February 12, 2004

If, as John Stuart Mill said...

Yes, yes, fish, barrel, context, etc., but I can never resist these "We are the Geniuses: Admire Us" quotations. This one comes from a brilliant Duke professor, via Andrew Sullivan:

"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.

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."


Help! I'm being dazzled by the light of Brandon's Immense Brain...

What's this guy doing teaching philosophy?

Posted by Dr. Frank at February 12, 2004 03:34 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I don't think this is fish in a barrel. Granted, the Duke guy doesn't have a data set to look at, but there's nothing terribly implausible about the assumptions he makes, if you abstract them from the rhetoric. In fact, depending on whether you accept IQ as an indice, it might be pretty easy to put together the data to support exactly what he claims. In any case, the fact that you and Sullivan are offended by the claim has no bearing on whether it's true.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 12, 2004 04:26 PM

Hi Frank,

I'm like a moth to the flame with this stuff, I guess. You might want to check out a recent post over at nathannewman.org that discusses the same topic in a slightly different way. Over there, Nathan posts a comment from pandagon.net that posits the following syllogism: (a) people who care lots about money and personal wealth (and don't feel guilty about acquiring it) tend to be more conservative; (b) smart people who care lots about money can fulfill that goal much better outside of academia (say in business, or in a law firm) than inside it; therefore (c) smart conservatives self-select away from academia, skewing the group of smart people who apply for academic jobs to the lefter side of the political spectrum. The nasty way to put this is that the conservatives who want academic jobs are, according to this theory, too stupid to make much money in the private sector so they see academia as their back-up plan. Smart lefties disdain the private sector on principle, and are more likely to apply for academic jobs.

Posted by: Nick at February 12, 2004 04:56 PM

Argh. You people are the reason I, in general, hate people. Nothing is black & white and blanket statements declaring things like all conservatives are dumb and all liberals are smart (hah) are completely moronic. People do what’s best for themselves. Period. If someone is more stimulated by academia than the business world, chances are, they are going to go that way. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to make more money, but in the end, you do what makes you happy. There are a great many college professors, liberal or otherwise, who are dolts. Likewise, there are businessmen who think that Clinton was a great president, are members of the green party, and patrons of the arts.
Think before you type.

Posted by: Me at February 12, 2004 05:23 PM

To be or not to be.....well actually the question is who cares if a college prof is a democrat or republican? Shouldn't they be chosing the best qualified cadidate for the job of teaching our youth and not base it upon political affiliation? This is just another another basis for job descrimination that we can add to race, creed and sex etc....

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 05:47 PM

To "me"...You're retarded. You put down everyone else who give their opinion but you can't even do it without hiding behind your computer. Maybe you should think before you write, then you wouldn't have to be afraid of people knowing you're an idiot.

Posted by: Amy 80 at February 12, 2004 05:56 PM

Spacetoast,
The assertion made by him is fallable in every possible way. He has just made an off-the-cuff foolish comment with no imperical evidence to back up his claim. Even if he did have the imperical evidence of say a survey of all the humanities professors in the United States, then the discrepancies found would only prove that he himself does not look very bright by making such a brash blanket statement. That is akin to saying that "only persons with a high IQ are democrats" "therefore because I have a 150 IQ, then I must be a democrat". Oops, sorry that theory has just been disproven, because my father is a 6th grade graduate and is a devout democratic supporter and I, a college graduate with a 150+ IQ am not a democrat, unless I'm a democrat and I don't know it ;)

I heard a saying on NPR a couple of nights ago, but I don't remember who it was quoted from. "If you're not a democrat by age 25 then you don't have a heart, and if you're not a republican by age 55 then you don't have a brain". Well,I'm in between those ages and I'm neither, go figure ;)

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 05:59 PM

Amy80,
To whom was your comment directed at? If it way me, then I'd like to know the basis of it. If not, sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 06:02 PM

Whoa there, Amy... Calm down. Just cause "me" has an opinion about broad generalizations and doesn't broadcast their identity, does not make them an idiot, or, as you say, "retarded". (the disabled persons of america group would especially frown on your wording) They made some excellent points, as did all of the posts. Don't be so easily ruffled. Remember, when you point at someone, there are 3 fingers pointing back at you!
Can't we all just get along!?

Posted by: Charles at February 12, 2004 06:04 PM

Before people go looking to explain the phenomenon of the Left Academy, I think we need more proof that the phenomenon actually exists. "Intellectuals" are a popular right-wing target, like the media and government bureaucrats. But the first job of anyone explaining this alleged left-wing tilt is to prove it exists -- and that goes for right-wingers attacking the lefty-deconstructionist-feminazis as well as snotty, self-satisfied philosophers justifying themselves.

Posted by: Nick at February 12, 2004 06:11 PM

was it winston churchill? re:
heart 55

Posted by: npr_no1fan at February 12, 2004 06:13 PM

I agree with Charles the "anonymous me" has some very valid points and aside from the "hating society" aspect of his/her argument, made wuite a bit of sense.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 06:16 PM

npr_no1fan,
It may have been, but I'd think it'd be an American with the republican/democrat verbage, an Englishman would be more apt to say such about Whigs and Torries. I tried to do a quote search but came up empty. Too bad, because it was a great and humorous quote, I wish I could give proper credit.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 06:22 PM

Nothing says "smart" to me like a guy who's ready and willing to explain to the world how smart he is at the drop of a hat. S-M-R-T smart.

Posted by: Blixa at February 12, 2004 06:58 PM

Blixa,

Are you referring to people who claim to have an IQ of 150, then misspell 'empirical' in the same posting?

Kidding, of course.

Posted by: J. francis at February 12, 2004 07:48 PM

So, what you're telling me is that Stephen Hawking never makes typographical or grammatical errors? Quit being an ass.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 07:59 PM


Firstly me and the "me" who posted are two
different people before you upset. But I wanted
to say i have to say said poster had a point.
I don't think I would call anyone who doesn't agree with me an idiot(unless i'm upset and not
in a particularly rational mood)but I do agree
that "smart" and "not so smart" come from both
sides of the fence.

Anyone that thinks different certainly is suffering from a massive generalization.

beth

Posted by: jUST ME(NOT ME) at February 12, 2004 08:01 PM

Here, since you are all so high-and-mighty to point out a careless mistake and ignore the valid points made in an intellectual argument. Knock yourselves out: http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/
It's short, sweet and basic, but produces the same (or reasonably close) results as many others I've used.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 08:06 PM

Look folks, there are two questions. One is whether there is any logical connection between being a "liberal" and being "smart." That is an undecidable, or at least extremely vague, question. The other is how people who self-identify as "liberal" compare with people who self-identify as "conservative" in terms of various indexes we take as proxies for intelligence, such as IQ. That is an empirical question and completely answerable. Actually, I believe there are data to the effect that democrats tend to be more heavily concentrated at the edges of the bell curve and republicans more in the middle. If this is so, and assuming "democrat" and "republican" as proxies for "liberal" and "conservative," then, since there are more "liberals" than "conservatives" in the higher quartile, that explains the college professor disparity, at least significantly. If we don't take "democrat" as a full proxy for "liberal," things could look even worse for conservatives, namely, it could be the case that the democrats concentrated in the lower quartile are disproportionately democrats for reasons having to do with government programs and whatnot, rather than having to do with broad "liberal values" or something. I suppose it could go the other way too, that people who self-identify as "conservatives" in the higher quartile are not republicans and so republican isn't a good proxy for "conservative," but I find this implausible. This is where, if you're a right-wing shill a la David Horowitz, you cry that academia systemically discriminates against conservatives...and, though if you're a conservative, this is a hilarious complaint, if you're David Horowitz, and you take yourself as an exemplar for "conservatism," you might have a point, since academia probably, hopefully, does systemically discriminate against lunatics like you.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 12, 2004 08:16 PM

Again, I have to agree with the anonymous "me" (not Beth) in the post above. Unless I read something into the article which was not there and here is a quote:
"The purpose of the ad was basically to bring to light the fact that the faculty in many humanities departments are completely skewed toward the left,"

We are talking about the humanities departments, which I can easily see as learning to the left. Where economics, business or perhaps even law departments would most likely lean to the right.

We then make up our deficiencies of republicans in humanities with an excess in the above mentioned academic departments.

Again, I have to go back and say why not just hire the best candidate and not worry about political affiliation? It's just one more thing to start another pissing war when there are much more important issues to deal with. Now if Duke or XYZ university were discriminating against either party in their hiring practices then that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Posted by: Channon at February 12, 2004 08:52 PM

spacetoast,

See, the point is that your post @8:16 (minus perhaps the gratuitous Horowitz-bashing stuff), or an outline of it anyway, is the kind of thing the good professor *would have* said on the subject if he were actually as smart as he thinks he is. Instead we got an out of context name-dropping Mill quote driven home by perhaps the most hackneyed analogy in all of social science ("NBA players are tall"). Get it? ;-)

Posted by: Blixa at February 12, 2004 09:08 PM

Why is it we don't find many anarchists in academia?

Posted by: Wes at February 12, 2004 09:45 PM

Blixa-

I'm not defending Dukie's presentation, because I wasn't there, but the general theme here is: what he said is wrong, because it offends me.

Moreover, there was a Berkeley paper published maybe a year ago called "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," that made some un-pc-ish claims, and it got the strawman treatment from the right-wing hacks, despite the rigor of *its* presentation, so, the "this isn't in scientific treatise form" complaint carries little weight with me, at least as the implied complaint of the Sullivan order of jabbering pundit (which isn't to say that *you* aren't entitled to that complaint). Moreover, if you have ever read Andrew Sullivan, you will know that he constantly makes mind-bendingly retarded generalizations about "liberals." Which is to say...stones? Glass houses?

Anyway, my point was just that the meat of Dukie's claim is not defeasible by just scoffing at it. In fact, it is probably true, for reasons like I outlined above. And Horowitz bashing is never gratuitous, as far as I'm concerned. That guy is a race-baiting slimeball who should be forced to pass out his idiotic reparations pamphlets at Ice Cube concerts.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 12, 2004 10:05 PM

...and DH is a convenient example of the attempted escape here. ;-)

Posted by: spacetoast at February 12, 2004 10:10 PM

spacetoast,

the general theme here is: what he said is wrong, because it offends me.

I didn't get that impression at all, who was "offended"? Dr. Frank? Speaking for myself, I just think what he said (and, in a way equally so, the fact that he said it) is lame, and it is to be mocked and ridiculed ;-)

if you look at my blog entry about this you'd see that I basically fall in your camp, I don't question the possibility of a lefty-smarty link at all, let alone am I "offended" by it...

[the Berkeley paper] despite the rigor of *its* presentation


Just wondering - you read it?

my point was just that the meat of Dukie's claim is not defeasible by just scoffing at it. In fact, it is probably true


Actually, on close inspection the Dukie's claim has virtually no "meat" whatsoever (which is part of the reason it is to be scoffed at). what's he actually saying? it's not clear he's saying anything at all. "if" the Mill misquote is true? "may" go "some" way to explaining? again, I already blogged about this however & don't feel like repeating myself much.. later


Posted by: Blixa at February 12, 2004 10:19 PM

Hi everybody,sorry for being off topic, just wanted to say "hi". I'm a facists, or is it famous, musician that's touring in Europe and was thinking about doing a touring blog on my website for all the kiddies, so I'm checking out some of the guys' who have ones of their own and I saw this one and the Screeching Weasle one and said "hey, I used to listen to these guys when I was just a little shit-stain" but this stuff is way fucking over my head. It's rad to know that everyone would still read my shit and take it seriously though and not ask all sorts of stupid questions to which I can't possibly respond to. Anyway, I'll hang around for a little bit and chime in when I have something worth-while to say. Unlike now. Probably when it's music or tour related. Europe is cool, but we still can't go much of anywhere without being mobbed and groped. Oh I have an ibook see-through blue thingy too, so I may need some help with this stuff later on. Blog ya' later....MH

Posted by: LoserMark at February 12, 2004 10:47 PM

Blixa-

"I just think what he said...is lame and it is to be mocked and ridiculed."

Fair enough. I think it is an innocuous and appropriately dismissive response to dumb allegations of liberal bias.

"I don't question the possibility of a lefty-smarty link at all, let alone am I "offended" by it..."

Good for you, I agree.

"you read it?"

Yes.

"Actually, on close inspection the Dukie's claim has virtually no "meat" whatsoever..."

I construct the Dukie's claim as:

conservative --> stupid

academic --> not stupid

so, academic --> not conservative

You're right that he's got the first part backwards... (it should be "stupid --> conservative" where "stupid" is obviously relativized)...and you're right that Mill only dubiously enters into it, but the basic idea seems to me to be that liberals outnumber conservatives in the academy because more liberals than conservatives have the required mental machinery. This is a truism, not an analysis, but it's pretty easy to see how it could be true, and why it probably is.


Posted by: spacetoast at February 12, 2004 10:56 PM

spacetoast,

[I construct the Dukie's claim as: conservative --> stupid]

but no. as you know and later acknowledge he starts with "stupid --> conservative", an assumption from which fewer things follow than he (and you) seem to think

[the basic idea seems to me to be that liberals outnumber conservatives in the academy because more liberals than conservatives have the required mental machinery.]

that would be an interesting claim. It could even be true. It's not his claim however, he actually spoke more cautiously than this (to such an extent that he's practically saying nothing at all). odd how in your rush to his defense you've "rephrased" his claim to be less defensible than it actually was. :)

Again, I don't question that it *could* be true that as you progress to the right of the "intelligence" scale (whatever that means), you get groups of people who lean more and more "left" (whatever that means). I've certainly seen data showing this pattern with "education level" on the X axis and (D) on the Y axis and so if you take "education" as a proxy for "intelligence" and (D) for "left", you're done, it seems.

But your claim here now is different: that "liberals outnumber conservatives in the academy because more liberals than conservatives have the required mental machinery" (..to perform the job of Tenured Professor, or even Tenured Professor In Fuzzy Social-Science Department (??)), and you have no basis for saying so. "could be true" and "you can't prove it's not true" and "the claim can't be defeated by scoffing at it" do not add up to "truism". Here now you're making an *assertion* and you have no actual basis for doing so, apparently. There seems to be a kind of faith behind it, which I always find fascinating.

Posted by: Blixa at February 12, 2004 11:27 PM

Blixa-

I completely fail to see the elaborate polemical strategy you are attributing to the Dukie here...although I found the parsing on your blog fascinating and highly entertaining.

I think that my summary "liberals outnumber conservatives in the academy because more liberals than conservatives have the required mental machinery" is a reasonable construction of the Dukie's remarks. You don't think so. I think your parsing is a moonshot. Ok. Nowhere to go there.

Supposing my construction though, since you agree that it's reasonable to assume...let's say IQ...IQ increases as you go to the left, then that means just exactly that the "liberalness" of populations successively picked out by IQ scores will increase as a function of the IQ number. I think we agree so far that this is a reasonable hypothesis, given data we both vaguely remember having seen. I think there are two further points to clarify here:

First, I further suppose that the populations comprising academics as a whole are in the high range of IQ. I suppose this because I remember seeing somewhere that PhD's have an average(?) IQ of 120 (I don't really remember whether this was an average or a mean or a median...and it actually intuitively seems low to me, given the profs I've had, but it's the only number I know on this subject, so...). Now, I take this as more or less marking out a required competence level, or, if not "required" in some deep sense (I'm really uninterested in your speculations about "fuzzy social sciences"), as defining "the market." On this supposition, which you can resist if you are amused by that, it surely would be the case that *more liberals than conservatives will have the required mental machinery.*

Second point. My term "truism" was intended as a characterization of the Dukie's mode of presentation, not as an assessment of its content. That was the sense of my contrast with "analysis." If you've gotten the impression that I claim this is an a priori fact of some sort, I'm sorry about that. I thought my previous comment about the unintelligibility of the question about a logical connection between "liberalness" and "smartness" made clear my position on that subject. My whole point here has been that the remark, advanced *as* a truism, is perfectly redeemable empirically, and, given very boring assumptions, looks very likely to be true, and is absolutely not an assertion with no basis.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 12:35 AM

Channon, don't worry the online IQ test will not determine whether you're a Democrat or Republican. It's just make-believe baby.

Posted by: i like big butts... at February 13, 2004 01:43 AM

spacetoast,

[since you agree that it's reasonable to assume...let's say IQ...IQ increases as you go to the left,]

Whoa there! I don't think it's reasonable to "assume" that at all. If the empirical data showed that, then one could *say* it. But not "assume" it.

[you agree that it's reasonable to assume...let's say IQ...IQ increases as you go to the left,]

Hmm. There's that "assume" again.

But a bigger problem here is that you've flipped the axes on me. You're talking about "IQ" vs. "leftness", whereas I've been talking the other way around (lefty-tendency vs. intelligence, essentially).

The reason there's a difference (to me) is that, as you'll recall from my post, the data *I* vaguely-remember-seeing (dunno about the data you v.-r.-s.) *also* showed a leftward tilt among the *less* educated. What this means (if all assumptions along the way hold up) is that a graph of "leftness" vs. "IQ" is *not* just a line sloping upward, but rather a smiley-curve with up-slopes to the left and right and a minimum somewhere in the middle.

If so, you can't just invert the dependence between the two variables "left" and "IQ" so easily and say "if smarties are lefty, then lefties are smart". Depending on the subpopulation numbers involved, the following could be true:

Moving to higher IQ, the groups lean more left, AND moving to more left-leaning groups (however this is measured/defined exactly), the average IQ stays the same (or decreases..?)

For all I know.

Posted by: Blixa at February 13, 2004 02:28 AM

Everybody's wrong, nobody's right, nothing's ever in black and white, how can you paint this issue with such a broad brush, etc. etc. etc.

www.noindoctrination.org

(Ain't too many college kids complaining about uber-conservative professors shoving right-wing propaganda down their throats... au contraire. Seems the "radicals" of the 60's have found a nice, cushy, criticism-proof bubble for themselves, and this bubble is sold under the name "Academia." Disagree? Whoa-- you must be one a' them dim-bulb conservatives who doesn't get it. Pity.)

I'm just saying.

Posted by: geoff at February 13, 2004 02:43 AM

"But the first job of anyone explaining this alleged left-wing tilt is to prove it exists"

Has unconscious ideological bias in faculty hiring been studied?

If yes, please point me to some.

If no, why not? They do them for race and gender, don't they?

Posted by: JB at February 13, 2004 03:17 AM

I always thought the smartest people made decisions for themselves rather than letting one group or another dictate how they should feel on each and every single issue.

Posted by: Justin at February 13, 2004 03:17 AM

I really don't think it's up to you to think you're smart; it's up to other people to think you're smart. I am not smart, but I sure as hell like the idea of being smart.

Posted by: i like big butts... at February 13, 2004 03:40 AM

Blixa-

me: "...IQ increases as you go to the left, then that means just exactly that the "liberalness" of populations successively picked out by IQ scores will increase as a function of the IQ number."

you: "you can't just invert the dependence between the two variables "left" and "IQ" so easily and say "if smarties are lefty, then lefties are smart"."


I'm pretty embarassed here. I am one of those people who chronically mix up left and right. I meant to say that IQ increases as you go to the *right*...of the curve... Sorry about that. ;-) IQ increases as you go to the *right*, so the "liberalness" of populations increases as a function of the average IQ...assuming you start at or above the median, which we do assume, since presumably people below the median are not in competition for academic jobs. I think the rest of what I said is in order though.


Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 06:31 AM

*whu*

Let me try that again. Moving to the right (of the curve) increases IQ. Moving to the right (of the curve) increases the concentration of lefties (political). Increasing IQ increases the number of lefties (political).

i like big butts-

I like big butts too.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 06:37 AM

The salient point is that the Duke professor teaches *philosophy*, and on that score, he doesn't even seem to know what he's talking about, in regards to his own profession. During Mill's time, people who were called "liberals" advocated small government, free trade and free markets, and individual liberties against state encroachment, including the right to bear arms. (The free marketeer Adam Smith, for example, would be described as a "liberal", in that era.) In other words, liberals of Mill's time basically held positions that are now associated with libertarian conservatives like Milton Friedman or the Cato Institute, or some of the more coherent members of the Bush Administration. (This nomenclature is actually preserved in contemporary Europe, where "liberal" still means pro-free market.) Beyond that, as Professor Eugene Volokh pointed out, his brilliant Duke colleague isn't even quoting Mill accurately.

All of this making his original statement, you know, stupid. Or as he might call it, well, conservative:

http://volokh.com/2004_02_08_volokh_archive.html#107655043874146972

Mill never said that stupid people are generally conservative -- he said that stupid people in the England of his era belonged to the Conservative Party. Mill, as a partisan, wrote a partisan rant about the Conservative Party; he said nothing about conservatives generally. It's hard to see how his comment has anything to do with conservatism in 2004.

Posted by: Wagner at February 13, 2004 06:55 AM

Err, when did GWB and the Cato Institute become utilitarians? Anyway, it's a quip, gang, not a considered account of Mill's thought and its historical context. I find it funny that you think you've caught this dude out in the poverty of his education or something.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 07:12 AM

Damn! I leave you people for five minutes and look what happens. Come on: the quote is funny, whether or not you can imagine a way to construe it as also being true. But keep jousting atop your hobby horses, if you like. To me the dubious assumption in all this doesn't have anything to do with the "liberal"/"conservative" malarky: it's that people with academic jobs are any less stupid than anyone else. That hasn't been my experience.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at February 13, 2004 07:47 AM

Okay - we're all settled in our usual roles, so I'll fulfill mine: Frank's right.
The quote is lame, Spacetoast, because of the philosophy prof's lame appeal to authority. That he plays a bit loose with the quote is humorous; that he thinks the issue is resolved by name-dropping Mill is really fucking funny.
It's phrased in such a way that it insulates Brandon: "Hey, I only said IF what Mill says is true, then hiring only liberals makes a hell of a lot of sense - if you think you're smarter than John Stuart Fucking Mill then take it up with him." It's high-school crap. And the fact that it brings people on both sides of the aisle out of the woodwork, desperately clutching data of questionable validity that PROVES their team is smarter just makes it funnier.
Frank, nice to finally meet you this week. Hope the drive to Denver wasn't too terrible.

Posted by: marc w. at February 13, 2004 08:22 AM

Damn, after all that...

Marc & Dr. Frank-

Look at Blixa's discussion of "coalitional dynamics." We actually exactly agree on what is (probably) going on as far as mapping intelligence, or IQ, leaving out whether that's a really good index, onto the political categories "liberal" and "conservative." Namely, there is a bell-curve, in which liberals, or democrats, are more heavily concentrated at the low and high ends, and conservatives, or republicans, are more heavily concentrated in the bell. We've both seen stats to that effect, and anyway that's the assumption we've agreed to talk in terms of. Now, assuming, contra Dr. Frank, that academics are *not* representative of the general population intelligence-wise, that would explain, at least significantly, the liberal/conservative disparity in colleges and universitites, which would provide kinda like the (legitimate) Bayesian appeal Blixa was looking for. I think this is a completely boring assumption. I admit I don't really know whether PhD's are representative of the general population intelligence-wise, but it strikes me as a completely fanciful asssumption. As far as I can make out, where we differ is that Blixa thinks that something like "the smarty-market has a higher concetration of liberals than conservatives" is a too charitable interpretation of the Dukie's remarks, whereas I think it is a perfectly sensible interpretation, given that they were made off the cuff and in self-defense against "liberal bias" accusations. If the poor guy had been accused of bias in favor of jews, and had responded sarcastically to the effect that "well, in general, jews tend to be smarter," then you'd all be tooting your horns in his defense, and you'd interpret the response in the way that it made the most, rather than the least, sense...i.e. principle of charity, dudes! Moreover, if you thought about it, you might say, well, if you look at it statistically, that might actually even be true.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 05:47 PM

If the poor guy had been accused of bias in favor of jews, and had responded sarcastically to the effect that "well, in general, jews tend to be smarter," then you'd all be tooting your horns in his defense, and you'd interpret the response in the way that it made the most, rather than the least, sense.

WHAT?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about whack-o, what are you some kind of confused liberal anti-semmite (that's an oxy-moron in itself)? I don't know anyone who would defend the idea of the Jews being smarter than any other ehtnic/religious group of people nor do I know anyone who would laugh and shrug it off as a joke " Oh, you're being sarcastic. Ha ha those crazy Jews again...." If anybody gets generalized into being a smarter race of people then it's the Asians, but I wouldn't even want to generalize that because their advantage lies in a stricter culture not in genetics or religion. You are the king of the shit-stirrers aren't you?

Posted by: Channon at February 13, 2004 07:30 PM

Channon, you have misunderstood a significant number of things. However, as much fun as the bickering's been, since I've already been thoroughly primed by various "that's what you say" jabs elsewhere, I think I have to concede defeat on your "confused liberal anti-semmite" haymaker. So here's my concession speech: (1) Everyone has equal capacities. (2) You're especially equal to everyone else if you've made it through six years of graduate school. (3) If academics are disproportionately liberal, then it must be due to systemic discrimination against conservatives. (4) Liberals who sarcastically defend themselves against charges of discrimination are "lame" and should be ridiculed.

I think that about sums it up, so...uncle. ;-)

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 08:57 PM

Um, there's really no point in this, I know...
For one, I'm not at all ready to assume the bell-curve distribution you've talked about. Not because conservatives are hella smart, but because IQ does NOT map well to political philosophy at all. At volokh.com, some prof offered up a study that purports to show that those who identify as 'strong republicans' have more political knowledge, as measured on a test given as part of the survey, than those who identify as democrats, whether strong or weak. I offer this not as definitive proof of anything - my point is that the entire enterprise of correlating politics and intelligence is fraught with danger and stupidity. Depending on what questions are asked and who's asking them, you'll get vastly different answers - and the fact that the results aren't easily replicatable (something I'm assuming - you're obviously asserting that the bell-curve/politics thing has been replicated numerous times and that we should accept it as settled) tend to mean that the data aren't all that great. And that makes sense.
Again, the problem with Brandon's remarks, even made off-the-cuff, is that he responds to a charge of bias by making a highly contentious claim (those who do not share my politics are dumber) and hides behind JS Mill to do it. Turn your hypothetical around: If someone was charged with NOT hiring jews and they said 'If, as luminaries as diverse as Orwell and Henry Ford are correct that they're more insular and money-obsessed, then there are lots of jews we'd never hire. People in academia in general don't share that lust for money, and thus jews probably self-select away from academia...'
Now your reaction to an assertion of this type is to check the data. Whilst I admire your dispassionate style, I must admit my reaction to an assertion of this type would be to laugh my head off and think that the speaker isn't fit to teach middle school, let alone philosophy at a prestigious university.
It's not the rigor of Brandon's assertion that's at issue - it's the entire premise that he could exonerate himself from the charge of anti-conservative bias by asserting that they're just, you know, dumber.
Again, I admire your desire to examine his assertion and test its validity. I happen to think that the entire exercise is a waste of time. Perhaps I'm not far enough to the right of the bell curve to see the self-evidently true nature of Brandon's remarks.

Posted by: marc w. at February 13, 2004 09:57 PM


Wow,this could be the longest run yet,poor Frank
just tries to lay out a funny quote and suddenly
there's almost 50 replies.

I do understand that Frank(and others),nonetheless
and even if I'm oversimplifying:

I stand by what I said. Its only funny till someone gets hurt and all. The more people make
broad generalizations the worse society gets.

beth

Posted by: just me at February 13, 2004 10:26 PM

Marc-

I'm losing interest in this subject, and besides I plan to go drink beers in the not too distant future, so I'm going to quit pretty soon, but briefly...

"those who identify as 'strong republicans' have more political knowledge, as measured on a test given as part of the survey, than those who identify as democrats, whether strong or weak."

I imagine that Andrew Sullivan knows more about current events than Stephen Hawking ever did, for example, but Sullivan is transparently an intellectual infant compared to Hawking. It's just true. Before you worry about that, the point isn't that all PhD's are Stephen Hawking, rather that "political knowledge," if you want to call it that, is completely irrelevant to most of what most academics do. That is, "political knowledge" is highly dissociable from the capacities required to do most academic work, whereas general intelligence is highly indissociable from those capacities.

"IQ does NOT map well to political philosophy at all."

If "political philosophy" here is intended loosely, i.e. "political affiliation," then you are begging the question. Otherwise you are ignoring my explicit disavowal of any logical connection between "liberalness" and intelligence.

"the entire enterprise of correlating politics and intelligence is fraught with danger and stupidity."

This is definitely question begging.

"Depending on what questions are asked and who's asking them, you'll get vastly different answers..."

Here we have been taking Democrat and Republican as crude proxies for "liberal" and "conservative." I acknowledged earlier that those won't be tight proxies...in particular, they may well make conservatives look more equal than they really are, since many people at lower socio-economic levels are probably Democrats for reasons of expedience rather than being "liberal" in the broad sense of the term, i.e. the "liberal worldview." In any case, "are you a democrat?" and "are you a republican?" are not questions that admit of *vastly* different answers.

"If someone was charged with NOT hiring jews and they said...your reaction is to check the data..."

Umm, among other things disanalogous here, I don't know of any data on "insularness" or "money-loving-ness" or, on the face, how those things might get quantified. I know how intelligence can be quantified, and I have seen statistics that show that the higher the IQ, the more likely the person is to be a liberal/democrat. Big difference there.

"It's not the rigor of Brandon's assertion that's at issue - it's the entire premise that he could exonerate himself from the charge of anti-conservative bias by asserting that they're just, you know, dumber."

Exonerate? The issue here is that this guy refused to be put on trial on a right-wing conspiracy theory, so he made a smartass comment. Moreover, the substance of his comment, at least on one eminently reasonable interpretation, whatever you think of his presentation, *is probably true*...namely, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be a liberal.

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 11:01 PM

Spacetoast coast to coast, why can't you just let it go? What ever happened to: "So here's my concession speech..."? also, you said "I'm losing interest in this subject, and besides I plan to go drink beers in the not too distant future, so I'm going to quit pretty soon". The first and last statement I don't believe for an instant, but the middle and second statement (one in the same), I hope you drink alone because I can see you after a few pints starting to get upset and going off on a diatribe on this topic while your mates are slowly trying to back away or change the subject. BTW...I'm just yanking your chain on this post. I'm cracking up as I'm typing this. ;)

Posted by: Channon at February 13, 2004 11:15 PM

Channon, I try to keep my innernut in its magic lamp in real life, but thanks for the tip. And no hard feelings, dude. ;-)

Posted by: spacetoast at February 13, 2004 11:58 PM

Well i've already had my beers, so I won't let it go.
Yeah, I'm begging the question. I'll admit that. The entire point here is that a number of us found the assertion humorous. The question of liberal intellectual superiority (where does Hawking stand on tradeable pollution credits? On the 'best' level of taxation? Can we pore through the writings of Richard Feynman to determine what we should do about rent seeking?) is so asinine, at least the way Brandon frames it. There's no rigor there - look at all you and others have had to fill in (the hypothetical bell-curve distribution, the use of IQ, etc). That it's even the subject of serious debate strikes me as odd.
To take a bete noir of yours, what would you do if Andrew Sullivan tossed off some similar half-baked nostrum of conservative intellectual superiority and everyone here or at your bar or wherever was basically treating it as accepted fact? You may argue that you'd debate their so-called facts, or present counter-arguments or what not. You may even be serious. You're a better man than I. I'd just laugh.
Same with this: "Umm, among other things disanalogous here, I don't know of any data on "insularness" or "money-loving-ness" or, on the face, how those things might get quantified."
One could think of a number of ways to quantify these things, or at least how people with an agenda could 'prove' the correlation.
There's obviously no way to get you to see the humor in it - you think it's an empirical question, I think it's a remarkably dumb thing to say. Just understand that any robustness, any intellectual rigor in Brandon's tossed-off inanity has been supplied by you. The only thing he did was hide behind JS Mill.

Posted by: marc w. at February 14, 2004 12:17 AM

Eventually Frank is going to meet us all in-person (if he hasn't already but this time he'll remember because of the blog) at one of his shows and promptly call security!! We're not bad guys, just passionate!! If MTX comes to Cincinnati, and any of the regular bloogers are there, then first round is on me! See, we CAN all just get along!

Posted by: Channon at February 14, 2004 12:29 AM

Bloogers??? There I go again....being too careless to proofread...I meant "bloggers", if that is even a word....

Posted by: Channon at February 14, 2004 12:31 AM

Okay y'all, it's singsong time.

Will You Still Love Me When I Don't Love You?
(c) 1993 Itching Powder music

Will you still love me
When I don't love you
I sure hope you do
It would be an ego boost
When I leave you
Will you still be true
Phone me up every night
Ask me if I'm eating right

Cause I can't stay with you
I've got other things to do
But while I'm away
It sure would be great
If you would wait for me
Cherish my memory
Keep my picture by your bed
remember all the things I said
And you know if you would
It would make me look good
and everyone would say
He's quite a guy...

Posted by: marc w. at February 14, 2004 12:46 AM

If you're a member of the cultural and/or intellectual elite, post after this message.

Posted by: Dave at February 14, 2004 05:04 AM

Nope...just evil neocon conspiracy.

Posted by: JB at February 14, 2004 05:30 AM

marc-

"if Andrew Sullivan tossed off some similar half-baked nostrum of conservative intellectual superiority and everyone here or at your bar or wherever was basically treating it as accepted fact?"

This precisely describes (1) a sizeable segment of what goes on in the blogosphere at large, (2) 7/8ths of all Andrew Sullivan posts, and possibly even (implicitly) (3) this very item.

Channon-

I'm no authority on the lexicon, but I think we'd have to actually have blogs to qualify as "bloggers." However, we may well qualify as "bloogers."

Posted by: spacetoast at February 14, 2004 06:43 AM

Sorry for the delay...No Channon, I wasn't talking to you. And I don't mind what the person who posted as "me" said, I just think if you're going to come off with opinions like that, you should at least cowboy up and leave a name. But I had no intention of offending anyone, I just don't think it's really fair to bash everyone else with a "I'm the only person who is right" attitude and not even take credit for it. That's all.

Posted by: Amy 80 at February 14, 2004 09:13 AM

Actually, the reason the upper echelon of academia is mostly liberal is because the upper echelon of academia gets to decide who is and who isn't allowed to join their ranks.

It is a meaningless "statistic" to cite unless you're talking about prejudice, the censorship of ideas, or the perils of old boy's networks.

Posted by: John H at February 16, 2004 10:14 PM

Most engineers tend to be conservative. Most engineers are also quite smart.

Posted by: theman at March 30, 2004 07:41 PM