You can’t put this on a few. It’s the genuine desire of the American voter.
They also think they are not always correct, not always unbiased, and possibly not always honest; and the bias tends to be towards either things that benefit the urban elite, or "luxury beliefs" that have disproportionate costs on other people.
Spite politics is the ultimate form of post industrial vanity. People are so well off and have so little to worry about that their biggest ask from their leaders is to bully those who they don't like.
Though I don't agree with it, I think many conservatives feel the same way about e.g. trans rights - that it's a form of post industrial vanity.
Group X does action A_x due to belief B_x. That B_x isn't logical or whatever doesn't matter. Members of group X generally don't know that group X is wrong, and instead think their own biases are common sense etc.
People are not perfectly rational spheres in a vacuum.
That you can substitute in a lot of different values for X, doesn't change any of this.
Wouldn't economics and sociology PhDs have both more room for bias in their work, and tend to have power over the economy and society?
"Experts" have a lot of sway over the public sector and legal system.
The public sector has increased to take up a huge percentage of GDP, and the legal sector has also arguably expanded a lot in power.
The perception is that a huge amount of public spending is controlled by the public service, and they tend to defer to academics if the executive keeps them in line.
Expertise in this case isn’t cheaply earned. It’s the top of a pyramid of intellectual effort.
Maybe because this thread is about a math PhD (Terrence Tao)?
I’m also surprised you believe academic economists have much power. These days, most politicians from both parties in the US proudly reject more or less all of mainstream economics. Sometimes, the work of academic economists can have some small influence on decisions at the Fed, so I guess that is something.
Sociologists don’t even have that. They’re more or less just talking to themselves.
The post you responded to asked about a specific aspect, namely political power, of math PhDs.
Your response was to state that surely other PhDs have bias in their work.
Are you not realizing that that's quite obviously a bad faith argument? Somebody claims that A has B and your respond that C had D, insinuating GP made connections between A and D or C and B. They didn't.
It's quite common to argue like that, but you did throw around the "bad faith" term. You need to measure your own behavior by that standard when accusing others.
Some don't like anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-climate rethoric. Others don't like trans-rights, anti-hate-speech, anti-christianity rethoric. For either side, those are not real problems which their opponents are concerned about.
That's an underappreciated aspect of current public discourse.
The government is a large organisation and its middle management is both vast and powerful.
And this huge middle management is obliged (arguably) to listen to academia unless otherwise instructed by politicians (who are too few in number and mostly not talented in steering large organisations so much as they are used to just going with the flow and taking the credit).
If we take specifically the field of economics for a moment (since I know a bit about this one), what are examples of "middle managers" sticking to the recommendations of economists?
Because it's not hard to make a list of ideas that economists generally love and pretty much everyone else hates: paying organ donors, carbon taxes, land value taxes, charging for public parking, getting rid of minimum parking requirements, allowing surge pricing of various kinds, unilateral free trade, cash transfers instead of in-kind benefits, and abolishing the mortgage interest deduction. Honorable mention to congestion pricing, which economists of course love, but is interesting because support for it actually went up in NYC after implementation; support was pretty low before implementation.
The lump of gdp fallacy in which an urban Cafe is equal to a factory is maybe something I think is an issue?
Trump supporters disagree with economists on Carbon taxes, low tarriffs, and immigration.
And even economists to some extent pick and choose the issues they push from the less biased body of work they produce.
I’m confronting your assertion that academics have power in our society and you haven’t put forward any arguments that they do