In this part, I’d like to dive deeper into a specific case for the cracking in the liberal party.
Decay in Science
Here’s an irony for you: Despite having many scientists, science is under the most attack in liberalism. Sounds odd for a group of people always talking about science. The truth is, you have a couple of people actually doing the work – who will be quite frank and admit the results of their scientific experiments are inconclusive – and a mob of people who yell and scream that a scrap of science supports their beliefs. (Some call this “scientism”.) Conservatives do the same thing, of course, but minorities want their voice heard, so they are generally more vocal about it.
Conservatives, feeling “out-voiced” in the scientific fields, have become cherry-pickers: they find the one scientist or paper that supports their point of view and says it’s evidence for their opinion.
Liberals, having a plethora of papers to sort through, have grown accustomed to simply squashing and/or attempting to discredit scientists and articles. Sometimes this happens by simple shaming or demanding a recant, and sometimes it means loss of job post or “credentials”, which liberals so treasure.
Both sides are responsible for bogus “science”, bad “science”, phony “science”, and – haha – political science, but in the liberal party, science has become known as a torch of truth. It has become so due to the influence of old Democrats whose power has long been lost and who are gradually becoming molded by the liberal mentality.
Let’s see a case in point: Software Engineers.
Software Engineering And Liberal Politics
Software engineering is a lonely job that requires a ton of math and writing near-perfect instructions. It’s a honesty and architecture spelled out with letters and facts instead of drawn by lines. It’s the ideal job for someone who loves these things. The computer has no intelligence without the programmer, and thus the programmer – in a sense – gives life to they machine, making him feel fulfilled as a creator.
The desire to be a creator (and its expression in architecture), the love of truth (including logic and mathematics), and the seeking of perfection are all God-given. They are wonderful. They also come with a territory.
If you love truth, you have to be willing to admit things that aren’t particularly comfortable, such as when you’re wrong. If you programming something incorrectly, the computer either won’t understand or will do exactly what you told it, whether or not that was in line with your expectations. If it does something stupid, that’s your fault, not the computer’s.
The truth may upset you, but only because you choose to be upset at it. If you can put such emotions behind you, you can become a better, more productive software engineer.
Ok, so we have a very fact-based of job. Sounds like it’s for men. What’s it have to do with liberal politics?
It turns out, an overwhelming number of software engineers tend to have personalities that MBTI labels “INTP”. They love the truth, love math, love architecture, and – being the kind that prioritizes these things – they set aside emotions. That’s not to say they don’t have any, but actions based on emotion don’t take priority. However, INTPs also tend to be a minority… a very, very small minority (roughly between 1 and 2% of the population). That automatically makes them liberal, but there’s more. INTPs also believe in social justice, social welfare, and social equality (as described in my previous post, not in any random article you’ll find online). The social justice mentality stems from their natural human sense of morality. Their social welfare mentality stems from their desire for the good of the abstract idea of humanity (since they have a communal side to their character, as all humans do, but can abstract the idea of human to humanity). The social welfare mentality in combination with their architectural nature thinks socialism is the optimal economic solution. Their desire for social equality stems from the fact that they, as individuals, are very lonely, and would like to have people respect them and their opinions and thus they can sympathize with others. Furthermore, they are adept at seeing possibilities and understanding through someone else’s eyes based on their ability to imagine. (Recall that note on sympathy I made earlier.)
Ok, INTPs share much in common with liberals. Point made.
Unfortunately, the things INTPs love – which make them great software engineers – don’t blend at all with “liberal politics”.
First, INTPs believe in meritocracy. If you contribute the most and best work, you get to be leader. Liberal ethics doesn’t promote merit because that’s a tenant of the enemy (conservatives). Everyone should have the same say, and this would be democratic.
Second, if you recall from my previous post, honesty in liberalism is a sin when in calls attention to the faults of other liberals. Other liberals can never be at fault. The problem may be with a submission/article/society/etc, but the person is never at fault. Therefore, anything that calls attention to the inadequacy, incompetence, or stupidity of another person must be overlooked. INTPs are “brutally honest”. Actually, they aren’t brutal. They are simply honest, having no intention whatsoever to target the emotions of another person because they don’t naturally think in such terms. However, to emotionally-driven individuals who believe every statement says something about a person, the natural INTP is are considered “brutal”. Hence, the comments some INTPs may make to their peers could be easily construed as insulting and thus “anti-liberal”.
However, INTPs very readily adapt – not because of cooperation (as most liberals believe) – but because INTPs, being logical, don’t always see the adaptation as interfering with their own goals. Second, INTPs tend to be moved by peer pressure because they prefer evading conflict – it’s emotionally uncomfortable.
Software engineers, in effort to appease their liberal friends, have decided to undergo “character adjustment”. Case in point: Linus Torvalds.
The Linus Torvalds Case
Last September, Linus Torvalds, the creator and lead developer of Linux, decided to allow a shift in the ethics of the Linux Project by letting a non-programmer morph the “Codes of Conflict” into a “Codes of Conduct” that outright states the core emotion-based liberal agenda: be kind to all minorities and if you’re not, we’ll punish you (by kicking you out).
Civility is a bit of a problem in software groups, and though engineers think it’s often better to lose people than incorporate crap, the best solution would be to simply present useful fact as fact without any emotion-inducing words attached (e.g. “This code needs to be improved in XYZ here, here, and here.”). I’ve read Torvalds had some serious rants, so for that, his free choice to improve his character is most welcome. The unfortunate part is that he accompanied this by allowing the imposition of the entire emotionally-driven liberal political agenda, not simply a better code of conduct.
Forcing a system of ethics never works, and engineers aren’t stupid. A huge number of people voiced dissent. However, since no one has the time to maintain a huge code base, few people will fork the code, and everything will remain centralized because it’s easy. This means everyone who uses Linux will end up with the same buggy code that couldn’t be rejected because it would have hurt the feelings of the contributor.
Physics always defeats politics. With more buggy code floating around, software will be vulnerable to cracking, which will then empower thieves to steal money digitally, trash identities, and destroy lives.
As more “big projects” in software succumb to the mush of liberal mentality, the rest of the world will suffer along with them. The problem never stops with simply “correcting character”. Eventually, software will become a wall garden wherein only party members will be allowed access to new versions. Project leaders will become other minorities – not by merit, but by liberal choice – leaving projects disorganized and eventually abandoned due to management through favoritism (popularity contests) rather than reward.
Women (and Minorities) in Software
There is an unending amount of talk of increasing the number of women in software. The efforts are as fruitless as trying to raise the Atlantic Ocean to the level of the Pacific, but it happens nonetheless.
Let’s reiterate. Liberals focus on promoting minorities. If we can construe a particular description of people as being a statistical minority, then it automatically deserves liberal focus. Women are a particular case because they 1) embody liberal character traits and 2) are disadvantaged in numerous settings. Thus, a perfect “cause” for liberal support is “women in the workplace”. Naturally, this includes jobs in software.
As a note on hypocrisy, no one ever talks about the “female brick layers” or “female steel workers” or “women pumping septic tanks”. Any gross, menial task must be left to men, whereas the high-paying or power-wielding jobs – C.E.O., business executive, doctor, software developer, POTUS, etc – are all competitive. There are a couple of cases of women using the liberal agenda as a tool to guilt-trip people into giving them the job, but my examples are all East Coast politicians and thus don’t count as average liberals.
Software, however, is an odd case. It can be a high-paying job, but it’s not one women usually want. Liberals come up with lots of reasons for this – the harsh programming culture, the alleged “sexism”/bigotry of male software developers (which I have never once witnessed in over a decade, though I won’t deny it’s possible), the social forces of family and friends. But none of these reasons cuts to the heart.
That’s why James D’amore got his “heretical” idea that maybe, just maybe, it might be due to the natural, genetically-built-in tendencies of men and women. He was on interesting track and may have gotten somewhere if the other liberals had let him finish.
As it turns out, the statistical divide in software engineering between men and women can be explained quite easily as a matter of the personal preference of personality types acting in tandem with the distribution of the sexes possessing that type.
Recall that INTPs tend to be software engineers. A number of other personality types also become software engineers, including ISTJs, ENTJs, INTJs, etc. It’s something “Thinker”-types enjoy because it’s like a puzzle game. I think we can safely assume that, for every male of a specific personality type that chooses software engineering, there is a female of that same personality type who also chooses software engineering. It’s also safe to assume that software engineering is predominantly INTPs, as evidenced by the nature of the job and the very culture surrounding it. So far, everything seems even. The last bit is the concerning part. As it turns out, INTP males outnumber INTP females by a ratio of 2 to 1. That’s just population statistics (birth rate) found via personality tests and self-identification. But since everyone else in this field has picked employment at a one-to-one ration, it means that females will be outnumbered 2-to-1.
Exactly what is the current percentage of males to females in software? 2-to-1.
I rest my case.
Inasmuch as there is great good that could come from liberalism, liberal politics is slowly killing anything good that has ever come out of liberals.
Liberalism was supposed to embrace diversity because we could take joy in our differences and learn new things from each other. Liberal politics has reduced “diversity” to “special interest groups”. The open-mindedness that could be so beneficial in seeking solutions has been siphoned into promoting the heavily diluted and meaningless slogans of “change” and “progress”.
Liberalism was supposed to support the oppressed. Liberal politics has only oppressed for the sake of supporting “special interest groups”, which are ironically the majorities within the liberal party.
Liberal education was supposed to enlighten by broadening the average person’s perspective of the world through new and interesting information. Instead, it has been hijacked, tailored to the desires of “special interest groups” and programmed for propaganda instead of being fashioned to better teach the truth. The very act of brainwashing that liberals call out conservatives for is the very thing liberals are themselves doing.
The education system is decaying, as evidenced by decreasing grades. No, people are not any more stupid or “mentally challenged” as in any previous era. It’s just poor teaching, poor textbooks, and poor methodologies because the priority is politics instead of truth.
The institutions for community welfare – championed by liberals – are either exploited or so overly laden with paper work that many people truly in need don’t have the time or persistence to get past the red tape, which liberals themselves have written up.
Basically, modern liberal politics has resulted in the execution of its own mentality.
The factions of the liberal party are losing their identity. Liberals believe one day, the mass bulk of humanity should and will be a homogeneous mass, which everyone the same height, same hair, and a mixture of races. It won’t. Too many factors prevent this. The primary factor is, ironically, liberals themselves.
Liberal politics has isolated a number of its members. It’s not just their voice that has been lost; it’s also their own little subcultures, which people need psychologically to feel comfortable and at home. Instead of people acting natural and it being understood that is is their nature, they melt into the mold of the no-longer-freeing “liberal” ideology.
For those already isolated, it means the only safe zones for expressing opinion and acting in character are now the back corners of the internet, where anonymity never gets you in serious trouble. If other liberals have their way, however, even these safe zones will disappear because liberal ideology is opposed to free thought.
Most conservatives are content to watch liberalism decay as it eats away at itself like a cannibalistic hydra. That would be a sad fate for many good ideas that society needs.
The story shouldn’t end there. There is hope… if one wants it. See Part 4.