If you are clear about your meaning and empirical beliefs, your views can be falsified. If you are constantly saying unclear things and it's nearly impossible to determine any implications, then you can keep talking without worrying about contrary evidence.
If you do make an empirical claim that is clear enough to be falsified, you might get people challenging you on that claim. Not to worry. Highlight the fact that the information is dangerous and the person critiquing you is a bigot. Point out any unsavory associations they might have. Exclude them from any prestigious institutions and then use this exclusion to bolster the case that they're wrong. If they don't give up, threaten to get them fired. If that doesn't work, constantly harass them, send them death threats, etc. Use your newfound consensus as even more evidence that you're right.
Which is why I'm annoyed that Lee and the others reduced political ideology to left-right line. That's a stunningly crude thing to do, and far too common. Lots of people cannot place themselves on such a line. Libertarians are likely the most common example, but there are various other perspectives and reasons why that "political spectrum" has no utility to some.
I wonder what libertarians were expected to do, or if they mentioned them – I haven't read it yet. I don't answer such items, since I can't, and I see a lot of researchers throw out participants who don't (5% of the sample in one recent case).
I'm surprised that epistemology doesn't have a similar distribution as logic. Those two fields of philosophy seem to be the only ones that attract people with a greater than average degree of impartiality. Most other fields tend to have cultic tendencies that attract people with religious instincts but have been born into a secular world. As many have observed, most ideological leftists of modern America have a disposition towards their ideas and movements that is very reminiscent of religious zealotry.
I would also argue that (hot) emotional thinking does have utility in better environments. Often times, what is considered "rational" can be misled. For example, a popular ethical hypothetical posed to university students is whether or not a criminal should be punished if they lose all their memories and seem a different person after the act. I don't know when this question was first posed, but it received a lot of interest during Hume's time. Many want to punish the criminal anyway despite that choice coming across as "irrational." However, those feelings are actually incredibly informed on the subconscious level. In reality, people are largely driven to criminal acts as a result of their genetic profile. People understand that truth on a more visceral and intuitive level. Regardless of what happens to someone's memories, the genes remain. Therefore, the person must still be punished so that their tendencies aren't exposed to society again. The broad masses will always rely on hot thinking; the main issue now is that they are receiving the wrong social inputs.
"Leftist" is doing a lot of work here; it seems to encompass both the traditional socialist-labour movement and the post 1960s incarnations of cultural politics. But in practice the cultural left usually target the old workers' movement and undermine it. Hence the frequent funding from liberal foundations, NED etc. Old school socialist parties receive no such funding.
Given the decline of the labour movement that is less of an imperative today but it was their primary target from the 1960s until about 2010.
I am a philosophy student right now being inundated with leftist views from the professors and the even nuttier students. Although, once in a blue moon a real fun and strange turn of events occurs when the students don't buy into the professor's ideas in class. I had the pleasure of watching multiple supposed "climate change activist" students turn on a professor and shout him down in class regarding the recent defacing of paintings. Called the professor an ignorant moron for going along with the defacing of paintings.....it was good for a laugh to see a professor get shocked like this and not know what to do.
I think result of survey is not sufficient for your last conclusion. Because majority are still in left. Additionally you ignored philosophy of science. And religion is not like "cold" thing.
Philosophers and reason: more logic, less socialism
If you are clear about your meaning and empirical beliefs, your views can be falsified. If you are constantly saying unclear things and it's nearly impossible to determine any implications, then you can keep talking without worrying about contrary evidence.
If you do make an empirical claim that is clear enough to be falsified, you might get people challenging you on that claim. Not to worry. Highlight the fact that the information is dangerous and the person critiquing you is a bigot. Point out any unsavory associations they might have. Exclude them from any prestigious institutions and then use this exclusion to bolster the case that they're wrong. If they don't give up, threaten to get them fired. If that doesn't work, constantly harass them, send them death threats, etc. Use your newfound consensus as even more evidence that you're right.
Lee Jussim, one of the co-authors, is one of my colleagues on this paper on the lack of intellectual diversity in research psychology, and how political bias invalidates some of the research: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/political-diversity-will-improve-social-psychological-science1/A54AD4878AED1AFC8BA6AF54A890149F#
Which is why I'm annoyed that Lee and the others reduced political ideology to left-right line. That's a stunningly crude thing to do, and far too common. Lots of people cannot place themselves on such a line. Libertarians are likely the most common example, but there are various other perspectives and reasons why that "political spectrum" has no utility to some.
I wonder what libertarians were expected to do, or if they mentioned them – I haven't read it yet. I don't answer such items, since I can't, and I see a lot of researchers throw out participants who don't (5% of the sample in one recent case).
I'm surprised that epistemology doesn't have a similar distribution as logic. Those two fields of philosophy seem to be the only ones that attract people with a greater than average degree of impartiality. Most other fields tend to have cultic tendencies that attract people with religious instincts but have been born into a secular world. As many have observed, most ideological leftists of modern America have a disposition towards their ideas and movements that is very reminiscent of religious zealotry.
I would also argue that (hot) emotional thinking does have utility in better environments. Often times, what is considered "rational" can be misled. For example, a popular ethical hypothetical posed to university students is whether or not a criminal should be punished if they lose all their memories and seem a different person after the act. I don't know when this question was first posed, but it received a lot of interest during Hume's time. Many want to punish the criminal anyway despite that choice coming across as "irrational." However, those feelings are actually incredibly informed on the subconscious level. In reality, people are largely driven to criminal acts as a result of their genetic profile. People understand that truth on a more visceral and intuitive level. Regardless of what happens to someone's memories, the genes remain. Therefore, the person must still be punished so that their tendencies aren't exposed to society again. The broad masses will always rely on hot thinking; the main issue now is that they are receiving the wrong social inputs.
Am I reading the chart wrong, or are the youngest participants consistently right-wing? It would be nice to see the data without the LOESS.
"Leftist" is doing a lot of work here; it seems to encompass both the traditional socialist-labour movement and the post 1960s incarnations of cultural politics. But in practice the cultural left usually target the old workers' movement and undermine it. Hence the frequent funding from liberal foundations, NED etc. Old school socialist parties receive no such funding.
Given the decline of the labour movement that is less of an imperative today but it was their primary target from the 1960s until about 2010.
I am a philosophy student right now being inundated with leftist views from the professors and the even nuttier students. Although, once in a blue moon a real fun and strange turn of events occurs when the students don't buy into the professor's ideas in class. I had the pleasure of watching multiple supposed "climate change activist" students turn on a professor and shout him down in class regarding the recent defacing of paintings. Called the professor an ignorant moron for going along with the defacing of paintings.....it was good for a laugh to see a professor get shocked like this and not know what to do.
I think result of survey is not sufficient for your last conclusion. Because majority are still in left. Additionally you ignored philosophy of science. And religion is not like "cold" thing.