By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 19 July 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually you'd be surprised.  Evolutionary Biology and Psychology largely back up conservative agendas.  Though ironically the teachers are just about top of the class when it comes to being liberals.

They tend to fall into the "Humans are horrible beings therefore we need heavy laws to control their actions" camp.  Ignoring the fact that polticians are in fact... human beings.  Meaning all you are doing is ensuring one group of horrible beings is in control over everyone, rather then having multiple competing horrible beings fighting vs each other, creating the most freedom and protection for all.

Outside which, you've really done nothing to argue your point.

Rather then make excuses for why the point is true...

which is largely irrelevent.

What's to argue regarding my point? My point was this:

I have a problem with that article. It was only a quantitative research on what the political belief and affiliations of university proffesors are. It was not a qualitative research that studied how these proffesors structure their classes, and whether their political beliefs influence what they teach.

There's really not much more to say.

Which you followed up by directly saying that some fields of study were directly related liberal to political belief.

That was just a rant, not meant as a serious argument.

Except you know... your rant is more accurate then you'd expect.

Marx for example is actually considered one of the big three founders of sociology.

You can't actually get through a social sciences degree without being taught a lot of socialism... as there are various theories and branches that rely pretty heavily on it.  Sociology is currently basically a case of "The Liberals vs the Socialists." (Liberals in the classic sense... and socialists in the sense of the left wing/statist/democrats.)

It's less about "So and so should be treated the same" or anything like that, but more the base and the ways they went about it.  However to do so you need to read there works directly.  Meaning direct exposure to said ideas... which in general is predudicial even with a teacher who isn't particularly left leaning with no counterweight arguement.

Entire disciplines specifically teach left leaning theory automatically... and most teachers are more likely to believe in said left wing ideas... seems pretty obvious.  If you actually think political affiliation doesn't effect how things are taught...

Why don't we look at another field where nuetrality is supposed to be the rule.  News reporting.  In the US I can name on one hand the number of reporters who's political affiliation i can't tell just by watching them.  Well actually... I can't name one.  Even Anderson Cooper you can tell though he's best at it.

The only field you could argue specifically teaches right wing theory is economics... and even then not all economics do so.