent". But slowly they took over everything: and Trump is
result of that.

So maybe the right question should be: what happen to conservatism in US?

~~~
base698
Or maybe those things took over because of lack of opportunities for healthy
identity in terms of meaningful contribution to society.

Ship away everyone's opportunity for self esteem building work in locations
with little wealth for self esteem building side projects and they cling to
something to preserve identity.

------
kazinator
People have a disposition toward being either narrow-minded and bigoted, or
open-minded and generous. Among those who are not educated, those who are not
naturally narrow-minded or bigoted can nevertheless fall into the trap of that
kind of thinking anyway. When they become better educated, they can change.
Some of those who are predisposed to narrow-mindedness and bigotry by nature
will use higher learning only to entrench it deeper. I suspect those whom
education improves in this regard are more common, so it appears that
education liberalizes, on the whole (even if not in particular cases).

------
kayoone
The highest result of education is tolerance - Helen Keller

~~~
vixen99
Let's remember that tolerance is not an absolute good. Indeed that phrase is
almost meaningless unless qualified.

. . . presumably those downvoting will tolerate just about anything and leave
their discriminatory faculties to rot. That's pretty much how many folk
behaved in Europe earlier in the 20th century and look where that got us.

In her essay 'Optimism' Helen Keller provides the context for her oft-quoted
statement. The retailing of phrases outwith a context then presented as some
kind of ultimate truth is strangely disingenuous.

------
gaius
Let's be honest - this is a fluff piece written to make NYT readers feel good
about themselves. It doesn't belong here because there's no actual point to
debate.

------
green_lunch
It's because the education systems are liberal. Before anyone but the wealthy
were able to afford college, most institutions had a conservative slant.

~~~
rwmj
That's a circular argument. Why are education systems liberal?

And where's your evidence that earlier "most institutions had a conservative
slant"?

~~~
koenigdavidmj
A public, tax-funded university exists by coercion. This is going to attract
the people who are results-driven and be repulsive to an ideology-driven
person. Therefore, it can reasonably be expected to suggest coercion as an
allowable tool for solving any problem.

~~~
vixen99
Under socialist ideology all universities are public and tax-funded.

------
tbrownaw
Related, what sort of effects does this cause?:
[http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/10/academe-is-overrun-
by...](http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/05/10/academe-is-overrun-by-liberals-
heres-why-that-should-disturb-you/)

------
thomasahle
Seems to me it's the other way around. Liberalism was born in academia and has
spread from there.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Could you provide some sources or suggested reading regarding this topic? I
haven't encountered this opinion before and I'm quite curious how this came
about.

~~~
001sky
Nietzsche's whole opus documents this quite well. You can google him or look
him up on amazon maybe.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Does Nietzsche record the spreading of liberal views from academia to the
greater mainstream and confirm liberal views were born in academia first and
foremost?

------
mapt
Because modern American conservatism is strongly aligned with anti-
intellectual sentiments: the pathos of nationalism, xenophobia, racism,
sexism, "traditional views" on religion and the role of science, and a craving
for simple categorization into Manichean good or bad, male or female, okay-to-
say or not-okay-to-say, us or them, yours or mine. Onto this we lay a matrix
of Ayn Randian property-rights-fetishists and aging anticommunists &
libertarians (the previous generation's right-wing intellectuals, now bought
off or shouted down), as well as the remnants of the the-Confederacy-should-
have-won enthusiasts, dressed up in strict constructionist clothing. Driving
the parade is an endless stream of corporate lobbyists trying to get a return
on investment in the simplest way possible.

These sorts of stereotypes are observations about the net behavior of large
groups of conservatives rather than being ubiquitous in individuals, but
occasionally I talk to a certain flavor of conservative friends about such
topics, while taking care to avoid being dismissive of their chosen tribe.
They become _viscerally infuriated_ not so much at the positions, but at
acknowledgement of the nuances ("But they're Muslim. They're at war with us.
They say they're at war with us.") and the notion that improving everyone's
situation ("How the hell can you say it doesn't matter whether they deserve
it") could be a goal of all of us. They are looking for politics to simplify,
not to complicate, their thinking. It's not complete ignorance of the tricky
bits, it's a desire to disregard them.

This is not the stuff that a career as a lifetime thinker is made of. The
letters 'PhD' stand for 'Doctor of Philosophy', and appreciating complexity
has to be a part of extended research in any field. An explicit disavowel of
'experts' or or 'academics' or 'scientists' is quite common on the right,
usually with airquotes to indicate that the speaker disbelieves these people's
expertise and doesn't consider them worth the speaker's time, because the
speaker is busy Doing things (necessarily simplifying reality) and they merely
Think about things.

The best of the GWB Administration:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based
community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from
your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something
about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the
way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that
reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we
do.""

------
Paul_S
People who are highly educated are also more likely to be well-off.

~~~
gaius
Indeed, the article should say more likely to be limousine liberal.

------
setpatchaddress
The conclusion of the article isn't anything new -- progressives have been
saying this since at least 2004. (Read the article itself, please. It's not
actually about the question in the title.)

------
al_chemist
Why Are the Fish So Wet?

------
themartorana
Because they're highly educated?

Boom!

------
dschiptsov
Understanding of stochastic nature of the Universe, fundamentals of genetics,
biology, actor model, evolutionary strategies and competition, equilibrium-
based self-regulated adaptive systems (ecosystems, markets and societies),
cultural and social conditioning of intellect (languages, religions),
philosophical systems of Buddhism and existentialism, etc.

------
parennoob
The article doesn't mention one of the most important factors – in the US,
Conservatism often comes with a heavy side helping of religion. As a result,
highly educated people tend to move away from conservatism even if they may be
generally for Conservative policies, because they don't want to be associated
with people who believe the earth is 5000 years old and that anyone who isn't
a Christian needs "saving".

The current Republican primaries are showing that this link may be weakening,
with Evangelicals no longer being a heavily significant factor in deciding the
vote. So maybe the highly educated won't be 100% liberal in a decade or two.

~~~
coredog64
It wasn't so long ago (Carter) that Evangelicals were a major liberal
constituency.

~~~
Avshalom
Basically what happened is the Republicans rounded up the evangelical leaders
and said "those dem's are weak on communism, vote for us or Russia will kill
God" and it worked.

One of the 'interesting' side effects is that when Republicans decided to
become anti abortion to get Catholic votes it forced a bunch of previously pro
choice or neutral evangelical groups to become virulently anti abortion out of
percieved duty.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
There's also the idea that evangelism is mostly a southern thing, and
Republicans tend to play heavily into the sort of racially charged politics
that resonate with southerners.

~~~
Avshalom
Well from what I understand this was largely started concurrently with the
southern strategy which was when that particular play started.

------
joesmo
It could also be because in the US there is no alternative. You do have the
Republican party that calls itself conservative but is so only in name.
Conservative means cruelty, hate, and stupidity in America. These are people
who pride themselves on being stupid, who hate the idea of anyone but
themselves getting anything out of the government, and espouse cruel values
like support for torture and oppression of minorities. Of course highly
educated people do not want to affiliate themselves with cruelty, hate, and
stupidity by their very nature and definition.

The article acts like this is some great mystery when it's incredibly obvious.
Actual climate scientists do not seriously take the views of idiotic climate
deniers. Actual doctors who care about their patients do not seriously take
the views of anti-abortionists or their incorrect claims about life. And in
general, though not exclusively, educated people do not support the cruelty of
torture or racism. These are the things supported by conservatives in the US.
Is it any wonder that people with half a brain abhor these horrific ideas?

------
gaius
Consider the economic model of academia - you apply for a grant, you do some
work, if you get a useful outcome or not no-one really cares, you apply for
another grant and if you play the game right you get a sinecure. In addition
in many academic fields there are no right or wrong answers anyway.

Nothing like that really exists in the corporate world, which is results and
return-on-investment oriented. You produce, or you're out. Such a world seems
like a nightmare to someone who is used to the safe, cosy academic world.

Of course the elephant in the corner of the room is that academia only exists
because of wealth generated by grubby commerce...

~~~
Avshalom
>Nothing like that really exists in the corporate world

 _cough_ pitch deck _cough_

