I don't know where this idea that tech is "progressive" comes from. The entire idea of "progressive" is based on the fallacy that there is a forward direction to progress towards.
All of the major breakthroughs that made modern science a thing were done by devout conservative Christians intent on understanding the state of the universe.
I myself studied physics in part out of a devotion to God and with the intent to understand his mind and will. I pursued programming as a career for similar reasons. I'm about as far from a "progressive" as you can imagine and yet in my whole life I can count on one hand the people I've met with similar ability. And they were all more conservative than liberal.
It sounds like we're not on the same page here so let me explain my view. It is my belief that within the progressive movement, what we call radical liberals, there's a much more diverse spectrum of ideology than simply lefties. It's similar to how liberal minded folk broadly paint us as "far right wing" en masse. As you know we're far more diverse than that, with even more conservatives branching off into pro-abortion and pro-apostasy evangelicals. It is my belief that liberals share that diverse nature within their holistic group. I find three different tiers of liberalism exist: modernists, extremists and radicals. What I believe is that the radicals are the most vocal representation of their population despite consisting of the minority. There might be majority of passive liberals who remain silent as those radicals and extremists voice their concerns as the rest do not. The same principle applies to conservatives who remain passive, happy with their society as those who dissent encourage change without opposition.
I figure you've probably already seen this one but if you haven't it's a fantastic read on topic of progressive versus normal traits of society and how change occurs:
In few words, my point is that the minority foster change while the majority allow it. It doesn't mean everyone necessarily wants it, but that they will permit it, meaning they do not oppose it. In that context liberals favor societal change without limits whereas conservative types also do, except within their model of permissible behavior. As an example a liberal of any type is far more likely to accept rap as their preferred genre of music than conservatives. Many modern and classic churches still consider rock music to be evil, but this is based on leadership rather than the general population. The majority of young people I know do enjoy rock and some even gothic heavy metal despite it being classified as anathema. The realistic consensus and the perceived one do not match despite there being an agreement. It's somewhat of a societal paradox the word "majority" does not imply consensus, but rather an accord.
To return to my initial point, progressives passively view change without resistance, whereas conservatives allow such a thing only if it fits their norms. A great demonstration of this principle is how liberals are far more likely to allow their kids to have unrestricted access on their phones and some conservatives may not allow their children to have phones until middle or even high school. It's not necessarily that they're against phones themselves but the unknown, unpredictable, and uncontrollable situations that arise cannot be tolerated or accepted when they are beyond the parent's authority. Both are capable of engaging in tech culture, but traditional families know they will struggle far more with that interference in their lives than a liberal who thinks a psychologist can solve any problem their children have for them. It's very true liberals have far more struggles adapting to tech culture as families. Look at the divorce, suicide, depression, and mental illness rates of high-tech liberals compared to conservative families. Liberals are far more likely to accept progressive technology even if it harms their lives. Adult gender reveal parties immediately come to mind.
I don't know where this idea that tech is "progressive" comes from. The entire idea of "progressive" is based on the fallacy that there is a forward direction to progress towards.
All of the major breakthroughs that made modern science a thing were done by devout conservative Christians intent on understanding the state of the universe.
I myself studied physics in part out of a devotion to God and with the intent to understand his mind and will. I pursued programming as a career for similar reasons. I'm about as far from a "progressive" as you can imagine and yet in my whole life I can count on one hand the people I've met with similar ability. And they were all more conservative than liberal.
It sounds like we're not on the same page here so let me explain my view. It is my belief that within the progressive movement, what we call radical liberals, there's a much more diverse spectrum of ideology than simply lefties. It's similar to how liberal minded folk broadly paint us as "far right wing" en masse. As you know we're far more diverse than that, with even more conservatives branching off into pro-abortion and pro-apostasy evangelicals. It is my belief that liberals share that diverse nature within their holistic group. I find three different tiers of liberalism exist: modernists, extremists and radicals. What I believe is that the radicals are the most vocal representation of their population despite consisting of the minority. There might be majority of passive liberals who remain silent as those radicals and extremists voice their concerns as the rest do not. The same principle applies to conservatives who remain passive, happy with their society as those who dissent encourage change without opposition.
I figure you've probably already seen this one but if you haven't it's a fantastic read on topic of progressive versus normal traits of society and how change occurs:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.hr22nda85
In few words, my point is that the minority foster change while the majority allow it. It doesn't mean everyone necessarily wants it, but that they will permit it, meaning they do not oppose it. In that context liberals favor societal change without limits whereas conservative types also do, except within their model of permissible behavior. As an example a liberal of any type is far more likely to accept rap as their preferred genre of music than conservatives. Many modern and classic churches still consider rock music to be evil, but this is based on leadership rather than the general population. The majority of young people I know do enjoy rock and some even gothic heavy metal despite it being classified as anathema. The realistic consensus and the perceived one do not match despite there being an agreement. It's somewhat of a societal paradox the word "majority" does not imply consensus, but rather an accord.
To return to my initial point, progressives passively view change without resistance, whereas conservatives allow such a thing only if it fits their norms. A great demonstration of this principle is how liberals are far more likely to allow their kids to have unrestricted access on their phones and some conservatives may not allow their children to have phones until middle or even high school. It's not necessarily that they're against phones themselves but the unknown, unpredictable, and uncontrollable situations that arise cannot be tolerated or accepted when they are beyond the parent's authority. Both are capable of engaging in tech culture, but traditional families know they will struggle far more with that interference in their lives than a liberal who thinks a psychologist can solve any problem their children have for them. It's very true liberals have far more struggles adapting to tech culture as families. Look at the divorce, suicide, depression, and mental illness rates of high-tech liberals compared to conservative families. Liberals are far more likely to accept progressive technology even if it harms their lives. Adult gender reveal parties immediately come to mind.