The intellectual dark web

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Oh look, another Cliff Fletcher attack on educated people. Going to need to see some of these studies, because that does not align with observable behaviors. Education is the door way to diversity of thought and opinion. Go to a worksite and check out the bumper stickers. Not likely to find a diverse bunch in any shape or fashion let alone politically.

Your observable behaviours are not borne out by reality. Here you go:

But what’s startling is the further finding that higher education does not improve a person’s perceptions – and sometimes even hurts it. In their survey answers, highly educated Republicans were no more accurate in their ideas about Democratic opinion than poorly educated Republicans. For Democrats, the education effect was even worse: the more educated a Democrat is, according to the study, the less he or she understands the Republican worldview.

“This effect,” the report says, “is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.” And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

What could be going on? Bubble-ism, the report suggests. Even more than their Republican counterparts, highly educated Democrats tend to live in exclusively Democratic enclaves. The more they report “almost all my friends hold the same political views”, the worse their guesses on what Republicans think.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...al-survey-poll

The Perception Gap study builds on these insights. It finds that the most partisan, politically active Americans – a group we call the “Wings” – have deeply distorted perceptions of the other side. The two groups with the widest Perception Gaps are the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservatives—the most ideological and committed groups of Democrats and Republicans.

And which is the most accurate segment? Surprisingly, it’s the Politically Disengaged. They are fully three times more accurate in their estimates of political opponents than members of either of these Wing groups. The V-shaped Perception Gap shows that the less invested you are in politics today, the less distorted your perception of politics.

https://perceptiongap.us/

Much of the growth in ideological consistency has come among better educated adults – including a striking rise in the share who have across-the-board liberal views, which is consistent with the growing share of postgraduates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party .

Currently, about a third of those with postgraduate experience (31%) give down-the-line liberal responses across the 10 items, up from 19% in 2004 and just 7% in 1994. Among college graduates with no postgraduate experience, 24% have consistently liberal values, compared with 13% in 2004 and 5% a decade earlier...

In contrast with Americans with a college degree, among those with less education smaller shares express ideologically consistent views and those who do are about as likely to be consistently conservative (11% of those with some college experience, 8% of those with no more than a high school education) as they are to be consistently liberal (12% of some college, 5% of high school or less). Larger shares take a mix of liberal and conservative positions: Roughly half of those with no more than a high school education (48%) are ideologically mixed, along with 36% of those with some college experience. By contrast, only about a quarter of more educated Americans have ideologically mixed views.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...ucated-adults/

[AltaGuy]

^^^ None of those observations back up this:

What I still don't understand is why so many educated people (and it is the educated professionals we're talking about - studies show the blue collar and working class have much more politically diverse workplaces and tolerance of different political POVs) have come to believe that they're morally tainted just by working in the same place as someone who disagrees with them politically. As if they can become contaminated by association.

You've conflated accurate perceptions of the "other" with tolerance.

Also this:

Roughly half of those with no more than a high school education (48%) are ideologically mixed, along with 36% of those with some college experience. By contrast, only about a quarter of more educated Americans have ideologically mixed views.

Means absolutely nothing unless you're making a (false) argument to moderation.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Your observable behaviours are not borne out by reality. Here you go:

Holy cherry picking! I encourage people to go read those articles, because the data is not consistent with what ClffFletcher is representing.

The Guardian article is actually a screed on how same we are regardless of political affiliation. The click bait headline is not representative of the content of the article with the exception of saying "What could be going on? Bubble-ism, the report suggests. Even more than their Republican counterparts, highly educated Democrats tend to live in exclusively Democratic enclaves." The rest is actually a review of issues and how the two sides are making adjustments to find the common grounds to solve problems.

The second link goes to a study on perception gaps, the gap between what you think the other side believes on an issue, and their actual position. The findings showed Democrats with a 19 point average perception gap versus Republicans 27 point perception gap, with the smaller perception gap being closer to reality. The survey even dove into what causes perception gaps and discovered that media consumption, and more importantly disinformation in the stream, is the root cause. The greatest cause of these perception gaps is consumption of politically biased content. The top media sources for such content? Brietbart, Drudge Report, Hate Radio, and blogs such as Slate, Buzzfeed, DailyKos, etc. The greatest amount of disinformation is generated by the RW media. The most interesting thing of the study is the Friendship Diversity findings, where Republicans have a very flat line and friendship bad versus Democrats who have a diagonal line and band that tracks with education. What is interesting is this trend is consistent with mobility and being able to transcend the class you were born into. Just an interesting graph. The biggest take away from this "study" (loose terms) is this.

"Why does this matter? Because when Democrats and Republicans believe their opponents hold extreme views, they become more threatened by each other. They start seeing each other as enemies, and start believing they need to win at all costs. They make excuses for their own side cheating and breaking the rules to beat the other side. And as our public debates become more hateful, many in the Exhausted Majority tune out altogether. This is how countries fall into a cycle of deepening polarization, and how democracies die."

The Pew survey also doesn't suggest what CliffFletcher is charging. It is about how education causes more liberal points of view and how education continues to widen the gap, and when they say widen the gap they mean more liberal perspectives than conservative perspectives. It also finds that conservatives are more entrenched in their views and never change, even in the face of new information. The findings can best be summarized in their opening paragraph.

"Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values. And these differences have increased over the past two decades."

The survey shows that Republicans hold conservative views regardless of education, while Democrats hold more liberal views with the more education they expose themselves to. And this is happening because more people have access to education. Wow, that's breaking news. People that have been educated and exposed to more information are more likely to take a liberal position, especially on political issues? What? Not probable! The proper solution here is to ban education and keep everyone as dumb as possible, that way no one will ever stand up to those in leadership and speak truth to power.

There is a lot of information is these "studies" if you go deep and dig into the research instead of stopping at the click bait titles. The data provides a lot of information to the things affecting our nation, no doubt. But to think for a moment that suggesting the people getting educated and develop shifting views toward more equality on complex issues is the problem, and the ignorant who consistently hold abhorrent views the standard, well that speaks volumes about which way some want our society to go. Serfdom becons!

[CliffFletcher]

Okay, your turn. Empirically back up your assertion that educated people have more diversity of thought and opinion.

Originally Posted by New Era

Education is the door way to diversity of thought and opinion. Go to a worksite and check out the bumper stickers. Not likely to find a diverse bunch in any shape or fashion let alone politically.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Spoiler!

It's hilarious that someone would spend 2-3 hours drawing a cartoon and not bother to spend 2-3 minutes actually reading the Harper's letter.

The signatories make it clear that they have not been cancelled or deplatformed. What they're denouncing is a climate of orthodoxy and witch-hunting, and a lack of proportionality or due process in the sanctions against people who the mob calls out. They're speaking up because others can't.

The person who initiated the letter (a Black guy, btw) says he received many responses from people who supported the letter, but would not sign it because they were worried about the professional repercussions.

And that notorious alt-right ####lord Noam Chomsky says the half of the story that is missed by the people cricitizing the letter is the hundreds of emails he receives from people saying they're afraid to express their opinions because they might run afoul of the mob.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Like the liberal reporter who tweeted a comment from a black protester who wished more attention was paid to black-on-black violence. Some colleagues were outraged at the tweet, and only after the mandated confession of guilt and moral expatiation was he allowed to return to work.

Please read up on the history of the reporter in question and find out why people were suspicious about his motivations when posting that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The people who seem to think that the issue here is the personal, individual victimization of the person who's blowing the whistle have so utterly missed the boat it's hard to know whether to take them seriously. Bari Weiss could go on to sign a lucrative book deal or never be heard from again, and it wouldn't change the importance of the actual issue, which is the culture within the NYT and similar outlets. It's simply easier to take shots at her personally in the hopes that that will distract from the point, which is, as noted, the reason for the immediate resort to character assassination.

As far as the Harpers' letter goes, it's hilarious that anyone had any problem with it. That thing was the most milquetoast, uncontroversial statement of principles that anyone could possibly have come up with.

The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other.

Just such dangerous stuff. Clearly, this must be stopped.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

[/SPOILER]

It's hilarious that someone would spend 2-3 hours drawing a cartoon and not bother to spend 2-3 minutes actually reading the Harper's letter.

The signatories make it clear that they have not been cancelled or deplatformed. What they're denouncing is a climate of orthodoxy and witch-hunting, and a lack of proportionality or due process in the sanctions against people who the mob calls out. They're speaking up because others can't.

The person who initiated the letter (a Black guy, btw) says he received many responses from people who supported the letter, but would not sign it because they were worried about the professional repercussions.

And that notorious alt-right ####lord Noam Chomsky says the half of the story that is missed by the people cricitizing the letter is the hundreds of emails he receives from people saying they're afraid to express their opinions because they might run afoul of the mob.

A lot of the issue people have with that latter is that some of the signers have used the exact same attack when it suits them.

The very writer who just resigned complaining about this went around calling professors racist who weren't pro-Israel enough

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/...ticize-israel/

I'm sure there are some well intentioned signers but a lot of them are just ticked off they are being called out for their opinions when in the past they could spout their opinions and not have to hear about it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The people who seem to think that the issue here is the personal, individual victimization of the person who's blowing the whistle have so utterly missed the boat it's hard to know whether to take them seriously. Bari Weiss could go on to sign a lucrative book deal or never be heard from again, and it wouldn't change the importance of the actual issue, which is the culture within the NYT and similar outlets. It's simply easier to take shots at her personally in the hopes that that will distract from the point, which is, as noted, the reason for the immediate resort to character assassination.

As far as the Harpers' letter goes, it's hilarious that anyone had any problem with it. That thing was the most milquetoast, uncontroversial statement of principles that anyone could possibly have come up with.

Just such dangerous stuff. Clearly, this must be stopped.

She clearly resigned like that to generate news and start some kind of podcast or platform .

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Okay, your turn. Empirically back up your assertion that educated people have more diversity of thought and opinion.

Well, none of your assertions were really backed up by your data, which suggested different conclusions all together. It is true educated people are more consistently liberal, as being exposed to different viewpoints makes you more tolerant of other people. A homophobe who enters college, for example, may interact with a gay person for the first time, and instead of being "the other" it humanises them, and softens their view.

According to this study, college generally pulls people from the fringes, softening the views of people who share heavily biased views of liberals OR conservatives.

The result? In our nationally representative sample of over 7,000 undergraduates at more than 120 colleges who answered both the first-year and sophomore questionnaire, students did demonstrate an increase in appreciative attitudes toward liberals after a year of schooling.

Among all students, 48 percent viewed liberals more favorably in their second year of college than when they arrived on campus. However, among the same students, 50 percent also viewed conservatives more favorably. In other words, college attendance is associated, on average, with gains in appreciating political viewpoints across the spectrum, not just favoring liberals.

...

Moreover, the data show us that the most growth in appreciation happened among people who were initially least appreciative of either liberals or conservatives. In simple terms, first-year students who begin college really disliking liberals or conservatives have their attitudes soften in college.

...

Also, students trend toward appreciating liberal ideologies – both when they first come to college and after their first year. So, while students still favor liberal ideologies over conservative ones, this gap does not widen over the first year.

...

After a year of college, in other words, it might be more challenging for students to brand all liberals or conservatives as wrongheaded when they are studying, eating and learning alongside them. These experiences might even help students appreciate others as people with diverse histories and shared interests in working toward common goals.

Educated people, by nature, have more experience with people outside their own viewpoints and appreciate more diversity in opinion as they go through college. If there is a bubble-effect happening (which we've discussed previously) college and university would simply be another reflection of that wider issue, but not a cause, as you've incorrectly suggested.

Young people and educated people will always lean more liberal as a whole, because those are the times and the spaces where you are more likely to have access to a broader range of ideas and people.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The people who seem to think that the issue here is the personal, individual victimization of the person who's blowing the whistle have so utterly missed the boat it's hard to know whether to take them seriously. Bari Weiss could go on to sign a lucrative book deal or never be heard from again, and it wouldn't change the importance of the actual issue, which is the culture within the NYT and similar outlets. It's simply easier to take shots at her personally in the hopes that that will distract from the point, which is, as noted, the reason for the immediate resort to character assassination.

As far as the Harpers' letter goes, it's hilarious that anyone had any problem with it. That thing was the most milquetoast, uncontroversial statement of principles that anyone could possibly have come up with.

Just such dangerous stuff. Clearly, this must be stopped.

I just don't understand why this is the new cause celebre. It has happened a few times and I'm sure it sucks, but for the most part it just seems like people don't want to be told their opinions are bad. This writer wasn't fired. She quit.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Okay, your turn. Empirically back up your assertion that educated people have more diversity of thought and opinion.

Feel free to look around the world. The countries that embrace the greatest level of diversity, both intellectually and culturally, are those with the highest education levels. Those that have low education levels have extremely restrictive societies, little diversity, and massive tribalism. Jesus man, the fact you even asked that question is embarrassing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I just don't understand why this is the new cause celebre. It has happened a few times and I'm sure it sucks, but for the most part it just seems like people don't want to be told their opinions are bad. This writer wasn't fired. She quit.

You keep focusing on the writer. She isn't the story. Nothing particularly bad happened to her, outside of having to experience some workplace bullying.

If you see no problem with an internal culture within news organizations that systematically eliminates dissent, treats disagreement with a very narrow conception of what is moral and right for society as intolerable and literally dangerous to other peoples' safety, and the transformation from a battleground of ideas into what was aptly described as an ideological warm bath for the people the Times imagines its readers to be, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

This quote from the letter says more or less everything:

Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

These people are not journalists. They are preachers. And because the larger news corporations have systematically gobbled up local newspapers and news stations, there is an even smaller array of voices that the average person can hear now than there ever has been. But don't worry, as mentioned above, you can just pick the one that serves as an ideological warm bath for the sorts of people who believe what you also believe, and never have to think critically about anything. Apparently, we've reached a point where the outlets have decided that that's actually what they're supposed to be providing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Please read up on the history of the reporter in question and find out why people were suspicious about his motivations when posting that.

What were his motivations, and why do you think they warranted the threat of losing his job?

And shouldn't we be wary of sanctioning people for saying thruthful things because we're suspicious of their motivations? That's very dangerous ground.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm sure there are some well intentioned signers but a lot of them are just ticked off they are being called out for their opinions when in the past they could spout their opinions and not have to hear about it.

I'm sure almost all those people don't mind having their opinions challenged. What they're pushing back against is being morally denounced for expressing opinions contrary to the newly-minted orthodoxies of the far left. The fact so many activists feel moral denunciation is the natural and necessary response to opinions they disagree with is the heart of the problem. When a movement becomes something akin to a secular religion, alarm bells start going off in the minds of a lot of liberals.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What they're pushing back against is being morally denounced for expressing opinions contrary to the newly-minted orthodoxies of the far left. The fact so many activists feel moral denunciation is the natural and necessary response to opinions they disagree with is the heart of the problem. When a movement becomes something akin to a secular religion, alarm bells start going off in the minds of a lot of liberals.

As someone who hasn't been following this closely, what are the "newly-minted orthodoxies of the far left" exactly?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You keep focusing on the writer. She isn't the story. Nothing particularly bad happened to her, outside of having to experience some workplace bullying.

If you see no problem with an internal culture within news organizations that systematically eliminates dissent, treats disagreement with a very narrow conception of what is moral and right for society as intolerable and literally dangerous to other peoples' safety, and the transformation from a battleground of ideas into what was aptly described as an ideological warm bath for the people the Times imagines its readers to be, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

This quote from the letter says more or less everything:

These people are not journalists. They are preachers. And because the larger news corporations have systematically gobbled up local newspapers and news stations, there is an even smaller array of voices that the average person can hear now than there ever has been. But don't worry, as mentioned above, you can just pick the one that serves as an ideological warm bath for the sorts of people who believe what you also believe, and never have to think critically about anything. Apparently, we've reached a point where the outlets have decided that that's actually what they're supposed to be providing.

I really think the whole thing is a false narrative. The New York Times still employs all kinds of op-ed writers. Maybe the other writers don't agree with her opinions, but welcome to life as an opinion columnist.

Don't get the bolded comment considering there are tons of news organizations out there that don't even pretend to not be tilted one way or the other.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm sure almost all those people don't mind having their opinions challenged. What they're pushing back against is being morally denounced for expressing opinions contrary to the newly-minted orthodoxies of the far left. The fact so many activists feel moral denunciation is the natural and necessary response to opinions they disagree with is the heart of the problem. When a movement becomes something akin to a secular religion, alarm bells start going off in the minds of a lot of liberals.

I'm sure almost all people don't mind having their opinions challenged. What they're pushing back against is being morally denounced for expressing opinions contrary to the entrenched orthodoxies of the far right. The fact so many activists (nee extremists) feel moral denunciation is the natural and necessary response to opinions they disagree with is the heart of the problem. When a movement becomes something akin to a secular religion, alarm bells should have started going off in the minds of a lot of conservatives almost 50 years ago.

If only an entire political party had not sold its collective soul to climb into bed with evangelicals, and many extremist sects of that religious belief, to guarantee their hold on power and own the south where ignorance is prevalent.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You keep focusing on the writer. She isn't the story. Nothing particularly bad happened to her, outside of having to experience some workplace bullying.

If you see no problem with an internal culture within news organizations that systematically eliminates dissent, treats disagreement with a very narrow conception of what is moral and right for society as intolerable and literally dangerous to other peoples' safety, and the transformation from a battleground of ideas into what was aptly described as an ideological warm bath for the people the Times imagines its readers to be, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

This quote from the letter says more or less everything:

These people are not journalists. They are preachers. And because the larger news corporations have systematically gobbled up local newspapers and news stations, there is an even smaller array of voices that the average person can hear now than there ever has been. But don't worry, as mentioned above, you can just pick the one that serves as an ideological warm bath for the sorts of people who believe what you also believe, and never have to think critically about anything. Apparently, we've reached a point where the outlets have decided that that's actually what they're supposed to be providing.

EXACTLY!

The New York Times is often referred to as "The paper of record". It no longer is. It has the ideological diversity of Pravda. That's not to say they are pure propaganda, but don't go to it looking for nuanced discussion or differing opinions. It is a left wing echo chamber, like CNN.

That's not to say that what they are reporting isn't "true" but their ideology drives the story, not the story itself.

So that's fine. But then don't expect people to hold you in high esteem and you can take your place alongside the toronto star.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What were his motivations, and why do you think they warranted the threat of losing his job?

And shouldn't we be wary of sanctioning people for saying thruthful things because we're suspicious of their motivations? That's very dangerous ground.

Extreme example - but if a guy in a KKK outfit and a 5 year old kid say 'All Lives matter' - we all are going to assume they have different reasons for saying it.

If I'm posting borderline racists things every month and then say another one - its pretty reasonable for you to call me out as a racist. That may not be my intention in that exact post, but we aren't mindless automatons who take every statement made at face value and disregard everything thats happened before it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

EXACTLY!

The New York Times is often referred to as "The paper of record". It no longer is. It has the ideological diversity of Pravda. That's not to say they are pure propaganda, but don't go to it looking for nuanced discussion or differing opinions. It is a left wing echo chamber, like CNN.

That's not to say that what they are reporting isn't "true" but their ideology drives the story, not the story itself.

So that's fine. But then don't expect people to hold you in high esteem and you can take your place alongside the toronto star.

There's a difference between the Op-Ed page and the reporting. All of the complaining is coming about the Op-ed page.

They have stopped the tip-toeing around Trump for sure (a lot less racially tinged comments or there is no evidence to support the statement and more racist comment and lying).

But if the New York Times isn't the middle ground - who is in the middle ground? No one?