 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
Something I have picked up on during the last week, on threads here and in RL, is the level of anti-intellectualism in this country.
That is to say, people that attack or victimise intellectuals. The reasons for this are curious, I would guess a degree of intimidation, not to mention this countries reputation for matter-of-fact pragmatism that seems to exclude higher, educational concerns. There is also the history of class conflict, the generally less educated working classes perhaps being resentful to those, even in their own ranks, who enter a life where they use their minds instead of traditional working class values of "sticking together" and not putting your head above the parapet.
In my own life I was bullied frequently at school for not being "one of the boys", so to speak. As a result, most of my friends, then and now, were female, where the situation was far better. Women tend ot accept me as an interesting person as opposed to someone who made sweet love to books every lunchtime.
As an adult, one still comes up against a brick wall when you try to be outwardly intellectual. Most people will say "I do not understand", or rather, won't want to understand for the sake of their pragmatic concerns. I have no problem with that, as long as they dont pick up on anything vaguely polysyllabic and proclaim that they are not intellectuals thereof. What is worse are the people that attack or criticise you for being intellectual, that laugh at you for being philosophical or political. That goes for liberals and conservatives alike.
Since this forum is very politically active, and taking a look at IQ threads many of us are above average, I suspect that many here have had similar experiences. How do we combat this unfortunate situation, since society needs intellectuals, people that know how to run a nation and the issues surrounding it, to change things, as well as making life a little more interesting than the daily drudgery that we see all around?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
I was almost banned for talking about this.
Just to warn you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:33
|
|
I also think that the tendency to try to diminish the term "intelligence" has everything to do with the arrogance of a lot of intellectuals -- it's a sort of back-door means of cutting them back down to size. Whenever somebody loudly proclaims "I am smart!", there're always at least a dozen people who're there to retort "Oh, but what does it mean to be smart?", and they will then proceed to list a hundred different theories on intelligence and they'll talk about how you can't really say that you're smart if you don't have this type of intelligence or that type of intelligence (e.g., you can't really say that you're "smart" if you don't have "kinesthetic intelligence" or "spatio-temporal intelligence" or "gobbledegook intelligence" or whatever). However, if somebody claims "I am a fast runner!", then you never get a dozen people who retort "Oh, but what does it mean to be a fast runner?", and who then go on to say that just because you're an Olympic-class athlete in the 100-meter dash you can't really say that you're a "fast runner" because, c'mon, you can't run the Marathon in world-record time, and you're not very good at hurdling, and a cheetah is still a faster sprinter than you, yada yada. This is again, I think, because when somebody loudly proclaims "I am smart!" we tend to hear an implicit claim of "I am a better human being than you are!" (probably because we've heard so many explicit claims like this in the past), but we don't hear the implicit "I am a better human being than you are!" when somebody says that they're a fast runner. It's another symptom of the same problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
In my experience, a lot of people who are victims of anti-intellectualism are actually being victimized because they're so unbearably arrogant.
|
True, but a quiet kid getting bullied in school?
At college, most of my friends say I'm not arrogant, but I still get aggrovation from numerous people because I read in the canteen, or contribute in lessons, or discuss philosophy with my friends.
Arrogance and "retaliatory intolerance" on the part of intellectuals doesn't help but there seems to be a predisposition of the non-intellectuals to attack those who are.
As for definition. "Self-proclaimed intellectuals". A difficult one. If you use your intellect for recreation or career, then, by definition it would seem, you are intellectual. Most of those who use their intellect need to relate to other intellects, through books or debates etc, otherwise we'd all end up like Kant  .
Most intellectuals I know do not go around acting like they are superior, indeed I have an argument for us all being of equal intelligence. However, I and they do not suppress their individuality as a result, and have ceased to become ashamed of what they do, which they are perfectly within their rights to be doing. This intimidates others, and they often tar us all with the same brush of being arrogant. It just doesn't work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
this reminds me of the daily show they did on conservatives who thought they were oppressed.
I'm going to call john stewart, he can go interview u.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
I also think that the tendency to try to diminish the term "intelligence" has everything to do with the arrogance of a lot of intellectuals -- it's a sort of back-door means of cutting them back down to size. Whenever somebody loudly proclaims "I am smart!", there're always at least a dozen people who're there to retort "Oh, but what does it mean to be smart?", and they will then proceed to list a hundred different theories on intelligence and they'll talk about how you can't really say that you're smart if you don't have this type of intelligence or that type of intelligence (e.g., you can't really say that you're "smart" if you don't have "kinesthetic intelligence" or "spatio-temporal intelligence" or "gobbledegook intelligence" or whatever). However, if somebody claims "I am a fast runner!", then you never get a dozen people who retort "Oh, but what does it mean to be a fast runner?", and who then go on to say that just because you're an Olympic-class athlete in the 100-meter dash you can't really say that you're a "fast runner" because, c'mon, you can't run the Marathon in world-record time, and you're not very good at hurdling, and a cheetah is still a faster sprinter than you, yada yada.
|
Logically speaking, we are all equally "smart", which takes a different form in each of us. For example, someone may be an exceptional strategist, or another an exceptional artists, and they may be both equally good at that, but in a different way. It is analogous to the comparison between a philosopher and a plumber. I don't like the term smart, intelligent or cerebral because it excludes physical capabilities, so I shall continue using the term "talent", in that we are all equally talented. That is not to say that those with an talent in something non-intellectual will target those with a talent in something intellectual. And for the record, I don't consider myself a superior human (please ignore my Jesus thread  ).
What I can agree on is that anti-intellectuals attack intellectuals because they think the intellectuals think they are better humans, which intimidates them, especially so since in their specific fields, they cannot compete. However, one can reverse that situation and say that the intellectual will be equally incompetent at their chosen field.
The distinction comes when we start to talk about jobs and roles. A politician, lawyer, writer etc is more open to the intellectuals. The plumber, electrician or bricklayer is more open to the non-intellectuals (by enlarge). The difficulty comes when we fallaciously place prestige in certain types of jobs over others. That cuts little ice with me. Yet I am still getting bullied.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Most of those who use their intellect need to relate to other intellects, through books or debates etc, otherwise we'd all end up like Kant |
Kant had a lot of debates, because his friends (which were also often his critics) came usually for dinner for this purpose There is even a quote by him, where he says he needs this kind of "input"
quote:
Most intellectuals I know do not go around acting like they are superior, indeed I have an argument for us all being of equal intelligence. However, I and they do not suppress their individuality as a result, and have ceased to become ashamed of what they do, which they are perfectly within their rights to be doing. This intimidates others, and they often tar us all with the same brush of being arrogant. It just doesn't work. |
Hm, depends a lot I know a lot of students who just try to bragg with their knowledge. Sometimes it it is quite absurd when they feel soooo smart for telling something totally wrong (which wouldn´t be a prob at all, if they would admit it - we all make mistakes). They usually feel insulted when you can exactly show where they are wrong, or when you just disagree. Yeah, of course not all are like this (not even a majority I think).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaShi
|
 |
The Taste of Japan
Sep 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Something I have picked up on during the last week, on threads here and in RL, is the level of anti-intellectualism in this country.
That is to say, people that attack or victimise intellectuals. The reasons for this are curious, I would guess a degree of intimidation, not to mention this countries reputation for matter-of-fact pragmatism that seems to exclude higher, educational concerns. There is also the history of class conflict, the generally less educated working classes perhaps being resentful to those, even in their own ranks, who enter a life where they use their minds instead of traditional working class values of "sticking together" and not putting your head above the parapet.
In my own life I was bullied frequently at school for not being "one of the boys", so to speak. As a result, most of my friends, then and now, were female, where the situation was far better. Women tend ot accept me as an interesting person as opposed to someone who made sweet love to books every lunchtime.
As an adult, one still comes up against a brick wall when you try to be outwardly intellectual. Most people will say "I do not understand", or rather, won't want to understand for the sake of their pragmatic concerns. I have no problem with that, as long as they dont pick up on anything vaguely polysyllabic and proclaim that they are not intellectuals thereof. What is worse are the people that attack or criticise you for being intellectual, that laugh at you for being philosophical or political. That goes for liberals and conservatives alike.
Since this forum is very politically active, and taking a look at IQ threads many of us are above average, I suspect that many here have had similar experiences. How do we combat this unfortunate situation, since society needs intellectuals, people that know how to run a nation and the issues surrounding it, to change things, as well as making life a little more interesting than the daily drudgery that we see all around? |
:ahem:
DaShi - please refrain from doing the same thing in the future.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 25-01-2004 at 14:55
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Logically speaking, we are all equally "smart", which takes a different form in each of us. |
I don't see how this is a logical position to take. I mean, sure, there're a lot of different ways that intelligence (or talent, if you prefer) can manifest itself, but it doesn't follow that everybody's abilities are going to add up to some magic number -- it's entirely possible (and much more probable) that some people are going to be more generally competent than average, while others are going to be more generally incompetent than average. The point is that competence doesn't equate to human worth, regardless of if we're talking about intellectual competence or physical competence or whatever. You don't need to say "everybody is equally talented" to be able to say "everybody has equal inherent worth as a human being," or whatever.
quote:
Yet I am still getting bullied. |
There's always the possibility that you're being bullied because you're an easy target, not because you're an intellectual. I've got a friend who's an intellectual, so I make fun of him for being an intellectual. I've got another friend who's a preppy, so I make fun of him for being a preppy. They, in turn, make fun of me for being loinburger. However, it's not that I'm anti-intellectual or anti-preppy, and it's not that my friends are anti-loinburger; in other words, I'm willing to bet that if you went out of your way to start acting like a dunderhead, then most of the people who are currently anti-intellectuals will probably turn into anti-dunderheads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I agree that much of "anti-intellectualism" is actually due to "intellectuals" being arrogant; I am as guilty of this as anyone else.
Case in point, look at the 2000 election, and the debates. Gore was cast as the "smart one," Bush as the "dumb one." People liked Bush more as a person, not because they were anti-intellectual, but because Gore behaved like such a raging passive-aggressive ***** during the debates, audibly sighing with exasperation every time that dumb Bush guy opened his mouth. I wanted to reach into my TV set and knock Gore's head off.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004 23:38
Poor opressed intellects 
I mean that to describe none but the loosest of correlations. An acceptable idea methinks.
|