Yes, I'm still taking apart the lefties at the Metallica forums...
Posted on 02/11/2004 9:35:38 AM PST by Helms
Story last updated at 6:42 a.m. Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Conservatives need not apply?
Robert Brandon, chair of the Duke University Philosophy Department, gives this explanation of why faculties at U.S. universities usually lean to the political left: "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." Professor Brandon, expounding on the 21st century implications of that 19th century British philosopher's observation: "Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
That scholarly perspective was reported in Tuesday's Duke Chronicle, the "independent daily" at the school. So were these statistics from a Duke Conservative Union study that cross-referenced the university's faculty list with North Carolina voter registration records: Of the faculty members and deans included in the survey, 128 are registered Democrats, 8 are registered Republicans and 28 are unaffiliated.
In political terms, that's a landslide.
In intellectual terms, Professor Brandon's smug thesis raises another question: If he's so bright, how could he be dim enough not only to believe such an absurd notion, but to hail it publicly?
Meanwhile, academics, like the rest of us, can be outstanding, mediocre or lousy at their jobs regardless of their political persuasions. Professors also aren't the only ones who advance interesting -- occasionally even persuasive -- theories on why conservatives are so rarely found on our nation's university faculties.
But no political party or ideology has a monopoly on intelligence -- or virtue. And that's a higher-education lesson to remember during this election year.
The Latin word educare, means to grow or bring forth. Education involves open inquiry, patience, experimentation, honesty, and the ability to know you don't know.
The opposite of this process is indoctrination. Indoctrination is putting in - not drawing out. It is an imposing of information, not a search for truth, it empowers the teacher not the student.
What we have here is a perfect example of inflated self-worth.
I found a study on the internet that explains soooooo much of what I have experience with some people in this world. Here is the link:
Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
I have always believed this, basically, a little knowledge in a subject is always more dangerous than none. I've always had a saying for myself, the more I know about a subject, the more realized how little I really know about it. This study nails it. And probably explains 90% of of the liberal professors out there.
Because he lives in fantasyland, with tenure protecting him from the real world. When your only measure of success is in convincing other tenured professors to publish your articles, it's very easy (and convenient) to convince each other that they're all full of brilliant insights. In the real world, engineers, scientists, or programmers don't get to play that game. Talking a good line counts for nothing when the bridge collapses or the program crashes.
Those who can do. Those who can't teach
Strangers on a Train Wreck
Here's a fascinating tidbit from this week's CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The following table shows the proportion of "Republicans/Republican leaners" and "Democrats/Democratic leaners" who said they'd "never heard of" each of the Democratic presidential candidates:
| Candidate | Reps | Dems |
| Clark |
17%
|
22%
|
| Dean |
14%
|
17%
|
| Edwards |
25%
|
28%
|
| Gephardt |
14%
|
21%
|
| Kerry |
18%
|
20%
|
| Lieberman |
7%
|
11%
|
For the most part these differences aren't huge, but it's nonetheless striking that in every case, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to have heard of the Democratic candidates--especially since Dems are in a position to vote on these guys in the next few months. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that people who are more informed about politics tend to be Republicans.
This guys teaches Logic?
Maybe this picknose (thanks for the new word, 'pod!) can explain why many NBA players are Republicans and why most in the military seem to be conservative...
Oh, and having been through prep school, a Seven Sisters college and an MBA program, I can't say I agree totally about members of academia being "smarter than average." I'm not saying that they're stupid, just that they tend to be navel-gazers.
Reagan sleeps, eats, pukes, farts. Kind of like a college kid!
Yeah, me too. The real problem is how to avoid becoming socially & intellectually paralyzed by the cognizance of these limitations:)
Our forefathers always knew the dangers of liberalism.
Richard M. Nixon. He was portrayed as smart but mean and paranoid. Conservatives are generally portrayed as mean, stupid, or both. William F. Buckley and Condi Rice both come to mind as breaking the stereotype.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.