Post: #1

File this one under the 'No Shit, Sherlock' category:

A study from Stanford (2013) has been making the rounds on Twitter recently, and even got some coverage from the WaPo despite it's age.
*Note- the first link goes to the PDF of the study.

Here is the image that has been gaining attention:


An interesting look for sure- confirms a lot of beliefs widely held by society.

-Hollywood, academia, law and the media workers are obviously more liberal
-Agriculture, real estate, oil, mining, construction and banking/finance workers are more conservative
-Why are computer/online workers predominantly liberal?
-Why is pharma so evenly split? Where is the medical industry as a whole?

My biggest takeaway is that when people make posts on the forum about ridiculous laws (ie, men in divorce, harassment, rape, etc), they should at least know that lawyers become judges, and we can plainly see where lawyers are coming from...

Post: #2

To answer your first question. It probably has to do with the fact that guys who are really into computers aren't really into people. When you think of the quintessential computer geek, you think of the neckbeard living in his mom's basement. The one's that have a job in the field are probably clean cut, and don't live at home, but the mindset of the basement dwelling neckbeard remains. Add on top of it all the HR sensitivity bullshit, and it starts to make the picture clearer.

Post: #3

All is sound and fury, signifying little. There is little in American left/right discourse that means a damn. Idiots support the same policies they opposed when the other party was in power.



From http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

Post: #4

Women and physically weak men vote left, this has been proven in several studies.

I mean, it really is obvious from that isn't it?

Post: #5

(02-24-2015 11:26 PM)komatiite Wrote:  -Hollywood, academia, law and the media workers are obviously more liberal
-Agriculture, real estate, oil, mining, construction and banking/finance workers are more conservative
-Why are computer/online workers predominantly liberal?
-Why is pharma so evenly split? Where is the medical industry as a whole?

Broadly speaking, I see the split here as a division between professions or sectors that produce tangible goods or depend on producing tangible results, and those that do not. Agriculture, real estate, oil, mining, construction, and banking/finance all revolve to a large extent around something actually getting done, about real money changing hands, about tangible results and outcomes. Even law in some sections is results-oriented: trial lawyers are some of the most results-focused professionals out there, which I would guess represents that slice of the legal fraternity which swings more to the right.

Hollywood, academia, media workers, and newspapers don't produce anything tangible. Academia is the realm of pure conceptualisation and thought - witness the acrimony between theoretical sciences and applied sciences. Hollywood and the entertainment industry claim to produce art, but art at best has no price and in general merely produces distraction and an experience over anything else. They can afford to exercise impractical ideologies because nobody in their worldview ever has to support or produce the goods that pay for it.

"Online Computer Services" may not necessarily IT. It could well be plain old call centre workers if it covers the full range of people who provide services, and again most call centres do not produce tangible goods. IT professionals and creators certainly can be oriented towards producing tangible goods and results -- Steve Jobs for one. Bill Gates is not because in essence he did not build anything; his success essentially came from IBM's colossal blunder in marketing an OS he did not even invent with every one of their machines.

Pharmaceuticals I think is a mix. On one hand there will heavy tranches of process-oriented people, but those in R&D or charged with producing a new treatment for something would be ruthlessly results-oriented.

Post: #6

I was also a bit surprised by the "left-leaningness" of the computer industry, although it makes sense now that I think about it. Most programmers are liberal or libertarian I'm guessing, since it's a high IQ field that's also young (or at least mostly so). They're predominantly left-leaning on social issues, but more mixed on economic ones.

The pharmaceutical industry has had a long history of being criticized by people on the left and right side of the spectrum. Specifically in regards to psychiatric pharmaceuticals, there was a whole movement called the anti-psychiatry movement back in the 60s and 70s that opposed psychiatric medication and treatment in general (ever seen One Flew over Cuckoo's nest?) This was mostly a left-wing thing but there were right-wingers involved too, especially religious ones. In fact, most religious people I know are opposed to psychiatric medication on the grounds that if one believes in an omnipotent, invisible being then there should be no need for psychiatric drugs.

As we saw from the recent debate over measles vaccination, that too was opposed by people on the left and right.

Post: #7

(02-24-2015 11:49 PM)berserk Wrote:  Women and physically weak men vote left, this has been proven in several studies.

I mean, it really is obvious from that isn't it?

But what does that have to do with occupation?

Interestingly, it's tough to fit most of the most common occupations in America on this list of industries. Would be nice to see "service industry" on this list.

These are the most powerful voting blocs in America due to their sheer numbers.

Post: #8

(02-24-2015 11:26 PM)komatiite Wrote:  An interesting look for sure- confirms a lot of beliefs widely held by society.

-Hollywood, academia, law and the media workers are obviously more liberal
-Agriculture, real estate, oil, mining, construction and banking/finance workers are more conservative
-Why are computer/online workers predominantly liberal?
-Why is pharma so evenly split? Where is the medical industry as a whole?

Be careful not to confuse partisan contribution splits to ideological ones. Many (if not most outside the USA) Right voting professionals in industries like Law, Finance, Medicine etc. are socially liberal or moderate and most blue collar people vote Left even though they are more likely to be socially conservative. America is interesting because social issues seem to play a bigger part in how people vote compared to other Western countries since they lack a "culture war", but nonetheless the distinction needs to be made. A Republican donor who works for Goldman Sachs won't have very much in common ideologically with an Evangelical Christian farmer.

Post: #9

Traditional entertainment and media aren't dying fast enough.

Want to hasten the demise of Hollywood douchebags who want to shit all over your rights? Don't pay for a single movie made by or starring one of these leftist scumbags. If you really want to see a movie, get BTguard and download it for free. Don't give them one nickel.

Post: #10

If everyone working in academia, media, entertainment, and law suddenly disappeared, civilization would continue.

If everyone working in agriculture, construction, mining, and banking suddenly disappeared, civilization would collapse.

Post: #11

(02-25-2015 12:16 AM)Lion of Judah Wrote:  As we saw from the recent debate over measles vaccination, that too was opposed by people on the left and right.

I don't think that anti-vaccination is so balanced:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/13/the-...publicans/

Post: #12

(02-25-2015 12:31 AM)komatiite Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 11:49 PM)berserk Wrote:  Women and physically weak men vote left, this has been proven in several studies.

I mean, it really is obvious from that isn't it?

But what does that have to do with occupation?

I was janking people's chain a little bit because I know they don't like it, even if the scientific evidence does suggest a clear link between (lack of( physical strength and leftism.

I think Paracelsus is right, the left leaning fields are far removed from the real world. Academics, entertainment and media. Leftism is ideological only because it falls apart in the real world on both logic and common sense.

Post: #13

(02-25-2015 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Bill Gates is not because in essence he did not build anything; his success essentially came from IBM's colossal blunder in marketing an OS he did not even invent with every one of their machines.

Which brought the personal computers to the masses.

Before windows almost nobody used personal computers.

Post: #14

(02-25-2015 10:51 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Bill Gates is not because in essence he did not build anything; his success essentially came from IBM's colossal blunder in marketing an OS he did not even invent with every one of their machines.

Which brought the personal computers to the masses.

Before windows almost nobody used personal computers.

IBM brought personal computers to the masses. If indeed the various 8-bit companies -- Commodore, BBC, et. al. -- had not already done it. Bill Gates' fortune was that IBM packaged an OS he did not create, MS-DOS, with every IBM, thus making him a rich man without having to put up much in the way of initial capital, research, or design to do it. Windows is no different and came along much later.

Post: #15

(02-25-2015 11:01 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 10:51 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Bill Gates is not because in essence he did not build anything; his success essentially came from IBM's colossal blunder in marketing an OS he did not even invent with every one of their machines.

Which brought the personal computers to the masses.

Before windows almost nobody used personal computers.

IBM brought personal computers to the masses. If indeed the various 8-bit companies -- Commodore, BBC, et. al. -- had not already done it. Bill Gates' fortune was that IBM packaged an OS he did not create, MS-DOS, with every IBM, thus making him a rich man without having to put up much in the way of initial capital, research, or design to do it. Windows is no different and came along much later.

Nobody used personal computers until windows. Before Windows computers were just expensive paperweights for most people.

Bill Gates solved that problem with Windows. He made it so the average person could use computers.

He knew what the problem was - people had trouble using computers.

He found the solution - Windows.

Post: #16

(02-25-2015 11:57 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 11:01 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 10:51 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 12:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Bill Gates is not because in essence he did not build anything; his success essentially came from IBM's colossal blunder in marketing an OS he did not even invent with every one of their machines.

Which brought the personal computers to the masses.

Before windows almost nobody used personal computers.

IBM brought personal computers to the masses. If indeed the various 8-bit companies -- Commodore, BBC, et. al. -- had not already done it. Bill Gates' fortune was that IBM packaged an OS he did not create, MS-DOS, with every IBM, thus making him a rich man without having to put up much in the way of initial capital, research, or design to do it. Windows is no different and came along much later.

Nobody used personal computers until windows. Before Windows computers were just expensive paperweights for most people.

Bill Gates solved that problem with Windows. He made it so the average person could use computers.

He knew what the problem was - people had trouble using computers.

He found the solution - Windows.

Windows blatantly ripped off Mac, which had a graphical desktop interface at a time when Microsoft had MS-DOS, and Apple ripped of Xerox.

Post: #17

I'd like to know which political parties in the Western democratic world offer neo-liberal policies and socially liberal values that would appeal to young people. The Conservatives in the UK don't count as they stand for crony corporatism and paying out cash the country doesn't have to wealthy old people that don't need it.

Post: #18

(02-25-2015 02:31 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I'd like to know which political parties in the Western democratic world offer neo-liberal policies and socially liberal values that would appeal to young people. The Conservatives in the UK don't count as they stand for crony corporatism and paying out cash the country doesn't have to wealthy old people that don't need it.

What do you mean by socially liberal? To me socially liberal is all the faggotry promoting transgenderism, feminism, etc.