Why do more educated people tend toward centrism?

[IceAgeComing]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

imagine sounding this smug on a regular basis

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

imagine sounding this smug on a regular basis

Yes, especially as one might recall a certain red avatared German who enthusiastically supported Trump only a month before the general election.

[mvd10]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

imagine sounding this smug on a regular basis

Yes, especially as one might recall a certain red avatared German who enthusiastically supported Trump only a month before the general election.

Wasn't that just a bad joke? Please tell me it was.

[Tekken_Guy]

Centrism? From what I've seen educated people have been pretty left leaning lately. They swung heavily into Hillary's corner in 2016.

[Kingpoleon]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

I really, really hate to use the term "neoliberal" for a variety of reasons, but in this case it's more than appropriate: I love how the most steadfast proponents of neoliberalism are so keen on asserting that their garbage ideology is some sort of "trans-ideological", COMMON SENSE phenomenon when in fact it's nothing more than just that, an ideology.

Ah, but you seem to fail to grasp that all ideologies coat themselves in nonsense. Communism is "equality and wealth for all"; progressivism is "progress, equality, and liberty"; and so on and so forth.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

I really, really hate to use the term "neoliberal" for a variety of reasons, but in this case it's more than appropriate: I love how the most steadfast proponents of neoliberalism are so keen on asserting that their garbage ideology is some sort of "trans-ideological", COMMON SENSE phenomenon when in fact it's nothing more than just that, an ideology.

Ah, but you seem to fail to grasp that all ideologies coat themselves in nonsense. Communism is "equality and wealth for all"; progressivism is "progress, equality, and liberty"; and so on and so forth.

But Andrew's precise point is that liberalism is the only ideology that has convinced itself that it doesn't exist. Each ideology might have its own conceit, but liberalism's particular conceit is particularly annoying and harmful.

[Kingpoleon]

Because it's probably easier to understand both sides. Ideology is often a bad thing, because it saves from own thought. Ideologies are often a pure vision that is unlikely or even impossible to accomplish or to fully function. Often, pragmatic thinking leads to the most success and is within the possible. To explain it in brief on the economy for example, the best solutions are mostly in the middle: You need some common-sense regulations, you need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair share, but you also can't tax and regulate the hell out of everything. Economic growth is necessary to expand wealth to everyone, and therefore you need a business-friendly environment. However, a completely unregulated market doesn't work and only helps the upper class and the rich. The government needs to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, and there also needs to be safety net for everyone who needs help. On the other hand, only those who really need it should benefit from a welfare state.

I really, really hate to use the term "neoliberal" for a variety of reasons, but in this case it's more than appropriate: I love how the most steadfast proponents of neoliberalism are so keen on asserting that their garbage ideology is some sort of "trans-ideological", COMMON SENSE phenomenon when in fact it's nothing more than just that, an ideology.

Ah, but you seem to fail to grasp that all ideologies coat themselves in nonsense. Communism is "equality and wealth for all"; progressivism is "progress, equality, and liberty"; and so on and so forth.

But Andrew's precise point is that liberalism is the only ideology that has convinced itself that it doesn't exist. Each ideology might have its own conceit, but liberalism's particular conceit is particularly annoying and harmful.

You may yet make a fool of me. Yet know this: sure, some have followed their ideologies blindly. But not I. I am not in love with the ideology of centrism, as most are with their own ideology. Truly, I stand apart. My ideology will never be my master.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Educated people tend to be repelled by shouty people who sound like loons. Ideology has nothing to do with it.

[Del Tachi]

Options 2-5, but the real answer is...

structural functionalism.


The educated (who are able to call themselves such mostly because they are already rich/connected enough to have access to an education) have an interest in maintaining the status-quo because its been so good to them.  This pushes them away from the political fringes because they see no need for massive reorganization of political structures when they've been able to succeed and prosper within them already.

[Mr. Smith]

Centrism? From what I've seen educated people have been pretty left leaning lately. They swung heavily into Hillary's corner in 2016.

Opposition to the far-right =/= left-leaning.

[Tekken_Guy]

Centrism? From what I've seen educated people have been pretty left leaning lately. They swung heavily into Hillary's corner in 2016.

Opposition to the far-right =/= left-leaning.

Yeah, but the far right in power = pushing centrists leftward for now.

[parochial boy]

Educated people by and large control the levers of power, they therefore define what is most politically acceptable, any by consequence what is "moderate" or "centrist" in order to affirm a social order that works to their advantage.

That is, they are "centrist" becuase it suits them, instead they define what "centrism" is in a way that suits them.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Educated people being more socially liberal is nothing new; education one of the largest factor in determining if someone is socially liberal or conservative. Educated people also tend to be more wealthy, which has a correlation, albeit a weaker one, with fiscal conservatism.

All of the three middle statements are absolutely pure bulls**t. Look at David Valadao, who represents a "centrist, well-educated, Romney-Clinton district".

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists. Socialism and scientists go together like bread and butter.

EDIT: On second thought, the logic above is actually more valid then Options 2-4. It actually has empirical evidence backing it up. The point is, if you choose to accept this way of thinking, you have to draw the conclusion above.

I come from a well-educated immigrant family who mostly interacts with people of a similar background. When it comes to politics, these types people are as clueless as anyone else, really.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists.

That's correct though.

[Kingpoleon]

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists.

I am a smug fool who believes anyone with a different ideology is less intelligent.

I'd say most of the 175+ IQ people today aren't socialists...

[TheLeftwardTide]

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists.

I am a smug fool who believes anyone with a different ideology is less intelligent.

I'd say most of the 175+ IQ people today aren't socialists...

Real question, how many people are there with an IQ of 175? That's 5 standard deviations above the mean (100). <0.1% of the population has an IQ above 145, or 3 standard deviations above the mean. If I recall correctly, Einstein had an IQ of 170, so he wouldn't fall within this range.

[Kingpoleon]

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists.

I am a smug fool who believes anyone with a different ideology is less intelligent.

I'd say most of the 175+ IQ people today aren't socialists...

Real question, how many people are there with an IQ of 175? That's 5 standard deviations above the mean (100). <0.1% of the population has an IQ above 145, or 3 standard deviations above the mean. If I recall correctly, Einstein had an IQ of 170, so he wouldn't fall within this range.

The main one I know of is Christopher Langan.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why do university-educated upper-middle class careerists in major metropolises support individualist ideologies that just so conveniently celebrate the Cult of Globalization and all of its simultaneously obnoxious and dangerous conceits?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Has Mensa ever polled its members on their political views?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course what this thread really demonstrates is the deficiency in the education of many people who presumably describe themselves as educated. For instance, what does 'educated' in this context actually mean? You cannot take a term as vague as that as given. Or, rather, if you do don't be surprised if others take you for an idiot.

[Santander]

That would be like saying socialism is the ideology for the most intelligent, because Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Richard Lewontin, John Desmond Bernal, Joseph Needham, and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Hawking were all socialists.

I am a smug fool who believes anyone with a different ideology is less intelligent.

I'd say most of the 175+ IQ people today aren't socialists...

Real question, how many people are there with an IQ of 175? That's 5 standard deviations above the mean (100). <0.1% of the population has an IQ above 145, or 3 standard deviations above the mean. If I recall correctly, Einstein had an IQ of 170, so he wouldn't fall within this range.

The main one I know of is Christopher Langan.

That sounds like a great sample size to extrapolate with.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For instance, what does 'educated' in this context actually mean?

Having a four-year college degree, silly. Preferably a graduate and/or professional one as well. Smart people!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Has Mensa ever polled its members on their political views?

#Rationalia

[darklordoftech]

More educated people tend to be exposed to a larger variety of opinions, know from history that loosing an election won't bring about the second coming of Hitler or a Second Great Depression, are less likely to be desparate, and tend to be repelled by anti-intellectualism.

[OneJ]

To be fair, didn't Obama's platform run left of Clinton's? If so, then I think using the 2008 primaries (in Virginia's case) as an example isn't a good one.

Here shows VA's exit poll results from '08. Neither college graduates nor postgraduates weren't significantly less likely than say high school graduates to support Clinton over Obama.

Now when you dig deeper into the data such as income, you would find that those who made $100,000-150,000 were more likely to support Obama (72-27) than those who made $30,000-$50,000 (58-38 Obama).