_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
We really need to study why people believe conservative when they lie but disbelieve them when they tell the truth.
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
357 points (95.7% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
4140 readers
1266 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Because HER EMAIL! LOCK HER UP!"
"Btw, prosecution against a political opponent is a witchhunt... FREE TRUMP!"
"BACK THE BLUE"
"Also, FUCK THE POLICE at the capitol building on Jan 6"
🙄
Some version of only hearing what they want to I guess?
Leaded water, brain injuries, or education that teaches them 1+1=3
TL;DR: this isn't stupidity unraveling. It's the Oligarchic takeover of academia and science
It's cute that the post assumes ignorance. We are way past the Hanlon's razor phase. Cutting indirects is a way to punch $10-100M holes into elite universities' budgets overnight, sow fear and render them financially vulnerable. The prestigious universities will be bailed out by private donations and boom, you have an unprecedented scale of oligarchic influence of leading academic institutions and academic research.
It's the same playbook that they used for public schools, strip funding, let the school flounder, then they'll start asking "well what have these universities contributed lately? Why should we fund their research when they haven't discovered anything recently?"
The only colleges that will stay standing will be the networking hubs for their rich sons to plot the best ways to ~~exploit the working class~~ get business and economics degrees.
yup. Ironically, NIH grants lead to quite tangible discoveries, and institutions with the highest indirects (overhead funding) usually have proportionally higher rate of major discoveries. So the original poster isn't wrong about this hamstringing US biomedical research. On another thread someone proposed that Canada should have a grant-buyout brain drain program for refugees from US academia. It was actually a pretty smart one. The EU could also bank on this.
I've heard rumblings of foreign countries already offering deals to phds in the US.
yup. the US will taste its own medicine with brain drain
A lot of posts to that subreddit are thinly veiled cosplay to get conservatives to question their cult.
They usually slip in during the first few hours/weeks of a new Trump disaster before their mods/subscribers have a chance to review marching orders from Fox and start removing/downvoting accordingly.
I have a PhD, I work in biotech and have been working on obtaining state and federal grants with University Minnesota. Indirects are like 55-60% for land grant institutions that don't have to pay for the property they operate on, additionally they have nearly 40k undergrads paying 17-38k a year in tuition. So the scope of the research and the staff we can budget for comes from the 40-45% remaining, this includes funding techs, post docs, and the personnel that directly run the projects.
No I didn't vote for these fools, and exponentially more damage than good is coming, and I'm good friends with postdocs who are getting screwed in real time by this nonsense.
A conservative scientist, that's a new one for me. It feels like an oxymoron.
It's like the doctors and nurses who are antivax they are not oxymorons, they are fucking morons
I still remember working for a medical office during the beginning of COVID and seeing MULTIPLE SURGEONS wear shit like masks that say "this mask does nothing", which makes me question their credentials or the crackerjack box they got their doctorate from.
Always figured surgeons are just really well educated mechanics, and don’t necessarily need to grasp the biology in the same way chemists and internal medicine practitioners might.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just a regular moron.
Or a homophobe/racist.
What kind of scientist do you think work for big pharma, Exxon Mobile or Raytheon? It certainly ain’t leftist scientists.
I'm not surprised that a scientist votes for Trump, I don't think they're some kind of super intelligent superhumans. I'm surprised that a scientist self-describes as a conservative, because being a scientist is about discovering new things, while being a conservative is about everything staying the same.
while being a conservative is about everything staying the same.
Or "while being a conservative is about not discovering new things, as it might challenge their status quo"
From personal experience working in DoD research, the amount of compartmentalization a lot of those people have drove me insane. I knew quite a few young earth creationists & fake moon landing believers when I was there. I definitely think a lot of those folks think that their military funding is safer under trump, and everyone outside of their field is a "corrupt leftist scientist"
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
We discussed it thoroughly when they laid out the plan to dismantle the country and make it a dictatorship hyper capitalist stigh. You chose that option, presumably because so many are uneducated swines and future billionaires
I really cannot fathom how anyone that has been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything they've been doing during their PhD could vote for Trump and his fascists.
They were very clear what they were going to do and that included cutting this support.
It's a huge assault on the sciences and Trump being in power and acting as king has already been impacting American researchers in hard sciences to the point where papers on physics and chemistry that are under peer review are requested by authors (and in some cases journals that should be investigated by COPE) to be substantially changed.
The censorship is incredibly wide ranging and these idiot PhDs don't seem to have woken up yet to how bad it is.
As a PhD student you'd be surprised at how many stupid people are in here. I've heard of people talking about using holy water in mouse before experimenting because they are "possessed by devil", people talking about how "I'm a liberal but female president isn't going to be strong enough for our country" to their female colleagues, talked with people who told " they[gay people] should just get help" to a gay colleague because her bible says being gay is a sin, those are just extra fun examples, there's a lot more in daily life that after joining PhD I've become a lot skeptic of any research or paper people cite for something. Because lot's of people just write sentences first then search for papers that agrees, instead of doing actual literature review and learning about diverse view on the matter.
I'm not surprised sadly - I have a PhD in chemistry and then continued to a postdoc and teaching before heading elsewhere. During my undergraduate there was a woman on the course who was very good and very competent but was also evangelical to the point of believing in a young Earth. To her, concepts such as half-lives were just lies that needed to be learnt.
Normally that has been flushed out by the time of doing a PhD, but if not it really should be.
How can any of her outcomes be trusted for veracity if she doesn't agree with the material assumptions?
They're poisoning the well by allowing her to stay.
r our country” to their female colleagues, talked with people who told " they[gay people] should just get help" to a gay colleague because her bible says being gay is a sin, those are just extra fun examples, there’s a lot more in daily life that after joining PhD I’ve become a lot skeptic of any research or paper people cite for something. Because lot’s of people just write sentences first then search for papers that agrees, instead of doing actual literature review and learning about diverse view on the matter.
You're in the wrong institution, LOL
PhD is doing something very niche, intelligence and logical thinking makes it easier, but you can easily just submit a paper in multiple journals until one accepts. Of course your advisor and committee are supposed to weed out those people, but in this culture where more students graduated -> faster tenure +more funding, and everything is measured in numbers, everyone is encouraged to increase the numbers instead of quality. So just because you were able to publish something in a small niche field doesn't mean you know a lot about the world, or you agree with what other scientists think.
I know different universities and countries have their own system which probably have higher quality control, but this publish and perish culture combined with the competitiveness and lots of money involved in all steps is bound to game the system towards anti-science. Professors don't really have the luxury of trying things that don't work for years anymore.
bmit a paper in multiple journals until one accepts. Of course your advisor and committee are supposed to weed out those people, but in this culture where more students graduated -> faster tenure +more funding, and everything is measured in numbers, eve
it depends. in the US, it's publish or perish if you're in PhD/postdoc phase, but once you're tenure track/faculty it's about get funded or fuck off. The latter is a lot more stringent filter (and not necessarily a great one, like look at the lady who co-invented the mRNA vaccine technology getting booted from UPenn for lack of funding, but yet getting the Nobel). I haven't encountered people with super wacky beliefs beyond a certain level.
Well sometimes when you are a tenured professor, it's really hard to mess up in many cases. I personally know professors that have "gone senile" to put it mildly, if not then it just means they were stupid from the start. That have ridden their one good discovery from decades ago, and can keep getting funding because other orgs are also funding them. Have way too many students than they can handle in their lab, make postdocs do the management, and fire people if they don't publish well. Of course that's the only example I have seen of someone that incompetent. But I have seen mildly incompetent people riding on "collaboration" with other labs and people from university, or by being "cheaper to hire than consultants". Academia in US is a lot like a boy's club of who knows who. And once you have a certain momentum you'll have funds that can support more people than you can manage while new professors will struggle with getting funding and have to use those old professors to get funds and "collaborate" with them. Basically giving away a chunk of funding for their names.
again, it depends. the momentum is completely different at a state university than at a top private research university (personal experience with both). I'm a clinician-scientist, so my pressure is to support my research effort, or be forced to see a lot more patients (for which I'm severely underpaid and undersupported). I'll say science is all about your network, I translate bench researcher's methods to the clinic with a pretty high throughput. Being able to connect researchers, for example a group who developed a mouse model for X with a group who uses technique Y to refine the data, can make one quite popular. That said the main difference between the state uni and the research uni is that at the state, finding good mentorship was very hard (I was very lucky), and at the research uni it is mandated by the institution with protocolized mentorship committees and they only take people whom they know will be able to succeed academically.
Woken? You trying to make them woke?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because the leopards hunger for your face, you dangerous intellectual.
Anti-intellectualism was fine with this well-educated moron - supported by him, even - until it affected him, it would seem.
I struggle to refer to these people as intellectuals considering these people have multiple certificates to show but otherwise they do fuckall with their brain.
Sophomores. Wise fools.
The living demonstration of the difference between intelligence and wisdom.
I've recently seen them referred to as midwits. People just dangerous though to cause severe harm. Personally i think that's giving them too much credit, these days I'm inclined to believe there is no job you couldn't train a monkey to do and these monkeys were just persistent enough to be trained.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ah the defining characteristic of the conservative, an absolute vaccuum of empathy
We do not get rich off of research. We are very educated and could make more in things like medical specialties. We do it to help others. This is not profit. This is not theft. It saves lives. It creates drugs, therapies, treatments, and cures.
You mean in a commie way? /s
Nobody ask industry how much they crib (read: steal) from publically funded research.
load more comments
(3 replies)
OP:
This is not money wasted. If they want to lower it, it needs to be done gradually to give universities time to adjust.
What exactly about the orange blob made you think he would have a carefully measured plan to do literally ANYthing?
These people are so fucking delusional-- they hear and see exactly what they want. Check out this galaxy brain:
One of the things they are doing is identifying waste. I'm sure if enough researchers make a racket about this specific thing it will get attention.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that'll happen. Dumpy responds so well to listening to what the plebes want. He'll get right on fixing a problem he created just as soon as he gets off the golf course. Aaaaany day now...
view more: next ›