Anti-Intellectualism

[Relbeek Einre]

I've inserted the phrase "anti-intellectualism" into political discussions a couple times and it's led to an interesting backlash - "You're saying Republicans are stupid?" being the prototypical response.

So I wanted to explain what anti-intellectualism is - those of you without a political science education may not have heard the term before.

Anti-intellectualism is a generalized mistrust of academics. Phrases like "egghead," "ivory tower," "policy wonk," and other such things show a derision for people with their noses in books - an assumption that people who get their learning from studies on college campuses don't have the real-world experience to give them a clue about what's happening.

Anti-intellectualism has been a more or less integral part of American society throughout its history (and other nations too, but I'm focusing on America). A farmer tilling the soil would have a great resentment for a son who decided to go to college to make something of himself, for example. Grumblings about "the intellectual elite" have been common throughout our history, a fear/mistrust of an aristocratic rule by those who deem themselves better than the rest of us because they're better educated. (Consider that probably everyone who read the word "aristocratic" in my previous sentence probably considered the word pejorative. Consider that aristocracy was, in the time of Socrates, considered to be the ideal form of government, where the wisest rule.)

I hope my meager efforts here are making a distinction between the phenomenon of anti-intellectualism and being willfully ignorant or stupid.

But it has experienced a resurgence in neoconservatism and the Bush administration. Whether it's Bush kicking scientists off committees for reporting "true facts" instead of "good facts" and then his spin machine accusing the scientists of bias (echoed here by some of the more lock-step Bush supporters), or whether it's the assault on academia via things as the Arab immigrant's (laughable and discredited) story of being threatened by a college professor for being a Bush supporter or a Christian conservative campus organization whining about their "values" being challenged, or whether it's the efforts to insert creationism into science curricula in high school and college, the sentiments of anti-intellectualism have experienced greater influence during Bush's term in office.

For those interested, a really great (and old) book on anti-intellectualism is Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter. It doesn't cover any modern-era shenanigans, but it does help understand the context of anti-intellectualism.

[Rsak]

The problem is that due to your viewpoint you consider some things obviously true and you fail to see the difference between your "good fact" and the opposing "good fact" while the "true fact" has yet to discovered.

Thus people with just a valid perspective and viewpoint as your own are labeled anti-intellectuals.

As it was stated understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side, and the truth.
While you strive to understand the situation do not fall prey to confusing your side with the truth!

[Relbeek Einre]

I think you should read the book, Rsak, or at least read up what you can find about anti-intellectualism before you speak.

[Rsak]

Relbeek this board is enough of a resource to make quite a few conclusions about the topic..

a) Anti-Intellectualism does occur.

b) Somethings get labeled Anti-Intellectualism while in reality it is not.

c) everyone one of us including myself has committed A and B at one point or another. (This is why I was specific when I stated that what I previously described does not happen all the time)

The advice on understanding is equally applicable to everyone on this board and when you start throwing around statements like Anti-Intellectual you had better be damn sure that you understand the truth not just your side.

[Relbeek Einre]

Anti-intellectualism doesn't have to do with the truth. It has to do with prejudicial feelings. (Not to be confused with racism, just a predisposition to mistrust)

Appealing to anti-intellectual feelings can be used to mask the truth, but speaking from anti-intellectual feelings doesn't mean you're wrong.

Like I said, Rsak, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Eidolon Faer]

Relbeek.

First of all, I was indeed aware of what anti-intellectualism means. And you're still misusing the term.

Rsak nailed it pretty much on the head, but I'll elaborate:

There's a spectrum of opinions on the value of "intellectuals" (a loaded term itself) that ranges from "Them college boys don't know nothin' about that that there real world" to "OMG! Someone with a Ph.D. said something! We must bow down and worship this new divine revelation!"

You're right in a sense. A high-level academic degree no longer gives you the instant aura of Father Knows Best infallibility that you to see in old pulp science fiction. And a large part of that is how much more common advanced degrees have become. Many of the readers on this board hold college degrees, many hold graduate degrees, and almost everyone knows or works with someone who holds an advanced degree in their field, whether it be a Ph.D., an MBA, or whatever.

And many of us have worked with or for a MBA or Ph.D. holder who is a complete imbecile. The new car smell has worn off, and we've looked behind the curtain and seen the Wizard of Oz.

That doesn't mean we look at something an "intellectual" says and automatically reject it. We just no longer take it as Gospel without looking it over once or twice.

The problem I have is that you spout some highly-suspect argument or factoid, claim "Some academic said it therefore it's true" and when your "appeal to authority" argument is challenged you launch into your anti-intellectual song and dance.

And what's really galling is that you bring up anti-intellectualism to refute posters whose posting styles are far more academically-rigorous than your own.

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh really, Eidolon?

"Most say inauguration festivities should be toned down"

AKA.....Crying Liberals...

they only polled 1007 people..and they say this is the Nations attitude...I can poll more people that that at the unemployement office in downtown

Torakus wrote that, and that's the post to which I responded with a note about anti-intellectualism. Was Torakus's post academically rigorous, in your opinion? No really, please, explain how it was. I'm listening. Explain how his methodology of dismissing the validity of the poll was remotely sound.

The only other poster to whom I applied the label is you, and I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether your posting style is "far more academically-rigorous" than my own. (Hint to the readers: See how I quoted Eidolon? That's an actual quote of Eidolon's. A little bit of rigorous fact-checking of which Eidolon's posts routinely show a lack.)

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself like this, Eidolon, with your easily disproven attacks. Well, you don't, but I really don't think it'll do much for your self-esteem, your bitterness, or your anger issues. It'll just add to that grudge you carry, that desire to get me back for whatever humiliations or offenses you've suffered here, and will prove ultimately frustrating as long as you can't check basic facts (which, in this case, a 30 second search of this board would have done.)

Gah. There's that pity feeling again. I'll probably feel guilty later for hitting the Submit button.

[SicTimMitchell]

Anti-intellectualism is not really an American trait. Most Americans at least hope that their children will be well-educated and well-read.

True anti-intellectualism -- as practiced by both far-right authoritarian and far-left totalitaritian regimes -- requires a tight reign over the media, educational insititutions and religious authorities, and usually includes a slaughter of the intellectual elite. (Who are not necessarily academics at all -- they can also be artists, writers, journalists etc.)

A charming Amerian trait is the we distrust our political leaders far more than we distrust anyone else. As it should be.

[SicTimMitchell]

P.S.,

I think it behooves me once more to point out that our supposedly sub-literate current president graduated from both Yale and Harvard.

[Relbeek Einre]

Anti-intellectualism is not really an American trait.

Agreed, Bang, and I mentioned that in my initial post.

And you're talking about a different animal. That particular animal has also been known as anti-intellectualism, but it's more of a directed effort to keep the populace uneducated and therefore less of a threat. That particular practice has been given other names as well, though damned if I can remember them off-hand.

A charming Amerian trait is the we distrust our political leaders far more than we distrust anyone else. As it should be.

Perhaps as it should be, but I vehemently disagree with you on the existence of that "charming American trait." For some this is certainly true, but you need not go any further than the ferocity with which Bush's defenders lionize him even in the face of horrible errors in judgement ("Bring 'em on") or bad policy (the huge boondoggle to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the Medicare prescription drug bill), and the similar ferocity with which Clinton's defenders (see? Nonpartisan!) protected him at the worst of the Lewinsky scandal.

I think for most Americans, they either don't really pay attention to their political leaders or are loyal to one side and extremely suspicious of the other. If you want groups that receive greater mistrust from the American people, try A) lawyers and B) corporate executives.

[Rsak]

Anti-intellectualism doesn't have to do with the truth. It has to do with prejudicial feelings

Anti-Intellectualism as well as accusations of Anti-Intellectualism have to do with understanding. Understanding is not possible without the truth and invariably the false accusations arise when someone fails to see the gap between their side and the truth.

You quoted Torakus and pointed out that his post elludes to the mistrust in poll takers. You have assumed that this is due to anti-intellectualism, but it could be just as likely due to belief of corruption in poll taking (biased questioning rather then objective). With all honesty though there is not enough evidence for form a conclusion one way or another as to the root of his mistrust. Yet without this vital information we ultimately can never understand the truth and are relegated to using the only our side and our opponents. In this situation you have attacked Torakus with Anti-Intellectualism when you have fallen prey to the pitfall in understanding and in effect issued a baseless accusation at this point.

A little bit of rigourous questioning to reveal the truth could have turned your baseless accusation into a valid or invalid conclusion depending on what the truth actually was. Due to this series of events I honestly have to hold the opinon that Anti-Intellectualism and accusations of Anti-Intellectualism which are false are just as equally damning on in individual committing the acts. Yet you continue in destructive behavior while you continually attack someone in a manner that should remain private and try to assert some kind of intellectual superiority when in reality your actions are those of a hypocrite!

[Gurn Brell]

Just to correct Beek, I'm pretty sure that was the dumbass Tholiak who you quoted and not Tora. Tora may be a dumbass at times but even he wouldn't say something so stupid, while Tholiak has continuously had a fucked up opinion when it comes to polls and statistics.


Gurrney

[Relbeek Einre]

Don't bruise yourself thumping your chest, Waterhead.

The specific manner in which Torakus discounted the poll screamed of anti-intellectualism. Discounting a poll of over 1000 people because you can find 1000 people in an unemployment line? Classic. Absolutely classic. Completely brushing off all that egghead nonsense about statistics and standard deviations and boiling it down to... an unemployment line? That's the base of accusations you call "baseless" - you just don't accept them.

And please, Waterhead... I'm not talking about anything that's a private issue, unless I actually stumbled upon something discussed between Eidolon and his therapist (and I have no knowledge of whether or not he actually HAS one.) Eidolon's behavior in this forum is fairly public. I endeavor to keep private matters private, and to keep my word when I give it (and when I fail, I'm quick to admit it). Two things which I hope Eidolon appreciates despite the recently renewed hostilities he initiated.

[superwalrus]

this is a so-so troll Relbeek.

Walrus

[Relbeek Einre]

You can talk when you make a decent troll.

[Gurn Brell]

Speaking of Troll. Beek you got trolled bad making a whole new thread based on something Tholiak said everyone knows he is a fucking moron and to ignore him~


Gurrney

[Relbeek Einre]

Naw. (You're right, it was Tholiak.)

It was other people balking at the term, not Tholiak.

[Rsak]

There you go again making assumptions for why someone said something and what they meant.

The reality is that you don't know why the poster thought the poll was invalid.

And please Relbeek, you admitted already it was something that did not belong on this board. To continue in that kind of behavior is just flat out dishonourable when directed at someone you called a friend. The is no evidence of accusations you have leveled on this board and if they are true your willingness to air out your problems with Eidolon here does nothing to support your case and only makes yourself look even worse.

[Relbeek Einre]

Heh.

You're wonderful, Rsak.

When you make "assumptions" about peoples' actions it's obvious, reasonable and even when directly told you're wrong you have none of it.

Oh, but if anyone else does...

You're a funny monkey.

And yes, I did, in my first post, say too much - ten words, to be exact. But Eidolon's irrational behavior is second only to your own on this forum, Waterhead, and if he's going to carry out his stupid vendetta against me on this forum, I have no problems calling it out as such. And for what it's worth, I may not like Eidolon, I may find his recent behavior to be dishonest, dishonorable, bitter, petty, and spiteful, but I don't want him to continue to act in a manner which I know will only cost him in the long run - I don't wish him an unhappy life.

[Rsak]

The last shreds of honour I thought you had have just flown out of the window. You are sucking at the bottom of the barrel!

You claim to want to help someone from having such damaging behavior yet solution to this is the very damaging behavior.. Your hypocrisy has reached a new low!