I'd like to suggest one more options for why academics skew liberal.
Suppose the experiences of being or becoming an academic tend to increase liberal opinions; alternatively, other career experiences tend to increase conservative opinions. (Youth tend more liberal than their elders; perhaps academics simply preserve youthful opinions longer.)
The offensive/blindly-blue version of this would be even simpler. "Academics are more prone than most others to be interested in discovering truth, and truth skews blue." My twenty year old self would have suggested that unhesitatingly, except that the blue-red metaphor wasn't then current. As a senior citizen, I'm not so sure of either part of this explanation. But it does seem like the elephant in the room, particularly when I hear of red lawmakers passing laws based on medical falsehoods they don't care to reality check. (In what world is it impossible to be impregnated by rape?!?)
The testable version of this would involve a longitudinal study of aspiring academics, and not include just-so stories explaining the reason for any difference found.
I'd also be interested in comparing changing political opinions of aspiring academics who succeed with those would-be academics who wind up in different careers.
It might also be interesting to disentangle the various components of blue and white politics. From where I sit, believing in a tangible, world-influencing deity is less compatible with a research orientation, than believing that it's a great idea for your own group to have most of the wealth and all the political influence. (Selfishness is not incompatible with a search for truth.)
I'd like to suggest one more options for why academics skew liberal.
Suppose the experiences of being or becoming an academic tend to increase liberal opinions; alternatively, other career experiences tend to increase conservative opinions. (Youth tend more liberal than their elders; perhaps academics simply preserve youthful opinions longer.)
The offensive/blindly-blue version of this would be even simpler. "Academics are more prone than most others to be interested in discovering truth, and truth skews blue." My twenty year old self would have suggested that unhesitatingly, except that the blue-red metaphor wasn't then current. As a senior citizen, I'm not so sure of either part of this explanation. But it does seem like the elephant in the room, particularly when I hear of red lawmakers passing laws based on medical falsehoods they don't care to reality check. (In what world is it impossible to be impregnated by rape?!?)
The testable version of this would involve a longitudinal study of aspiring academics, and not include just-so stories explaining the reason for any difference found.
I'd also be interested in comparing changing political opinions of aspiring academics who succeed with those would-be academics who wind up in different careers.
It might also be interesting to disentangle the various components of blue and white politics. From where I sit, believing in a tangible, world-influencing deity is less compatible with a research orientation, than believing that it's a great idea for your own group to have most of the wealth and all the political influence. (Selfishness is not incompatible with a search for truth.)
because "the more you know"...