Outgoing Armey says liberals don't have sci-IQ

Popular Science ^ | January, 2003

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Dick Armey, retiring majority leader of the House of Representatives, created such a stir recently with comments about liberal and conservative Jews (the latter have all the brains, Armey said), that another aspect of his comments attracted less notice: Science, according to Armey, is the stomping ground of conservatives. "Conservatives," said the Texas Republican, "have a deeper intellect and tend to have occupations of the brain in fields like engineering, science and economics. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to flock to occupations of the heart."

Armey spokesman Richard Diamond concedes he has no evidence to back up Armey's claim, although he insists that his boss stands by it. "It's his perspective about how people think," says Diamond.

Nor does a search for scientific evidence turn up much research into the broad political leanings of scientists. Neither the major scientific associations nor the polling firms were aware of studies.

Anecdotally, however, it's not hard to find blue chip scientists who take issue with Armey—including some of the 53 Nobel laureates on the board of the Federation of American Scientists, a social policy organization often described as a "liberal think tank."

"Armey is just completely wrong," says Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin. "I have lots of political conversations with other physicists and my impression is that, on average, physicists are extremely liberal in their politics. I certainly am."

Nobel chemist Roald Hoffman of Cornell objects to Armey's "assumption that occupations of the brain are somehow better than those of the heart. That's crazy. The United States is not a computer . . . For (solving human problems), we need both the brain and the heart."

[nwrep]

Armey is an idiot for saying this. FAS is the most liberal, anti-war group with any credibility out there. They make Maureen Dowd look like Rambo.

[VoiceOfBruck]

Science, according to Armey, is the stomping ground of conservatives.

In other words, Armey hasn't met any scientists.

[onedoug]

...Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin. "I have lots of political conversations with other physicists and my impression is that, on average, physicists are extremely liberal in their politics. I certainly am."

Based on physics, eh?

[fuente]

The FAS is a very activist oriented group, and like most academic institutions very slanted to the left. But most scientist and engineers are not in academia.

I'm just finishing up an advanced engineering degree, and at both undergrad and grad levels, scientist and engineers tend to run more conservative than the average COLLEGE POPULATION. Why? Simple, we are more likely to be skeptical and pragmatic. We are the pople that always ask why. We are trained to look at data in an unbias way.

[nightdriver]

"Nobel chemist Roald Hoffman of Cornell objects to Armey's "assumption that occupations of the brain are somehow better than those of the heart."

It looks like Hoffman is assuming.

[VoiceOfBruck]

I'm just finishing up an advanced engineering degree, and at both undergrad and grad levels, scientist and engineers tend to run more conservative than the average COLLEGE POPULATION. Why? Simple, we are more likely to be skeptical and pragmatic. We are the pople that always ask why. We are trained to look at data in an unbias way.

Congrats on the advanced engr degree. It will serve you well.

My experience has been different. I work in a research laboratory occupied by engineers and scientists, and find that generally speaking, scientists are pretty hard to the left (which I guess would be about average for the college population), and engineers are generally center-to-right, politically. I'm an engineer who has gone over to the dark side.

I think engineers are that way for the reasons you offer, and it would make sense that scientists would be that way too, but I've found that not to be the case. My theories for this are that (1) scientists tend to spend more of their formative years in academia (you can't go far in science without a ph.d. while engineers can start making money with a bachelor's degree), and (2) scientists get more attention and funding for doing work that supports liberal causes - who ever got an NSF grant for disproving that global warming?

[rmlew]

What's wrong with calling liberal Jews idiots?
I'm happy to defend armey to the hilt here. The majority of AssLib Jews are purposely ignorant and delusional in politics.

[rmlew]

For the record, "AssLib" stands for Assimilated Liberal.
Of course, the Orthodox Jews would call me a specimin of the rarer Assimilated Conservative variety.

[Yeti]

I agree with Armey, especially about engineering.

I don't know for sure, but I can guess that the members Federation of American Scientists are mostly college professors. Most scientists aren't college professors. Many scientist were brave, ambitious and competent enough to get better-paying, mare demanding jobs in industry.

College professors are people who, after being in a university setting all through undergraduate and graduate school, decided they liked it and wanted to stay. Or were afraid to leave.

They are and have been accultured to a very unique environment, the conscientious libralization of which has been well documented since the 1930s.

I would like to see a poll, I have no doubt that it has been done before. I would like to what a survey of the IEEE yields.

I think that you would find that most professionals in the "tough majors" are on the conservative side, with a disproportionate skew toward the libertarian axis.

[KC_for_Freedom]

This Jew agrees, Liberal Jews are idiots (at least in their politics). I am also an engineer/teacher and although liberal once will never turn that direction again. where I worked in the aerospace field, most engineers were conservative however there were some liberals scattered here and there. When I worked in teaching, most were liberal with a few conservatives scattered about.

The younger engineers and minority engineers tend to be more liberal most likely because they went thru school in the days of multiculturalism, diversity, and affirmative action. They may even have those institutions to thank for their jobs.

The truth is that engineers and scientists can think more for themselves than the non-technical professions and may be more likely to see through some of the junk science the left throws to the press. This could lead to a more conservative view of the world.

[blam]

"says Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas at Austin. "I have lots of political conversations with other physicists and my impression is that, on average, physicists are extremely liberal in their politics. I certainly am."

My son has a PhD in physics and he is liberal. (He's getting a little better with age though)

[Yeti]

The FAS is a very activist oriented group, and like most academic institutions very slanted to the left. But most scientist and engineers are not in academia.

Yeah, what fuente said.

Liberalism doesn't make sense. The whole ideology is full of nonsense and self-contradiction.

Has anyone ever read the latest iteration of the Humanist Manifesto? I think it is called something like The Statement of Humanist Principals. It explicitly asserts both a right of all humans to life and the right of a woman to have an abortion.

With a document like that as a summary of your beliefs, how can you possibly claim to be a rational person?

Scientists and engineers are forced by their occupations to apply reason and analyze rationally. The kind of "Dada Philosophy" to which the left subscribes proves itself wrong without even looking past the "givens."

Having said all of that, if consevatism means religiousity, you might find it to be less dominant.

[Allan]

I don't think the division lies between Humanities and Sciences.

The division is between Academia and the Real World.

Most scientists in Academia are leftists
(it comes with the territory)
those who do their science and technology in industry
would tend to be conservative.

Of course
those in the Humanities normally lack marketable skills
so all are in Academia
thus
are leftists.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

FAS is the most liberal, anti-war group with any credibility out there.

The sole qualification for joining the FAS is a checking account with a $25.00 balance.

Academics in general are liberals, the govmint is where they get their cornpone from. Liberals turn everything they touch into $hit, which is why universities in this country are such cesspools.

The fact is that people tend to be more conservative politically with increasing education, except that PhD's tend to be *much* more liberal than the general population. Almost all PhD's are rent-seekers. They expect the government to enforce policies which benefit the credentialed at the expense of the competent and the productive. Which is one more reason that PhD's hate Harvard Drop-out Bill Gates.

[no-s]

The FAS website is always helpful. For example:

[Skibane]

Perhaps a better distinction could be made between people who work with abstractions, and those who work with physical objects. Physicists, mathematicians and statisticians tend to gravitate left, while engineers, technicians and mechanics tend to lean right.

One possible explanation is that the former often deal in theories, where no absolute measure of "rightness" or "wrongness" is apparent. The latter often deal in absolutes: When designing, troubleshooting or repairing a large commercial aircraft, there are no "alternative realities" — Either the techniques employed work, or hundreds of passengers suffer a gruesome death. Conversely, an economist can be wrong his entire career, and still keep his job.

[Brett66]

One of the funniest comments from Armey was when he called Barney Frank, Barney Fag.