Monday, October 31, 2016

Academics endorse Democrats

I used to think that universities had the smartest ppl. But if they were really intelligent, then they would be able to think independently.

On political subjects especially, they just mindlessly recite what they have been told.

Just today, I see Scott Aaronson and Peter Woit urging votes against Donald Trump.

Woit writes:
There’s little evidence Trump has fixed views on any policy issue ...

Most damaging though is the behavior of the mainstream media, in particular that of the New York Times, whose coverage of this issue has been atrociously unfair to Clinton.
Trump is hated for his views. If you do not know what they are, then you are not paying attention.

I read the NY Times, and it prints crazy attacks on Trump every day. It might call him a Nazi, or complain that he refuses to concede the election, or bring up a recording of a private conversation 20 years ago where he uses the word f*ck, or some such nonsense.

The stories about Hillary Clinton have a direct bearing on her corruption and bad judgment in public office.

Hardly anyone can even make an argument for Clinton without mentioning Trump. 70 Nobel prize (and Bank of Sweden prize) winners attempted:
To preserve our freedoms, protect our constitutional government, safeguard our national security, and ensure that all members of our nation will be able to work together for a better future, it is imperative that Hillary Clinton be elected as the next President of the United States. ...

We need a President who will support and advance policies that will enable science and technology to flourish in our country and to provide the basis of important policy decisions.
Really? These are not reasons that would persuade anyone. Clinton and Trump hardly have any differences in science and technology policy.

Obviously the Nobel and economics prize winners are not telling us their real reasons.

Hardly anyone is able to explain some agreement with some actual Clinton policy or decision.

I remember in 2008, all these brilliant scientists told us that we had to elect Barack Obama because he was going to fund stem-cell research that was going to have paralyzed ppl walking again in about 2 years. It was just a big lie. It is now 8 years later, and no medically useful treatments have come out of that research at all.

Update: Lubos Motl piles on. It is funny when his rants make more sense than the opinions of big-shots.

9 comments:

  1. Academics are usually very smart, but they are also usually not very wise. There is a big difference between the two. The difference can be illustrated with this story: http://gabesfascinatingstories.blogspot.com/2013/04/thomas-edisons-light-bulb-test.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. My comment was a general comment, not a comment about politics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I was in high school, I asked five of my teachers what they thought about the 'then' current topic of Robert Maplethorpe's 'art'. Four of my teachers gave me the exact same answer word for word verbatim. The fifty (who was my US civics teacher) told me, "By any chance did the other people you asked give you identical answers?" I nodded to him and he laughed. "That's because they aren't answering your question, they are reading you the lines the have been handed."
    When I asked him what his answer was he said, "I think Mapplethorpe should have published his 'art' privately by his own dime, not the taxpayers expense at a public museum. When you use public funds you are held to certain standards of the community. When you want absolute freedom to 'create', you use your own money."

    I asked him why his answer was different.
    He replied: "I'm a conservative, your other teachers aren't. I have my own opinion, and I don't trust authority further than I can keep a careful eye on it. "

    "So what are my other teachers classified as then?"
    He laughed again.
    "They're academics...or liberals. Same thing these days."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Getting beyond the Yes There Are Foolish Liberal Academics general point, we're left with more specific points, like Trump Is A National Disgrace.

    Trump is rightly loathed as much for his dizzying policy vacillations as for whatever any one or more of his policies are deemed to be. He's all dumbass smoke signals. He thinks he's smarter about military engagements than the Joint Chiefs? Wants to build an anti-Mexico Border Wall, despite what General Patton famously roared about the stupidity of fixed fortifications? What's next, more adulation of ex-KGB types like Putin? Trump sure looks like a raw newbie in his whirlwind roller coaster ride -- I guess he fired the one campaign manager, then Manafort resigns ... Trump Sucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally won! Did you see the idiots Sam Wang and Nate Silver? ROFL!

      Delete
  5. Jonathan Burdick,

    I guess you really should vote for someone who feels we should have open borders, trade deals that favor themselves (not the rest of the country), start more unfunded wars in the middle east (because we really need more of them), take millions in financial 'donations' from regimes that kill homosexuals for just breathing, women for not wanting to be chattel property and...pretty much breathing, and Christians for not being Muslim, and some Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Yeah, talk to me about toleration...I don't think so.

    Oh yeah, and someone who is so concerned about women's rights...as she is married to a known rapist and sex offender, and has personally villainized any women who has stepped forward to admit it.

    You might also throw in that your ideal candidate should have great credentials such as being disbarred from practicing law and have been described by one of her first employers in Washington DC as “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”…by Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate inquiry into Nixon's misconduct....Not much has changed it would seem, yeah, she's come a long way, baby!

    Please Jonathan, tell me more about what you consider a National Disgrace, it should be enlightening and entertaining.

    On the bright side, just think, If your golden girl wins, we all get to enjoy ring-side seats as loads of Karma come raining down on her head as she most likely gets impeached for graft and corruption.


    I'm going to give Trump a complete pass on criticizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    If you think the Joint Chiefs are so brilliant, perhaps you may have noticed we have been at war for over fifteen BLOODY years with less than nothing to show for it...except mutilated soldiers and thousands of body bags.

    More of the same from overtly corrupt elitists who know so much better... I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger, libertarians have the highest IQ of political groups and high-IQ clubs like Triple Nine (IQ three SD above average) have libertarian and conservative views. They post them on their website: see poll. However, Gary Johnson was not very representative (hint: Aleppo). Triple Nine has a minimum of 146 for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Full Scale IQ).

    Here is a listing for academics:
    130.0 Physics
    129.0 Mathematics
    128.5 Computer Science
    128.0 Economics
    127.5 Chemical engineering
    127.0 Material science
    126.0 Electrical engineering
    125.5 Mechanical engineering
    125.0 Philosophy
    124.0 Chemistry
    123.0 Earth sciences
    122.0 Industrial engineering
    122.0 Civil engineering
    121.5 Biology
    120.1 English/literature
    120.0 Religion/theology
    119.8 Political science
    119.7 History
    118.0 Art history
    117.7 Anthropology/archeology
    116.5 Architecture
    116.0 Business
    115.0 Sociology
    114.0 Psychology
    114.0 Medicine
    112.0 Communication
    109.0 Education
    106.0 Public administration
    Source: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/iq-in-different-fields.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter Woit seriously needs to work on his debating skills. Basically, it's a weak mea culpa followed by a 'Yes, we elites look down on you, Think little of your needs or concerns and think you are backwards...oh yes, except at election time where YOU MUST VOTE FOR US, OMG THINK OF THE SCIENCE!', this is not exactly an actual reason to vote for Hillary under any circumstance. She had her chance to shine for almost thirty years, and instead she shit all over the place...frequently.

    If Hillary wins, the press will pat themselves on the back and go back to not reporting any actual news.
    If Trump wins, both a congress full of RINOs and democrats, and a fervid press full of moral indignation will be keeping a close eye on him...which is a win-win situation as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete