What motivates political anti-intellectualism, what counteracts it

[Wesley Clark]

It seems both the right and the left can engage in anti-intellectualism. The right doesn't like college professors and feels ivory tower liberal elitists want to tell down home people how to live and what to think.

But the USSR under Stalin wasn't a good place for intellectuals either. Neither was Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Are intellectuals seen as people with tons of book smarts and no common sense? Are they seen as cultural traitors? Is it the fact that higher education and intellectualism can be correlated with rejection of religion or maintaining social tradition? Is it that intellectuals can be influential and as a result turn people against the ruling party and religion?

What is the appeal for kicking out the most competent and educated people from society? Is anti-intellectualism strictly an authoritarian phenomena? I don't think left or right wing libertarians support anti-intellectualism. However left and right wing authoritarians do.

But China is an authoritarian country, and intellectuals are revered there. In the democratic US many people hold Sarah Palin up as an example of an amazing person in all her anti-intellectual glory.

So authoritarianism alone can't explain it either. Saddam Hussein wanted to create '1,000 PhDs for Iraq'. China realizes education is a key to world power.

What appeal is there to kicking the competent people out of society and handing it over to boobs? According to wikipedia it is religion, populism and authoritarianism.

China is an authoritarian regime (so was Saddam's Iraq) but I guess both were pragmatic about realizing the need for education to create military, economic and political power. So maybe pragmatism is a good antidote to anti-intellectualism. That seems to be a big reason many people reject Sarah Palin in the US, a pragmatic realization that you cannot run a country with someone like that in charge.

And a pragmatic realization that you cannot compete in the 21st century after you persecute all of the college professors would probably counteract anti-intellectualism.

I've also seen anti-intellectualism among some feminists who are fairly liberal and open minded in most other areas. Their motive seemed to be fear that an intellectual investigation into anthropology, biology and evolutionary psychology would justify misogyny.

[Dorothea Book]

This is a pretty freewheeling OP that poses several different questions, (and different kinds of questions), about intellectuals and anti-intellectualism.

So I'll limit myself to two follow-ups.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about China or Iraq. Yes, China values some intellectuals; but it arrests others. Yes, Iraq saw a relatively educated elite strata: but were most of these people intellectuals or simply professionals? Isn't there a distinction to be made between highly educated professionals (competent or not) and intellectuals (not all of whom long to be running society--at least not in an organizational sense).

All of this makes me wonder how you define an intellectual.

My second follow-up pertains to your last point, about feminists. I'm not sure which feminists you're thinking of, but the feminist arguments I've seen against evolutionary science aren't anti-intellectual. They're arguments against bogus science. Whether one agrees with the verdict or not the motive isn't anti-intellectualism I don't think the effect is either (that is, the claims seems too well researched to be anti-intellectual even if, perhaps, there remains room for debate).

[Der Trihs]

My second follow-up pertains to your last point, about feminists. I'm not sure which feminists you're thinking of, but the feminist arguments I've seen against evolutionary science aren't anti-intellectual.
I've come across in the past arguments from feminists that "Logic is masculine; emotion is feminine. Science is logical, therefore it is masculine and evil." That's certainly antiintellectual. Back in the 80s I recall female mathematicians complaining about death threats from feminists for being traitors to womankind. I don't know how strong it is right now, but historically there's been a strong anti-intellectual streak to feminism.

And I'll point out that given the overwhelming evidence for it that ALL arguments against evolutionary science are anti-intellectual.


As far as the OP goes, IMHO what prompts anti-intellectualism is generally a sense of inferiority, or fear of the truth. The latter being especially important in authoritarian cultures, for obvious reasons.

[adaher]

There is a practical, scientific side to politics, but there is also a religious, spiritual side to it. right-wingers don't like climatologists. Left-wingers don't like economists. All kinds of people don't believe the scientific evidence on vaccines, or GM food.

When certain beliefs are deeply held, they often take on a quasi-religious character. Free market fundamentalism on the right, social justice on the left.

[Dorothea Book]

Left-wingers don't like economists.



Huh? Isn't Paul Krugman an economist? Amartya Sen? Bradford DeLong?

[Wesley Clark]

My second follow-up pertains to your last point, about feminists. I'm not sure which feminists you're thinking of, but the feminist arguments I've seen against evolutionary science aren't anti-intellectual. They're arguments against bogus science. Whether one agrees with the verdict or not the motive isn't anti-intellectualism I don't think the effect is either (that is, the claims seems too well researched to be anti-intellectual even if, perhaps, there remains room for debate).

The ones I've seen are. I have seen women write off thinkers Steven Pinker out of hand and openly say their responses were due to a fear that fields like evolutionary psych would be used to justify the oppression and marginalization of women. I would post scientific studies on biology and attraction, and they'd just be written off or ignored (this was another board).

Also, if you read the Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf makes the claim that there is no real evidence that attraction has biological basis, which is not true. There are certain universal traits that are considered attractive across cultures.

[Wesley Clark]

Left-wingers don't like economists.

But economists love left wingers. Obama was picked by 66% of economists in 2008 vs 28% for McCain.

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/66-of-economists-are-economists-for.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lQqV1HDxXY/SOeh8KYK12I/AAAAAAAAACM/QALxAB7isnY/s1600-h/CUS955.gif

Left wingers do not like economists from the Milton Friedman neoliberal school. However other economists (Krugman, Roubini, Romer, etc) are ok.

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html

[Dorothea Book]

I've come across in the past arguments from feminists that "Logic is masculine; emotion is feminine. Science is logical, therefore it is masculine and evil."

Although I've got not idea what you've been reading I suspect you may be misunderstanding some of this writing. Can you please provide one example of a feminist saying that logic is masculine and emotion is feminine? Or that science is evil?

The typical feminist argument is that logic is often considered a masculine trait and emotion is considered feminine. The typical feminist is trying to contest these stereotypes, not uphold them. And even the older feminisms that argued that women speak "in a different voice"--(this is pretty outdated stuff from the 80s)--were trying to get more respect from women's (supposedly) caring outlook. Their point was that logic was valued and care was not; their point was never that a whole human being, much less a whole society, shouldn't value both. (And again, this is really dated stuff.)

Back in the 80s I recall female mathematicians complaining about death threats from feminists for being traitors to womankind.

Yeah, and I guess some "feminists" may have worn tin foil on their heads to screen out death rays from planet Venus. But do you have an example of any published work from a feminist arguing against the treachery of female mathematicians? What would the basis of this death threat be? That women can't add? That they shouldn't be mathematicians?

And I'll point out that given the overwhelming evidence for it that ALL arguments against evolutionary science are anti-intellectual.

To which I'll reply that any argument that rules against the intellectual merit of "ALL arguments" without looking at the specific claims of those arguments is, by definition, anti-intellectual.

[adaher]

Huh? Isn't Paul Krugman an economist? Amartya Sen? Bradford DeLong?
Reply With Quote

I guess I should have been more precise. Left-wingers don't like economists when they well, act like economists rather than political pundits. Krugman and DeLong and virtually any other economist will tell you that free trade is beneficial. The consensus on free trade is as airtight as the consensus on climate change, probably moreso. Don't tell liberals that. Krugman and DeLong will also tell you that the minimum wage costs jobs. Despite that, they(and I) support minimum wage increases when appropriate. But they recognize the tradeoffs. Most liberals don't want to think about it, so they just deny it, or even more absurdly, insist that raising minimum wage INCREASES jobs.

But economists love left wingers. Obama was picked by 66% of economists in 2008 vs 28% for McCain.

Obama's plan made more sense. His governing, well, that's another story. Obama ran on a platform of not raising taxes except on the top 1% and cutting spending.

Left wingers do not like economists from the Milton Friedman neoliberal school.

Which doesn't make much sense, because their issue with the Friedman school is about things that the Krugmans of the world agree with them on: monetary policy is always the cause of inflation, free markets are more efficient than central planning, free trade between nations is more beneficial than protectionism.

[Dorothea Book]

The ones I've seen are. I have seen women write off thinkers Steven Pinker out of hand and openly say their responses were due to a fear that fields like evolutionary psych would be used to justify the oppression and marginalization of women. I would post scientific studies on biology and attraction, and they'd just be written off or ignored (this was another board).

Also, if you read the Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf makes the claim that there is no real evidence that attraction has biological basis, which is not true. There are certain universal traits that are considered attractive across cultures.

This stuff is complicated Wesley. There are real arguments to be made against evolutionary psychology that don't amount, IMO, to anti-intellectualism.

I can't account for why some posters on a board didn't like your links and it would be foolish for me to try. I'm sure some traits are considered attractive across cultures but there is also so much variety--in the ideal female weight for example--that I've never seen any of these claims add up to much (like the claim that people are attracted to symmetry--so what?).

Perhaps a thread on this topic will emerge at some point in the future; for the present, without hijacking yours, I'll simply say that anti-intellectualism is certainly not the only reason why anyone, feminist or not, might disagree with evolutionary psychology.

[Dorothea Book]

I guess I should have been more precise. Left-wingers don't like economists when they well, act like economists rather than political pundits. Krugman and DeLong and virtually any other economist will tell you that free trade is beneficial. The consensus on free trade is as airtight as the consensus on climate change, probably moreso. Don't tell liberals that.

How are you defining free trade, adaher?

Krugman and DeLong will also tell you that the minimum wage costs jobs. Despite that, they(and I) support minimum wage increases when appropriate. But they recognize the tradeoffs. Most liberals don't want to think about it...

But Krugman and DeLong are liberals. Krugman wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal, no?

[Wesley Clark]

Left wingers do not like economists from the Milton Friedman neoliberal school.

Which doesn't make much sense, because their issue with the Friedman school is about things that the Krugmans of the world agree with them on: monetary policy is always the cause of inflation, free markets are more efficient than central planning, free trade between nations is more beneficial than protectionism.

Not always because neoliberal economists (from what I know of them) oppose other things like government intervention. Economists like Roubini and Krugman were in favor of a government stimulus and wanted a larger stimulus (a trillion or so) more heavily devoted to infrastructure. There are major differences between Economists like Krugman vs Friedman on issues like the role of government intervention, labor rights, consumer and environmental protections, etc.

Krugman didn't believe raising the minimum wage will hurt employment.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/american-economy-suffers-from-government-short-sightedness/

Paul Krugman: The available research suggests that the U.S. minimum wage right now is low enough that increasing it has very little effect on employment, but raises incomes at the bottom. Also, a falling real minimum wage seems to act as a sort of undertow, dragging down wages some ways up the scale. Obviously the minimum wage by itself isn’t enough to serve as the centerpiece of an equalizing policy, which would have to involve a whole range of actions.

[ITR champion]

It seems both the right and the left can engage in anti-intellectualism. The right doesn't like college professors and feels ivory tower liberal elitists want to tell down home people how to live and what to think.
...
Are intellectuals seen as people with tons of book smarts and no common sense? Are they seen as cultural traitors? Is it the fact that higher education and intellectualism can be correlated with rejection of religion or maintaining social tradition? Is it that intellectuals can be influential and as a result turn people against the ruling party and religion?
Before going further, let's sort out some definitions. An intellectual is a person who focuses on the mental faculties of knowledge and understanding, as opposed to the faculties of emotion and of will. An academic is a person whose job is teaching or research at a university. Hence the two words don't mean the same. Many intellectuals are not academics and many academics are not intellectuals. The climate in universities sometimes favors intellectualism and sometimes doesn't. Hence, to be intellectual one must sometimes be anti-academic, just as to be patriotic one must sometimes be anti-government.

So, why does anti-academic sentiment get so much traffic right now? All the reasons you list have some validity, but the most basic answer is: common sense. Many academics have believed all kinds of loony stuff over the years. For example, the theories of Sigmund Freud were hugely popular for several generations, not only in psychology but also in fields like literature. While Freudianism is gone now (thankfully), plenty of other isms from the past sixty years or so are equally groundless and silly. No thread on this topic could be complete without a link to How to Deconstruct Almost Anything (http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html), which concludes:
Looking at the field of contemporary literary criticism as a whole also yields some valuable insights. It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred. The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set of postmodernism is "epistemologically challenged": a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff. The language and idea space of the field have become so convoluted that they have confused even themselves. But the tangle offers a safe refuge for the academics. It erects a wall between them and the rest of the world. It immunizes them against having to confront their own failings, since any genuine criticism can simply be absorbed into the morass and made indistinguishable from all the other verbiage. Intellectual tools that might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited. This is why, for example, science, psychology and economics are represented in the literary world by theories that were abandoned by practicing scientists, psychologists and economists fifty or a hundred years ago. The field is absorbed in triviality. Deconstruction is an idea that would make a worthy topic for some bright graduate student's Ph.D. dissertation but has instead spawned an entire subfield. Ideas that would merit a good solid evening or afternoon of argument and debate and perhaps a paper or two instead become the focus of entire careers.
This sort of thing, once acknowledged, can explain a lot of popular sentiment towards academia. Terry Pratchett, himself a fine demonstration that one can be a genius without having a college degree, has made a career out of mocking the academic world. In his vision, a university is a place where a bunch of clowns sever their ties with the outside world and pretend to know things that no one else knows. Given the popularity of his work, this idea must have some resonance with the public at large.

It should be mentioned that plenty of people inside the academy have agreed with this viewpoint. For example, physicist Alan Sokal played a famous hoax (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_sokal_hoax/) where he got an article called Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html) published in an academic journal called Social Text. The article was a joke, mocking the ideas and writing style of left-wing, postmodernist academics. Books like this one (http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259301679&sr=1-1) make the same point in a more serious fashion.

As for me, my basic attitude is to treat any material produced by a professor the same way I treat any other material. I read it and I see whether it makes logical sense or not. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. As an example of the later, I have put forth on this board my reasons for believing that evolutionary is basically all bogus. Now I may be wrong; Ben Goldacre (http://www.badscience.net/category/evolutionary-psychology/) may be right when he says that only most of it is bogus, but I'll need to see real experiments matching real genes to real behaviors before I believe it. To me it's a clear example of how once a sub-field gets large enough, the participants can keep quoting each other in circles and make their doctrines look to be solid even when they aren't. Heck, the field of evolutionary psychology has been hit by its own set of embarrassing hoaxes (http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolutionary-psychology-meme-generates.html).

[adaher]

How are you defining free trade, adaher?

Trade without tariffs or restrictions beyond normal regulations found in the importing country.

Not always because neoliberal economists (from what I know of them) oppose other things like government intervention

From an economic perspective, yes. Friedman used to concede that if you want to do certain things, like poverty reduction or universal K-12 education, that you had to have the government do it. Just understand that it won't be done efficiently or particularly well. But sometimes government is the only option because the market won't supply it.

Paul Krugman: The available research suggests that the U.S. minimum wage right now is low enough that increasing it has very little effect on employment, but raises incomes at the bottom

That's a pretty time specific diagnosis. In general, raising minimum wage prices some labor out of the market. There's a pretty good consensus about that, and it's backed up by the fac tthat the teen unemployment rate gets higher with every recession.

Again, I favor raising the minimum wage fairly regularly for other reasons, and I'm sure every liberal and even some conservative economists agree. But you can't ignore the tradeoffs.


But let's not get in the weeds here, since this is taking away from the subject of the OP. I'll gladly concede this and just move on to the fact that an awful lot of people on the left and right alike don't like what scientists have to say about genetically modified foods, or vaccines. Whether or not you are anti-science on a particular subject tends to have a lot to do with whether the science backs a deeply held opinion of yours. For many liberals who feel very strongly about the sanctity of the Earth and Nature, scientific advancements that involve altering nature tend to raise their hackles. It's mainly the lefty set that believes that organic foods are healthier, even though there isn't much scientific support for that concept.

And to sort of get back to economics, social justice is practically a religion for the left. Liberals have often supported self-defeating measures to reduce poverty or have resorted to socking it to the rich simply for the sake of socking it to the rich. The fact that the welfare system destroyed families and community cohesiveness as it was implemented in the Great Society was beyond dispute as early as the 1970s. Yet liberals fought tooth and nail against welfare reform. Thank God for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. Then there's candidate Obama being asked about raising the capital gains tax. He acknowledged that a lower capital gains tax brings in more revenue(and thus enables more spending on programs that benefit the poor), but supported raising the tax anyway as a matter of "fairness". That's government by feelings, not government by reason.

[Argent Towers]

This is a very interesting discussion. I think the "anti-intellectualism" of the right wing goes beyond mere arguments about economics. I hope this thread doesn't get too sidetracked by the economic debate because there's a social and psychological dimension to this too which is worth talking about. Politicians in America have marketed themselves as "everyman" characters, with great success. People have talked about their desire to "have a beer" with the President; it's as if there is some deep need for people to be ruled by someone who's as dumb as they are instead of someone who's smarter. A lot of Americans seem to fear leaders who are educated and articulate; they want someone who's "down-to-earth" (read - artificially dumbed-down.)

It wasn't always like this; Kennedy was an elite figure and people still loved him, for instance. He never tried to make himself appear "down-home" to appeal to dumb people who think that buddy-buddy banter over a beer qualifies someone to be at the helm of a nuclear arsenal. Kennedy was a monarchic figure.

But voters nowadays are turned off by anyone like this. Someone who speaks in a lofty tone and uses too many big words is seen as an elitist, and that puts people off. Personally I want an elite person in charge of the country. I do not want my next door neighbor or my drinking buddy to be the President. I want someone who I know is smarter than I'll ever be.

[adaher]

People have talked about their desire to "have a beer" with the President; it's as if there is some deep need for people to be ruled by someone who's as dumb as they are instead of someone who's smarter.

That desire isn't totally irrational. Managing something as complex as a country is impossible. Putting super-bright people in charge doesn't accomplish anything more than putting a team of morons in charge. It's like having a smart dog run a business as opposed to a stupid dog. It's just beyond the capability of the species no matter how smart they are. Likewise, no human or group of humans is smart enough to manage the country. and stupid politicians don't come into office with promises to put their genius to work to solve our problems. Smart politicians do, and they invariably fail just like the dumb ones.

Of course, competence does matter, but competence and genius don't always go hand in hand. Most people who know other competent people know them to be "no-nonsense" types, not necessarily smart guys.

[adaher]

While I'm on the topic, stock-picking seems like another example of an activity that smart people and dumb people do equally well. Some things are just too complex for even the smartest people to do better than random chance, so a total idiot would do just as well.

Politics is a bear. There are so many issues where smart people come to totally opposite conclusions. And you quickly find that no matter how smart they are, they don't have all the data. There's always some vital fact they don't know, or which they've misinterpreted. Even answering a simple question like "Does gun ownership reduce or increase crime?" is nearly impossible. So when some egghead promises to go to Washington and use reason and science to solve the nation's problems, as opposed to the other guy who just went with his gut, chances are he'll be just about as successful as the guy who went with his gut.

[Argent Towers]

There's a difference between a very smart person - even a genius - and an intellectual. To me an intellectual is someone who looks at his world with intense curiosity and thorough analysis, and believes in a personal philosophy that incorporates this analysis. An intellectual is someone who is creative; who generates ideas; and who also works at being able to write and speak in a highly articulate manner.

[Wesley Clark]

This is a very interesting discussion. I think the "anti-intellectualism" of the right wing goes beyond mere arguments about economics. I hope this thread doesn't get too sidetracked by the economic debate because there's a social and psychological dimension to this too which is worth talking about. Politicians in America have marketed themselves as "everyman" characters, with great success. People have talked about their desire to "have a beer" with the President; it's as if there is some deep need for people to be ruled by someone who's as dumb as they are instead of someone who's smarter. A lot of Americans seem to fear leaders who are educated and articulate; they want someone who's "down-to-earth" (read - artificially dumbed-down.)

It wasn't always like this; Kennedy was an elite figure and people still loved him, for instance. He never tried to make himself appear "down-home" to appeal to dumb people who think that buddy-buddy banter over a beer qualifies someone to be at the helm of a nuclear arsenal. Kennedy was a monarchic figure.

But voters nowadays are turned off by anyone like this. Someone who speaks in a lofty tone and uses too many big words is seen as an elitist, and that puts people off. Personally I want an elite person in charge of the country. I do not want my next door neighbor or my drinking buddy to be the President. I want someone who I know is smarter than I'll ever be.

Bill Clinton is a good example of this. Supposedly he was advised to hide his intelligence and put for a southern Bubba persona. I think I read that in his biography.

Obama is extremely smart, but luckily doesn't have to hide it. However he does use more emotional and verbal manipulation rather than his intelligence to win support and appeal. He is famous for being a communicator on par with southern preacher, not an introspective policy wonk (he is both). People can remember his speeches, but understand very little about the health policies he supported in the election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBzYSUI5_GM

So I guess that is a step up. Obama doesn't have to hide his intelligence (like Clinton was supposedly advised to do), but he gets very little out of it too. And Palin was actually a drag on McCain due to her lack of intelligence.

[Martini Enfield]

One (controversial) observation I'll make: If you're physically weak, you can go to the gym and buff up. If you're fat, you can lose weight. If you're crap at photography you can keep practicing and take classes and you'll get better, or buy a digital camera that does most of the complicated stuff for you.

But if you're thick, there's generally not much you can do about it. You're basically stuck being thick, and no amount of trying to learn stuff or going to the library or whatever will change that. Obviously I'm speaking in extremely broad generalities here, folks.

In short, "being smart" is generally one of those things you either are or you aren't- and understandably, I think people in the "aren't" category will be anti-"things the smart people like" because they don't (and can't) understand it.

[ITR champion]

This is a very interesting discussion. I think the "anti-intellectualism" of the right wing goes beyond mere arguments about economics. I hope this thread doesn't get too sidetracked by the economic debate because there's a social and psychological dimension to this too which is worth talking about. Politicians in America have marketed themselves as "everyman" characters, with great success. People have talked about their desire to "have a beer" with the President; it's as if there is some deep need for people to be ruled by someone who's as dumb as they are instead of someone who's smarter. A lot of Americans seem to fear leaders who are educated and articulate; they want someone who's "down-to-earth" (read - artificially dumbed-down.)
This, to put it directly, just isn't so. One can point to certain instances where a politician doesn't put their intellectual powers to full use in public, yet we always choose politicians who have those intellectual powers. Even in the W Bush Administration, neither the President himself nor the people who surrounded him were lacking in degrees from top universities. Congress, the Courts, and governorships are also dominated by people with advanced degrees. One can complain about the way these people speak and act on certain occasions, but that doesn't change who they are. If the American people really "feared leaders who are educated", the parties would respond by nominating politicians who aren't educated. But they don't.

[Argent Towers]

An educated person is not necessarily an intellectual. Having an advanced degree does not make someone an intellectual. It does not make them articulate, it does not make them creative, all it means is that they were good at studying one thing and were capable of memorizing and understanding that one thing. We live in a society where the college system is basically a glorified trade school, and that is true at the highest levels as well as the lowest ones. You go there to get the degree to "open the doors." At the Ivy Leage level it's an elite club for making connections and getting to know the right people.

[adaher]

well, if we're talking about intellectuals, I'm not certain intellectuals are good for anything other than thinking. I'd be hard pressed to think of true intellectuals having accomplishments outside of academics. The art of thinking and the art of doing tend to be different things. In the real world, people who do have to make decisions without all the available data. Intellectuals, when put in positions where they have to make decisions, tend to be indecisive and let windows of opportunity close.

These are obviously extreme generalizations, but I'm trying to get at why anti-intellectualism isn't completely irrational. I have no patience for people who disregard firm science in favor of what makes them feel good about their worldview, but I do understand why the smartest guy isn't necessarily going to be the best guy for a particular job. Especially in politics.

[GreasyJack]

The whole "being wrong half the time" issue is sort of a hard one for people outside of academia to swallow. In practically every field, the fundamental theories that make them up change over time, sometimes quite frequently. While often the shifts in thinking are more nuanced, often times it is just a case of the old ideas just being plain wrong. By and large, academia doesn't care and indeed might celebrate the disproof of a major theory as evidence of the soundness of the academic research process in general.

This is extremely difficult for most people to accept. Most people view "knowledge" in a more absolute sense, as something that shouldn't really change. Most of the stuff you learn in school is basic enough that it doesn't really change over a person's life time, and there's certainly not much discussion of the history of most of these fields beyond maybe a progression of discoveries. Institutions like religions and political parties tend to deny that their platforms ever change and act like pillars of "truth" in an absolute sense of the word.

Political discourse in this country (and probably most) is all about appeals to authority. There is simply no way a single person can become adequately informed about all the issues in a modern society and so to a large extent the fundamental question in politics is who are you going to believe. So, with the above in mind, is an average person going to side with the academic who freely admits to being wrong frequently, or with the idealogue who claims to have an absolute hold on the truth? I think most people are simply more comfortable believing someone who is claiming to be a sure thing.

[Sandwich]

In short, "being smart" is generally one of those things you either are or you aren't- and understandably, I think people in the "aren't" category will be anti-"things the smart people like" because they don't (and can't) understand it.

I think there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom, and that in practice people can get much wiser. Inate intelligence probably does set constraints, but in practice most people choose to be less wise than they could be. Possibly because they know that there will always be lots of people cleverer than them, so why compete, possibly because it's a path of less resistance.

Anyway, Americans will always be anti-intellectual, because Americans don't compete in fields that the French always win.

[Dorothea Book]

But sometimes government is the only option because the market won't supply it.

True.


It's mainly the lefty set that believes that organic foods are healthier, even though there isn't much scientific support for that concept.

How much scientific support do you need? Organic food has more nutrients, fewer toxins and involves growing methods that are better for the planet. All supported by hard science. What else do you want to know about it?

More to the point of the OP, so you would argue that, say, the work of Michael Pollan is about anti-intellectualism? On what ground?

I'll set aside your economic arguments so as to avoid the train of argument Argent Towers fears. :)

[adaher]

Organic foods are definitely better for the planet, that's not really in question. But when it comes to nutritional value or safety, there has been no difference demonstrated. And even though organic foods are better for the planet, we could never feed everyone using organic methods. We just have too many people on the planet.

[Dorothea Book]

That desire isn't totally irrational. Managing something as complex as a country is impossible. Putting super-bright people in charge doesn't accomplish anything more than putting a team of morons in charge. It's like having a smart dog run a business as opposed to a stupid dog. It's just beyond the capability of the species no matter how smart they are.

:confused: Of course, putting super-bright people will accomplish more than putting a team of morons in charge. Can you provide any kind of evidence for this sweeping claim--which is tantamount to saying that everything in the world should be run by idiots, or by geniuses, because there's no actual difference. Would you expect, say, Apple Computers to hire a team of morons in adherence to this principle? After all, morons probably cost less.

And, anyway, what's beyond the capability of the species? Providing good governance? Appreciating it? Overcoming aversion to smart people?

Of course, competence does matter, but competence and genius don't always go hand in hand. Most people who know other competent people know them to be "no-nonsense" types, not necessarily smart guys.

Now there I'll agree. We don't necessarily need a country or a world run by geniuses, at least not all of the time, but we do always need competence. Competent people tend to be pretty smart.

But "intellectualism" is a different matter which only has bearing part of the time. Intellectuals tend to be found in think tanks or universities or sometimes in the media; in general they often aren't in the business of fashioning policy and still less of implementing or overseeing it.

Re the OP: I think there's real rightwing "anti-intellectualism" in the sense that these folks seem to treat certain complex but empirical facts about the world--like evolutionary science or climate change--as though they were matters of theory which appeal only to a liberal taste. They make something intellectual that really shouldn't be.

Although there may be corresponding anti-intellectualism on the left, I haven't yet seen good examples of it offered in this thread. Left liberals demonstrably like economists--plenty of them!--and feminists who criticize evolutionary psychology have legitimate reasons for doing so (one may disagree with them but not, IMO, reduce them to anti-intellectuals).

[Dorothea Book]

But when it comes to nutritional value or safety, there has been no difference demonstrated. And even though organic foods are better for the planet, we could never feed everyone using organic methods. We just have too many people on the planet.

Absolutely untrue. There are higher levels of anti-oxidants in organic vegetables. And, again, there are fewer toxins. The latter feature varies from food to food. Strawberries are sprayed with something like 40 different pesticides and they are full of that residue. Blueberries aren't. So organic strawberries (or apples, or potatoes) are much more important to eat than organic bananas or blueberries or avocados.

Organic fruits and vegetables--and organic meats--also taste much better. And why do you think that is?

There is real debate going on--quite interesting debate about the potential for feeding the planet by organic methods. Have you read any of this stuff? I find it quite compelling. And the pesticide-ridden monoculture we have here in the US is not sustainable anyway. So it's not as though one simply evaluates the argument for organics by assuming the status quo is optimal or perfect. It isn't.

[Stalingraduate]

I think the answer is a lot simpler: Intellectuals have the reputation of being snooty people.

Most of the contact that ordinary folks get with intellectuals is when they see professors on television who have involved themselves in politics, or when they encounter college students who call people "ignorant" because they disagree. Both of these types of individuals give academia a horrible reputation. They're both condescending and adopt an attitude of "I'm too smart to teach you and you're too dumb to understand, so just listen to what I tell you."

In fact, I've known a number of professors and other educators who were actually regular, down-to-earth people, but your average person doesn't get much face-to-face contact with teachers. These same educators would also agree that the "listen to what I tell you and don't disagree" approach is repugnant to the discipline of education, but it is unfortunately the more commonly used approach among politicized professors and radicalized college students--that is to say, the ones who actually get in front of the camera and become associated with the popular image of academia.

The "would I like to have a beer with them?" test is less about trying to make sure that a president is as dumb as you are than it is about asking, "Is this person nice? Would he/she talk down to me if we met?" A president who is willing to have a beer with you is not necessarily a dumb president, but is probably a president who doesn't see himself or herself as "above" you. It's less about anti-intellectualism than it is about anti-elitism.

One of the things someone who met George W. Bush told me about him was that he "made you feel like you were the only person in the room when he spoke to you." He was (as we all know) terrible at speech-making but apparently amazing at interpersonal politics. He knew how to talk to you and make you feel like he really valued your opinion. The intelligence factor didn't really come into play, either for or against him. To those who met him, he just seemed like a nice guy.

Should people vote for the nice guy? Well, obviously not if he's otherwise incompetent. Most people, even those with less education, want a smart person to be president. But most people would also rather elect a slightly-less-smart person who is a genuinely warm, caring individual than a relatively smarter candidate who treats you like dirt.

Be honest: You'd probably prefer the candidate who, upon meeting you at a social event, asked you about your family and where you grew up, over a candidate who told you to bugger off unless you were planning on contributing to his campaign.

[Bryan Ekers]

Sure, women are anti-intellectual! None of them will have sex with me!

[Odesio]

Sometimes it's the intellectuals who cut themselves off from the rest of us. Until relatively recently university history professors have had little interest in how history is taught in public schools (there are a few notable exceptions). Those involved in public history (archivist, museum curators, etc.) are the red headed step-children of the academic history world. Then there's the general disdain that many college professors have for their community college counterparts. Some of this is changing but for a long time history professors in the U.S. pretty much only cared about what other professors had to say.

I really like the academic world but it can be very insular. If I publish a paper on influence of women's clubs in the latter half of the 19th century in facilitating women's involvement in politics I'm not going to be reaching a very broad audience. And, in all honesty, I'm writing for that audience and it might be difficult for a layperson to follow for a variety of reasons.

Odesio

[Beware of Doug]

Re the OP: I think there's real rightwing "anti-intellectualism" in the sense that these folks seem to treat certain complex but empirical facts about the world--like evolutionary science or climate change--as though they were matters of theory which appeal only to a liberal taste. They make something intellectual that really shouldn't be.

Although there may be corresponding anti-intellectualism on the left, I haven't yet seen good examples of it offered in this thread. Left liberals demonstrably like economists--plenty of them!--and feminists who criticize evolutionary psychology have legitimate reasons for doing so (one may disagree with them but not, IMO, reduce them to anti-intellectuals).

Let's look again at how Wes put it:

It seems both the right and the left can engage in anti-intellectualism. The right doesn't like college professors and feels ivory tower liberal elitists want to tell down home people how to live and what to think.

But the USSR under Stalin wasn't a good place for intellectuals either. Neither was Cambodia under Pol Pot.This suggests A-I occurs at much less radical points on the right than it does on the left. That jibes with the basic conservative and liberal attitudes toward dissent. And intellectualism breeds dissent.

[Voyager]

Let's look again at how Wes put it:

This suggests A-I occurs at much less radical points on the right than it does on the left. That jibes with the basic conservative and liberal attitudes toward dissent. And intellectualism breeds dissent.

The fact is that intellectuals do not want to tell people how to live and what to think, as Wes put it. Intellectuals usually see two sides to every argument and live on debate, as life in any academic department indicates. Intellectuals, right or left, believe in academic freedom. Sure they are wrong, and they get pig headed, and they argue and yell, but deep down they would never want anyone to shut up the opposition - where would the fun be in that.

Rigid ideological systems of the right and the left think they have all the answers, and so don't appreciate dissent. Rigid religions are the same. Debate is fine in some seminaries and religious universities so long as you stay within certain boundaries. Rigid ideologies and religions would never catch on if lots of people are more comfortable being told what to believe - thus their distrust of intellectuals.

[Voyager]

An educated person is not necessarily an intellectual. Having an advanced degree does not make someone an intellectual. It does not make them articulate, it does not make them creative, all it means is that they were good at studying one thing and were capable of memorizing and understanding that one thing. We live in a society where the college system is basically a glorified trade school, and that is true at the highest levels as well as the lowest ones. You go there to get the degree to "open the doors." At the Ivy Leage level it's an elite club for making connections and getting to know the right people.

Bull. While pre-built networks with people likely to be successful do help, top universities offer access to people at the forefront of their fields, and many more possibilities for exploration. I did all my graduate research on a subject I only learned about taking a graduate level class my senior year at MIT. I probably would never have been exposed to it at all at Podunk U. My daughter wormed her way into the class of a very famous professor at the University of Chicago, who was in the business school and hadn't even talked to undergrads for years. That really pushed her along also, and I felt my tuition money was well spent. She also got to take a class in cuneiform for fun.
Plenty of people go to Ivy League schools and take no advantage of the opportunities, but the opportunities are there.

[Voyager]

[

That desire isn't totally irrational. Managing something as complex as a country is impossible. Putting super-bright people in charge doesn't accomplish anything more than putting a team of morons in charge. It's like having a smart dog run a business as opposed to a stupid dog. It's just beyond the capability of the species no matter how smart they are. Likewise, no human or group of humans is smart enough to manage the country. and stupid politicians don't come into office with promises to put their genius to work to solve our problems. Smart politicians do, and they invariably fail just like the dumb ones.


What do you think intelligence consists of? A lot of it is curiosity, the push to ask the next question. That is exactly what Bush didn't have and why we are in so much trouble. When told about the threat of terrorists hijacking planes he didn't take the next step. He never thought about the contradictions in what he was being told about Iraq. He never wondered about what Greenspan was doing. Bush and Gore might have had more or less the same SAT scores, but Gore is a lot more intellectually curious than Bush.

Of course intelligence isn't everything. A good politician must be emotionally persuasive also, and be excellent socially, which not all geniuses are. (To put it mildly.) But that alone is a recipe for disaster, as we've seen.

[athelas]

It is a mistake to believe that intellectuals are inherently anticonformist. Within their fields this may be true, but they are just as prone to tribalism as anyone else, and this manifests in conformity to particular social doctrines. (Even within their fields there are tribal cliques - just look at the Climategate emails.) Thus outside their fields of study it is wrong to give weight to intellectuals as "driven by curiosity, not irrational tribal beliefs or self-interest."

This issue becomes particularly important when intellectuals get political power, as when their ideas can be used as government policy. This leads to a bias towards central planning - there are few professors, particularly in political science, economics, and sociology, (the most policy-applicable areas of study) that don't believe that the judicious application of their ideas through government policy will make society better.

So in some very important ways intellectuals can be very wrong, and it's misleading to characterize them as disinterested paladins of truth confronting a dull conformist society. In many cases "intellectual - anti-intellectual" conflicts are nothing more meritorious than clashes between two morally equal interest groups.

[BrainGlutton]

Huh? Isn't Paul Krugman an economist? Amartya Sen? Bradford DeLong?

Not to mention John Maynard Keynes.

[BrainGlutton]

In his book Intellectuals (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061253170/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0060916575&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=07CP99QA0PPGVDAZW2ZT) (discussed in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=346268&highlight=%22Paul+Johnson%22)), conservative author Paul Johnson defined an "intellectual" as someone who "values ideas more than people," or who has faith in the power of reason to beneficially reshape human society. In the book, he blasts as horrible human beings in their personal lives (while barely touching on the content of their ideas) Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Bertholdt Brecht, Ernest Hemingway -- all (more or less) left-wing thinkers. Curiously, he has no chapters on RW thinkers in the same periods, such as Edmund Burke, Thomas Carlyle, Wilhelm Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk -- all of whom, except perhaps for Burke, embodied all the vices of arrogance and selfishness and megalomania that Johnson attributes to LW intellectuals.

I find myself wondering if the modern conservative movement has internalized Johnson's definition and subconsciously means that when they speak of "intellectuals".

It's nonsense, of course. An intellectual is simply a person who is passionately interested in knowledge and ideas for their own sake. The term does not imply any political ideology, nor political engagement of any kind; a person can be an intellectual and completely indifferent to political or social matters.

[Wesley Clark]

When Pol Pol purges intellectuals he did so because he feared they were not 'pure', ie they were tainted by western values.

From the wikipedia article it said there were basically 3 motives for anti-intellectualism. Populism, authoritarian politics and religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Sources_of_anti-intellectualism

Pol Pol would arguably be all 3 (if you include his branch of extremist marxism as a religion, which you arguably could).

So the fundamental motives seem to be populism and authoritarianism (religion and authoritarianism are arguably the same thing because too much introspection will bring down either unjust religions or governments).



William F Buckley: I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University



Things like that make no sense to me. I can understand populist sentiment and efforts to play on people's sense of group cohesion (the liberal democrats, which I am a member of, use it all the time on economic issues). However how does populism reach the point where you don't even care about competence? Sarah Palin is a good example of this. She claims to be a populist (running against the gotcha media, liberal elites, etc). Which is fine and good, but on top of that she is dangerously incompetent. Say what you want about Cheney, but he wasn't an idiot. He is highly intelligent and knew how to get things done. And he did.

So I don't get how A-I reaches a point where incompetence isn't even a factor anymore. I remember debating someone who was fairly right wing and he said society would be better off if we got rid of all the atheists. So I said 'ok, we will keep virtually all of the college professors, scientists and nobel prize winners and you can keep Ted Nugent'. He seemed ok with that trade off. I don't get it.

I guess any time an ideology overcomes pragmatism it becomes a problem, no matter the leanings. People who are too ideologically pure to the point where it overcomes pragmatism end up harming themselves and everyone else from what I've seen.

[Odesio]

I'm an atheist but nobody sent me the club newsletter informing me that most college professors and scientist were part of the club.

[Chronos]

I think part of the reason for anti-intellectualism is that science is apolitical. A good scientist will come up with the same results regardless of whether the rulers want him to come up with. So, for instance, if the administration wants to deny that global warming is occurring, they'll have to oppose the scientists who say it is occurring. Granted, the administration will also agree with the scientists on a great many points, but those don't garner the same attention, and a single point of disagreement can be enough to produce the image of "the intellectuals are wrong/unpatriotic/dangerous".

[Dorothea Book]

An educated person is not necessarily an intellectual. Having an advanced degree does not make someone an intellectual. It does not make them articulate, it does not make them creative, all it means is that they were good at studying one thing and were capable of memorizing and understanding that one thing. We live in a society where the college system is basically a glorified trade school, and that is true at the highest levels as well as the lowest ones. You go there to get the degree to "open the doors." At the Ivy Leage level it's an elite club for making connections and getting to know the right people.

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said Argent Towers but want to add that you won't be able to get most advanced degrees (if what you mean is a doctorate or even a masters degree very often) simply by studying and memorizing. In most fields a doctorate requires the writing of a dissertation with some element of originality. That doesn't necessarily establish the holder of the PhD as an "intellectual." But it does give a clearer sense of what doctoral candidates are expected to do.

[Dorothea Book]

Wesley Clark
From the wikipedia article it said there were basically 3 motives for anti-intellectualism. Populism, authoritarian politics and religion.

...Things like that make no sense to me. I can understand populist sentiment and efforts to play on people's sense of group cohesion (the liberal democrats, which I am a member of, use it all the time on economic issues). However how does populism reach the point where you don't even care about competence? Sarah Palin is a good example of this. She claims to be a populist (running against the gotcha media, liberal elites, etc). Which is fine and good, but on top of that she is dangerously incompetent.

I'd be tempted to add intense partisanship to the three motives. And I'm glad that you wrote that Palin claims to be a populist. The policies she favors empower a relatively small group of people who are already quite powerful. The (faux) populist note comes from fomenting dislike for "elites" and unpopular minorities--not from any genuine plan to democratize anything.

[Dorothea Book]

Let's look again at how Wes put it:



Yes, Beware of Doug, but the inclusion of China in the OP is somewhat confusing. I'm not sure that the Soviet Union was much different from present-day China with regard to intellectuals: coddling those whose work and public views supported the regime and repressing those whose didn't.

[sl.124]

I cannot speak any more than for personal experience, but it appears to me that the popular idea of intellectualism includes a mandate for questioning/justifying one's own beliefs. Many people would prefer not to think about or attempt to justify their own beliefs and given that someone's beliefs are perhaps their most personal things, the very idea of having them laid bare and examined is unappealing to say the least.

[Wesley Clark]

I'm an atheist but nobody sent me the club newsletter informing me that most college professors and scientist were part of the club.

You must've forgot to include the self addressed, stamped envelope.

[Beware of Doug]

I think part of the reason for anti-intellectualism is that science is apolitical. A good scientist will come up with the same results regardless of whether the rulers want him to come up with. So, for instance, if the administration wants to deny that global warming is occurring, they'll have to oppose the scientists who say it is occurring. Granted, the administration will also agree with the scientists on a great many points, but those don't garner the same attention, and a single point of disagreement can be enough to produce the image of "the intellectuals are wrong/unpatriotic/dangerous".You may have a point, but you seem to be limiting it to "hard" scientists, who aren't the kind of intellectuals the anti's worry about most. They're much more worried about social scientists, whose results aren't often uniform and sometimes aren't even quantifiable.

athelas It is a mistake to believe that intellectuals are inherently anticonformist. Within their fields this may be true, but they are just as prone to tribalism as anyone else, and this manifests in conformity to particular social doctrines. (Even within their fields there are tribal cliques - just look at the Climategate emails.) Thus outside their fields of study it is wrong to give weight to intellectuals as "driven by curiosity, not irrational tribal beliefs or self-interest."How much of this might be due to our tendency to force academics to professionalize, and stick to one field? Not too many people today get respect from participating in varied discourse communities - it bespeaks dilettantism to have a wide-ranging mind. But you might have a shot at escaping the impetus toward groupthink.

[ITR champion]

William F Buckley: I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University

Things like that make no sense to me.Well then I've got some good news for you. Buckley wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/God-Man-At-Yale-Anniversary/dp/089526692X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259376359&sr=1-1) explaining his distrust of the academic world, so an intellectual like you can order it and get to reading right away.

I'm an atheist but nobody sent me the club newsletter informing me that most college professors and scientist were part of the club.
It was posted on Wikipedia and is therefore true. And by the way, there's nothing ironic about Wesley Clark complaining about anti-intellectualism and treating Wikipedia as a reliable source in the same post. Nothing.

[Wesley Clark]

Well then I've got some good news for you. Buckley wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/God-Man-At-Yale-Anniversary/dp/089526692X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259376359&sr=1-1) explaining his distrust of the academic world, so an intellectual like you can order it and get to reading right away.

It was posted on Wikipedia and is therefore true. And by the way, there's nothing ironic about Wesley Clark complaining about anti-intellectualism and treating Wikipedia as a reliable source in the same post. Nothing.

Its possible to respond to posts without being an asshole. You should try it sometime.

[Beware of Doug]

Its possible to respond to posts without being an asshole. You should try it sometime.Assholicity in the defense of anti-intellectualism is no vice.

[athelas]

How much of this might be due to our tendency to force academics to professionalize, and stick to one field? Not too many people today get respect from participating in varied discourse communities - it bespeaks dilettantism to have a wide-ranging mind. But you might have a shot at escaping the impetus toward groupthink.I'm not sure it's possible to reverse this trend. To become really expert in many fields it is necessary to specialize, and as knowledge advances this trend will continue rather than reverse.

More to the point, what we're really talking about is status: who gets to promulgate the mainstream view and how much weight being "in the mainstream" carries. And I doubt that amateur "dilettantes" will have much success in bringing contrarian views into an area when faced with people who've spent their careers in it.

[Voyager]

Well then I've got some good news for you. Buckley wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/God-Man-At-Yale-Anniversary/dp/089526692X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259376359&sr=1-1) explaining his distrust of the academic world, so an intellectual like you can order it and get to reading right away.
Have you read that book? I have. WFB wrote it just after graduating from Yale, pissed that his professors were insufficiently religious (and check the date of the original.) It is definitely ironic to your point since he would certainly qualify as an intellectual in anyone's book.

I wonder how much of the Harvard crack came not from distrusting professors but from distrusting Harvard professors.

[Voyager]

I cannot speak any more than for personal experience, but it appears to me that the popular idea of intellectualism includes a mandate for questioning/justifying one's own beliefs. Many people would prefer not to think about or attempt to justify their own beliefs and given that someone's beliefs are perhaps their most personal things, the very idea of having them laid bare and examined is unappealing to say the least.

It is not so much wanting to challenge your beliefs but rather to be in an environment where they will get challenged as a matter of course. Peer review, when done well, does exactly this. Grad students who are polite and quiet are unlikely to get considered as top rate students, no matter how smart they are. Intellectuals are no more immune to thinking themselves right as anyone else.

[sl.124]

It is not so much wanting to challenge your beliefs but rather to be in an environment where they will get challenged as a matter of course. Peer review, when done well, does exactly this. Grad students who are polite and quiet are unlikely to get considered as top rate students, no matter how smart they are. Intellectuals are no more immune to thinking themselves right as anyone else.

I was referring to the popular idea of intellectualism, and how intellectuals come across to most people.

As for your last point, I did not wish to imply that intellectuals were perfect in that respect but rather a large part of anti-intellectualism seems to stem from this unwillingness to challenge one's own beliefs.

[Voyager]

I was referring to the popular idea of intellectualism, and how intellectuals come across to most people.

As for your last point, I did not wish to imply that intellectuals were perfect in that respect but rather a large part of anti-intellectualism seems to stem from this unwillingness to challenge one's own beliefs.

Well, I think a lot of the popular view of intellectuals are that they are a bunch of eggheads who just blather about junk, can hardly tie their own shoelaces, and look down on the good old average American who is actually a lot smarter. Nothing new about that = the Republicans used this on Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. I don't think it gets nearly as subtle as you say.

[ITR champion]

Its possible to respond to posts without being an asshole. You should try it sometime.
I've done so three times in this thread. Perhaps you should note that it's actually possible to respond to the content of posts and try that sometime.
Have you read that book? I have. WFB wrote it just after graduating from Yale, pissed that his professors were insufficiently religious (and check the date of the original.) It is definitely ironic to your point since he would certainly qualify as an intellectual in anyone's book.
I know the date; is quoting books written before last week now "anti-intellectual"? Or is reading all books "anti-intellectual"? Wesley Clark said that he didn't understand a certain statement made by Bill Buckley. I responded by the logical suggestion that he read a book by Bill Buckley. Now you say that this is "ironic to my argument". What argument? What on earth are you talking about?

[independentminded]

Well, I think a lot of the popular view of intellectuals are that they are a bunch of eggheads who just blather about junk, can hardly tie their own shoelaces, and look down on the good old average American who is actually a lot smarter. Nothing new about that = the Republicans used this on Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. I don't think it gets nearly as subtle as you say.

Anti-intellectualism in America, as well as in Europe, has other roots as well; Anti-Semitism.

[Dorothea Book]

FWIW, ITRChampion, I appreciated your comments on evolutionary psychology. But I'm pretty sure I've seen you post the same stuff about postmodernism in academia and the Sokal hoax before--in a thread on academic peer review well over a year ago. Am I remembering rightly?

I know that I spent some time in posts in that thread which you may have read (I don't recall whether you replied to them or not) providing a somewhat different perspective on academia, esp. since the influence of postmodernism has long been on the wane (with the Sokal hoax you cited having taken place in the early 90s and the book you linked to published 12 years ago).

You're right that Wesley Clark's OP implied a great deal of overlap between academics and intellectuals and I agree with you entirely that not all academics are intellectuals and, of course, not all intellectuals are academics.

OTOH, I don't think that the influence of postmodernism--or any other trend in academia right now--explains the various strains of anti-intellectualism described in the OP.

American culture has never been strongly intellectual overall; and US politicians have seldom come from any kind of intellectual class. (In this respect Obama stands out as being a rare exception.)

I think that if the every academic institution in the US fired every last card-carrying postmodernist tomorrow the impact on overall respect for intellectual work that doesn't have an obvious market value would be entirely unchanged.

Apologies that it's taken me so long to respond...

[Wesley Clark]

You're right that Wesley Clark's OP implied a great deal of overlap between academics and intellectuals and I agree with you entirely that not all academics are intellectuals and, of course, not all intellectuals are academics.

There can be opposition to both from what I have seen though. In the USSR geneticists were oppressed. College professors are devalued by the right as indoctrinators, hence my statement on Buckley.

So it isn't just intellectuals, but academics who sometimes get it. They can be written off as elitists, indoctrinators and clueless interlopers too.

[Voyager]

I've done so three times in this thread. Perhaps you should note that it's actually possible to respond to the content of posts and try that sometime.

I know the date; is quoting books written before last week now "anti-intellectual"? Or is reading all books "anti-intellectual"? Wesley Clark said that he didn't understand a certain statement made by Bill Buckley. I responded by the logical suggestion that he read a book by Bill Buckley. Now you say that this is "ironic to my argument". What argument? What on earth are you talking about?

it is ironic because you are using it as an example of a noted intellectual supposedly making anti-intellectual arguments. I've read tons of Buckley and subscribed to NR for years when he was editing it, and he was in no way an anti-intellectual. Since you clearly haven't read the book, it is not surprising that you don't have a clue on what it is about. It is not an anti-intellectual attack on Yale, it is a religious intellectual attacking what he saw as secular intellectuals. The date is important because 1950 seems rather early for the "you professors are damn atheists" arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if chapel weren't required back then.

[Voyager]

FWIW, ITRChampion, I appreciated your comments on evolutionary psychology. But I'm pretty sure I've seen you post the same stuff about postmodernism in academia and the Sokal hoax before--in a thread on academic peer review well over a year ago. Am I remembering rightly?

I know that I spent some time in posts in that thread which you may have read (I don't recall whether you replied to them or not) providing a somewhat different perspective on academia, esp. since the influence of postmodernism has long been on the wane (with the Sokal hoax you cited having taken place in the early 90s and the book you linked to published 12 years ago).


Further, Sokal's hoax was hardly an anti-intellectual one. It was one type of intellectual attacking another. I'm on Sokal's side too, btw.

[Dorothea Book]

Wesley Clark, yes, you are right that intellectuals are often academics and that academics are therefore often among the repressed, reviled, or ignored (depending on what kind of "anti-intellectualism" we're talking about it, including where and when).

Voyager, I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say that you're on Sokal's side. That is, it would be rather hard to defend the deliberately BS article that Sokal wrote or to defend the acceptance of it at [i]Social Text[i/]. Hence, I'm not exactly on the opposing side, though I feel no great love or admiration for Sokal.

I could, if you wish, try to dig out the thread on academic peer review to which I referred above in which, IIRC, I posted at some length about what had occurred, why I thought it had occurred, and how the influence of postmodernism has waned since the 90s. (I should add that the waning of the latter isn't purely because of the Sokal hoax which proved very little about the merits of postmodernism one way or another but merely established the willingness--at that time--of two editors to publish something submitted to them by a well-known scientist and liberal which they lacked the expertise to evaluate themselves without sending it to some other scholar in the appropriate field.)

[Marley23]

Its possible to respond to posts without being an asshole. You should try it sometime.
This is kind of ironic advice. This is a formal warning: personal insults aren't allowed in this forum.

[Wesley Clark]

This is kind of ironic advice. This is a formal warning: personal insults aren't allowed in this forum.

So are we allowed to hint at insults but not give them directly?

As an example, if someone says 'only an idiot would believe ABC', is that ok but saying 'XYZ is an idiot' is a punishable offense?

[Marley23]

So are we allowed to hint at insults but not give them directly?

As an example, if someone says 'only an idiot would believe ABC', is that ok but saying 'XYZ is an idiot' is a punishable offense?
It's better to say 'ABC is an idiotic belief' and explain why rather than attacking another person's intelligence. ITR Champion did make some comments about you but I didn't think they crossed over into being insults.

[Wesley Clark]

It's better to say 'ABC is an idiotic belief' and explain why rather than attacking another person's intelligence. ITR Champion did make some comments about you but I didn't think they crossed over into being insults.


Well then I've got some good news for you. Buckley wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/God-Man-At-Yale-Anniversary/dp/089526692X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259376359&sr=1-1) explaining his distrust of the academic world, so an intellectual like you can order it and get to reading right away.

It was posted on Wikipedia and is therefore true. And by the way, there's nothing ironic about Wesley Clark complaining about anti-intellectualism and treating Wikipedia as a reliable source in the same post. Nothing.

His whole post was an implication that I am an idiot. So I responded by insulting him. I'm not looking to get ITR in trouble, I'm just confused by the rules.

If I had responded to his implied insults with implied insults of my own (rather than direct ones), something like "I really wish some people's mothers hadn't been incompetent when it came to teaching manners" or something like that, would that be ok?

This debate over insults is more fun than the original debate about intellectualism.

[Yumblie]

You may have a point, but you seem to be limiting it to "hard" scientists, who aren't the kind of intellectuals the anti's worry about most. They're much more worried about social scientists, whose results aren't often uniform and sometimes aren't even quantifiable.


The problem is, most people don't see a difference. If a sociological theory can be debunked, well then, why not physics, chemistry, or most popularly, biology? They probably see "research" as a bunch of egg-heads in lab coats wandering around coming up with wacky ideas and publishing them. They don't see a difference between arguing the validity of Freud's interpretation of dreams and the validity of biological evolution.

Conservatives in general tend to be anti-intellectual since intellectuals tend to be progressive, but it's more complicated than that. There are cultural intellectuals, ones who are well-versed in philosophy, history, and literature. Then there are scientific intellectuals, ones who are well-versed in hard sciences. They are not the same type of people and may be at odds with one another. This dates back a long time. For example Mary Shelley was most likely a cultural intellectual, the type who would go to gatherings of other writers and have in-depth discussions, but wrote a classic novel that is fervently anti-science. I'm sure there are also examples of a scientific intellectual showing disdain for those well-versed in the humanities.

For some reason, though, the two types of intellectuals are usually seen differently. An average person would see a cultural intellectual as an obnoxious blow-hard, but a scientific intellectual as dangerous, hence the cultural archetype of the mad scientist.

[Marley23]

If I had responded to his implied insults with implied insults of my own (rather than direct ones), something like "I really wish some people's mothers hadn't been incompetent when it came to teaching manners" or something like that, would that be ok?
No. And with that, I'm going to recommend you take any other questions to ATMB.

[Dorothea Book]

Conservatives in general tend to be anti-intellectual since intellectuals tend to be progressive, but it's more complicated than that.

Agreed.

There are cultural intellectuals, ones who are well-versed in philosophy, history, and literature. Then there are scientific intellectuals, ones who are well-versed in hard sciences. They are not the same type of people and may be at odds with one another. This dates back a long time. For example Mary Shelley was most likely a cultural intellectual, the type who would go to gatherings of other writers and have in-depth discussions, but wrote a classic novel that is fervently anti-science.

Sure, scientific intellectuals may sometimes be at odds with cultural intellectuals--and the distinction is a good one. But in most universities at least, it's more the case that the lives of those in the sciences and those in the humanities are quite different and there can be cluelessness about research needs, working conditions, teaching requirements, tenure criteria--quite apart from purely intellectual matters (over which the opportunity for common ground is the greatest, IMO).

One giant demurral; in what way is Frankenstein anti-science? That is hardly the point of it. It is anti-Promethean but it isn't at all anti-science (in my view).

I'm sure there are also examples of a scientific intellectual showing disdain for those well-versed in the humanities.

Undoubtedly though "disdain" is a very strong word; usually it's more like "So what do you do over there?" With the occasional amusing remark like when an engineering researcher is invited to a speak at a cross-disciplinary humanities event and opens up with the following: "You sure do have a lot of good looking people on this side of campus."

An average person would see a cultural intellectual as an obnoxious blow-hard, but a scientific intellectual as dangerous, hence the cultural archetype of the mad scientist.

Sometimes and sometimes.

Cultural intellectuals can work (hard) against the blowhard stereotype. And researchers in the sciences--intellectuals or not--are often revered by the public as the proverbial rocket scientists.

[ITR champion]

it is ironic because you are using it as an example of a noted intellectual supposedly making anti-intellectual arguments.
When did I ever do that? I have been abundantly clear that I am not defending anti-intellectualism. What I've said, and what I used Buckley's book for, was to suggest that Wesley Clark should get his definitions clear and should cite better sources than Wikipedia, which is good advice for anyone, but especially for someone who wants to pound others for anti-intellectualism. (The Wikipedia article about anti-intellectualism is a perfect example of the low standards that prevail on Wikipedia.)

FWIW, ITRChampion, I appreciated your comments on evolutionary psychology. But I'm pretty sure I've seen you post the same stuff about postmodernism in academia and the Sokal hoax before--in a thread on academic peer review well over a year ago. Am I remembering rightly?

I know that I spent some time in posts in that thread which you may have read (I don't recall whether you replied to them or not) providing a somewhat different perspective on academia, esp. since the influence of postmodernism has long been on the wane (with the Sokal hoax you cited having taken place in the early 90s and the book you linked to published 12 years ago).
I freely admit that I don't keep track up the latest developments in literary theory or other, related fields, and I'll readily accept your description of recent trends. Even so, I still think that the behavior of many academics is a factor in the attitude of many people towards academia for several reasons. First, there's postmodernism and then there's postmodernism. Even if the professors are no longer citing Foucault and Baudelaire five times a page, the basic philosophical tenets that underlie postmodernism are still running around to some degree. Second, people can have long memories. Most people's opinions about the academic world were shaped while they were in that world, roughly age 18 to 22 for an typical person. After that, they carry the observations they made with them for the rest of their life, in some cases without much need or desire to update them, so silliness that occurred in the 90's can still be shaping opinions.

Lastly, of course, there still is silliness occurring, such as the art hoax at Yale (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/17/yale-students-abortion-art-claim-scam) last year. Such things may get much more publicity than they deserve, but if we're debating why some people are so suspicious of academia, the main fact is that they do get publicity.

[Dorothea Book]

Okay ITR but what really does the Yale art hoax come down to in terms of evaluating the faculty at Yale or even the overall intellectual climate of the campus? Surely you realize that student newspapers are edited by undergraduate students--not by faculty. And while some professor somewhere at Yale may have given the thumbs up to this senior project it's hard to tell from the link you've provided. That is, what did the professor know about the details of this project? There may be something culpable or at least some exercising of poor judgment about the professor's relation to this project; or there may not. But I don't see any kind of "silliness" that you might liken to editors of Social Text having published an essay by a reputed physicist simply because they trusted he was in earnest. All we know is that an undergraduate student seems to have hoaxed her peers editing the school paper about the contents of her senior project.

Of course, if your point is simply that there's bad press on the academy then fine. But you seem to be of the mind that a lot of the bad press is justifiable or at least that were the academy less "silly" there wouldn't be so much of it.

By the way, plenty of people still cite Foucault--that is, plenty of humanities scholars who are interested in poststructuralist philosophy cite him. But as I'm fairly certain I said in the original thread, there's nothing bogus or uninteresting, or intellectual nugatory about reading Michel Foucault (and some of his lectures are still in the process of being translated into English for non-French speaking readers). You should not assume, in other words, that anyone who reads or cites Foucault is a reductive or reflexive postmodernist--or even any kind of postmodernist. If you were a philosopher would you want to be ignorant of one of the most important philosophers of the late twentieth century?

[Dorothea Book]

P.S., ITR, I forgot to say that when you wrote:

Even if the professors are no longer citing Foucault and Baudelaire five times a page...

you probably meant someone other than Baudelaire. Though Baudelaire was a groundbreaking mid-nineteenth-century poet who influenced a lot of modernists he was not a postmodernist by anyone's definition.

Perhaps you meant Baudrillard? If so, you may be pleased to know that he hasn't held up quite as well as Foucault. Though I personally still find his insights worth thinking about, I suspect Baudrillard will be remembered most for his influence on The Matrix ;).

[Damuri Ajashi]

There is a practical, scientific side to politics, but there is also a religious, spiritual side to it. right-wingers don't like climatologists. Left-wingers don't like economists. All kinds of people don't believe the scientific evidence on vaccines, or GM food.

When certain beliefs are deeply held, they often take on a quasi-religious character. Free market fundamentalism on the right, social justice on the left.

I'm kinda left of center and I am pretty sure I believe in rational economic theories. Or were you talking about the freaky deaky left wingers?

[Damuri Ajashi]

The consensus on free trade is as airtight as the consensus on climate change, probably moreso. Don't tell liberals that.

Huh? Liberals understand comparative advantage. Introduce borrowing and new trade theory (I think that's what Krugman won the nobel for) into your model and see if you still think the concensus is airtight. I think protectionism is bad for everyone but unfettered free trade especially if it is only practiced by one party is probably good for China and bad for Ohio.

Most liberals don't want to think about it, so they just deny it, or even more absurdly, insist that raising minimum wage INCREASES jobs.

Cite please.

Which doesn't make much sense, because their issue with the Friedman school is about things that the Krugmans of the world agree with them on: monetary policy is always the cause of inflation, free markets are more efficient than central planning, free trade between nations is more beneficial than protectionism.

I think liberals have a problem with free market fundamentalism, not really something that Krugman buys into. I always had a much bigger problem with people who threw around names like Friedman and Hayek without really buying into their ideas more than had any problems I ever had with Friedman and Hayek.

The things you seem to think liberals have problems with are basic micro and macro econ, this is not the distinguishing factor between mainstream economists and Friedman. It not that liberals don't believe that free markets are good, its that we believe the markets should be harnessed to help people instead of the other way around.

[YogSosoth]

The vastly different countries the OP gave in the first post seems to point to an entirely different basis on which anti-intellectualism is founded. It seems like people hate intellectualism when it goes against what they believe in and love it when it supports something they support. Conservatives don't hate intellectuals, they hold up guys like William F. Buckley and Charles Krauthammer as great thinkers and intellectuals. They think Rush Limbaugh is smart. They clearly don't have anything against brains. They're just mad that most intelligent people like ones in universities and ones doing work on science disagree with them about things.

If the elite colleges and scientists ever swing conservative again, look for them to be held up in reverence once more.

[BrainGlutton]

The consensus on free trade is as airtight as the consensus on climate change, probably moreso.

No, it isn't. Check out Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, (http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991) by Ha-Joon Chang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang).

[Zoe]

ITR champion, I am not a defender of Wikipedia. (A gentleman that I know was deliberately libled in the extreme on their website and it was not handled at all well by Wiki.)

But could you be specific about what Wesley Clark quoted from Wikipedia that was in error? Most professors that I know will allow it as a beginning research tool although not as a final source or authority. I think your attack is a little overboard.

Wesley Clark: (speaking of Bill Clinton) Supposedly he was advised to hide his intelligence and put for a southern Bubba persona.

Clinton was both a Rhodes Scholar and a genuine Southern Bubba. The two are not exclusive of each other. That is the way some Rhodes Scholars talk.

There is so much ignorant prejudice against Southern dialects that many people in broadcasting intentionally change their dialects rather than cope with the ridicule. Among them were Edward R. Murrow and Stephen Colbert.

Der Trihs, I've been part of the women's movement for about 38 years now and I have never known any feminists like the ones you describe who were or are anti-math for women or who describe certain characteristics as feminine and other characteristics as masculine. You may find some who describe certain characteristics as being traditionally feminine. That is an entirely different thing.

[Superhal]

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I didn't read the intervening posts.

If you hang out at a liberal blog or board for a while, it becomes clear why conservatives hate liberals: liberals want to control your life. Liberals don't want you to smoke, eat fatty foods, or take out the trash in a single bag. And then, liberals won't hesitate to explain to you, in mind-numbing detail, why you are absolutely, totally, and completely wrong, and then give you hundreds of links proving it. (I'm going to love seeing the responses on this one!)

What is funny too is that within the liberal camp, they can't agree. You should see the in-fighting just before the Democratic primaries.

While conservatives march blindly in lockstep with Rush and Coulter, at least they're united. Liberals can't agree on anything.

[CJJ*]

While conservatives march blindly in lockstep with Rush and Coulter, at least they're united. Liberals can't agree on anything.

This is exactly why I'm a liberal: I'm smart enough to realize no one person has a lock on the (capital T) Truth. I'm smart enough to think for myself. I'll take that over blind unity any day.

[sqweels]

If there's one thing that Americans can't stand, it's the idea that someone is better that us. If a neighbor kid has better toys, we spin it that he's "spoiled". If a classmate gets better grades, we miss no opportunity to emphasize his lack of physical prowess or unstylish grooming habits.

In fact, middle and high school culture maintains a whole value system built around turning the tables on those who would otherwise be high on the pecking order.

I think something similar culture of resentment towards people who "think they're better than you" has developed in the adult world that politicians and pundits on the right have been able to exploit. Calling someone an "elite" should be a compliment since it implies they're a person of high caliber. But elitism often refers to the attitude displayed by the upper economic classes that they are entitled to greater privilege and authority on society.

The natural and typically American resentment of this attitude has been hijacked and used against people like journalists, scientists, and educators because they often portray the world in ways conservatives would rather not see it portrayed. "Don't listen to them. They're bad people because they think they're better than you".

[Beware of Doug]

Anti-intellectualism in America, as well as in Europe, has other roots as well; Anti-Semitism.True to some degree, but you hear a lot less ranting that most intellectuals are Jews nowadays, surely because so many on the right have embraced both a) the cause of Israel and b) the neocon doctrine of Kristol, Strauss, and people with similar-sounding surnames.

[meanoldman]

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I didn't read the intervening posts.

If you hang out at a liberal blog or board for a while, it becomes clear why conservatives hate liberals: liberals want to control your life. Liberals don't want you to smoke, eat fatty foods, or take out the trash in a single bag. And then, liberals won't hesitate to explain to you, in mind-numbing detail, why you are absolutely, totally, and completely wrong, and then give you hundreds of links proving it. (I'm going to love seeing the responses on this one!)

What is funny too is that within the liberal camp, they can't agree. You should see the in-fighting just before the Democratic primaries.

While conservatives march blindly in lockstep with Rush and Coulter, at least they're united. Liberals can't agree on anything.


I know what you are saying. But both sides do it. On the right, it called being an evangelical or whatever. They want you to be SAVED! The common ground is that left or right, there is the real urge, the compulsion, to help you. And by help you, we all mean that we think you should see things our way.

The libs want you to stop smoking and start eating healthy. How DARE they?

[sqweels]

Lliberals want to control your life. Liberals don't want you to smoke, eat fatty foods, or take out the trash in a single bag.
Conservatives don't want you to have sex for fuck's sake!

What is funny too is that within the liberal camp, they can't agree. You should see the in-fighting just before the Democratic primaries.

While conservatives march blindly in lockstep with Rush and Coulter, at least they're united. Liberals can't agree on anything.
Then they're not all one big camp, are they? There's a lot of diversity among non-conservatives. Conservatives can't inoculate themselves from all criticism by pointing to one issue that some of their opponents are arguably wrong about, because most of them probably don't share that view but have plenty of arguments about things that conservatives are wrong about.

[ITR champion]

ITR champion, I am not a defender of Wikipedia. (A gentleman that I know was deliberately libled in the extreme on their website and it was not handled at all well by Wiki.)

But could you be specific about what Wesley Clark quoted from Wikipedia that was in error? Most professors that I know will allow it as a beginning research tool although not as a final source or authority. I think your attack is a little overboard.
Wesley said: "From the wikipedia article it said there were basically 3 motives for anti-intellectualism. Populism, authoritarian politics and religion."

Which, for starters, is not true. The Wikipedia articles lists those as the three sources of anti-intellectualism. A source is a place where a certain way of thinking begins, and thus quite different from a motive, which is something that causes an individual to behave a certain way.

More importantly, though, Wikipedia's list of "sources of anti-intellectualism" is laughable. As we can see from this thread, it's easy to name a great many sources of anti-intellectualism not listed on the Wikipedia page. Further, the discussion of "religion, authoritarian politics, and populism" on the Wikipedia page looks like it was written by a seventh grader. It probably was.

[Wesley Clark]

Clinton was both a Rhodes Scholar and a genuine Southern Bubba. The two are not exclusive of each other. That is the way some Rhodes Scholars talk.

There is so much ignorant prejudice against Southern dialects that many people in broadcasting intentionally change their dialects rather than cope with the ridicule. Among them were Edward R. Murrow and Stephen Colbert.


That was derogatory towards you and a lot of other southerners, so I'm sorry. My point was that Clinton was (to my understanding) encouraged not to act too intellectual.

I do think there is a political and cultural battle between the south/midwest and the coasts (the west coast and the northeast coast). And my impression has been that intellectualism can be derided as a sign of 'ivory tower liberalism from the coasts' unlike the 'genuine, common sense' of the midwest and south. And I felt Clinton was going to be attacked for his intellect in these regions for it.

Either way, not everyone from the south/midwest is dumb and not everyone from the coasts is an intellectual.