RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual?

RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 4:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Only because you have rigged your definition to equate intellectual with smart. Therefore, if one is politically anti-intellectual one is also anti-smart and favors electing stupid. I get what you mean with respect to 'commoner' politics. But the US and other nations have always had populist politics. Nothing new there except in your faulty premise. My point is that one does not need to be intellectual to be smart. It is only true if we accept the fallacy in the OP. [8\|] [sm=idea.gif] Could you explain this position to me? Because it sounds to me like you're advocating a claim akin to the idea that one does not need to exercise to be a championship bodybuilder. I just don't get where you're coming from.

Aswad -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 4:52:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub How many people do you know that go around calling themselves intellectuals? I do not call myself intellectual in public. For one thing, that would drive off anyone around. I am frequently called intellectual by others, however, and also in public. Jante Law is ubiquitous in Scandinavia; don't import it. quote: Those that I know that give themselves that designation are usually snobs or elitists that believe because they have a God given talent they are better than others. Like all people, intellectuals can benefit from having people expose them to a wider worldview. Unlike most people, they will usually enjoy having their mind expanded this way. I used to be very elitist about both intelligence and intellectualism due to the fact that there are lots of people here that will do their damned best to make it into an "us vs. them" thing. Then someone showed me that it wasn't the case that everyone less intelligent than me was antiintellectual. At that point, I opened my eyes to the merits of humanity as a whole, and embraced the notion that human life has value. Mature intellectuals realize that you only say "better" when you're measuring something. To simply say "better" is meaningless. Just like I oppose the notion of gender supremacy, on the same grounds (no gender is objectively better in all areas, and individual variations inside a gender are greater than the gap between gender in all areas), I also oppose notions of the supremacy of intellectuals and intelligence (it is quite possible to be intellectual without being intelligent). This is one of many areas where Ayn Rand had a detrimental influence on the intelligent people in the USA, incidentally. That said, please don't invoke the notion that I have been "given" anything. What I was "given" is irrelevant and secondary to what I have *done* to develop it. I must have read millions of pages to acquire my familiarity with such a wide range of topics. Which is a fraction of what some have done. One might as well say that Schwarzenegger was "given" muscles and a career, when the fact of the matter is that the guy worked harder than most people are capable of in order to build and maintain that body, which afforded him the opportunity to build and maintain a good career with probably about as much hard work. quote: And… even if they are better they lack class and good sense a failing just like the rest of us. There is no "rest of us". There is us. Humanity. Tempting though the notion might be to the vain dom in me, intelligent people- intellectual or not- aren't Olympean gods. And neither is the common man a godslayer. Our society is built on cooperation and coexistence, a mutually beneficial symbiosis. There is no reason it needs to entail a seperation or conflict, and I can't see any benefit in either. If there is one thing my intelligence affords me, it is a better comprehension of our collective inadequacy. Humanity is a speck of dust of infinitesmal duration, one of which I am a part. That should grant a certain humility, at least in someone willing to look at a wider perspective. In that perspective it seems ludicrous for the sole to look down at the soil, even if one were to cast such things in that sort of light; the gap between soil and sole is tiny, compared to the gap that exists between the sole and the head, to which none of us can yet aspire. quote: Then there are many… I… would call intellectuals that go about their lives with passion and learned or natural abilities far beyond mine that do not go around looking down their noses at us common people. Gen. Maj. Robert Mood strikes me as this sort of man. IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 5:35:56 AM)
[sm=goodpost.gif] Incidentally: soil and sole are ethymologically related.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 6:14:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Also, how will an advisor explain the issues to a congressman so that he can make a good decision? Sorry, I thought this thread was about anti-intellectualism not about the merits of electing STUPID. No it's about how the anti-intellectualism in the US results in us electing stupid. I thought that was pretty clear in the original post. [8\|] Only because you have rigged your definition to equate intellectual with smart. Therefore, if one is politically anti-intellectual one is also anti-smart and favors electing stupid. I get what you mean with respect to 'commoner' politics. But the US and other nations have always had populist politics. Nothing new there except in your faulty premise. My point is that one does not need to be intellectual to be smart. It is only true if we accept the fallacy in the OP. [8\|] No. Not all other nations have the same political culture that we do. We have, in fact, discussed that idea even in this thread. So your notion of populist politics being universal is false. There is no fallacy. The American electorate would prefer someone like Sarah Palin (dumb as a doornail) to someone smart. That is the reality. And this baseline approach affects who enters politics, and who gets elected into Congress and the Presidency. This anti-intellectual culture extends itself to things outside of politics (the near god-like reverence that the American populace has for athletes, movie stars) compared to the fact that most teachers in this country do not get paid properly given the importance of the work that they do. But again, if you believe being smart is not important then schools and education are the lowest priority. And guess what. In America, education does not get anywhere close to the support it should. Our values are messed up. And they are messed up in part because we are anti-intellectual. You can quibble about the definitions if you would like to reduce this to a semantics discussion. But I know many on this thread know, and understand, exactly what I'm talking about regardless of the specific word choice. Reducing this discussion to semantics is a nice way to avoid talking about the realities of what all of us see around us on a daily basis. From my perspective, the US is anti-intellecutal and it affects our political choices. I stand by that statement.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 6:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Only because you have rigged your definition to equate intellectual with smart. Therefore, if one is politically anti-intellectual one is also anti-smart and favors electing stupid. I get what you mean with respect to 'commoner' politics. But the US and other nations have always had populist politics. Nothing new there except in your faulty premise. My point is that one does not need to be intellectual to be smart. It is only true if we accept the fallacy in the OP. [8\|] [sm=idea.gif] Could you explain this position to me? Because it sounds to me like you're advocating a claim akin to the idea that one does not need to exercise to be a championship bodybuilder. I just don't get where you're coming from. Sure. Your analogy would be valid if the function of an intellectual in a democratic society were to govern. If that is the case one would argue in the extreme for a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings. But we do not live in a city-state. Our democracy is messier because it is bigger and because it is characterized by political coalitions among and combat between many competing interests. Each group has a leader who has the 'smarts' to serve that group's interests (if you will forgive the redundancy) Political and regional savviness does not require intellectualism. So, what should be the role of the intellectual in so fractured and non-utopian a society? What has the role been and what is it today? It seems from casual observation of media 'voices' the intellectual functions to provide both seed and criticism for cultural/political ideas. The smart politician is one who can adapt those ideas to serve the interests of his/her constituency. The intellectual stands outside the political arena to act as a critic. Being a productive intellectual and a successful governor are not the same function. It is the difference between an aeronautical designer and the pilot who manipulates the airplane to a safe landing. The complaint of the OP is directed at the electorate or portions of the electorate whose values she does not share. Those groups are accused of being anti-intellectual which comes across as a denigrating term. I do not share the same values as religious or social conservatives however I recognize the reality of their selection of those who they think will best represent them. Sarah Palin was not popular because of her intellectual prowess but because of shared values with her constituents. That's the way US democracy works.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 6:27:48 AM)
quote: There is no fallacy. The American electorate would prefer someone like Sarah Palin (dumb as a doornail) to someone smart. That is the reality. And this baseline approach affects who enters politics, and who gets elected into Congress and the Presidency. Clearly, only a minority of the American electorate prefered McCain (non-intellectual war hero)/Palin(doornail dumb), whereas the majority opted for the professorial Lawyer. Your sweeping characterization of the American electorate being anti-intellectual is way over the top.

Rule -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 6:43:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess There is no fallacy. The American electorate would prefer someone like Sarah Palin (dumb as a doornail) to someone smart. So? Then the smart people can do useful things. like counseling dumb politicians. And such presidents as the Bushes and Clinton might be dumb, but they also are sharp as a doornail with, I suspect, very high IQs. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess This anti-intellectual culture extends itself to things outside of politics (the near god-like reverence that the American populace has for athletes, movie stars) Them is people that visibly excel. I do not know if any of them are intellectuals, but at least some of them do have a very high IQ. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess most teachers in this country do not get paid properly given the importance of the work that they do. I am sure that many enjoy their work and can pay their rent. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess if you believe being smart is not important then schools and education are the lowest priority. Oops. You appear to believe that being smart equates with going to school and getting an education. An intellectual would not make that mistake. Going to school and getting an education results in being educated, not in being smart or in being an intellectual. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess And guess what. In America, education does not get anywhere close to the support it should. Our values are messed up. And they are messed up in part because we are anti-intellectual. It is my impression that a lot of parents in the USA struggle to pay for the education of their children, and that students have to work to pay for their education as well. This indicates that getting or having gotten an education is not cost effective: the education is too expensive.

vincentML -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 7:11:41 AM)
quote: It is my impression that a lot of parents in the USA struggle to pay for the education of their children, and that students have to work to pay for their education as well. This indicates that getting or having gotten an education is not cost effective: the education is too expensive. It may very well be too expensive at non-State universities and private colleges. It is important to keep in mind that secondary (teenagers) education in the US is structured and paid for ground up from local communities and not top down from a central agency. There is a great disparity in what communities can afford or will tolerate. This also speaks to the comparisons of educational achievement levels. the US system is very heterogeneous vs say Finland whose population is way more homogeneous I imagine.

Rule -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 7:23:06 AM)
You know far more than I do about education and costs in the USA. It is not one of my areas of expertise.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 7:32:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML My point is that one does not need to be intellectual to be smart. IMHO smartness is similar to intellect but most notably without an element of self-conscious learning via a lot of indirect knowledge. It seems that being smart is lesser than being an intellectual although smartness does still require genuine intelligence and often a fair bit of socialised knowledge which isn't always easy to pick up either. One may be a smart plumber, hence an intelligent pipe fitter. But smart/intelligent does not equate to intellectual in my simple lexicon. Nor is a widely read, formerly educated person automatically an intellectual. Intelligent perhaps, an intellectual not necessarily. For me the test is: what has this person contributed to the store of human knowledge? Although they may make valued contributions to our social, economic, scientific, philosphical understandings why presume they are indispensible to governing the Republic? There is specialisation of course but I understood your point to be about smartness as a broad personal quality. I agree that an intellectual isn't merely a well educated person but would differ on what said person might produce. I would see an intelelctual as being someone who deals in the area of ideas, concepts, abstractions of a fairly high order. I suppose, as Plato might have said, they provide a useful resource relating to law etc. They may not be struictly necessary but may better ensure the health of a society although ideas/concepts etc. can also be destructive.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 8:21:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess if you believe being smart is not important then schools and education are the lowest priority. Oops. You appear to believe that being smart equates with going to school and getting an education. An intellectual would not make that mistake. Going to school and getting an education results in being educated, not in being smart or in being an intellectual. Again, using the terms schools and education in the broadest sense possible, I know of NO ONE who I would consider smart who is NOT educated. My electrician has been trained to do his job, and that includes being able to read, and having sufficient math skills to run his business. He is EDUCATED. You don't get smart and/or intellectual people without education. I challenge anyone to argue otherwise. Those of you who choose to take this stance do so because you are necessarily defining "school" and "education" in the narrowest way possible. So moving on to politics, how many illiterate people do you know who you would actually deem "smart" enough to rule the country? And our educational system is so underfunded and neglected that some high school graduates in inner city neighborhoods are actually functionally illiterate. Again, those of you who want to engage in the semantics argument of "what does it mean to be intellectual" are missing the true point of this thread. I'm not making a grand philosophical statement about intellectualism. I am saying that the American populace is anti-intellectual and that this hurts our leadership choices. It affects who runs, but it also affects how voters vote, and also affects the lens through which "effectiveness" is measured. When effectiveness of leadership boils down to how much money voters have in their pockets - well, it means there is not actually smart leadership. Improving American leadership at all levels requires a cultural shift in how we view the importance of intellect to society generally. And simply electing smart people is not enough. People have to be willing to support the difficult decision making that comes from having smart leadership. Sometimes the best answers do not result in improvement in the short term. But it takes someone smart, or someone who respects intellect to see that winning in the here and now is not always the smartest choice. [sm=2cents.gif]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 8:24:42 AM)
FR I would ask people to consider the following on deferred gratification and the implications for how being "smart" can actually lead to better decision making. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

Rule -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 9:01:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess People have to be willing to support the difficult decision making that comes from having smart leadership. Sometimes the best answers do not result in improvement in the short term. But it takes someone smart, or someone who respects intellect to see that winning in the here and now is not always the smartest choice. [sm=2cents.gif] And how many in these forums have been willing to support my leadership?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 9:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: There is no fallacy. The American electorate would prefer someone like Sarah Palin (dumb as a doornail) to someone smart. That is the reality. And this baseline approach affects who enters politics, and who gets elected into Congress and the Presidency. Clearly, only a minority of the American electorate prefered McCain (non-intellectual war hero)/Palin(doornail dumb), whereas the majority opted for the professorial Lawyer. Your sweeping characterization of the American electorate being anti-intellectual is way over the top. You are looking at the last election in a vacuum separated from what came before. I fear that Howdy Doody could have defeated anything the R side could put out there because of the missteps of the previous 8 years. The fact that the race was even close is a testament to the American public's seeming preference for those who aren't exactly intellectual giants.

Rule -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 9:10:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I would ask people to consider the following on deferred gratification and the implications for how being "smart" can actually lead to better decision making. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment What kind of smartness was measured? (I did read the entire text in your link.)

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 10:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam FR Knowledge is power. They knew this in Rome over 1000 years ago. If one small group is educated and everyone else is kept ignorant, the small group can rule without too much trouble. When the proles become educated, they become restive. The elites don't like restive proles. They want happy, ignorant proles that will toil for little or nothing. With the printing press, Gutenberg opened a whole new world. Within a few generations, knowledge became more common and there were revolutions. We are only beginning to see what the internet can do as it has only been generally available as a household fixture for about a generation. Time will tell as far as how violent the revolutions are. If the above is true...and I believe it is...then one must qustion our perception of russia,china and cuba who have all enforced literacy.

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 10:57:04 AM)
quote: One might as well say that Schwarzenegger was "given" muscles and a career, when the fact of the matter is that the guy worked harder than most people are capable of in order to build and maintain that body, which afforded him the opportunity to build and maintain a good career with probably about as much hard work. According to the books he authored it was the steroids and not hard work.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 10:59:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam FR Knowledge is power. They knew this in Rome over 1000 years ago. If one small group is educated and everyone else is kept ignorant, the small group can rule without too much trouble. When the proles become educated, they become restive. The elites don't like restive proles. They want happy, ignorant proles that will toil for little or nothing. With the printing press, Gutenberg opened a whole new world. Within a few generations, knowledge became more common and there were revolutions. We are only beginning to see what the internet can do as it has only been generally available as a household fixture for about a generation. Time will tell as far as how violent the revolutions are. If the above is true...and I believe it is...then one must qustion our perception of russia,china and cuba who have all enforced literacy. They have enforced literacy but in the past they traditionally carefully watched what the proletariate was allowed to read. The Soviet Union wasn't doomed by Reagan in spite of what the storytellers would have you believe. They were doomed by knowledge of the outside world. Tourists introduced new ideas. High quality consumer goods became available. The rest is history and there are those who wish to give the credit to Reagan. Bullshit. It was Levis, Converse, McDonalds, etc that killed the Soviet Union, not Reagan. In Cuba, we are perpetuating the continued existence of the Communist party by not allowing American tourists to travel there. Lift the embargo and watch the system collapse into some form of Democracy/Republic within 5 years. China has already seen a huge amount of reform in the last 40 years even though the state attempts to keep a tight lid on what the citizens are allowed to read. There are too many leaks. The only government that SEEMS to have kept it's people' happy' in a "worker's utopia" is N Korea and they do it by a total clampdown on information. Free knowledge is the enemy of a totalitarian system whether it be Communist, Socialist, Theocratic or anything else. Why do you think the Taliban and their Christian Theocratic counterparts hate education and science so much?

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 10:59:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: There is no fallacy. The American electorate would prefer someone like Sarah Palin (dumb as a doornail) to someone smart. That is the reality. And this baseline approach affects who enters politics, and who gets elected into Congress and the Presidency. Clearly, only a minority of the American electorate prefered McCain (non-intellectual war hero)/Palin(doornail dumb), whereas the majority opted for the professorial Lawyer. Your sweeping characterization of the American electorate being anti-intellectual is way over the top. Didn't the dumbass and the door nail get about 48% of the vote?

thompsonx -> RE: Why Are Americans Anti-Intellectual? (10/11/2012 12:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam FR Knowledge is power. They knew this in Rome over 1000 years ago. If one small group is educated and everyone else is kept ignorant, the small group can rule without too much trouble. When the proles become educated, they become restive. The elites don't like restive proles. They want happy, ignorant proles that will toil for little or nothing. With the printing press, Gutenberg opened a whole new world. Within a few generations, knowledge became more common and there were revolutions. We are only beginning to see what the internet can do as it has only been generally available as a household fixture for about a generation. Time will tell as far as how violent the revolutions are. If the above is true...and I believe it is...then one must qustion our perception of russia,china and cuba who have all enforced literacy. They have enforced literacy but in the past they traditionally carefully watched what the proletariate was allowed to read. Have you any validation for this opinion? quote: The Soviet Union wasn't doomed by Reagan in spite of what the storytellers would have you believe. They were doomed by knowledge of the outside world. Tourists introduced new ideas. High quality consumer goods became available. A little serious research on this matter might disabuse you of your ignorance...you might want to start with the praktica mtl 3. mfg in e. germany. They had no shortage of knowledge of the outside world. quote: The rest is history and there are those who wish to give the credit to Reagan. Bullshit. It was Levis, Converse, McDonalds, etc that killed the Soviet Union, not Reagan. Might want to compare the gdp growth rates of the ussr and the usa from say 1950-1985 quote: In Cuba, we are perpetuating the continued existence of the Communist party by not allowing American tourists to travel there. Lift the embargo and watch the system collapse into some form of Democracy/Republic within 5 years. It hasn't collapsed in the 50 years and they have known about micky d and wall mart for as long as you have. quote: China has already seen a huge amount of reform in the last 40 years even though the state attempts to keep a tight lid on what the citizens are allowed to read. There are too many leaks. Define huge. quote: The only government that SEEMS to have kept it's people' happy' in a "worker's utopia" is N Korea and they do it by a total clampdown on information. The last time you were in n. korea was??? quote: Free knowledge is the enemy of a totalitarian system whether it be Communist, Socialist, Theocratic or anything else. Do you or anyone you know have access to the knowledge to make a trigger for a nuclear device? Do you remember what happened to that fellow who devised an ultralong range artillery piece that the u.s. did not want to buy and would not allow him to sell???It was on sixty minutes several years ago. quote: Why do you think the Taliban and their Christian Theocratic counterparts hate education and science so much? I have no understanding of how those who believe in magic think?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875