Anti Intellectualism in American Life

[Skarekrow]

Interesting to note I had a good sum of money saved up until Obama had been in office for a year. Now I have no savings. This is fact as I can attest to its authenticity

So it’s Obama’s fault you can’t budget well?

 

[sprinkles]

I wonder if you have anything to back up the idea that Americans or people in general do not trust smart people. Its an interesting concept. It may even be true but what facts can you provide that support the theory?

Look at all the baseless rejections of mainstream science.

Look at the fact that there are few real intellectuals. An intellectual is a person who pursues knowledge and critical study, whereas most people don't continue to advance their knowledge very much after leaving school, because what they know is enough to function and do whatever job they have. They are not interested in gaining more knowledge except for maybe trivial knowledge which is diluted down and published in articles that they don't actually understand.

Edit:
Also look at the disdain for learning and knowledge in general. Have you ever heard somebody say "What do I need to learn this for? I'll never use it!"

 

[Eventhorizon]

Look at all the baseless rejections of mainstream science.

Look at the fact that there are few real intellectuals. An intellectual is a person who pursues knowledge and critical study, whereas most people don't continue to advance their knowledge very much after leaving school, because what they know is enough to function and do whatever job they have. They are not interested in gaining more knowledge except for maybe trivial knowledge which is diluted down and published in articles that they don't actually understand.

Edit:
Also look at the disdain for learning and knowledge in general. Have you ever heard somebody say "What do I need to learn this for? I'll never use it!"

All excellent observations. Yet this still doesn't prove an overall distrust of intelligent people.

 

[Eventhorizon]

So it’s Obama’s fault you can’t budget well?

No. Its his fault the economy tanked and there are more people than at any other time in history who are under employed.

 

[Matt3737]

No. Its his fault the economy tanked and there are more people than at any other time in history who are under employed.

Obama took office just after the global recession hit due to the financial crisis and subprime mortgage crisis, yet you think it's all his fault. Are you trying to epitomize American anti-intellectualism right now?

 

[sprinkles]

All excellent observations. Yet this still doesn't prove an overall distrust of intelligent people.

I don't think there's anything to prove that in particular because nobody has tried to prove such a thing, at least not that I can find. I don't know any studies on it, but I do see a study that says intelligent people are better at knowing who to trust.

However I don't know that there's an overall distrust. There's just enough of it to be a problem.

 

[the]

All excellent observations. Yet this still doesn't prove an overall distrust of intelligent people.

Id like to point out that Americans trust the knowledge of anyone with a British accent.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Id like to point out that Americans trust the knowledge of anyone with a British accent.

Ha! Yes I think that may be true.

 

[brightmoon]

I wonder if you have anything to back up the idea that Americans or people in general do not trust smart people.

I think what I just said about leadership may back up this idea as well. I feel that many of those who aspire to presidency have felt the need to cover up their intellect in order to get elected. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. a clearly intelligent person, but he played the role of "Bubba: just a good ol' boy, likeable, non threatening. someone people felt comfortable talking to, maybe having a beer with and just talking to. Dubya's persona was the painted in a similar way. Both of them had appeal because they were perceived to be authentic "men of the people" instead of elite effete intellectuals.

"Eggheads" are part of establishment and are clearly considered to be unfit for leadership roles. The one and only US President ever to come from academia was Woodrow Wilson. So if being overly intelligent is not considered to be a leadership quality what does this say about the society overall valuation of intellectual activity?

 

[Skarekrow]

No. Its his fault the economy tanked and there are more people than at any other time in history who are under employed.

Obama took office just after the global recession hit due to the financial crisis and subprime mortgage crisis, yet you think it's all his fault. Are you trying to epitomize American anti-intellectualism right now?

Nuff said.

 

[Skarekrow]

Growing up...being intelligent was a mixed bag, if you were also an introvert you were called names like “nerd” etc. and I don’t think it was until about the 6th grade that kids start to wise up somewhat - at least they started to value getting good grades in their studies etc. though there was still the line of popular kids, nerds, and everything in between.

HS was when learning and being intelligent were shown more value by my peers IMHO...and it was frowned upon to be looked at as “dumb”, it was those kids who then became the “nerds”.

I believe that things are beginning to change as far as the perspective of a child growing up (as I watch my own Son) and how intelligence in valued.
It’s not cool to be the kid who screws around...it’s not cool anymore for the most part to be the “dumb jock”, whereas when I was in HS...the footballers were all popular no matter how idiotic they were academically.

I’m proud to say that my Son has a 3.8 gpa...and I feel especially lucky that he gets to go to a 6-12th grade “Magnet” School that is focused on the Arts.
He was one of the lucky few chosen out of 400 that showed up to grab the 100 spots they leave available unless you’ve been on the waiting list for the last 12 years your kid has been alive.

I think anti-intellectualism is alive an well with people like Kanye West and his wife...people who buy overpriced crap because some celeb endorses it...our education system though better than it used to be is still focused not on creating critical-thinking skills, but teaches kids how to be good workers.
8 hour days...sit at their cubical (desk), do their paperwork, and then get evaluated based on how well they followed directions.

There is a big movement waking up though also...on both conservative sides and liberal sides...that anti-intellectualism is not helpful or healthy for the US.
I hope this leads to Trump losing, and whomever is the other nominee (ugh not Hillary please) at least acknowledging that the status quo is no longer going to sit very well with folks.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Obama took office just after the global recession hit due to the financial crisis and subprime mortgage crisis, yet you think it's all his fault. Are you trying to epitomize American anti-intellectualism right now?

Small recession turned into what essentially is best described as a depression by the administration. That really cant be denied.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Nuff said.

Really not but whatever.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I don't think there's anything to prove that in particular because nobody has tried to prove such a thing, at least not that I can find. I don't know any studies on it, but I do see a study that says intelligent people are better at knowing who to trust.

However I don't know that there's an overall distrust. There's just enough of it to be a problem.

It is believed that anyone who has gone to college has been indoctrinated into the liberal way of thinking. In a way it is true. The data is being interpreted with a liberal bias due to the fact that most professors are liberal. https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ssors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

If you don't prescribe to the liberal way of thinking you are then discredited as a scientist or intellectual. We already know the right distrusts liberals. If most intellectuals are liberals then it would be safe to say that the right distrusts most intellectuals.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Look at all the baseless rejections of mainstream science.

Not entirely 'baseless' since the mainstream science dumbs it down for people to understand and then adds a dash of pseudoscience into it so that it looks exciting. It starts to look silly and baseless. Global warming is described as a 'blanket effect' when the actual thing that is happening is that CO2 is absorbing certain frequencies of light in our lower atmosphere and thereby causing the lower atmosphere to heat slightly. I mean what sounds like your bullshitting me #1 or number 2#?

Then there is all the speculation on time travel and black hole multiple universes. This is all fun and all but it makes today's science look like a cool science fiction novel.

To top it off... It is funded by politics and this alone makes it untrustworthy in the eyes of the people who 'don't trust politicians. In a way they are right to distrust mainstream science. They are biased if only indirectly because they have to research in areas that politicians want them to research in or what large companies want them to research in and if the research doesn't yield the results they want they stop funding it.

 

[Matt3737]

It is believed that anyone who has gone to college has been indoctrinated into the liberal way of thinking. In a way it is true. The data is being interpreted with a liberal bias due to the fact that most professors are liberal. https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ssors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left

If you don't prescribe to the liberal way of thinking you are then discredited as a scientist or intellectual. We already know the right distrusts liberals. If most intellectuals are liberals then it would be safe to say that the right distrusts most intellectuals.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Being educated changes the way one perceives the world and can change one's worldview, but it doesn't change objective facts. It being true "in a way" is a very loose way of interpreting "indoctrination." Yes, you are indoctrinating if you are going after your doctorate.

Unfortunately for you, the modern usage of the word that implies a noncritical and unquestioning acceptance of such ideas is baseless and without merit. Science and academia are open to critical analysis, change, and reinterpretation.

 

[Matt3737]

Small recession turned into what essentially is best described as a depression by the administration. That really cant be denied.

So if you say it then it can't be denied? So, according to you, we've gone from recession into a full blown economic depression? Can you back that up with any evidence? I have yet to see anybody (other than you) make that claim before. It's certainly never been described as a depression by the administration before. Did you mean to say "caused by the administration"?

It can easily be denied because it's a baseless statement.

 

[sprinkles]

Not entirely 'baseless' since the mainstream science dumbs it down for people to understand and then adds a dash of pseudoscience into it so that it looks exciting. It starts to look silly and baseless. Global warming is described as a 'blanket effect' when the actual thing that is happening is that CO2 is absorbing certain frequencies of light in our lower atmosphere and thereby causing the lower atmosphere to heat slightly. I mean what sounds like your bullshitting me #1 or number 2#?

Then there is all the speculation on time travel and black hole multiple universes. This is all fun and all but it makes today's science look like a cool science fiction novel.

To top it off... It is funded by politics and this alone makes it untrustworthy in the eyes of the people who 'don't trust politicians. In a way they are right to distrust mainstream science. They are biased if only indirectly because they have to research in areas that politicians want them to research in or what large companies want them to research in and if the research doesn't yield the results they want they stop funding it.

Dumbed down magazine science is not really science. It's entertainment.

 

[Matt3737]

Dumbed down magazine science is not really science. It's entertainment.

It's as if some people mistake popular science magazines or news articles with peer-reviewed academic journals. Who'd have thought, eh?

 

[CogentPursuit]

Unfortunately for you, the modern usage of the word that implies a noncritical and unquestioning acceptance of such ideas is baseless and without merit. Science and academia are open to critical analysis, change, and reinterpretation.

It is impossible for people to be without bias and such bias always leads to the filtering of data and information which can skew ones views and lead them to coming to the same options as the teacher. This concept has been proven through hoaxes such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax. Furthermore, bias is known to prevent us from being able to accept certain interpretations of data as 'acceptable truth'.

It is unavoidable. While scientists are a group of individuals who are most likely to be objective, they cannot escape their humanity. It is unfortunate that it is easier to see others bias than it is our own. It is easier for right to see the bias of the academia than it is to see their own.