Anti-intellectualism

[DaShi]

On topic, one of the foreign teachers at my school here, who is from a country in the West that begins with a C and ends with an Anada, basically came out and told me that he hates intellectuals and sees them as incompetent and arrogant *******s. He told me how he thought how much his factory buddies were really smarter than them. After hearing his other factory stories, I dismissed all this as plain bigotry.

On another note, one of my good friends in America is perhaps one of the smartest people I know. Never went to college, spent most of his life getting high and getting married, and spent some time in jail for arson. However, he excelled at every job he worked in. Within a few months he found himself promoted to top position for someone with his education. And usually at about that time he'd quit. He now works as a doorman in the building I used to live in, which is very close to Yale. In fact, more of its tenents are Yale students or professors. He doesn't feel inferior to them. He understands fully the choices that he made.

[Ted Striker]

that reminds me of that movie with matt damon, ben affleck, and robin williams where the kid is a janitor at harvard and is a genius

[BeBro]

I´d also say that often the "arrogance" is probably only an inability to communicate - if you can´t make clear what you mean so that also non-intellectual types understand you, don´t wonder about the reaction.

[Whaleboy]

I don't see how this is a logical position to take. I mean, sure, there're a lot of different ways that intelligence (or talent, if you prefer) can manifest itself, but it doesn't follow that everybody's abilities are going to add up to some magic number -- it's entirely possible (and much more probable) that some people are going to be more generally competent than average, while others are going to be more generally incompetent than average. The point is that competence doesn't equate to human worth, regardless of if we're talking about intellectual competence or physical competence or whatever.

Possibly, I fully accept that my idea was simplistic, but its a feature of relativism that a subjective that is different cannot be objectively inferior. I extend that to humans, as we are all, after all, unique.

There's always the possibility that you're being bullied because you're an easy target, not because you're an intellectual. I've got a friend who's an intellectual, so I make fun of him for being an intellectual. I've got another friend who's a preppy, so I make fun of him for being a preppy. They, in turn, make fun of me for being loinburger. However, it's not that I'm anti-intellectual or anti-preppy, and it's not that my friends are anti-loinburger; in other words, I'm willing to bet that if you went out of your way to start acting like a dunderhead, then most of the people who are currently anti-intellectuals will probably turn into anti-dunderheads.

Possible, but I dress in a fairly fasionable way (sort of bohemian, dur), my most outward sign is my sexuality and my academic pursuits. I am accepted by most people at college, except those that really shouldn't be there . You cannot deny that anti-intellectualism does not exist. I am stating with a good degree of certainty that I am a victim of it.

[reds4ever]

Hey!!! I made a sig!!!!! Happy days!!!!!!!!!!

[Whaleboy]

that reminds me of that movie with matt damon, ben affleck, and robin williams where the kid is a janitor at harvard and is a genius

Good Will Hunting. Good film. Shows flaws in education system .

I´d also say that often the "arrogance" is probably only an inability to communicate - if you can´t make clear what you mean so that also non-intellectual types understand you, don´t wonder about the reaction.

True, which is the fault of the intellectual for attempting to communicate with those that do not want to listen. That does not mean that there is any sense of superiority, perhaps social ineptness. Unfortunately, lack of interest is not our concern, and it is that that breeds misunderstanding, hence mistrust and conflict. It is not the intellectual who is not interested. The education system must be improved.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Possibly, I fully accept that my idea was simplistic, but its a feature of relativism that a subjective that is different cannot be objectively inferior. I extend that to humans, as we are all, after all, unique.



Possible, but I dress in a fairly fasionable way (sort of bohemian, dur), my most outward sign is my sexuality and my academic pursuits. I am accepted by most people at college, except those that really shouldn't be there . You cannot deny that anti-intellectualism does not exist. I am stating with a good degree of certainty that I am a victim of it.

u smart sexy sensible oppressed person.

wtf, am I suppose to feel sympathy for an intelligent person in college? what is wrong w/ u god damn self victimizing turds.

[Whaleboy]

u smart sexy sensible oppressed person.

wtf, am I suppose to feel sympathy for an intelligent person in college? what is wrong w/ u god damn self victimizing turds.

To think that I only just took you off the list

*Firing IGNORE cannons!*

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


To think that I only just took you off the list

*Firing IGNORE cannons!*

that would be the intellectually prudent thing to do.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True, which is the fault of the intellectual for attempting to communicate with those that do not want to listen.

Yes, certainly such things happen. However, it is IMO much worse when people really want to listen or to learn and those who have the specific knowledge aren´t able (or don´t see the need) to explain it in a way that is helpful.

[Whaleboy]

True, but I don't believe that leads to impressions of arrogance.

[asleepathewheel]

I might have missed it (probably), but how exactly have you been victimized? Recently I mean, (I'm not talking about school yard bullies, though I have no idea of your age).

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by yavoon


that would be the intellectually prudent thing to do.

lol OMFG PWNDD!!!11!!!!1

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


lol OMFG PWNDD!!!11!!!!1

irony

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In my own life I was bullied frequently at school for not being "one of the boys", so to speak. As a result, most of my friends, then and now, were female, where the situation was far better. Women tend ot accept me as an interesting person as opposed to someone who made sweet love to books every lunchtime.

As an adult, one still comes up against a brick wall when you try to be outwardly intellectual. Most people will say "I do not understand", or rather, won't want to understand for the sake of their pragmatic concerns. I have no problem with that, as long as they dont pick up on anything vaguely polysyllabic and proclaim that they are not intellectuals thereof. What is worse are the people that attack or criticise you for being intellectual, that laugh at you for being philosophical or political. That goes for liberals and conservatives alike.

Do you think you may have been guilty of straying over the line that separates "intelligent" from "ball-achingly pretentious"?

[gamenaught]

I am not a habitual Bush-basher but anti-intellectualism coming from a head of state worries me. Especially when it attacks the branch of government with the responsibility of protecting constitutional rights and could undermine our system of checks and balances:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such importance, the people's voice must be heard.

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

That quote from Bush's State of the Union address sounds like something former-Alabama judge Roy Moore would say.

On the other hand, maybe I've been watching too many Hitler documentaries on the History Channel.

[Whaleboy]

I might have missed it (probably), but how exactly have you been victimized? Recently I mean, (I'm not talking about school yard bullies, though I have no idea of your age).

Just get stick from people in my classes, particularly when I get involved in a lesson or a class debate, and people hassling me in the college canteen when I'm on my own.

Do you think you may have been guilty of straying over the line that separates "intelligent" from "ball-achingly pretentious"?

Not entirely sure what you mean, but no, not really. I am different, I have been attacked because of it. I don't rub it in peoples faces that I read and write a lot. I don't advertise the fact that I like thinking. Nor do I communicate a feeling of superiority. People, however, know of my activites. Can someone explain how this is not anti-intellectualism?

Why are people seemingly so determined to propose that this does not exist, or is not a problem?

[Whaleboy]

gamenaught:

I'll spare you the DL dance for that

[BeBro]

Well, we don´t understand that you complain when most of your friends - you said - are women/girls

[Shi Huangdi]

Whaleboy, aren't you the one who said liberalism was something for the intellectual elite, but yet doomed as the great majority of stupid people find it to hard to comprehend, or something like that?

[gamenaught]

Another example of worrisome anti-intellectualism is faith-based social and political agendas. Assuming things on blind faith – despite all evidence and all logic to the contrary – is, by definition, anti-intellectualism.

[Whaleboy]

Well, we don´t understand that you complain when most of your friends - you said - are women/girls

Conflicting timetables result in me spending much time on my lonesome.

Whaleboy, aren't you the one who said liberalism was something for the intellectual elite, but yet doomed as the great majority of stupid people find it to hard to comprehend, or something like that?

Wrong way round. I said that intellectuals were more likely to be liberals, not liberals are more likely to intellectual. And yes, those without an education in certain philosophical or political principles are going to find elements of liberalism, particularly pacifism and libertarianism, hard to understand. It's so nice to be unhindered by political correctness.

Another example of worrisome anti-intellectualism is faith-based social and political agendas. Assuming things on blind faith – despite all evidence and all logic to the contrary – is, by definition, anti-intellectualism.

I'd say non-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is a specific objection to intellectuals.

[Solly]

The fact is "intellectuals" tend to be stuck talking about IQ and their little theories, rather than looking at what works in practice. Ideologies and intellect can only figure so much - and only then when they themselves affect practice.

And of course there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Just get stick from people in my classes, particularly when I get involved in a lesson or a class debate, and people hassling me in the college canteen when I'm on my own.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that has anything to do with intellectualism or similar notions. They probably don't even consider you to be an intellectual, I certainly didn't consider anyone I was in class with to be an intellectual, I just considered them to be other students. That is not to say I wasn't impressed with some's knowledge, but the notion of elevating a 20 year old to a loftier state due to class contribution is a bit... farcical. And frankly, I found some of the people that did speak all the time to be more annoying than intellectual, perhaps that is your problem. Remember, no one likes a teacher's pet, even fewer like someone who pretends to be an expert in an undergrad (or beyond) class. Its great to contribute to class, but if you're not careful, you're likely to come off as a blowhard, which should not be confused with being anti-intellectual. I think that's more likely to be the case, they just don't like your in-class personality.

And again, I don't mean that to be rude, because I've run across similar types myself (usually it is just jealousy for grades or some such silly notion, not that they thought I was more intellectual than them. just bitterness because I put in the effort they didn't, the difference in my case)

[Whaleboy]

The fact is "intellectuals" tend to be stuck talking about IQ and their little theories, rather than looking at what works in practice. Ideologies and intellect can only figure so much - and only then when they themselves affect practice.

IQ's are irrelevant we can ignore that. "Little theories" are important because they can be interpreted by others who then impliment them. In other words, it is like the relationship between a headlight and a driver. A car can function with neither on a dark road.

What you are doing is presenting a method of judging something subjectively. You are saying that the worthiness of a concept is related to its ease of application. You are suggesting that this external relationship and subjective judge is really an innate property and an objective measure of validity. You're not going to be able to pull that one off .

And of course there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

Yes Park Avenue, there is the general arrogance and aloofness.

[Solly]

See.

[Solly]

Intellectuals also seem to ignore human emotions and feelings with their pursuit for absolute rationality. Well guess what, we aren't rational creatures.

Just because it is difficult to express why people take a particular position (ie, provide a "logical" sequence or whatever) does not mean their position is any less valid.

Why do I lift weights..because I like the feeling it gives. Why do I dislike ***s..because I dislike being around them and what they say.

You could argue that it's the intellectuals who are just not in touch with their feelings and that.

[Whaleboy]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think that has anything to do with intellectualism or similar notions. They probably don't even consider you to be an intellectual, I certainly didn't consider anyone I was in class with to be an intellectual, I just considered them to be other students. That is not to say I wasn't impressed with some's knowledge, but the notion of elevating a 20 year old to a loftier state due to class contribution is a bit... farcical. And frankly, I found some of the people that did speak all the time to be more annoying than intellectual, perhaps that is your problem. Remember, no one likes a teacher's pet, even fewer like someone who pretends to be an expert in an undergrad (or beyond) class. Its great to contribute to class, but if you're not careful, you're likely to come off as a blowhard, which should not be confused with being anti-intellectual. I think that's more likely to be the case, they just don't like your in-class personality.

A reasonable statement, however I do my best not to come off as a blowhard, I dont make as many statements in class, particularly avoid very contentious ones and ask questions instead. In class, unlike real world, I'm there to complete a course. Incidentally, the situation you describe is an example of anti-intellectualism.

And again, I don't mean that to be rude, because I've run across similar types myself (usually it is just jealousy for grades or some such silly notion, not that they thought I was more intellectual than them. just bitterness because I put in the effort they didn't, the difference in my case)

As I said before.

[Whaleboy]

Intellectuals also seem to ignore human emotions and feelings with their pursuit for absolute rationality. Well guess what, we aren't rational creatures.

Easy there Monsieur Velocitie. You are vastly generalising intellectualism. Not all intellectuals are logicians. Look at my ideas properly and you will see that is not the case with me either. What about certain emotional theories in philosophy, like Schopenhaur's, or maybe even a basic like emotivism? Have you even read Plato's Republic?

Just because it is difficult to express why people take a particular position (ie, provide a "logical" sequence or whatever) does not mean their position is any less valid

That sounds familiar!! All that relativism means however is that we cannot impose one view upon another. However, we can attack the strength of the logic used to back it up. A debate will never destroy a point of view, or render it inherently invalid, nothing can do that. All we can do is critique the logical basis that precludes the conclusion.

Why do I lift weights..because I like the feeling it gives. Why do I dislike ***s..because I dislike being around them and what they say.

***s?? What are ***s?

You could argue that it's the intellectuals who are just not in touch with their feelings and that.

You could argue that. You would also be shot down in flames. It is a grossly over generalised position. You have provided very little reason for that, and the only reasons you have provided were easily refuted. Try again.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Wrong way round. I said that intellectuals were more likely to be liberals, not liberals are more likely to intellectual. And yes, those without an education in certain philosophical or political principles are going to find elements of liberalism, particularly pacifism and libertarianism, hard to understand."

There you go. You show your arrogance right there. Perhaps you could try being a little more humble?