Why Are Some Fields More Left Wing?
Academia is famously left wing. In all or nearly all disciplines, Democrats outnumber Republicans. (See, e.g., https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty.) But not all disciplines are equally left-wing. Business schools are probably the most moderate (i.e., least left-wing) part of the universities. Natural scientists are more moderate than social scientists, who in turn are more moderate than humanists (people in the humanities). Among natural sciences, engineers are to the right of theoretical scientists. Economists are to the right of other social scientists. Philosophers are generally to the right of other humanists (i.e., less dominated by far-left ideas – of course they’re still left wing compared to the rest of society).
What might explain these differences? My armchair speculations:
Business schools are a special case. Many left-wing ideas are anti-business, so it’s natural that business schools would be less left-wing than other parts of the university. More generally, left-wing people ascribe less value to making money than right-wingers.
Left-wing affiliation goes along with interest in abstract, theoretical discussion. Concrete, practical interests go along with more moderate or conservative affiliation. Hence the difference between theoretical and applied scientists.
a) Possible explanation: Left-wing ideas tend to sound best when you think about them purely in the abstract. Right-wing ideas tend to sound better when you look at concrete examples. (Ex.: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” sounds good. But the gulags weren’t so fun.)
b) Related to (a): Theorists evaluate theories; engineers evaluate concrete events. E.g., an abstract theorist thinks that “being a socialist” means subscribing to a set of abstract principles that socialist theorists articulate in their books. An applied thinker thinks that “being a socialist” means being in favor of the sort of stuff that happens in actual, observed socialist societies.
c) Another explanation: Theorists believe in the power of relatively simple, uniform theoretical principles, they apply this orientation to politics, so they think the state should be able to order society well, if it just has the right principles. Applied thinkers believe that the world is very complicated and individual cases have to be dealt with individually, based on lots of details. They apply this to politics and conclude that the state can’t do much to order society; in most situations, individuals have to decide what is best in that particular case.
Subjectivity goes along with left-wing affiliation; objectivity goes along with more moderate or right-wing affiliation. Possible explanation:
a) Intellectuals in general have a left-wing bias.
b) Vague, subjective, non-rigorous ways of thinking leave you more susceptible to bias.
c) Some people dispositionally prefer subjective, etc., ways of thinking. Other people dispositionally prefer more objective ways of thinking.
d) In either case, people choose a field in which their preferred ways of thinking are practiced. Hence, highly subjective disciplines are populated by people with the most biased beliefs. In terms of vagueness and subjectivity, humanities > social sciences > natural sciences; other humanities > philosophy; continental phil > analytic phil.
Note: Does this presuppose that right-wing beliefs are objectively correct? Not really; just that the motivations for holding them are less tied to the typical biases of intellectuals. Remember that the more objective disciplines are not dominated by right-wingers; they are merely less dominated by left-wingers. So this can be explained by a lesser degree of influence by a factor that pushes people to the left (regardless of what the correct beliefs are).
For social science: An accepted, precise model diminishes bias. Comments:
Economics has a body of accepted theory. If you take an econ class, you will learn a theory (esp. in microeconomics), and it will be the same theory that every other econ student in the country learns.
This theory has definite implications about certain issues (e.g., effects of rent control, tariffs, minimum wage laws). The theory is precise and clear enough that you can’t really fudge it; it’s not just a matter of opinion what it predicts. By contrast, theories in political philosophy or other social sciences are frequently extremely vague, so their implications are a matter of opinion. (Ex.: “The basic political principles of our society should represent fair terms of cooperation among equals.”)
These features make it harder for economists to just believe what they want to believe. Similarly to point #3 above, having a body of fairly precise theory diminishes the scope for bias. Economists’ political beliefs are more determined by the dictates of economic theory and less by their personal, emotional predilections.
This explains why economists tend to be right-wing specifically with regard to economic issues, where their accepted theory makes predictions; they are still left-wing about social issues.
People who are more strongly interested in politics tend to be more left-wing. So moderates tend to be found in non-political fields, e.g., business or engineering.
You might hypothesize that this is because politically engaged people tend to gather a lot of evidence about political issues, and the evidence actually supports leftism, so they become leftists. My knowledge about reality, though, suggests that this is false; politically engaged people tend to have lots of BS in their heads and don’t care about being accurate. So I have a different explanation:
People don’t get interested in politics for practical reasons – almost everyone knows that their own contributions will never make a noticeable difference. It is also not mainly intellectual curiosity, because there are more intellectually stimulating topics to study. The main motivation for doing a lot of reading and talking about politics is entertainment, constructing a desirable self-image, bonding with others, and stuff like that.
So the people who are strongly politically engaged tend to be the ones for whom those motives are especially strong, compared to other people.
Those sorts of motives tend to support left-wing beliefs. I.e., left wing beliefs do better at giving you a desirable self-image, letting you bond with other intellectuals, etc.
This explains why highly politically-interested people tend to be left-wing. There are a variety of motives for holding left- or right-wing beliefs, and a person’s actual beliefs are the resultant of these different motives. It happens that the motives supporting leftism overlap a lot with the motives for spending time on politics.
Unfortunately, the motives for being politically engaged have little to do with finding truth or helping society, so the people who have most influence also tend to be wrong a lot. The people who are good at figuring stuff out (e.g., engineers) don’t tend to like politics. This is (one reason) why we have a lot of crappy policies.