Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

Occam's razor in this instance dictates that we do away with any notion of absolute value and forget the conclusion altogether.

Indeed. Relativism, to be precise, states that all is equally meaningless in the absense of a subjective measure (and accordingly, perception) to judge. In other words, we are all objectively equally untalented unless someone comes along and says "intelligence/intellect is...", and his view will become stratified. That does not mean it holds for others. Which is nice!

Look - now he's booted some innocent poster out of his sig space.

Hehe, the innocent poster was me flaming Kant.

[Enigma_Nova]

...
Another thing I'm exceptionally poor at is Memorising facts.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Quote:

based on experience

Which seems to contradict others

Yeah, good point. Since your experience is obviously more valid than mine, you really oughta just ignore everything that I've got to say.

Quote:

being an arrogant twit...condescending blowhard

Case in point... LOINBURGER!!! . You're demonstrating what I'm trying to show.

What am I demonstrating -- that you're a condescending blowhard?

There are not different languages in class for those that spending their lunch times reading, and those that spend them rolling around in the mud with their heads between another mans buttocks!!

The rolleyes have slain me!

There are certainly different ways of expressing things. For example, it's possible to say "...those that spend them engaging in sport," or to instead say "...those who are such craven neanderthals that they spend all of their time rolling in the mud." Similarly, there is obviously a difference between the way that some peopel ask/answer questions in class, else there's no good explanation for why I don't receive flak while others do.

We are left to conclude that everyone is equally talented, though in different ways, until proven otherwise.

You're free to bastardize language all you want, just don't expect everybody else to jump on the boat with you. If you believe that everybody is equally athletic (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally intelligence (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally humble (etc.), then I certainly can't make you listen to reason.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
I smile meekly, due to the low emotional aptitude of some of the meatbags I know.

Apparently everybody doesn't have equal worth -- you're an "intellectual," they're "meatbags."

It may already BE relevant, but not catalogued.

This is still just an argument to future evidence.

Nor did I say that they were meaningless; I said that they were not absolute.

If they're not meaningless, then it is possible (in general) to reasonably state that somebody is more/less intelligent/competent/athletic/etc. than somebody else. You claim that this is not at all possible, thus rendering the terms meaningless.

[Agathon]

Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth; but almost everyone either thinks he is an expert when it comes to philosophy, politics, ethics and the good life or wants to deny that these things can be the subjects of expertise (usually by means of some facile relativism).

And on the subject of elitism, is it not the case that if you train as a doctor you are likely to become exasperated at the semi-mediaeval claims made by the general public? Why is that any different from a philosopher getting annoyed at the low level of public argument or an economist getting riled up at the millions of people who believe that the government can just print money to solve its economic problems?

In any case a good education is supposed to teach you how hard it is to prove anything, and also how many of our beliefs rest on informed conjecture rather than proof. Surely this explains why educated people are inclined to go over the top when it is a case of something that has actually been proved.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by loinburger

There are certainly different ways of expressing things. For example, it's possible to say "...those that spend them engaging in sport," or to instead say "...those who are such craven neanderthals that they spend all of their time rolling in the mud."

Look, I'm an egalitarian but most people believe that some of their fellows are, for want of a better word, "Neanderthals".

[Spiffor]

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

This betrays a mindset:
"I are smart. I say things worth to listen to. I don't think I have to listen to people less smart than me".

You may want to deny the above, but it's clear to me that your gut instinct is to see "communication" with non-intellectuals like that.
Would you say "the fault of the intellectual for attempting communicate with those that do not want to talk" ?

Edit:

Originally logically deduced by Drogue
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.

See where I'm going to?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth.

Except when the fundies get concerned and try to bash the scientists for being heretics for studying cosmology, evolution or paleontology.

BTW: it is properly spelled neandertal nowdays.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Odin

Except when the fundies get concerned and try to bash the scientists for being heretics for studying cosmology, evolution or paleontology.

BTW: it is properly spelled neandertal nowdays.

Isn't "thal" just the German word for valley - i.e. it's the name of the place that the remains were first discovered.

[Spiffor]

Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

I stand corrected.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
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'.

Did you took into consideration the fact that your "analyses" might also be wrong? You speak about how the ignorant masses should "get it", as if your message had universal truth in it, something that should be understood as true, rather than simply denied / ignored.

Obviously, this shows no arrogance from you, nosirree.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Nope, "Tal" is the German word for valley.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

[Provost Harrison]

I never stand in judgement of people myself though...I think people think I am analysing them and hatching plans against them and ways to manipulate. Fact is, I don't...I have better things to do with my time. Only exception to that is revenge

[Odin]

We can argue all day, but that doesn't remind us of the fact that we are all have acted like arrogant snobs at some time or another, me included.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This thread brings up a very important question, namely, why do I spend so much time on a forum that is jam-packed with insufferable *****?

Because it is fun watching us?

[Provost Harrison]

If I'm arrogant, I'm arrogant in a nice way

[Agathon]

Come on people. Let's just admit that the masses are ignorant and that all of us fall in this classification about most things.

For example, I know next to nothing about particle physics other than the baby stuff I learned in high school. I'm quite happy to admit my ignorance in this area.

On the other hand, there are some people who don't know anything about anything at all and yet believe that the world should respect their ill-informed, paranoid, and fantastic opinions. I don't see why this is true at all. We should treat everyone with respect, but that does not mean treating their silly opinions with any sort of respect at all.

I don't know if you've ever had the experience of working in a supermarket, but it would teach you a lot about the general standard of education. I used to keep my mouth shut while our shift blowhards would come out with the most outrageous claims during our tea break. Among the gems were that the New Zealand Labour Party (a mildly Social Democratic organisation) was a front for the Chinese Communist Party; that no one should pay tax, but that the government should not cut social services; that New Zealand was formerly populated by a tribe called the Moriori whom the Maori killed and ate (this is a wild distortion of the facts); etc. etc. Wild and unsubstantiated claims were the norm.

It was all very depressing.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This thread brings up a very important question, namely, why do I spend so much time on a forum that is jam-packed with insufferable *****?

Gonna have to think about that one...

Birds of a feather, flock together??

[Provost Harrison]

Just hear some of the whacky conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana...that is enough to destroy your belief if humanity's ability to reason logically

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
The act of convicting yourself because other people are incapable of coping with the stuff your brain produces?
It's backwards! We should imprison people for being offended, not for offending!
Damn, people! Weed out the weakest of our species...

Considering your high IQ,
Considering your professed willingness to leave Apolyton once you find a better forum,
Considering your darwinism,

I seriously do not understand why you do not prefer posting there. The only reason I can think off is that you missed the link, because I seriously think you'll feel great there

[Whaleboy]

Yeah, good point. Since your experience is obviously more valid than mine, you really oughta just ignore everything that I've got to say.

Now you're getting it

Seriously, in the face of contradicting evidence, anyone that places so much faith in their own is a fool. When I'm making a generalised point such as this thread, I must take account of the fact that peoples experience can vary locally, but that does nothing to refute a more general, and wider contexted issue.

What am I demonstrating -- that you're a condescending blowhard?

You're... intriguing use of language would seem to indicate a certain bias in your observations

There are certainly different ways of expressing things. For example, it's possible to say "...those that spend them engaging in sport," or to instead say "...those who are such craven neanderthals that they spend all of their time rolling in the mud." Similarly, there is obviously a difference between the way that some peopel ask/answer questions in class, else there's no good explanation for why I don't receive flak while others do.

You will need to provide a hell of a lot more evidence to show reasonably that there is a discernable and generalisable difference in the way that people ask questions in class, according to how they spend their lunchtimes!

You're free to bastardize language all you want, just don't expect everybody else to jump on the boat with you. If you believe that everybody is equally athletic (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally intelligence (despite all evidence to the contrary), or equally humble (etc.), then I certainly can't make you listen to reason.

That is a strawman. If we could qualify all human endeavors and all possible human endeavors, and accordingly rate each human at all of those, we would find a similar average. That is not to say that one person may be exception at intellectual pursuits and terrible at everything else. The fact that we have similar sized brains and bodies would seem to bear me out on this one.

(usually by means of some facile relativism).

You got my number! (And yet you haven't refuted it )

And on the subject of elitism, is it not the case that if you train as a doctor you are likely to become exasperated at the semi-mediaeval claims made by the general public? Why is that any different from a philosopher getting annoyed at the low level of public argument or an economist getting riled up at the millions of people who believe that the government can just print money to solve its economic problems?

Look, I'm an egalitarian but most people believe that some of their fellows are, for want of a better word, "Neanderthals".

I'm not sure, I still hold out hope that a lot of people like myself will not look down on people for what they do. If I haven't succeeded in demonstrating that I don't have a sense of superiority (quite the reverse) on this thread, then I don't know what else I can do.

"I are smart. I say things worth to listen to. I don't think I have to listen to people less smart than me".

Everybody wants to be listened to. I don't think it's a good reason not to listen because one may use words of more than two syllables. So be it, I won't get personal because somebody doesn't want to listen. However, because people may not understand certain concepts that one may try to communicate (and really one should know better), they can be unfairly attacked. That is anti-intellectualism.

You may want to deny the above, but it's clear to me that your gut instinct is to see "communication" with non-intellectuals like that.

Would you say "the fault of the intellectual for attempting communicate with those that do not want to talk" ?

I stand by and agree with that.

See where I'm going to?

Yep, but I don't see how that applies to me or to all intellectuals. You may turn round to say that I want you to agree with what I say on this thread, or in a debate, but that goes for anyone, and since I am not capable of making objective statements, it would be fallacious for my to accept them as objectively valid, thus one is forced to conclude that what I say is my own subjective view. I am fine if you agree with me, and equally fine if not. I engage in debates because I enjoy discussion.

Did you took into consideration the fact that your "analyses" might also be wrong? You speak about how the ignorant masses should "get it", as if your message had universal truth in it, something that should be understood as true, rather than simply denied / ignored.

Obviously, this shows no arrogance from you, nosirree.

While it is true that the intellectuals view on an intellectual matter is no more valid than a laymans except in an intellectual context, one would consider it common sense to accept someones expertise. If I want my garden dug up, whose view am I going to trust more: Alan Titchmarsh or Steven Hawking?

Did you took into consideration the fact that your "analyses" might also be wrong? You speak about how the ignorant masses should "get it", as if your message had universal truth in it, something that should be understood as true, rather than simply denied / ignored.

Obviously, this shows no arrogance from you, nosirree.

Always have a plan to kill everyone you know.

We can argue all day, but that doesn't remind us of the fact that we are all have acted like arrogant snobs at some time or another, me included.

I am not conceding, but why is arrogance such a crime? (unloaded question)

Agathon has pretty well summed up my position.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't the answer to this question that people are quite prepared to defer to expertise in the sciences, medical arts and so forth; but almost everyone either thinks he is an expert when it comes to philosophy, politics, ethics and the good life or wants to deny that these things can be the subjects of expertise (usually by means of some facile relativism).

And on the subject of elitism, is it not the case that if you train as a doctor you are likely to become exasperated at the semi-mediaeval claims made by the general public? Why is that any different from a philosopher getting annoyed at the low level of public argument or an economist getting riled up at the millions of people who believe that the government can just print money to solve its economic problems?

I sometimes think the same - but in the end why
shouldn´t "ordinary" people voice their opinion about a topic, even when they haven´t studied it for decades? Of course people who say something think they´re right, even when they are no experts. If they knew that htey babble stupid things, they wouldn´t do it. The question to me is if there is real interest in a serious debate. If there is, I´d do my best to make myself clear as expert to non-experts. If not, well, then they can **** off

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Seriously, in the face of contradicting evidence, anyone that places so much faith in their own is a fool. When I'm making a generalised point such as this thread, I must take account of the fact that peoples experience can vary locally, but that does nothing to refute a more general, and wider contexted issue.

As long as the more general point you try to make is based as well and purely on personal experience (yours) it does.

[Whaleboy]

BeBro: I base my arguments also upon more objective evidence, as does others on this thread, for example, attitudes in the media.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BeBro

I sometimes think the same - but in the end why
shouldn�t "ordinary" people voice their opinion about a topic, even when they haven�t studied it for decades?

No one, least of all me would stop them. What I object to is such people getting pissy when confronted with an informed position - or slagging off "ivory tower academics". In fact the whole ivory tower thing is a bit of a joke - most professors I know are ordinary folk and most have depressingly plebian tastes.

Anyway, our opinions should be dear to us, but the truth dearer still.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by loinburger
Apparently everybody doesn't have equal worth -- you're an "intellectual," they're "meatbags."

Did you notice me attaching any worth to the word 'intellectual' or 'meatbag'?
Did you notice me suggesting that I was good at everything and that the meatbags were good at nothing?
Perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth and argue from what I said, as opposed to what you read/

You claim that this is not at all possible, thus rendering the terms meaningless.

I will not get frustrated
I will not get frustrated
I will not get frustrated
No, I was claiming that you can't judge between categories as to whether Sprinting or Endurance running had higher 'value', nor that even if you could, would you be aware of all the categories possible.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This betrays a mindset:
"I are smart. I say things worth to listen to. I don't think I have to listen to people less smart than me"

I... see...
And, what leads you to believe such a thing?
Enigma gets a notepad

[TCO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Something I have picked up on during the last week, on threads here and in RL, is the level of anti-intellectualism in this country.

That is to say, people that attack or victimise intellectuals. The reasons for this are curious, I would guess a degree of intimidation, not to mention this countries reputation for matter-of-fact pragmatism that seems to exclude higher, educational concerns. There is also the history of class conflict, the generally less educated working classes perhaps being resentful to those, even in their own ranks, who enter a life where they use their minds instead of traditional working class values of "sticking together" and not putting your head above the parapet.

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.

Since this forum is very politically active, and taking a look at IQ threads many of us are above average, I suspect that many here have had similar experiences. How do we combat this unfortunate situation, since society needs intellectuals, people that know how to run a nation and the issues surrounding it, to change things, as well as making life a little more interesting than the daily drudgery that we see all around?

If you're so smart, why are you verbose? Read THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Did you took into consideration the fact that your "analyses" might also be wrong?

Yes. That is correct.

You speak about how the ignorant masses should "get it", as if your message had universal truth in it,

It seems true enough to me, but I know that what is 'true' for one man is false for another.
That said, while my perceptions are false from their perspective, do you reckon we should try to understand each-other rather than just ignore?
I think so. I think Understanding is better than ignorance. Hence, that it is better to remove the Ignorant ideology than to maintain it.
...
YES I'M BLOODY AWARE I'm making a value judgement in ignorance/understanding based on what I value - pursuit of wisdom and acceptance of questioning. I'm sure to fundies, ignorance is a much better option.

But rather than get off the topic of intellectualism, I made my stand as a devil's advocate, even though I may not be sure of my stance.
Happy? Or would you like me to justify why I painted my room white instead of blue?

Obviously, this shows no arrogance from you, nosirree.

Well it wouldn't if I were assed to explain it more properly, but I -did- explain why I wasn't assed to explain it.
Yes... I know (or shall I say, 'believe') more than I let on, partially because of uncertainty, partially because of distrust, mainly because it's quite an effort to translate.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
When I'm making a generalised point such as this thread, I must take account of the fact that peoples experience can vary locally, but that does nothing to refute a more general, and wider contexted issue.

Practically everybody on this thread has stated that they dislike arrogant people. Some have also accused you of displaying arrogance. However, you continue to assume that the "general and wider contexted issue" that has caused you to receive flak is your alleged intelligence, not your alleged arrogance -- in other words, your opinions apparently refute a more general and wider contexted issue, while the opinions of those who disagree with you apparently fail to refute a different general and wider contexted issue.

You will need to provide a hell of a lot more evidence to show reasonably that there is a discernable and generalisable difference in the way that people ask questions in class, according to how they spend their lunchtimes!

Like what -- more personal experience that doesn't count for squat since it's not your personal experience?

If we could qualify all human endeavors and all possible human endeavors, and accordingly rate each human at all of those, we would find a similar average.

It's not very likely, IMO, that a quadriplegic cretin would possess the same general level of talent as, say, Leonardo da Vinci.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Did you notice me attaching any worth to the word 'intellectual' or 'meatbag'?

So you wouldn't be just a tad bit offended if somebody called you a meatbag? Interesting.