Why are intellectuals overwhelmingly leftist?

Yeah, I hope that eventually the intellectuals will be again right considered in our society.

*So what, I could learn Doggish!.

yes, Genghis, let the strong dominant ones, let's call them "aryans", eliminate the weak, let's call them "untermenschen". And then they will create a glorious new world, a kingdom of efficiency that will last, say 1000 years. It's all in the Mein Kampf, you know

Originally posted by Decebal yes, Genghis, let the strong dominant ones, let's call them "aryans", eliminate the weak, let's call them "untermenschen". And then they will create a glorious new world, a kingdom of efficiency that will last, say 1000 years. It's all in the Mein Kampf, you know

That implies I'm a racist. Strong and weak are determined by each person's choices, not genetics.  Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Decebal are you a proponent of eugenics, then?

Maybe sterilization if you're like insane or something and couldn't care for a child if you had one.

Edited by Genghis

Before we begin to explain the supposed leftist trend in academia, we need to define what liberal and conservative mean in this context. Until that is accomplished, I can�t possibly determine the validity of all the comments I�ve read. chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

 >>

For instance: Maju writes...� Sure: the left has always promoted education as one of their main tools, while the right is intellectually lazy and prefers their slaves not to know too much. Knowledge is intellectual emancipation.� Does he mean to say that liberalism, defined as rational examination, is the likely fruit of education? Or rather, is he claiming that liberalism, as defined by particular political principles, is the natural result of education? With the former, I would agree; with the latter I would not. If education breeds in people anything other than an altruism in another direction, a blind faith in socialism no better than a blind faith in capitalism, prove to me now, through a priori reasoning, that the liberal political system is the best. If no one can do this, then education did not bring about an enlightenment, by which the liberal political position was finally revealed to truly be correct. Instead, the education just convinced you liberals to believe in that system, because of equally subjective proof.>>

 >>

��engineering types work with math a lot where there is a right and wrong answer.  You are less likely to think in the abstract.  With those who study English there is no right and wrong answer, it is all opinion, therefore you think abstractly rather often�� Here we have the same problem. Is Justinian assuming that liberalism (the political definition) is based on objective reasoning, and conservatism not? >>

 >>

EVERYONE who has made a comment similar to those above, please explain what you meant by liberalism and conservatism, and we�ll continue the argument from there. I will say that my position is this: learning breeds free, abstract thought, but neither rationally validates socialistic or capitalistic, nor authoritarian or libertarian political principles. The point being this: the ideological trend in academia does not provide circumstantial proof of the innate superiority of the liberal system, as some silly liberals have claimed.

If someone was to do a survey on political leanings within history departments, chances are they would find a distinct right wing flavour to what they would find. 

CV, you will note I was talking about history departments across the board, and not just a hand picked few. That some are more sensitive to the human condition, and feel inclined not to capitulate is more of a comfort to me. I have a tendency to the left, especially when people are, and have been roughly treated by those in power, although experience has shown me that society benefits greatly on the whole by politics of a moderate persuasion.    

Hey what would I know anyway, CV. The only way I would have got anywhere near to seeing inside of one of those institutions would be if I was lucky enough to qualify to be a cleaner inside of one of them. 

Edited by TheAlaniDragonRising - 29-Sep-2012 at 09:45

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Don't knock that Alani. Here in America, house keepers, maint and groundskeeping personnel, at mid to major level Uni's, commonly make in the $40's-60,000's in salary and comp. Once in the union employee and benefit system.   And while that isnt great necessarily today... just 5 years ago the range was the same and the value extremely good in lower income geo-regions. iow. Your buying power was in good shape.     So if some guy offers ya a job at commensurate rates in your neck of the woods....take it.

Hey CV I'm not knocking anything, I'd take any of those jobs, but these days most of those kinds of jobs ask for people with previous experience. I've been unemployed for nearly twenty years now, and I've got to hope people look at the last ten months I've had doing voluntary work, which I needed to do to get any references, for which I need to have to allow me to get any kind of job. 

I believe neuroscience is on the verge of proving this but I'll concede the following as speculation as I have no sources for you..

Studies have shown that the young men who work at Wall Street and are targeted for recruitment often have varying degrees of brain damage - I say brain damage but really it's not damage it is just that each of our brains have different layouts, shaped by the experiences we've been through in life and in utero. The part of the brain responsible for empathetic capability was significantly smaller than average among the Wall Street group.

This may sound like rubbish to you but consider the basic, common sense that this study posits: those with lower empathy make for better investors. One could hardly deny this!

Based on things I've read, as well as personal experiences with people in my life, I'm convinced that right and left wing politics are a reflection of one's brain structure first & foremost. There'll be many psychological factors but our psyches are only capable of working with what the brain has.

As for the leaning of intellectuals towards leftism I wouldn't really know as I've never had the privilege of knowing any - I never could attend university and sadly never found myself in such circles.

A thing to consider though is that most intellectuals are intelligent, and often high-IQ individuals can find life just as difficult and exclusive as someone as unintelligent as they are intelligent.

The average IQ is, of course, 100. If you had an IQ of 160 it could be as much of a cripple in life as having an IQ of 40. Very different problems, but problems nonetheless.

And there is also a proven link between intelligence and sociopathy - high-IQ individuals are far less likely to do a drive-by than they are to kidnap and torture 15 people.

Just a few ideas; perhaps some of them connect and help shed light on an answer.

:)

EDIT: Perhaps low empathy makes a person less likely to develop into an intellectual to begin with, and if low empathy leads to social conservatism, that may well be your answer. :)

Edited by barcelonic - 10-Nov-2013 at 23:50