Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[buckeye45_73]

Only in the Republican party can a guy with a C minus average be considered an intellectual.

And only democrats think a person who fails out of divinity school can be a giant intellect

5 Surprising Divinity School Dropouts | Mental Floss

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, lets go through these depressions one by one, starting with the most recent.

How did the "free market", cause the Financial Collapse of 2008?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKvMJeBBSA]Q&A: Leslie & Andrew Cockburn - YouTube[/ame]


See: 4:45 thru 12:00​

Ok, I watched it, they got it half right.

They are absolutely right in criticizing George Bush for promoting subprime loans in a bid to close the "home ownership gap". These unsustainable subprime loan were then packaged into mortgage backed securities(MSBs), and the risk was spread throughout the entire economy.

But they get the second part wrong. MSBs aren't bad instruments in of themselves, rather the debt behind them in this case was bad debt. It would be an absurd idea to prohibit derivatives and credit default swaps. Keeping Glass Steagall in place wouldn't have prevented subprime borrowers from losing their homes or commercial banks which heavily invested in subprime loans, but it wouldn't have prevented the massive defaults.

Glass Steagall was enacted following the 1929 financial crisis as a measure to prevent it from re-occurring. The Republican driven deregulation of Wall Street is what turned it into a casino again and allowed the brokers to gamble with derivatives that they knew contained subprime loans but that there were selling off to investors as AAA rated.

Rather it would have contained the crisis to homeowners and commercial banks.

The crisis arose as a result of Greenspan putting the housing policy of George W Bush into practice through monetary expansion, creating artificially low interest rates for borrowers who would have never gotten such loans in a free market banking system. Calling Federal Reserve intervention in money markets "free market", is incredibly misguided.

Actually it is you that is making this misguided claim.

Even the video you posted didn't make such a claim. Rather, they said correctly, Government intervened in the market to the benefit of these Major Wall Street Banks. These banks got burned, which is an inevitable result of the business cycle(those the FED inflated and exacerbates this natural cycle).

Banks that were regulated were burned by the deregulated Wall St banks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whether or not anyone believes the statement to be accurate, it is simply not cool to misquote someone or to attribute a quotation to someone who did not make the statement. It does indeed matter very much who said it in the sense that it is wrong to attritube to someone something they did not say. How would you like it if someone did that to you?

By the time the Soviet Union fell, Stalin and his brand of communism had been dead for a few decades. People who had believed in him had lost faith in him long, long before the Soviet Union fell.

If you believe 'intellectuals' created fascism, communism, socialism and every other 'ill' of the world, every other philosophy, that would suggest to me that you believe anyone who reads, writes, thinks, and is educated is part of some evil entity in this world that falls under the umbrella of the term, as you define it "intellectual." Jesus would, therefore, also be an intellectual. In fact, Jesus was a socialist and an intellectual. Hmmmm.....

I imagine Churchill used the term genius, when he spoke of Mussolini, in a political sense. It is not the same thing as being an intellectual.

Porter did not write his song about Mussolini. P.G. Wodehouse was a satirist, which means he was being satirical in changing the language in the song to include Mussolini.

Ahh, so you now make excuses for the fall of the USSR.
Well it's fact time. The USSR as with any communist country is set up for failure.
It is impossible to sustain a socialist/communist political reign for an extended time. Eventually, as the general public is robbed of their wealth, it falls into the hands of the political elite. The people are left equal in their misery.

Deregulating free market capitalism sets it up for failure too. That is what happened in 1929, 1987, 2001 and 2008. The current transfer of wealth from the general public into the hands of the elite 1% is happening as a result of the failure of "free markets" dogma.

If this is true you should be able to point to the deregulation that caused those failures, explain exactly how they caused the problem, and show the intelligent and informed responses.

If, on the other hand, you are talking out of your ass, feel free to ignore this post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only in the Republican party can a guy with a C minus average be considered an intellectual.

Unlike the Democrats, who are worried about islands capsizing.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I learned long ago that the sheer volume of education a person receives is not a good indicator -- in any area -- of that person's value.

Theory is theory. Real life is real life.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Q&A: Leslie & Andrew Cockburn - YouTube


See: 4:45 thru 12:00​

Ok, I watched it, they got it half right.

They are absolutely right in criticizing George Bush for promoting subprime loans in a bid to close the "home ownership gap". These unsustainable subprime loan were then packaged into mortgage backed securities(MSBs), and the risk was spread throughout the entire economy.

But they get the second part wrong. MSBs aren't bad instruments in of themselves, rather the debt behind them in this case was bad debt. It would be an absurd idea to prohibit derivatives and credit default swaps. Keeping Glass Steagall in place wouldn't have prevented subprime borrowers from losing their homes or commercial banks which heavily invested in subprime loans, but it wouldn't have prevented the massive defaults.

Glass Steagall was enacted following the 1929 financial crisis as a measure to prevent it from re-occurring. The Republican driven deregulation of Wall Street is what turned it into a casino again and allowed the brokers to gamble with derivatives that they knew contained subprime loans but that there were selling off to investors as AAA rated.

Rather it would have contained the crisis to homeowners and commercial banks.

The crisis arose as a result of Greenspan putting the housing policy of George W Bush into practice through monetary expansion, creating artificially low interest rates for borrowers who would have never gotten such loans in a free market banking system. Calling Federal Reserve intervention in money markets "free market", is incredibly misguided.

Actually it is you that is making this misguided claim.

Even the video you posted didn't make such a claim. Rather, they said correctly, Government intervened in the market to the benefit of these Major Wall Street Banks. These banks got burned, which is an inevitable result of the business cycle(those the FED inflated and exacerbates this natural cycle).

Banks that were regulated were burned by the deregulated Wall St banks.

Glass-Steagal, aka the Banking act of 1933, was never repealed. If, on the other hand, you are talking about the small part of Glass-Steagal most idiots want to blame for the crash, the simple fact is that it was effectively ignored for decades. The Federal Reserve had been allowing banks to associate with equity firms since the 1960s, and Clinton himself called for the end of the restrictions. Not a single economist I am aware of had a problem with it, yet it is suddenly the worst thing in history because you think that an increase in regulations amounts to decreasing them.

Just something to think about, since banks had been doing this for years without any regulation, and you are directly blaming the GLBA for the collapse, you are actually arguing that the new regulations imposed by the government caused the collapse.

 

[Billy000]

It is a measure of general knowledge, which is part of a good education. Your education obviously lacks in some serious areas, which might explain why you think that there is no liberal bias in education. Everyone I know who is involved in academics acknowledges the bias you insist does not exist.

Um no, it is a measure of knowledge. I'm not sure you know what the word general means.

How is it not a measure of knowledge to know who one of the greatest thinkers of a previous era was? It is the functional equivelent of not knowing who Monet and Picasso are, and is almost as bad as not knowing about Leonardo da Vinci was. You might not have read everything he wrote, anymore than you can tell a Renoir from a Ruben, but you should know all of their names, and enough to be able to tell what it is they did. It isn't like we are talking about Cotton Mather or Nikolai Tesla, people I would only expect someone with more specialized knowledge to be familiar with.

That, for the record, is general knowledge. The fact that you think you are excused from knowing who he is because people you disagree with like him only proves how uneducated you are.

Oh my god you are so stupid. I never said I didn't know who he was. I made it clear I knew he was and what principles he stood for. The fact that I don't know much about him does not matter. I am sure there are many historical figures that you don't much about.

Seriously give it a rest. You know you're out of steam. The more you try, the more you sound like an ignorant jackass.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

No, it is called indoctrination.

 

[Billy000]

You are the one that asked, I was content to mock your art degree in fake science.

Let me ask you this. Is psychology not worth studying simply because it is not a hard science?

It is always worth studying things, even fake science like astrology and psychology. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you think stars guide your behavior.

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

 

[whitehall]

I used to wonder how alleged educated college professors could be so bigoted and narrow minded and then Columbia University hired a (former) domestic terrorist who murdered a Black Police officer and a white one and two Brinks guards. Anything is possible in the rarefied world of elitist academia.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um no, it is a measure of knowledge. I'm not sure you know what the word general means.

How is it not a measure of knowledge to know who one of the greatest thinkers of a previous era was? It is the functional equivelent of not knowing who Monet and Picasso are, and is almost as bad as not knowing about Leonardo da Vinci was. You might not have read everything he wrote, anymore than you can tell a Renoir from a Ruben, but you should know all of their names, and enough to be able to tell what it is they did. It isn't like we are talking about Cotton Mather or Nikolai Tesla, people I would only expect someone with more specialized knowledge to be familiar with.

That, for the record, is general knowledge. The fact that you think you are excused from knowing who he is because people you disagree with like him only proves how uneducated you are.

Oh my god you are so stupid. I never said I didn't know who he was. I made it clear I knew he was and what principles he stood for. The fact that I don't know much about him does not matter. I am sure there are many historical figures that you don't much about.

Seriously give it a rest. You know you're out of steam. The more you try, the more you sound like an ignorant jackass.

Here is my problem with that, everyone I personally know who studied psychology knows about Locke because he is one of the foundational thinkers of the nurture side of that nature/nurture debate in behaviorism. Care to explain how a founder of the field you have a degree in escaped your notice? All of Locke's theories about the freedom and political philosophy are a direct outgrowth of his understanding of human nature, yet a psychology student doesn't know much about him and is surprised that I think it shows a lack in his education.

On the other hand, you have an art degree, not a science one, maybe they skipped all the historical stuff because they thought it was too hard for people like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me ask you this. Is psychology not worth studying simply because it is not a hard science?

It is always worth studying things, even fake science like astrology and psychology. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you think stars guide your behavior.

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

It does not require the scientific method because it is not even the fake science of sociology, which at least uses data and actual numbers. Psychology is all about guessing how a specific individual will react to various circumstances, that is not science.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Let me ask you this. Is psychology not worth studying simply because it is not a hard science?

It is always worth studying things, even fake science like astrology and psychology. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you think stars guide your behavior.

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

Isnt that the POINT of science? Anything with a study, is just a wast of taxpayer money, it's not science...social sciences are crap.....especially when liberals like you just blame genetics anyway. Just study genes and not behavior.....voila done!

 

[Billy000]

How is it not a measure of knowledge to know who one of the greatest thinkers of a previous era was? It is the functional equivelent of not knowing who Monet and Picasso are, and is almost as bad as not knowing about Leonardo da Vinci was. You might not have read everything he wrote, anymore than you can tell a Renoir from a Ruben, but you should know all of their names, and enough to be able to tell what it is they did. It isn't like we are talking about Cotton Mather or Nikolai Tesla, people I would only expect someone with more specialized knowledge to be familiar with.

That, for the record, is general knowledge. The fact that you think you are excused from knowing who he is because people you disagree with like him only proves how uneducated you are.

Oh my god you are so stupid. I never said I didn't know who he was. I made it clear I knew he was and what principles he stood for. The fact that I don't know much about him does not matter. I am sure there are many historical figures that you don't much about.

Seriously give it a rest. You know you're out of steam. The more you try, the more you sound like an ignorant jackass.

Here is my problem with that, everyone I personally know who studied psychology knows about Locke because he is one of the foundational thinkers of the nurture side of that nature/nurture debate in behaviorism. Care to explain how a founder of the field you have a degree in escaped your notice? All of Locke's theories about the freedom and political philosophy are a direct outgrowth of his understanding of human nature, yet a psychology student doesn't know much about him and is surprised that I think it shows a lack in his education.

On the other hand, you have an art degree, not a science one, maybe they skipped all the historical stuff because they thought it was too hard for people like you.

You can make the argument that hundreds of philosophers inspired the development of psychological theory. Do I really need to know all of them? No I don't. While they may have some weak inspiration to the field, they are far from pioneers of the science itself.

 

[Billy000]

It is always worth studying things, even fake science like astrology and psychology. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you think stars guide your behavior.

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

Isnt that the POINT of science? Anything with a study, is just a wast of taxpayer money, it's not science...social sciences are crap.....especially when liberals like you just blame genetics anyway. Just study genes and not behavior.....voila done!

They don't call it social SCIENCE for nothing. Liberals blame everything on genetics? If you think psychology only examines genetic traits, then you are a mountain of ignorance.

 

[petro]

.

I learned long ago that the sheer volume of education a person receives is not a good indicator -- in any area -- of that person's value.

Theory is theory. Real life is real life.

.

!00% true

There are many highly educated people with zero common sense, regardless of political affiliation.

What a moronic thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh my god you are so stupid. I never said I didn't know who he was. I made it clear I knew he was and what principles he stood for. The fact that I don't know much about him does not matter. I am sure there are many historical figures that you don't much about.

Seriously give it a rest. You know you're out of steam. The more you try, the more you sound like an ignorant jackass.

Here is my problem with that, everyone I personally know who studied psychology knows about Locke because he is one of the foundational thinkers of the nurture side of that nature/nurture debate in behaviorism. Care to explain how a founder of the field you have a degree in escaped your notice? All of Locke's theories about the freedom and political philosophy are a direct outgrowth of his understanding of human nature, yet a psychology student doesn't know much about him and is surprised that I think it shows a lack in his education.

On the other hand, you have an art degree, not a science one, maybe they skipped all the historical stuff because they thought it was too hard for people like you.

You can make the argument that hundreds of philosophers inspired the development of psychological theory. Do I really need to know all of them? No I don't. While they may have some weak inspiration to the field, they are far from pioneers of the science itself.

Look up Freud sometime, you might learn something.

 

[Billy000]

It is always worth studying things, even fake science like astrology and psychology. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you think stars guide your behavior.

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

It does not require the scientific method because it is not even the fake science of sociology, which at least uses data and actual numbers. Psychology is all about guessing how a specific individual will react to various circumstances, that is not science.

Guessing? Lol you clearly do not know anything about the field.

 

[Billy000]

Here is my problem with that, everyone I personally know who studied psychology knows about Locke because he is one of the foundational thinkers of the nurture side of that nature/nurture debate in behaviorism. Care to explain how a founder of the field you have a degree in escaped your notice? All of Locke's theories about the freedom and political philosophy are a direct outgrowth of his understanding of human nature, yet a psychology student doesn't know much about him and is surprised that I think it shows a lack in his education.

On the other hand, you have an art degree, not a science one, maybe they skipped all the historical stuff because they thought it was too hard for people like you.

You can make the argument that hundreds of philosophers inspired the development of psychological theory. Do I really need to know all of them? No I don't. While they may have some weak inspiration to the field, they are far from pioneers of the science itself.

Look up Freud sometime, you might learn something.

Freud is completley irrelevant in modern day psychology. Most of the community does not give his ideas any legitimacy. Using Freud as a representation of contemporary psychology is pure ignorance.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Okay, but to call it a fake science is just ignorant. Studying psychology requires the scientific method like any other science. The conclusions are less concrete, but the pursuit of objectivity is just as important.

Isnt that the POINT of science? Anything with a study, is just a wast of taxpayer money, it's not science...social sciences are crap.....especially when liberals like you just blame genetics anyway. Just study genes and not behavior.....voila done!

They don't call it social SCIENCE for nothing. Liberals blame everything on genetics? If you think psychology only examines genetic traits, then you are a mountain of ignorance.

Uh I didnt say I did, I said LIBERALS do...gays, crime, ect.....

in fact I dont think gentics has ANYTHING to do with psycology and vice versa...you do....which is why I laugh at you.

Let me clue you in, genetics compose our PHYSICAL characteristics, nothing more....

Social science....isnt science because it has the term in it....it's because the people that love those fields try to equate it to science, and it's NOT......like you said it's less concrete (ie cannot be proven with scientific method)...so it's just bs...hell sports science has far more integrity than social science.