Anti-intellectualism

[Standup]

IMHO it's more worrying when they dislike/hate/bully/tease someone because they do well, or get good grades

I agree and its one of the few good things about the public school system (but lets not get sidetracked) in that seems to be much less victimisation of people who want to do well. When i announced i was going to university i was laughed at and that was the careers officer ! People from my school didn't go to university apparently.

But even though i agree with you i'm probably still in the vaguely anti-intellectual camp because of the way people are measured by qualifications or which school/uni they went to.

I just learnt to keep my head down and not ask questions or ask them out of class. I was never sure though what the teachers thought of me - a delight to teach or really annoying

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Drogue
People hate the person who answers questions. That is anti-intellectualism.

Depends, really. I've been in a lot of classes where I (and the rest of the class) have hated the guy (or girl) who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions (and he/she has received flak for doing so), yet I've also been in a lot of classes where I've been the guy who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions yet I've never received any flak for it. It's really just a matter of how much courtesy the know-is-all is showing the rest of the class, IMO -- the folks who answer all of the questions whom I've given flak are the kind of people who immediately shout out the answer, or (in extreme cases) interrupt other people who are trying to answer the question. They're not getting flak because the class is full of anti-intellectuals, they're getting flak because they're honyocks.

[Standup]

honyocks

Never heard that before and i'm not sure i could even guess what it means ?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Whaleboy, if you could, please define the differences between intellectual, nerd and arrogant snob.

Intellectual:

a person who uses the mind creatively

of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

Basically, someone who thinks about issues/problems/things and who's opinions are based on their thoughts, not just on emotions. Typically used to mean those people who think for themselves, usually through academic training, and those who are intelligent enough to grant most concepts. Ie. most people here.

Nerd: A usually introverted person, lacking in social skills, who's interests and free time is spent doing academic things, at the expense of a social life or hobbys. A colloquial term.

Snob:

a person regarded as arrogant and annoying

Arrogance:

overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

and just to clarify:
Overbearing:

expecting unquestioning obedience; "he was imperious and dictatorial"; "the timid child of authoritarian parents"; "insufferably overbearing behavior toward the waiter"

So an arrogant snob is someone who feels they are better than other people, and expects other people to agree with them and do what they say.

Therefore, someone could be all three, since they are not mutually exclusive, but they could be any one of the three without being either of the other two. Someone can use their mind creatively without being arrogant, but being arrogant does not preclude you from thinking about a problem of the mind, and being an intellectual.

The three are distinct and seperate, so I must ask the purpose of your question?

BTW: all definitions from hyperdictionary.com, which takes them from the WordNet Dictionary IIRC.

[loinburger]

Never heard that before and i'm not sure i could even guess what it means ?

My football coach used to call me a honyock when he was especially pissed off at me. I concluded that it must not be anything good and left it at that.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Don't bite my head off lads, but in apportioning the blame, maybe youre confusing 'intellectualism' for 'poor people skills' or varying combinations of the two? Just a thought, I'm back off to play Dominoes on Yahoo! ;O)

Nope. As I just posted, the two are seperate. Sure, if you have good personal skills you are far less likely to be bullied for being intellectual, but the UK does have a problem with reverse snobbery. If I can find it, I'll quote a bit from an article in a Cambridge University magazine on it. Many people are ashamed to go to good universities, because when people ask them, and they say it, people seem to judge them, to see if they are that special. I think it's changing, and I'm glad. I've got nothing other than respect for getting into a good university, but many don't.

This isn't a personal problem for Whaleboy, as many seem to view it, this is an endemic problem that faces schools especially all over the country. Geek, nerd, boff, etc., are all common insults in schools, purely because someone's done well at an exam or an academic subject.

[St Leo]

"you came from dozens of German-language colonies and villages in today's European Russia, in the coastal range and in the west of Romania, of northeast Yugoslavia, from the west of the Tschechei and from the southeast of Austria. With each stop on their way to the North American prairies they heard also, how one gave them with insult words veraechtliche names: "Russian, Rossbunds, Pruskies, Bobunks, Hunkies, Honyocks, Polacks."

Those lousy German uberexpatriate intellectuals.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Drogue

This isn't a personal problem for Whaleboy, as many seem to view it....

How odd, he has been doing his best job to make us believe otherwise.

[asleepathewheel]

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by monkspider
How odd, he has been doing his best job to make us believe otherwise.

In his posts maybe, but IMHO you have misunderstood what he was trying to do. He said in his first problem that he has had problems with it, as an example, and then asked, since many here are intellectual, if they have had experiences or seen this happen. What I'm meaning is that this isn't just soemthing happening to him. At the national teachers conference they had speakers on why this happens in schools. It is commonly seen as it happening. It's natural, when someones does well, others try to bring them down to make those people think better of themselves. Kids generally being worse because they don't know any better, and are less mature. Reverse snobbery, people looking down on people because they have achieved, especially with regards to a decent degree, is rampant.

Another related problem is that due to the growth of tabloid newspapers, that can dictate policy to the majority of people who don't really care, so believe what they read, is a problem. Many people, when voting for example, do not think critically or intellectually about who they are going to vote for. They vote on prejudices and whims. This isn't just about voting either. When talking about opinions on anything, people look down somewhat on those they see as intellectual, because they think that that person thinks they are better than others, whether they are or not.

I have had people who have never spoken to me say to me "you think you're so much better than us don't you". They thought that because they heard I had done well at something, and presumed that I felt I was better than others because of it. This without ever having heard me speak. They thought because I had achieved something intellectual that it made me arrogant. Sure, some intellectual people are arrogant, but many are not. A lot of people here seem to presume that those that are intellectual are arrogant and think they're better than others, without any evidence or idea if they actually are. That is anti-intellectualism, and sadly, is quite widespread here

[Ned]

Drogue, good answer, as Whaleboy's problem may lie elsewhere than being an intellectual.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by loinburger
Depends, really. I've been in a lot of classes where I (and the rest of the class) have hated the guy (or girl) who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions (and he/she has received flak for doing so), yet I've also been in a lot of classes where I've been the guy who answers all of the questions or asks all of the questions yet I've never received any flak for it. It's really just a matter of how much courtesy the know-is-all is showing the rest of the class, IMO -- the folks who answer all of the questions whom I've given flak are the kind of people who immediately shout out the answer, or (in extreme cases) interrupt other people who are trying to answer the question. They're not getting flak because the class is full of anti-intellectuals, they're getting flak because they're honyocks.

If that was the whole case over here, then I'd be fine with it. That is true of some places here, but many you will get flak for answering questions, even without interrupting people or being rude. Quite often if someone gets a good mark, they get flak. This is mostly a problem at around 11-15 age, as after that, exams get more serious and people are more mature, but it is a large problem, and I've seen quite a few talented people hold themselves back so they wouldn't be given flak. Thats only part of the anti-intellectualism thing, as mentioned in my answer to monkspider above.

[Whaleboy]

How odd, he has been doing his best job to make us believe otherwise.

Not at all, if you would actually read my posts and their follow ups, you will see otherwise. May I please emphasise that my examples are just that. Examples. It would be a bit of a waste of time if I were not referring to a more general situation. It just so happens that I have been victimised because of it.

Drogue, good answer, as Whaleboy's problem may lie elsewhere than being an intellectual.

I am happy that I have established otherwise, and frankly, when it comes to details of a posters life, one should believe what one is told, as opposed to searching for an ad hominem where there isn't one.

A lot of people here seem to presume that those that are intellectual are arrogant and think they're better than others, without any evidence or idea if they actually are.

Agreed. There is a lot more on this forum than I anticipated as well!

Quite often if someone gets a good mark, they get flak.

So true, and I've seen people who were academically gifted throw it all away in order to avoid the abuse.

after that, exams get more serious and people are more mature

That really depends on the institution and the demographic of its students. At the place I study, one still receives much flak.

Another related problem is that due to the growth of tabloid newspapers, that can dictate policy to the majority of people who don't really care, so believe what they read, is a problem. Many people, when voting for example, do not think critically or intellectually about who they are going to vote for. They vote on prejudices and whims. This isn't just about voting either. When talking about opinions on anything, people look down somewhat on those they see as intellectual, because they think that that person thinks they are better than others, whether they are or not.

. I can almost imagine it now. An politician comes up with an accessible philosophy of life that differs from the standard and becomes mildly contraversial, up come the tabloids saying "are you going to let this boffin tell you how to live"? etc etc. Speaking purely as a student of critical theory, I dislike like.

Perhaps it is symptomatic of the phenomenon of dumbing down. If you distributed a political manifesto outlining in could-be-simpler language some abstract concepts in all but intellectual, educated circles, it would not merely be ignored but rejected. We are left instead with tabloid hear say.

I just learnt to keep my head down and not ask questions or ask them out of class. I was never sure though what the teachers thought of me - a delight to teach or really annoying

I would encourage you to raise fingers (the number of which is your choice) to the bullies and ask away! Ultimately, their prejudices (as highlighted clearly in this thread) should not stand in the way of your education.

But even though i agree with you i'm probably still in the vaguely anti-intellectual camp because of the way people are measured by qualifications or which school/uni they went to.

Oh I agree with that, but intellectualism is not about classification of individuals based on some subjective and highly flawed measure. I see the situation as where one is judged on what one says and does, not on where one has studied.

You can be highly intellectual and not have gone to university (I hope ).

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

Loinburger is assuming that an intellectual who is like-for-like as socially able as a rugby player, who asks a question in class would not get more flak than the rugby player asking the same question in the same manner.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by loinburger
This is again, I think, because when somebody loudly proclaims "I am smart!" we tend to hear an implicit claim of "I am a better human being than you are!" (probably because we've heard so many explicit claims like this in the past),

Yeah, I try to explain to people that my faith in my brain does not equate to a belief of superiority, but I guess they're just too stupid/closeminded to comprehend that.
The Irony, O the Irony...

I seem arrogant to people. Point taken, my belief that I can solve any problem I need to, and my inherent experience that nobody else is going to, leads me to proclaim that I'm the wiseman who's going to fix their problems.
Of course, I attempt to explain that it's a difference in desire rather than ability (I value intelligence ergo I am well trained in intelligence) but they seem to think that I'm doing a class-separation of people based on IQ (I suppose).

Either that, or their memetics cause them to instantly dislike those whose ideologies contradict with their (group's) own... namely my value for questioning over the traditional group value of conformism.
In the runner analogy, A group of Weightlifters are not going to be 'pressured' by a nearby Triathlete to become Triathletes themselves.

The memetics explaination works best for me, since those that don't value compulsive thinking won't consciously discern the motives for their behaviour all the time.
I spend much time figuring them out for myself, because most people can't be assed to figure themselves out.
And of course, in the act of judging others, some folk see me as pretensious (presuming 100% truth in one's own judgement).

I -would- explain this to people, but A. They're not intersted and B. They don't get it. They're content to sit in their ignorant box and live out their lives without much thought as to "Why is that guy who he is?".
Yes, it sounds arrogant, but it's true; a factor of the Thinker's inherent frustration with those who 'Don't get it'.

In Frustration, people try to understand, and so attempt to 'empathise'. I put that in quotes, because they presume that I have the same thought system as they do. (Of course! Why would they contemplate a way of thinking other than their own? Too much of a mental stretch...)
As a result, they equate my frustration with a belief of parity, that I am somehow apart from them (As groups are inherently frustrated by outsiders).
With this belief in parity (formulated in their own minds), my complaints about their inadequacies (hence the frustration) are seen as Arrogance.

In summing up, I'm not arrogant, but you people are too stupid for me to explain it to you.
(Sig takers anyone?)

[Whaleboy]

Enigma:

Political correctness as described by anti-intellectuals is a dangerous thing .

[Drake Tungsten]

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

Agreed. I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I think Loinburger kicks ass.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"retaliatory intolerance"

It appears as if I have an error.
30 minutes later
Fixed. thanks for pointing that out Whaleboy.


EDIT: Yaaay I got a sig.
...Does this prove my egomania in wanting to show my presence in the minds of everyone?
Yes, yes it does. What a vain man!
But then again... I GOT A SIG

[Sandman]

There are lots of intellectuals; doctors, architects, authors, etc.

But the most useless intellectuals are also the ones who are the quickest to proclaim their status as 'intellectual'. Postmodernists, other theorists, cultural commentators, 'contemporary' artists, critics, students etc.

I suppose I'm an intellectual, but I've never thought of myself as one, and I possess a great admiration for those who have actually gone and done something worthwhile. I'm always ready to give people praise for training to be a nurse, for example. So much more useful than what I do.

[Standup]

I would encourage you to raise fingers (the number of which is your choice) to the bullies and ask away! Ultimately, their prejudices (as highlighted clearly in this thread) should not stand in the way of your education.

Oh they didn't - i got to Uni, two degress and consumed vast quantities of booze. I didn't do it the way you suggested though. I changed my behaviour and became 'one of the boys'. Perhaps your insistence on sticking two metaphorical fingers up at your class mates is part of the reason you get a tough time ?

I didn't see it as a big compromise and eventually i realised part of the reason i was asking questions was merely to show off my knowledge, reading etc. The general level of debate in my O Grade english class not being high asking questions was largely irrelevant to my 'learning'. But why not save your questions for later or at a smaller tutorial group if you have them. Depends what you're studying though.

Enigma_Nova, sorry but to me you sound intolerant and arrogant but then i'm just a miserbale old git faced with doing the housework

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by loinburger
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.

And certain that you won't find an objective way to measure!
Occams's razor applies here.
There's always the off chance that people have ignored some aspect of our being, which the 'incompetants' are great at and the 'competants' suck at.
In any way, how do you measure competence across abilities?
Who is better - the Biochemist with his cancer killer or the Physicist with his theory of everything? Both would be outstanding in their field, but who gets the higher 'competency number'?
Now extend this to a Boxing champion. Which number is higher - the boxing champ's boxing ability or the physicist's physics ability?

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.

Enigma calls the ethics board
We have the Green Light on that one.
Perform this experiment. I'm interested to see the results.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I have no problem with anyone calling themself "intelligent". However I'd probably avoid anyone calling themself "intellectual", due to bitter experience. Every person I've met who calls themself "intellectual" has turned out to have a crap personality.

I used to get beaten up at school regularly, but as it was for wearing make-up I don't think it has much bearing on this discussion.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Standup
Oh they didn't - i got to Uni, two degress and consumed vast quantities of booze.

Enigma raises a skeptical eyebrow
So what about those things do you value?

I didn't do it the way you suggested though. I changed my behaviour and became 'one of the boys'. Perhaps your insistence on sticking two metaphorical fingers up at your class mates is part of the reason you get a tough time ?

It's entirely possible, but I reckon people should be able to express their beliefs, and so battle for that.
Conformism is the coward's way out of the conflict!
If people give others a tough time merely because of ignorance or xenophobia (or some other fault of the accuser), then I say we make the Accuser pay, not those who are picked on.

I was initially picked on whenever I moved somewhere, but very quickly people realised that I meant business! The indesire to fight for your beliefs is what tends to get you picked upon. The best way to avoid conflict is to be permanently prepared for it.

I didn't see it as a big compromise and eventually i realised part of the reason i was asking questions was merely to show off my knowledge, reading etc.

Enigma_Nova, sorry but to me you sound intolerant and arrogant

Try not to associate me with yourself.
BTW I do hold contempt for those that attack me or wish to subvert my efforts. Not to say that I'm intolerant, but it would be better for me if these people were no longer in the picture.

I respect that they have their beliefs, of course, and that they will follow them, but if the process of me following my beliefs conflicts with the process of them following their beleifs then there will be conflict!
I'm not so intolerant as I am unwilling to compromise... and not so arrogant as I am self-important. Remember, I am on the extreme end on the Individual / Group scale - You appear to be on the opposite end.
Changing yourself for the group? I honestly cringed at the thought.

Not that I'm intolerant of your belief, but that I would not tolerate myself if I believed what you believe. (Understand?)

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Hey!!! I made a sig!!!!! Happy days!!!!!!!!!!

Then I replaced you.
There is only one word capable of harnessing the power of this instance.
You, sir, have been

0WN3D

[loinburger]

Loinburger is assuming that an intellectual who is like-for-like as socially able as a rugby player, who asks a question in class would not get more flak than the rugby player asking the same question in the same manner.

You're right. I'm "assuming," based on experience, that the "intellectual" is going to get flak for being an arrogant twit -- that the intellectual is not as socially able as the rugby player, because the rugby player doesn't act like a condescending blowhard when he answers questions in class. Your "in the same manner" qualifier implies that you're asking questions in the same manner as a rugby player -- so, try being a rugby player for awhile, ask questions in the same manner, and report back on the results.

There's always the off chance that people have ignored some aspect of our being, which the 'incompetants' are great at and the 'competants' suck at.

And when that "aspect of our being" becomes relevant, then our definition of competence changes. Saying "Well, he might not be scholastically competent enough to get into college in 2004, but maybe he'll be be scholastically competent enough to get into college in 2104, so logically we can't say that he's scholasically incompetent" or whatever is just crap reasoning.

Who is better - the Biochemist with his cancer killer or the Physicist with his theory of everything? Both would be outstanding in their field, but who gets the higher 'competency number'?

Who bloody cares which one gets the higher "competency number"? That's no different than saying "Everybody is equally athletic, because you cannot objectively measure whether an olympic-class sprinter is faster than an olympic-class marathon runner!" Obviously both the chemist and physicist are intelligent, and obviously both the sprinter and the distance runner are athletic. We don't need a more fine-grained definition of intelligence/competence/athleticism/whatever, so the fact that our current definitions are coarse-grained in no way proves that our current definitions are meaningless.

Now extend this to a Boxing champion. Which number is higher - the boxing champ's boxing ability or the physicist's physics ability?

Who is more athletic -- the olympic-class sprinter, or the olympic-class weightlifter? Does the fact that you cannot objectively discriminate between them prove that I'm just as athletic as either one?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

Agreed. I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I think Loinburger kicks ass.

I believe the proper phraseology is:


WU TANG!

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

There are only two things of which we can be certain:
1. The Universe exists
2. Human Stupidity
But, come to think about it, I'm not so sure about the universe.

Lack of Interest is caused by 2 factors (or a lack thereof):
1. A positive influence towards Interest
Parents rush to teach their children family values of respect and conformism, that they ignore to teach their children the difference of people and the value of those not of their kin.
Peers do much the same thing.
In fact, there's hardly any positive voice towards thinking about others represented!
2. An indesire to explore the option themselves.
Most people fear what they don't know.
Most people do not like change.
Most people are lazy.
Ergo, most people have a lack of interest in the thought patterns of others.

Lack of Interest (I shall henceforth call it Ignorance) is a fault of human nature.
The Smacktard Cycle (or ICAS Cycle) uses aspects of Ignorance, Conformism, Apathy and Stupidity to form a culture which devalues questioning and understanding.
I know very well that if we break the smacktard cycle, so that the old SAPIENS values will crumble, will enable a whole new set of values to be brought in.
Static-mindedness
Apathy
Prejudice
Igorance
Egotism (My way is automatically right)
Nonthinking (conformism)
Stupidity
...SAPIENS.
The problem with societies is that they're hard to break, and that they tend to throw endless hurdles at you.
Society, for all its problems, is so obcessed with self-preservation that it tries to take down the problemsolvers (like me) that want to fix it.
Some days I feel like letting Humanity go to ****, but where's the honour in that?

You'd need to undo the Dark Ages, remove the mindless conformism of Despotism and Religion, to even stand a chance of advancing humanity.
And while the powers-that-be still profit from a stupid populous, and the system has been refined over milennia...
I get the feeling that this Problem doesn't want to be solved!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
WU TANG!

is for the children.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Guynemer
WU TANG!

I hate you for using words I don´t understand

[Drake Tungsten]

I hate you for using words I dont understand

A man who knows not of the Wu is a very poor man indeed...

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by BeBro


I hate you for using words I don´t understand

Anti-intellectual bastard!


HATE CRIME!!!