The ideological swings of scientists between age-groups is striking:
What do you think explains this shift? And what other differences do you notice between young and old scientists? (I realize all such statements will be absurd over-generalizations, but that's the point.)
Update: See Razib for a bunch more figures.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It figures.
I'm gone for a couple of days, paying little attention to the blogosphere or the Internet, and something big has to happen.
Remember a couple of weeks ago, when in the context of asking how we should respond to the anti-vaccine movement I discussed a recent campaign by the anti-vaccine…
Before the days of Times Select, David Brooks used to provoke long rants twice a week. This post from October 24, 2004 is one of those.
David Brooks is so predictable. Every week or so, he comes up with a new scheme to explain the polarization of America. Each time he uses what seems to be…
Before the days of Times Select, David Brooks used to provoke long rants twice a week. This post from October 24, 2004 is one of those.
David Brooks is so predictable. Every week or so, he comes up with a new scheme to explain the polarization of America. Each time he uses what seems to be…
Bora made two quick references to "group selection" today. I don't have much time...and shouldn't be blogging, but I want to make a few quick points before this topic goes down the memory hole (I know, unnecessary caveat, but I am driven by personal guilt in expressing it, not public shame). For…
"creeping conservatism"
on a population level, people get more conservative as they age. this isn't news, is it?
whoops, hit return too fast.
question is, does how people describe themselves have anything to do with how they behave? These self reports may only be telling us that the massive decade long push by the wackaloon theocratic rightwing cackmonkeys to get "liberal" turned into a dirty word worked.
how about a parallel survey of political behavior, not self-description?
I'm reminded of that Churchill quote: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." But I'm curious why only scientists seem to exhibit this trend. Why didn't humanities professors or social scientists also get more conservative with age?
@ Jonah- one thing I find funny is the inverse nature of the humanities and natural scientists. If we assume people's views don't change as they age (which isn't true, as you and others have mentioned) it looks almost like the first generation (people now 65 or older) went in to science if they were liberal, then liberals went into humanities (people 50 to 64), then it swung back, and back again.
I agree with DrugMonkey that this survey means less than meets the eye. The reason he gives is not the only factor; more important IMO is the explicit assumption that "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites. There may have been a time when that was true, but in the G. W. Bush era that is emphatically not true. Dictionary-definition conservatives prefer slower change, as do liberals in the present environment. Both are opposed to what the radical theocratic right-wing nutjobs who currently run the country are doing.
When Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky agree on something, you might want to pay attention.
To set the Conservative/Liberal thing on its bedrock.
Question: Who was the first conservative?
Answer: God. He wrote 'The Book' on conservative.
Question: Who was the first liberal?
Answer: You can discern this one. He also wrote the
book on 'liberal'
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson
It's the linear thinking. And the regular paychecks.
Not that the NYT is at all definitive, but I think it's worth noting that Social Sciences and the Humanities are overwhelmingly liberal; the fields of study that are working to figure out how human beings work individually and as a whole, and how communities function. I find it very unsurprising, but it's also interesting how no one ever talks about why that is or what it means.
Everybody seems to be assuming age effects here and not thinking about period effects. I suspect that someone who became a young adult in, say, 1967 might share more in common politically with someone who came of age in 1997 than someone who came of age in 1987.
An example might illustrate the Robert Anton Wilson quote given by Mike Webster. "Government imposing race-based rules on businesses and individuals is wrong." A liberal position in 1964, a conservative position in 1984.
My wife and I have become definitely more liberal over the past 8 years together.
I credit George W. Bush for making us too embarassed to continue on as conservatives.
I think my thoughts are along the lines of Eric Harris.
It's not so much the person changing views, it's that the classification of those views changes with time. The most liberal of positions 30-40 years ago are commonplace today (broadly speaking). Someone who supported those views, and who is now older, likely never considered some of the very liberal positions of today's youth, back then. It's not that they've changed views, they may just not care for the newer liberal viewpoints; one thing is certain is that, with age, people are less open to change, regardless of political affiliation.
Jonah,
One thing to note: that same cohort also has the highest percentage liberal. Not sure what to make of that either.
dont you think that a conservative scientist is less creative and less productive compared to liberal scientists?
bodydetox, how would political views and scientific creativity be related? Especially considering vagueness of "conservative" and "liberal" positions.
Scientists are conformists in the field of professional knoledge.Social science is under strong liberal influence fnd the professors conform their views accordingly.Physisists are more free in their views from society. So the natural scientists fit the Churchill`joke as ordinary people.