Politics and demographics.

July 11, 2001 1:57 PM

Ideology versus Scalability; Conservative versus Liberal; Kant's Categorical Imperatives versus the Scottish "Common Sense" philosophers; Yanks versus Brits; Democrats versus Republicans; Kudos from Sardine; and startling Mefi Demographic information!
posted by UncleFes to MetaFilter-related at 1:57 PM (44 comments total)

continued from 8930: Mefi Search Yields Laughs A'Plenty...

I cannot for the life of me figure out how to put a link in the original post.

So: where were we?
posted by UncleFes at 1:58 PM on July 11, 2001

Right here, and moving that-a-way.
posted by iceberg273 at 2:00 PM on July 11, 2001

No Zippity BOP!!™
posted by fooljay at 2:02 PM on July 11, 2001

in the context of 18th-century common-sense philosophy, and how its was followed by a more complex conception of hermeneutics,

Uggu-wugga. The common-sensers, the link didn't have a cliff notes version of their position - what is it?

It's as if, after an era of ideology, we realise that we're having to negotiate not just between the dreamable and the possible, but between different domains of possibility.

I think we're still at least partially driven by ideology. You had a good point with the Civil War analogy, but I think the retreat from ideological-based decision making has ushered in a new Realism, a kinder/gentler Realpolitik. Since the possibility of large scale war (like WWII, or even Vietnam) has been nearly eliminated, the realpolitik relies less on ideology and sabre-rattling and more on accomplishability. And I think that it's more economic that what would normally be considered "politics." Economics is the new political arena.

In that sense, to regard academics as servants of Big Government is to misunderstand the modern academy:

I wonder if maybe the academic life in the UK is different from in the US. In America, I would have to agree with LJR: academia is a one of the few remaining bastions of the true Marxist left, and outside of the business school is largely antipathetic to conservatives; I went to a Jesuit college, and witnessed a purge of sorts in the history department, where the lefties outed a righty who had disagreed with them on departmental policy and tanked his career. And if this occurs amongst the sedate halls of Catholic school (not exactly Troskyites in monk's robes), I can imagine the left-bias at a state-funded school.

Private industries do meet that cost, they do so by paying the higher salary that the more advanced degree demands.

Damn straight - that's why we all went ahead and got degrees, right? And the scenario that Holgate describes was sort of the case back a century or two ago, with the apprentice-journeyman-master process. Your employer not only educated you, he housed you, he fed you, he clothed you. And Holgate: education in America is expensive. If you are managing to grant your way through, it's not chickenfeed. In addition, if you teach while you get advanced degrees (most do, I did), then you are also given stipends as pay, free housing, free food in the commissary, etc. It's not the high life, but it certainly not the real world, either.

then why aren’t veteran military members, dogcatchers and every Congress Member registered Socialists?

Because, rather than being subsidized in order to learn, the military man works at a very difficult job for his pay.

But unlike, say, the individuated world of the MBA or the history doctorate, the collaborative nature of postgraduate science can't be convincingly resolved into a set of single-person transactions.

Science is tough, but there are some caveats: first, far more tuition comes to the university in the forms of government loans to the student than outright grants at the undergraduate level - and, most collegians discontinue their education at the Bachelor's. So yes, technically the government is supporting them, but it is a temporary subsidy at best. In some cases, those outstanding loans are used to extract other forms of compensation from the student (i.e, sending medical students to areas that are without doctors. Second, some subsidy comes from the university itself, as an enticement to promising students to remain and teach (often it is the housing and food that I mentioned earlier).

But lastly, most telling is the fact that the vast majority of students simply terminate their educations at some point and leave. It seems to be the case that the ones that stay are ones that embrace neo-Marxism.

As far as your science collaborators, I confess I don't know enough to comment :)



posted by UncleFes at 2:38 PM on July 11, 2001

Also, what of those damned super-lefty MBAs? I imagine some of them receive federal loans. Cough, cough.

Some do. They pay them back. They're loans, Ray.
posted by UncleFes at 2:42 PM on July 11, 2001

Exactly. I was sick of Aaron's shit. That was a troll, pure and simple. I'm a doctoral student? Guess how much I receive in federal loans? Zero freakin' dollars. None, for the record. People receive them for MBAs, med school, etc., etc. It doesn't make them communist or something. God. It's so stupid it's almost not worth replying to? But why's it there in the first place?
posted by raysmj at 2:53 PM on July 11, 2001

UncleFes: I've yet to meet a serious, hardcore, to-the-bone Marxist academic. You're certainly not likely to find them in droves at most state institutions. I heard of a guy going to the American Political Science Association convention, spouting off hardcore Marxist theory, and getting hammered with hostile questions afterward, so much so that the man was shaking. But Marx is studied in theory classes, economics, sociology, history, etc. Should that come as a shock, or anything less than what you'd expect given the impact of Marx?
posted by raysmj at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2001

But why's it there in the first place?

Earlier in the thread we'd made the point that long-term academics were typically lefties; someone challenged it, and aaron posited the idea that long exposure to the financial end of the higher education system tends to produce a dependance on government, hence lefties. I'm not sure that's correct, either - I would suspect that the mentoring process necessary to produce new geneations of professors, coupled with the inherent political aspects of actually being an academic, is what creates the left bias amongst professors.

It was an offshoot of the "more educated = liberal" argument that Postroad made very early in the thread.

I've yet to meet a serious, hardcore, to-the-bone Marxist academic

Well, ok, maybe not Marxist per se, but there is a very large contingent of hard-core socialist liberals in academia - not your middle of the road Clintonites, but real reds. I worked with several.

I think they're more prevalent in the soft sciences and arts, rather than the biz school, maths and hard sciences. But biz school graduates go out and become, I dunno, salesmen, whereas your classical liberal arts student tends to hang on longer and inculcate more agitprop :) As for MBAs, at least among the ones that I know it was a rarity for them to continue right through their bachelors and get the MBA - most went back later at the behest of their company, with the bills paid for by their company. I came pretty close to doing that myself.
posted by UncleFes at 3:07 PM on July 11, 2001

My contention, though, is that aaron knew this was crap, and posted it just to get people upset. Provocateurs can upset me, but get me to think. Aaron, in this case, was just wasting good space. Agitprop is not to be heard at the vast majority of state colleges and universities. What you're reading about comes mostly from private elite schools. Consequently, the entire argument is crap, invalid on its face.
posted by raysmj at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2001

The common-sensers, the link didn't have a cliff notes version of their position - what is it?

How about this one? ("All knowledge and all science must be built upon principles that are self-evident; and of such principles every man who has common sense is a competent judge.") Aka the Scottish Enlightenment, aka the context for Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

I wonder if maybe the academic life in the UK is different from in the US.

Well, I can tell you without hesitation that the politics of most Oxford dons aren't "true Marxist left".

raysmj's got this one pinned down, though.
posted by holgate at 3:15 PM on July 11, 2001

raysmj: thank you for destroying the civil dialogue. aaron has an opinion. that opinion might vary slightly from your own. that does NOT make his opinion a troll. jeezy creezy. I took loan money for school. i'm still paying it. I'm not some sort of socialist. His opinion doesn't hold up in all circumstances. But say you disagree, instead of trying to invalidate his opinion by calling it a troll.
posted by jbelshaw at 3:20 PM on July 11, 2001

it's fiendishly difficult to treat a science PhD as an individual transaction between the student and the institution: there's always going to be an element of subsidy, which means the employer gains at the institution's expense.

Just thought of something: doesn't the money it takes to subsidize chem ph.D's come from the employers in the first place in the form of taxes??

Government doesn't generate any revenue. Subsequently, it cannot "subsidize" anything, really. The employers are already subsidizing the scientists by proxy.

Agitprop is not to be heard at the vast majority of state colleges and universities.

I used the term Agitprop to describe the personal mentoring that goes on between professors and prospective professors. As a PhD candidate, you learn and work side by side with the professorship, probably 2-3 professors who have taken a paternal interest in your career. You are likely to respect their work, and their opinions, inside and outside the discipline. As a potential condidate for inclusion in their ranks, you are going to be very aware of the political aspects of the job, and will likely, over time, have come to hold many of the same beliefs they do, or at least ape them if you haven't truly formed political thoughts of your own.

How about this one?

Excellent thanks. This philosophy has much to recommend it, IMO. My only worry is that, since modern individuals are so educationally specialized, many wouldn't have the cognitive tools and critical thinking skills to actively engage their "common senses" if you get me. Being able to think critically is a rare skill, nowadays.

As for the Marxism, if I had to describe the liberal bias in American academia, I might call it "operational socialism." It's sort of a hands-on, tribal anti-capitalism, anti-Caucasian free-form political correctness. It's pretty pink.
posted by UncleFes at 3:25 PM on July 11, 2001

raysmj: sorry about responding here and on the original thread. I'm not trying to be hostile. i'm just wondering about the ferver that you seem to be labeling a viewpoint as "troll".
posted by jbelshaw at 3:29 PM on July 11, 2001

Because, rather than being subsidized in order to learn, the military man works at a very difficult job for his pay.

Imlpying — which I knew would happen — that academics don’t work hard.

I take it you’ve never taught or been in the military.

I should also point out that the military in every propoganda piece I've ever seen from them, and I have seen more than my share, bill “learning new skills” as a benefit of military experience. So, again, you made a very insulting statement to professors and military personnel alike.

Very ignorant statement, Fes.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:32 PM on July 11, 2001

I want the civil thread back. can we please go back to the world in which we're civil with each other? where we don't call names, but instead attack *arguments* with *facts* and *thoughtful opinions*?
posted by rebeccablood at 3:36 PM on July 11, 2001

Just thought of something: doesn't the money it takes to subsidize chem ph.D's come from the employers in the first place in the form of taxes??

Does it, though? A friend did his biochemistry doctorate at Oxford, took a postdoc in Stamford, and is now working for a spinoff company in the Bay Area. His taxes go to the state of California and the US Treasury.

Certainly, there's a redistributive element, when you consider the taxation of both employers and graduates: even more so in countries that levy a graduate tax. But there's no guarantee that the money invested in research facilities and projects will be paid back. And that's my point: you can't regard postgraduate education and employment, particularly in the sciences, as a personalised series of transactions, in which everyone can work out what's owed to them with a copy of Quicken.

One thought: your definition of "Agitprop" applies equally to every workplace environment, academic or not.

As a potential condidate for inclusion in their ranks, you are going to be very aware of the political aspects of the job, and will likely, over time, have come to hold many of the same beliefs they do, or at least ape them if you haven't truly formed political thoughts of your own.

Isn't that the Dilbert Principle?

jbelshaw: I think raysmj was annoyed that aaron's comment read like a neat thought experiment, based on precious little experience of academia. It certainly seemed that way to me.
posted by holgate at 3:44 PM on July 11, 2001

jbelshaw: I called it a troll because it wasn't true. Nothing in there was factual. Not a single thing, and I presume from reading aaron's post enough that he knew it wasn't. It's that simple. Aaron knew it wasn't true.
posted by raysmj at 3:56 PM on July 11, 2001

UncleFes: Actually, the professor I had to work under for one semester, the one I worked most closely with rather, was and is a conservative. We made light of the difference a lot, but found many common annoyances. Another I worked under somewhat was liberal. In the master's, I had a moderate who had me work with him in research and a liberal who had me type and file, mostly. She enjoyed basketball talk, and rarely talked politics. In most doctoral programs, though, you're more on your own, and if under apprenticeships, then under such by an entire department and not one particular person.
posted by raysmj at 4:03 PM on July 11, 2001

Zippity Google! What Im most impressed with is the people who've bought an ad on 'zippity bop'. Quality. So quality in fact that I'm going to give them a free link!
posted by nedrichards at 4:10 PM on July 11, 2001

I would have to agree with LJR: academia is a one of the few remaining bastions of the true Marxist left, and outside of the business school is largely antipathetic to conservatives

Actually Fes, I believe that was aaron's comment, not mine.

Not that I disagree with it, however.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:12 PM on July 11, 2001

raysmj: Like any other community, Metafilter has a culture. We aspire for it to be a culture of respect and tolerance, even if we disagree with someone's views and perhaps even when we are offended by someone's views. I see from your profile that you're fairly new here (January of this year), so maybe you haven't yet noticed what makes this forum so unique. This was/is one of the better threads that I've seen, so I'd appreciate it if you'd do your part to keep it civil.
posted by gd779 at 4:12 PM on July 11, 2001

Hey....I am just going to put this here in this thread as based on the original thread. It really has no bearing on what is being discussed here save for the fact that this thread originated from another MeFi thread.

I just want it on the record.

And please, don't call me a troll. I would hate to thing that I need to shrink down a couple of feet, slap some gooey, hairy crap on my face and waddle around to feel comfortable.

really, I am just a little perplexed about behaviors here on MeFi in the past months. Really, I am.

******
Hi,

Thanks Fes for bringing this over here........

I am only going to make one comment - given that my UID is in the topic thread. And it has nothing to do with the above conversation. I just want to finish up.

This is the comment: argue the point, not the person. Too often, I have seen really good points mired down when the righties do a sloppy poop on the lefties and the lefties drink alot of tequila to poop sloppier on the righties. I don't need poop. Trust me. I generate enough of it. I really do. Let us save that issue for another board that nobody can access except me.

I just want discourse without the personal/political attack.

I understand that this behavior (the personal attack) is not easy to contain. All I wish is that each person would click the "preview" button a couple of times before they post, regardless of their ideological bent. Think about what you are saying. Would you slam someone in a bar in the same way? Would you risk having someone kick you in the ass after you spouted off? I think the old addage is still true - "Never say anything online that you would not yell out loud in the the town square".

Take it from a guy who has been banned from many establishments over the years, online and off. Yes, I was an asshole. Yes, I am still an asshole. I suppose I simply now know how to hold my toungue. I am a good boy most of the time. Sometime though, I slip. Such is life.

"If I had a nickel for every stupid, insensitive statement that I have made online....etc....etc...millionare"

Bottom line in my eyes - mefi has become a "poop in another's mouth fest".One of the tag lines I see in the header is "self policing since 1999". In reality, all I see on the front page is "self denigrating since 2001". Man, something has to be done about this crap. And management is not going to make it happen - it is the users that have to bite their tongues and think more clearly.

Look - from what I read, I can clearly see that there are many, many, many intelligent people here. So many so that I am afraid of soiling myself. You fucking people scare me that much. Oh lordy, lordy.

At the same time, I also see your intelligence getting in the way of reasonable discourse. I have this image of a bunch of MeFiers sitting around a table with me and me simply ordering pitchers of whatever and pouring it over their heads. This "nanner-nanner-nanner" shit has got to stop or this board has its days numbered.

People: argue the issue, not the person.
double post - fine: call it, and move on without issue.
"No Link"? - get rid of it howie.

finally, y'all are a rocking bunch....but you wear me out. KOKO

Chow!

S-
posted by sardines at 4:14 PM on July 11, 2001

Sardines: Do me a favor, will ya? This is an important issue you've raised: give it it's own Metatalk thread. (I was tempted to just cut-and-paste it on over myself, but since it wasn't my post, I wasn't sure if that was appropriate.) Let's finish up this thread here, and take your issue over to another one.
posted by gd779 at 4:22 PM on July 11, 2001

gd779: Oh, I'm a newbie. Actually, I'd been lurking a lot longer than January, and lost my old registration. My contention is, again, that aaron's post wasn't at all civil, but intentionally provocative.
posted by raysmj at 4:23 PM on July 11, 2001

Well, not just intentionally provocative, but provocative in a mean spirited, baiting sort of way.

posted by raysmj at 4:23 PM on July 11, 2001

Well, not just intentionally provocative, but provocative in a mean spirited, baiting sort of way.

Ray, you're the one who turned the thread nasty. So who's the mean spirited provocateur again?
posted by ljromanoff at 4:31 PM on July 11, 2001

ljr: According to you. From my position, as an actual sort of person of the type aaron was talking about, as opposed to an abstraction, he came off as a total baiting asshole. And I know aaron's intelligent enough to know better than what he was posting.
posted by raysmj at 4:36 PM on July 11, 2001

GD779,

You are right. Point taken and a new entry has been placed. Thank you for the prompting.
posted by sardines at 4:53 PM on July 11, 2001

raysmj, regardless of how you felt about aaron's post, there's no excuse for you to be uncivil.
posted by daveadams at 5:01 PM on July 11, 2001

ljr: According to you. From my position, as an actual sort of person of the type aaron was talking about, as opposed to an abstraction, he came off as a total baiting asshole. And I know aaron's intelligent enough to know better than what he was posting.

I'd say that the general consensus of those participating in the thread believe you're the one that stuck the knife in its back. Ask around if you don't agree.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:05 PM on July 11, 2001

psst. Anybody that wants to talk about raysmj's/aaron's/anybody else's personal attacks, go here.
posted by gd779 at 5:07 PM on July 11, 2001

ljr: I don't care what any majority thinks. I took aaron's post as deeply offensive, because of where I personally stand. Saw it as completely ideological, unfactual, etc. I thought of what I was doing with 100 percent certainty as standing up for what was right. So what if it wasn't popular, and aaron's accepted because, hell, it's what aaron does all the time and he's been around or whatever.
posted by raysmj at 5:15 PM on July 11, 2001

raysmj: you are allowed to be offended. but just because you are offended or disagree, doesn't make something a troll. I happen to think that aaron's statement is streching for a reasoning, but i'm not screaming troll.
posted by jbelshaw at 5:17 PM on July 11, 2001

Well, raysmj's contributed more factual data to the thread than aaron, who posted his speculative definition of academics as "reliant" upon big government (rather in the manner, say, of one arguing that blacks are Democrats because they're all reliant on welfare) then departed. And that behaviour's straight out of the Troller's FAQ: "Try not to follow-up to your own troll."
posted by holgate at 5:23 PM on July 11, 2001

psst. Anybody that wants to talk about raysmj's/aaron's/anybody else's personal attacks, go here

Jesus, how many hoops are we going to have to jump through during the duration of this thread?
posted by ljromanoff at 5:24 PM on July 11, 2001

jbelshaw: Well, OK. But can we disagree as to whether it was a troll? From my vantage point, it seemed like one, especially since, again, it wasn't factual and was purely ideological from any rational standpoint.
posted by raysmj at 5:26 PM on July 11, 2001

I posted the above having gotten only a few posts down in this thread. (I haven't even seen the other thread yet, and have no clue as to what sort of hate spewage raysmj et al may have released over there.) But having now read the rest of this thread, I think I'll just say I'm bowing out from any further responses. The posts from raysmj and holgate here have already proven anything else I could possibly point out.
posted by aaron at 8:55 PM on July 11, 2001

Yes, I think Holgate's right too.

He usually is.
posted by Grangousier at 3:43 AM on July 12, 2001

From my vantage point, it seemed like one, especially since, again, it wasn't factual and was purely ideological from any rational standpoint.

You need to rethink your definition of troll. Otherwise, every ideologue who posts here is a troll, because there's absolutely no reason to doubt that Aaron believes what he posted.

Besides, calling any longtime member a "troll" is a sure-fire way to torpedo a discussion. One of the main reasons Usenet is completely unreadable today is because the longtimers, who should know better, are obsessed with calling people trolls.
posted by rcade at 5:27 AM on July 12, 2001

Dear Lord, stop the backslapping. Judge me on the argument at hand.

My post was emphatically not a troll. I meant every word I said in total honesty.

In which case, it was posted from a position of total ignorance; not only that, its ignorance shone right through it. It was a rhetorical house of cards, cliché built upon cliché. And it's precisely that condescension that pissed off both myself and raysmj. And as ray pointed out, aaron has been quick to jump on people who make sweeping judgements on obesity, so he can't expect to tar an entire profession with his own ideological brush without being challenged.
posted by holgate at 5:27 AM on July 12, 2001

You need to rethink your definition of troll.

True, true. Drawing from slashdot.org, I suppose (-1, Flamebait) might be a more accurate assessment than (-1, Troll).
posted by holgate at 5:32 AM on July 12, 2001

"But lastly, most telling is the fact that the vast majority of students simply terminate their educations at some point and leave." dam Fes, even i'm impressed. this is true, alot of students quit school for what ever reason. After I left school, fled really,a 'friend' of mine (liberal) got on me about leaving school, snitty connotations about me having to do work to get the grade. (i rarely spent time on college work, least amount possible) ya know ,rubbing in the fact i couldnt cut it( had a class where i went only 7 times and still got a A, hence the reason this person got on me) I left to take care of my father who was dying. The great part about it, another liberal friend gave her both barrels for her ignorance and intellectual grandstanding. i guess i mention this because i notice the same thing goin on in MeFi but i also see those trying to make that point, inform us newbies. Uncle, dont be so sure about the 'end of conventional warfare'
posted by clavdivs at 7:51 AM on July 12, 2001

Imlpying — which I knew would happen — that academics don’t work hard. I take it you’ve never taught or been in the military.

I've taught and, although never active duty, I've been a consultant to the USAF on several occasions. Like in any profession, there are those in both that work hard and those that screw around. In my experience, there are a significantly higher portion of screw-arounders in academia.

But that wasn't my point. My point was to differentiate the work done by academics from the work done by soldiers.


you can't regard postgraduate education and employment, particularly in the sciences, as a personalised series of transactions

Agreed; the flip side of that coin is the example of two students who follow the same track, have the same professors, get the same degree, but one (because of inherent brain power, talent, studiousness, whatever) is simply better educated than the other. Technically, their educations are the same, and they cost the same, but one got more than the other...?

So, it must be that we have to look at this macroeconomically. In that environment, I think my model improves. Taxes are extracted from companies, which flow into government coffers, which are transferred to universities, which break down the funds to different departments based on factors decided upon by the university (for the most part, with some targetted funds directly supplied by government for specific needs); the funds are transferred to the professorship in exchange for their work providing instruction to students; students accumulate education over time, eventually taking that education to the RW, where it is applied toward generating revenue for the same companies from whom the original taxes were levied.

To be honest, I think that companies are finding this method not very efficient; I see a lot more direct application of funds for education to individuals in whom the company see promise, in exchange for long-term employment contracts.

the professor I had to work under for one semester, the one I worked most closely with rather, was and is a conservative. We made light of the difference a lot, but found many common annoyances.

Your individual usage may vary :)

Uncle, dont be so sure about the 'end of conventional warfare.

I truly believe that warfare on the scale of WWI or WWII has ended forever. Part of that is the presence of nuclear weapons – the big trump card. But more than that is that the big countries that once would have gone to war (and I’m think big countries = perhaps the size of Switzerland and larger) simply are too interconnected economically and cultural to generate sufficient antagonism to fight like we used to. For those of you that decry globalization, well, this is one of its benefits.

Of course, small conflicts will continue to take place, as always.
posted by UncleFes at 8:44 AM on July 12, 2001