I don’t necessarily have a problem with this distinction, but then I’m hopelessly middle class in my outlook.
Though some people own things strictly to be conspicuous, that’s not always the case. Your friend might appreciate the quality of the goods, etc. On the other hand, signing personal correspondence with J.D., Ph.D., etc. serves no other purpose than to either show off or attempt to lend greater weight to what you have to say. In other words, a Coach purse is sometimes a sign of bragging, while it’s my opinion that signing Ph.D. to a letter about Aunt Mabel’s garden is always conspicuous. And I think a lot of people perceive arrogance from a person who insists on addressing themselves with an academic title in social situations.
As an example there was an e-mail that was the basis of a Pit thread where the author signed it Jane Doe, Ph.D. and I actually laughed when I read it. What possible relevance does a Ph.D. have to an e-mail about “love, hope and despair” after the election?
Generally, I tend to agree with most who say that the idea of anti-intellectualism is often misinterpreted. Americans don’t dislike smart people. NASA scientists are held in very high regard. The ones who aren’t tend to be those who’ve spent their lives in the academy and are perceived as condescending in telling people how to live. This is, of course, just an outline. But a certain number of academics have a woeful track record of supporting fascism, Stalin, etc. Those are the types who are disliked.
I think a large part of the anti-intellectualism is mostly aimed at the acedemic “Ivory tower types”, largely in the Social Sciences, that are largely seen by much of the general public as producing little of value.
Other smart people are generally admired, because everyone can easily see what they do and why it is important. An engineer can point and say “I designed that bridge over there”, a physicist can say “I am working on getting fusion working”, or the chemist can say “I work on fuel additives that make your car engine last longer.”
Many of the English, History, Poly Sci, PHD’s can only say they teach college students or write various papers. And while your average person regards teaching as important, generally in these subjects, they percieve that all that is being taught is radical ideas, or stuff that isn’t really useful, unless you plan on teaching it.
Speaking of radical ideas, acedemics seem to be full of people promoting things considered way outside the mainstream. For example, you will find Marxism views and ideals among many college proffessors, which seems to most people to be downright bizarre - everybody know how badly those worked in Russia.
I’m reminded of a conversation Brainiac4 had with a boss. Brainiac4 (in case you can’t tell by his username) can be kind of an intellectual snob. (Though I’m the culture snob - it isn’t unique in our family). (And its a comic book reference as well, though his didn’t choose a comic book reference without brains).
His boss said, criticizing his intellectualism “Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are intellectuals.”
Brainiac4 has always told the story by completing the sentence with “not that I’d want my daughter to marry one.”
I remember this quote from the second debate in St Louis:
"Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you’re going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.
***And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I’m sorry, you too. ***"
That comes off as snobish and elitist in my book, anyone else agree?
I had already read that response in the thread you linked too erislover…and I still don’t agree with you. There is a difference from thinking you are right to intolerance with anyone disagrees with you. For instance: I think I’m right about economic conservatism…but I’m not intolerant of someone who espouses economic liberalism. I’m attentive in debate, especially if they have interesting things to say, and I realize that there can be a difference of opinion on things…that there is not necessarily a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer, but just a different set of priorities, assumptions, and worldview.
As to your assertion that:
I hadn’t realized this was a totalitarian government…I always thought it was one of those Democracy things. The government isn’t SUPPOSED to TELL us whets good for us…we are supposed to tell the government our will. That means that ideas are presented (via the candidates running for elected office), evaluated, and voted on…so in effect they ARE suggestions. If, later on, a NEW consensus is reached then laws are overturned to conform better to the will of the people.
There really is no ABSOLUTE ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…only a consensus of what the majority PERCEIVED as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ at any given time. And THAT is where the intellectual elite (especially the LIBERAL intellectual elite) falls down…they are so caught up in THEIR absolute vision of whats ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that they lose touch (and patients) with others who don’t agree with their vision.
Funny thing about those tax cuts SentientMeat…I’m not extremely wealthy, yet I got a huge cut relative to what I make. (I still didn’t vote for Bush though).
However, I don’t think that phrase or part of the debate was elitist by Kerry in any case. In fact, I don’t really consider Kerry a ‘liberal intellectual elite’…just an intellegent liberal.
My point is that Kerry has the ability to look at a crowd, behind the bright lights on the stage and can automatically determine that the everyone is beneath his social-economic status. I suppose that with his wife’s ketchup money, the odds were pretty good that the entire audience WAS worth less than him, but that certainly did not make them the paupers he made them out to be.
And my point was that the person who says he suspects he is amongst the richest in the room is being called the elitist, rather than the man who actually enacted a tax cut which primarily benefited that elite.
National psychosis. I have no other explanation. Mr. Teflon vs. Mr. Velcro. Bush spends his entire career trying to help the upper class, Kerry wants to reverse the tax cut for the very richest and Kerry is the elitist. Kerry gets wounded while serving in the military, Bush dodges the draft in the NG and then dodges the dodge because he doesn’t want to take a physical- it’s Kerry that has to defend himself to veterans.
Bush tells us that the vote to authorize the use of force is a vote for peace, then later says that Kerry voted for the war and that makes Kerry the flip-flopper. Both candidates have virtually the same stand on gay marriage, yet Kerry’s position costs him the White House. Americans are nuts. Nuts, I tell you.
Chlorofluorocarbons, the ozone-depleters, have been banned from use in aerosol hairspray for almost 30 years. Two subsequent substitutes were banned as carcinogens – it’s not exactly a favor to the nation’s big-haired those products ever came into use. The current family of propellents, VOCs such as butane, actually cause ozone formation, albeit and unfortunately down here where it’s bad as opposed to way up there where it’s good.
I suspect that one of the reasons Americans have deep suspicions about the so-called “intelligent” is that so many of them turn out to be, well, not.
I would say that less than 47% of the public laughed. I found no humor in it myself, but I am also quick to mention that I was viewing it through partisan glasses. I also do not think that $200k is a hefty income by any means. Many will say that $100k is rich or affluent. I can tell them from personal experience that it is neither.
I was going to disagree with you until I realized that my girlfriend and I make pretty close to $200k combined and took a look around the shithole one bedroom appartment we share.
It’s still pretty good money though, even by New York standards. To say otherwise when 99% percent of the people make much less than that does come across as elitist.
Of course. But if you think you aren’t taking a position that you’re already right in that discussion… well, I’d wonder why you were even discussing it.
Obviously. The question is whether you think your worldview is better, which you do, otherwise there is no debate, there’s nothing to convince anyone of, etc.
I know. And what happens when we tell our government what to do, and it does it…? My point.
People who think they are right. Their will gets made into national law, yes? Which people must follow, yes?
What that has to do with this is precisely nothing. Someone thinks they are right [enough] and uses that, plus political support from people who agree [enough] to make a national law in national politics.
Keep telling me how right you are about this. It isn’t ironic at all, I promise.
Yeah, using an historical example makes me dumb. You don’t think I chose that one instead of global warming to avoid a point of contention, do ya? But hey, you’re right, NOBODY was saying CFC bans were liberal tree-huggery.
:rolleyes:
I think people are just wary of scientists making pronouncements about how we should live based on a study. Consider eggs, vitamin supplements, or birth control. The most recent one is hormone replacement therapy. It’s good! It’s bad! It prevents ovarian cancer! It causes breast cancer! It protects you from dementia! It causes heart disease!
I’m sure that you can understand why a non-scientist is a bit suspicious of policy based on research.
