I do not know enough about other countries to judge their degree of bias toward intellecctualism.
Socrates debated.
“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”
Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.
An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”
Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.
We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank. Brzerzinsky recognizes that
“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”
The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’
Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.
I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?
Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh
I think in this context the others would say “Duh. We’ve been perceiving colors for years. What kept you?”
I’ve been directly involved in funding academia from industry, and in evaluating proposals for government funding, both in technical areas. In industry, while you do get approval for academic funding based on your needs, the time frames involved, the level of supervision required, and access to internal “secrets” means this hardly ever comes out the way intended, and the academics usually do more or less what they want to do. (Which is best for society as a whole.) What you really get from funding universities is first access to the best students, some input into the direction of the project, and a first look at research results, maybe all of a month before they get published.
Some government funding is directed, like the old DARPA, but some is not, like NSF. Even DARPA goes off the rails. The internet, if you remember, came from a project to provide reliable communication between government computers in time of war.
I can’t imagine any direction at all in the funding of the humanities.
Conclusion: don’t trust your sources.
Though “committed detachment” sounds like an oxymoron, any good scientist qualifies. You may be committed to a hypothesis, (you have to be to work on it) but you should be detached enough to abandon it if the evidence tells you to. I’m not sure that many of us count as good by this definition.
Imagine…using paragraphs. Instead of bullet point oriented sentences.
Anyway, I think you are still drawing conclusions and validating your ‘theory’ without any actual proof. Its sort of like building an entire structure (of logic in your case) on a foundation of sand. What proof do you offer that anti-intellectualism is rampant in the US? Only your own observations that this is so (tag line: ‘My cite is my post’). What proof do you offer that the US has EVER been pro-intellectual? None that I’ve seen. So, has this situation changed somehow in the US…or are we as we’ve always been, purportedly (according to you) anti-intellectual? If the former, then what has changed…and how exactly are you defining intellectualism here? If the latter…then how did the US rise to be one of the great nations with this anti-intellectual bias?
:dubious: ‘Our species will not make it for another two hundred years’? What do you base this on? Do you have some kind of historical data suggesting that ‘our species’ was once predominently pro-intellectual? If not…how do you account for the clear fact that we have ‘made it’ for 10’s of thousands of years without it? If so then what do you attribute to the change in ‘our species’ away from intellectualism? What did we, as a species, have before that we don’t have now?
Frankly I’m not seeing our current society in the US as representative of the entire human species…nor do I think we are particularly anti-intellectual. Nor do I think there is much historical evidence that we were once in a golden age of intellectualism and have fallen from our ivory towers recently.
Finally I don’t think that if we continue with our current trend the entire human race will go tits up in 2 centuries. What evidence do you have to back up any of your assertions that you are the one guiding light, beaming out to all of us beer drinking reality show watching anti-intellectual types here on the Straightdope?
-XT
Piffle.
You’ve been here, before. Remember?
As soon as someone states that they, too, are interested in seeking knowledge for the pleasure of understanding, you find something in their post that you decide is not within the scope of the definitions you have formed and you declare that they have failed to meet the standards of your new belief.
Everyone else you simply talk past instead of engaging in actual discussion.
My suspicion is that if you found too many (perhaps any) people who you would be willing to accept as having recognized your Great Truth, then you would no longer be so special. Therefore, you are compelled to show that no one but you has actually, really, truly, veritably, certainly discovered your Great Truth.
It is not a problem and I will not bother you any further. I just needed to check to see where you were on this particular visit. Perhaps others who engage you will discover some value in the discussions they have with other participants.
Socrates was a cranky old man driven out of his house by his even crankier old wife, who chose to spend his days leading unschooled youth down prepared paths to logical errors so that he could yell “AHA!” Any good lawyer, today, leads his witness to the same sort of trap, (which is why we hire judges to try to stop the lawyers from corrupting the truth).
First, I would put down the bong.
I know several people who go around learning new things for the sheer fun of doing so. I’m not one of them (I have different hobbies that I’ve found satisfy me much better), but I can assert from a pretty firm personal basis that in at least some circles, it’s quite nearly common.
But is this thread about people hating intellectuals now? I’d thought it was about hating people who talked like intellectuals, when talking to a “lower” audience; that is, persons who don’t speak properly to their audience but instead spend their time trying to flaunt their smarts by using ten dollar words and so forth. Those people are justifiably disliked, but I’d gathered that people generally liked the intellectuals that didn’t talk down to them.
I thought the thread was about species extinction within 2 centuries if we continue down this anti-intellectual path we are currently (or perhaps have always) treading.
I’m SO confused…
-XT
Above Market Fundamentalism?
Sounds like a question for intellectuals. Actually it’s not that hard. One can identify trends within society anecdotally. You’d have to establish judgement criteria, defend your definitions and then prove that a majority of the people think that way.
It’s generally because self-appointed intellectuals are oftentimes arrogant jerks. I’ve always been a step above average intelligence. For a long time I was kind of a jerk about it, and people couldn’t stand me. Now I am not a jerk about it and I find very little resentment. In one of my classes for instance, I have had a couple of people tell me that they are grateful to me for asking questions they didn’t think to ask.
Did you ever stop to think that your inability to explain it is a limitation on your end? I for a long time tried to explain the concept of cultural models limiting our ability to communicate complex concepts to one another, that many of our arguments were actually differences of semantics, but because we have a lot of emotional investment in the conflicts we are rarely willing to accept the problem as being simply a difference in how things are defined. In my quest to explain the concept that I understood intuitively, I came across writings about the subject and learned terms such as ‘gloss’, ‘semiotics’, and ‘reality tunnel’.
I tend to see that there is some sense to the Hindu caste system. Different castes have the ability to understand different things. Joe Sixpack just isn’t the academic type. Not every idea has value to every person. It’s just as much a lack of intelligence on your part to try and explain an idea that serves no function to Joe, as is his lack of interest. Most people only learn things that are directly applicable. Joe clearly isn’t stupid, he can probably explain to you the difference between bandwidth and cache, he’ll tell you the precise details of the headers on the car he is rebuilding, and can cite the stats of his favorite Quarterback. All of those things are intellectual pursuits, but they aren’t the dilettantish abstraction that most intellectuals pride themselves in.
Curiousity by itself is not a virtue.
Curiosity itself may not be a virtue but can be the first step in that direction. Curiosity without action is only a begining. But consciousness leads to curiosity; curiosity connected to caring can lead to inovation.
Which is still a meaningless statement that fails to communicate anything of importance. You have not in the least suggested anything to the extent that caring or innovation might be important.
What you say is possibly correct. I do not think so because often the majority is wrong. In fact my study of psychology explains just why the majority is often wrong. Socrates is my ideal and I suspect most of the citizens of Athens thought his attempt to enlighten them was wrong.
It is my view that at least 70% of the members of Internet discussion forums are younger than 25. It is my experience that young people think that to be negative is to be cool. Older people seem always to show a negative face to the world also. That is, I assume, the human tendency to do a turtle when faced with a new idea. Humans are either running with the herd or standing blankly staring into the distance or withdrawn into their shell until the new idea goes away.
These kind of remarks are what I conclude to be anti-intellectual bias.
Discussing a way to prove your assertion is anti-intellectual?
I think you suffer from an anti-intellectual bias.
I point you to Fallacy
Particularly:
This should help you in your anti-intellectualism. Perhaps this page will get you where you are seeking to go. It might help you with your unsupported assertions and fabricated statistics.
It’s possible that you’ve discovered some great idea and that everyone else is so biased against that idea they fail to appreciate its truth. But perhaps the problem is that you have not clearly communicated your idea. Or it’s possible that your idea isn’t as great as you believe and other people have understood and rejected it.
Communicating ideas that are unorthodox is a big problem. We have only words that most people comprehend in only an orthodox fashion. Critical thinking is one such word.
I have tried to acquaint readers with the unorthodox meaning of critical thinking and it is a big problem.
When I started out I did not recognize this problem and just tried to go directly into explaining what the unorthodox meaning was. This proved to be a failure. I discovered that people saw the phrase ‘critical thinking’ and decided that they were a critical thinker and thus did not read anything more. When we use common words most people conjure only common meanings and they do a turtle when I try to discuss the unorthodox meaning.
Yeah, okay, but, have you ever, really looked, at your hands, man?
That is a possibility. But if the majority says that X is false when I write that X is true I conclude that I am facing a universal characteristic of human nature. For example, I have 5 children and 7 grandchildren and I know that teens think that to be negative is to be cool. So I might conclude that most of the responders are teens.