CDZ Anti-intellectualism -- The very idea of this being an actual "thing" is stupid from jump

[320 Years of History]

At present a person can be blissfully ignorant of how to locate Kenya on a map, but know to a metaphysical certitude that Barack Obama was born there, because he learned it from Fox News. Likewise, he can be unable to differentiate a species from a phylum but be confident from viewing the 700 Club that evolution is “politically correct” hooey and that Earth is 6,000 years old.
-- Bill Moyers​

Last fall, I found myself in a debate with a friend about the extent to which American society -- the masses, not "high society" -- is ever more disdainful of intellectuals and the ideas, specifically public policy ideas, they put forth that are based upon "tons" of critical research and analysis. My friend noted that there is a tide of anti-intellectualism, a movement he called it, that is overtaking the nation. I, hadn't heard of such a thing at the time, so I said the very idea that there'd truly be such a movement is absurd. It turns out my friend was right and I was wrong.

My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated.

My friend assured me that while I may encounter a person or two of that ilk, what'd I'd find is literally hundreds of folks, mostly conservative, who wouldn't know the truth and details of much of anything about which they have vociferously strong opinions, ones for which, bolstered by the anonymity of the Internet, they have no shame airing. In short, he asserted that the U.S. is populated by literally millions of even dumber and duller "Donald Trumps" who think that because he's (1) managed to make billions (presumably) must be "smart," and (2) insofar as he's echoing their sentiments take his doing so as as their imprimatur.

I presaged my journey on USMB by looking on the WWW to find out just what the hell anti-intellectualism is, thinking perhaps it might have been something other than what the term suggests most obviously. So what is it? As stated on Rational Wiki, "anti-intellectualism refers to the resentment or mistrust of intellectuals, intellectual pursuits, and the sciences." Another writer further categorizes it as "the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility." Well, yep, it's pretty much what it sounds like.

But inasmuch as it is, why do so many folks actually think that being opposed to rigorous thinkers and the ideas and information they uncover is anything worth being or doing? Humanity went through the "Dark Ages" once long ago. Are we, in a manner of speaking, about to do so again, albeit (one would hope) due to something other than the calamitously belligerent overthrow of the "global powers?"

One would think that the lessons learned in the first Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, complimented by the knowledge gained in subsequent years, would be enough to inform pretty much anyone, highly learned or not, not to reject intellectually driven exploration of ideas of governance and public policy. Yet it seems that's exactly where we are headed.

Now one might ask what be the causes of this anti-intellectual movement. The fact is there are quite a few authors who've posited answers to that question. At the risk of irking the anti-intellectuals who've read this far into the post, I'll cite some of them.

• A Brief History of Anti-Intellectualism in American Media
  
• Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America
  
• The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
  
• On anti-intellectualism in the United States of America
  
• Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind
  
• Conservatism and the Intellectual
  
• Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
  
• The New Plague in America: The Denial of Reason
  
• The GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge

Read any or all of those essays at your leisure. What gives rise to the anti-intellectual movement isn't nearly as important as is the very reality that the American citizenry is so profoundly dull in its thinking that the phenomenon actually exists. What is most astounding is that voters on both sides of the aisle will hear the vapid claims issued by their preferred party leaders and just accept that crap as though it is true, largely it seems because the remarks are issued by someone in their party, not because they have actually bothered to find out whether "their guy" or "the other guy" has developed a better case based on the body of facts that actually are facts not taken out of context.

Sadly, what the non-conservative readers here must by not be thinking is that this revolt against rationality is a conservative thing. This presents a problem, though. Just how should one go about arguing against the rejection of rationality and the outright anti-intellectualism that often characterizes conservative politics? When one party thinks evolution is a wacky theory, and hundreds of climate scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the world so they can get rich off government research grants -- and more importantly, encourages and exploits resentment and people who are well-educated as part of its political program -- just how are liberals supposed to respond?

It isn't easy to answer that question, although I would argue that Republicans have not rejected science, as is often charged. Listen to the way they talk about climate change. They actually speak as though they accept the validity of the scientific method and scientific conclusions. They just lie about what those conclusions are in this particular case, alleging falsely that 1) there's a lot of disagreement among climate scientists, when in fact there isn't; and 2) the scientists whose findings they don't like are engaged in fraud, which would be a subversion of science were it true.

In thinking about the matter as being a conservative problem, I am reminded of the old story about Adlai Stevenson. A woman came up to him and told him he had the votes of every thinking American. That's all well and good, he replied, but I need a majority. Everything that's old is new again.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So you think all conservatives are anti-intellectuals and conform to your stated OP...

What makes this not a flame and/or trolling thread about conservatives thereby violating the rules set up about what this section, namely the CDZ, is all about?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Pumpkin Row]

At present a person can be blissfully ignorant of how to locate Kenya on a map, but know to a metaphysical certitude that Barack Obama was born there, because he learned it from Fox News. Likewise, he can be unable to differentiate a species from a phylum but be confident from viewing the 700 Club that evolution is “politically correct” hooey and that Earth is 6,000 years old.
-- Bill Moyers​

Last fall, I found myself in a debate with a friend about the extent to which American society -- the masses, not "high society" -- is ever more disdainful of intellectuals and the ideas, specifically public policy ideas, they put forth that are based upon "tons" of critical research and analysis. My friend noted that there is a tide of anti-intellectualism, a movement he called it, that is overtaking the nation. I, hadn't heard of such a thing at the time, so I said the very idea that there'd truly be such a movement is absurd. It turns out my friend was right and I was wrong.

My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated.

My friend assured me that while I may encounter a person or two of that ilk, what'd I'd find is literally hundreds of folks, mostly conservative, who wouldn't know the truth and details of much of anything about which they have vociferously strong opinions, ones for which, bolstered by the anonymity of the Internet, they have no shame airing. In short, he asserted that the U.S. is populated by literally millions of even dumber and duller "Donald Trumps" who think that because he's (1) managed to make billions (presumably) must be "smart," and (2) insofar as he's echoing their sentiments take his doing so as as their imprimatur.

I presaged my journey on USMB by looking on the WWW to find out just what the hell anti-intellectualism is, thinking perhaps it might have been something other than what the term suggests most obviously. So what is it? As stated on Rational Wiki, "anti-intellectualism refers to the resentment or mistrust of intellectuals, intellectual pursuits, and the sciences." Another writer further categorizes it as "the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility." Well, yep, it's pretty much what it sounds like.

But inasmuch as it is, why do so many folks actually think that being opposed to rigorous thinkers and the ideas and information they uncover is anything worth being or doing? Humanity went through the "Dark Ages" once long ago. Are we, in a manner of speaking, about to do so again, albeit (one would hope) due to something other than the calamitously belligerent overthrow of the "global powers?"

One would think that the lessons learned in the first Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, complimented by the knowledge gained in subsequent years, would be enough to inform pretty much anyone, highly learned or not, not to reject intellectually driven exploration of ideas of governance and public policy. Yet it seems that's exactly where we are headed.

Now one might ask what be the causes of this anti-intellectual movement. The fact is there are quite a few authors who've posited answers to that question. At the risk of irking the anti-intellectuals who've read this far into the post, I'll cite some of them.

• A Brief History of Anti-Intellectualism in American Media
  
• Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America
  
• The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
  
• On anti-intellectualism in the United States of America
  
• Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind
  
• Conservatism and the Intellectual
  
• Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
  
• The New Plague in America: The Denial of Reason
  
• The GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge

Read any or all of those essays at your leisure. What gives rise to the anti-intellectual movement isn't nearly as important as is the very reality that the American citizenry is so profoundly dull in its thinking that the phenomenon actually exists. What is most astounding is that voters on both sides of the aisle will hear the vapid claims issued by their preferred party leaders and just accept that crap as though it is true, largely it seems because the remarks are issued by someone in their party, not because they have actually bothered to find out whether "their guy" or "the other guy" has developed a better case based on the body of facts that actually are facts not taken out of context.

Sadly, what the non-conservative readers here must by not be thinking is that this revolt against rationality is a conservative thing. This presents a problem, though. Just how should one go about arguing against the rejection of rationality and the outright anti-intellectualism that often characterizes conservative politics? When one party thinks evolution is a wacky theory, and hundreds of climate scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the world so they can get rich off government research grants -- and more importantly, encourages and exploits resentment and people who are well-educated as part of its political program -- just how are liberals supposed to respond?

It isn't easy to answer that question, although I would argue that Republicans have not rejected science, as is often charged. Listen to the way they talk about climate change. They actually speak as though they accept the validity of the scientific method and scientific conclusions. They just lie about what those conclusions are in this particular case, alleging falsely that 1) there's a lot of disagreement among climate scientists, when in fact there isn't; and 2) the scientists whose findings they don't like are engaged in fraud, which would be a subversion of science were it true.

In thinking about the matter as being a conservative problem, I am reminded of the old story about Adlai Stevenson. A woman came up to him and told him he had the votes of every thinking American. That's all well and good, he replied, but I need a majority. Everything that's old is new again.

Wow, that was a long post. Well-worded, too. Though it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points. Uhm... neato post, though. I'm sure you're impressed with how many characters you managed to reach, I certainly am.

 

[320 Years of History]

it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points.

Well, if that's the key point you took from it, it's no wonder you feel as you do about the post.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points.

Well, if that's the key point you took from it, it's no wonder you feel as you do about the post.

Believe me, the hard part was drawing the boxes, not noticing that you were claiming Conservatives are "anti-intellectual", and Liberals weren't.

 

[320 Years of History]

it feels like you're saying "Conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything" in as many words as possible. Most of the words you did use just fluffed out your post more, and served no purpose in reinforcing your points.

Well, if that's the key point you took from it, it's no wonder you feel as you do about the post.

Believe me, the hard part was drawing the boxes, not noticing that you were claiming Conservatives are "anti-intellectual", and Liberals weren't.

Well, had you spent your time reading the essays to which I linked instead of drawing boxes, you'd have noticed that the phenomenon isn't limited to conservatives, and had you reread my OP, perhaps you'd have figured out that castigating any one party isn't the post's aim. You may even have figured out that although noting that the anti-intellectual movement finds a happier home among the GOP is a point I did make, it isn't the key point. You may too have noticed that my signature line carries a quote from among the most staunch Conservatives to have lived in modern times, and who was in no way, shape or form an anti-intellectual. Indeed, he's one of the few modern Conservatives who I can think of off the top of my head who openly admitted he was mistaken about a position he took quite stridently and later recanted. Most importantly, however, you'd have avoided twice being an illustration of precisely the phenomenon the thread is about.

 

[there4eyeM]

The evident level, the capacity for penetrating thought generally, is lamentable in U.S. society.

 

[DarkFury]

The OP strikes me as very politely worded intended to skate the edge of picking a fight. The general terms used to describe GOP members here stand as witness to that.

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here.
That not only is a slap in the face to the CDZ but fails in regards to the very mission statement of USMB.

Part of the mission statement of USMB says "Where EVERY voice can be heard". So the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

USMB has many races, many thoughts and many levels of education. And in truth IF one was to judge the valid point of thought based SOLELY on education it would be no less bigoted than the same requirement based on race/age or gender.

Bottom line?
The OP shows the INTENT no matter how "fluffy" the wording was was to inflame and incite.

Fury

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The OP strikes me as very politely worded intended to skate the edge of picking a fight. The general terms used to describe GOP members here stand as witness to that.

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here.
That not only is a slap in the face to the CDZ but fails in regards to the very mission statement of USMB.

Part of the mission statement of USMB says "Where EVERY voice can be heard". So the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

USMB has many races, many thoughts and many levels of education. And in truth IF one was to judge the valid point of thought based SOLELY on education it would be no less bigoted than the same requirement based on race/age or gender.

Bottom line?
The OP shows the INTENT no matter how "fluffy" the wording was was to inflame and incite.

Fury

I read the OP, and it certainly didn't "strike" me as you describe. At no point did the OP try to "pick a fight", nor did he demand that only PhDs be allowed to post here.

 

[DarkFury]

The OP strikes me as very politely worded intended to skate the edge of picking a fight. The general terms used to describe GOP members here stand as witness to that.

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here.
That not only is a slap in the face to the CDZ but fails in regards to the very mission statement of USMB.

Part of the mission statement of USMB says "Where EVERY voice can be heard". So the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

USMB has many races, many thoughts and many levels of education. And in truth IF one was to judge the valid point of thought based SOLELY on education it would be no less bigoted than the same requirement based on race/age or gender.

Bottom line?
The OP shows the INTENT no matter how "fluffy" the wording was was to inflame and incite.

Fury

I read the OP, and it certainly didn't "strike" me as you describe. At no point did the OP try to "pick a fight", nor did he demand that only PhDs be allowed to post here.

"My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

"at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate"

"expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote."

"I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The OP strikes me as very politely worded intended to skate the edge of picking a fight. The general terms used to describe GOP members here stand as witness to that.

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here.
That not only is a slap in the face to the CDZ but fails in regards to the very mission statement of USMB.

Part of the mission statement of USMB says "Where EVERY voice can be heard". So the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

USMB has many races, many thoughts and many levels of education. And in truth IF one was to judge the valid point of thought based SOLELY on education it would be no less bigoted than the same requirement based on race/age or gender.

Bottom line?
The OP shows the INTENT no matter how "fluffy" the wording was was to inflame and incite.

Fury

I read the OP, and it certainly didn't "strike" me as you describe. At no point did the OP try to "pick a fight", nor did he demand that only PhDs be allowed to post here.

"My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

"at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate"

"expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote."

"I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

320 Years of History is not making demands for board participation, he is expressing his (naive?) expectations upon joining this board.

 

[DarkFury]

The OP strikes me as very politely worded intended to skate the edge of picking a fight. The general terms used to describe GOP members here stand as witness to that.

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here.
That not only is a slap in the face to the CDZ but fails in regards to the very mission statement of USMB.

Part of the mission statement of USMB says "Where EVERY voice can be heard". So the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

USMB has many races, many thoughts and many levels of education. And in truth IF one was to judge the valid point of thought based SOLELY on education it would be no less bigoted than the same requirement based on race/age or gender.

Bottom line?
The OP shows the INTENT no matter how "fluffy" the wording was was to inflame and incite.

Fury

I read the OP, and it certainly didn't "strike" me as you describe. At no point did the OP try to "pick a fight", nor did he demand that only PhDs be allowed to post here.

"My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

"at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate"

"expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote."

"I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated."

320 Years of History is not making demands for board participation, he is expressing his (naive?) expectations upon joining this board.

He is "expressing his given distaste for a group of members on this board. The "skate" on a tech is legit because it does not name those members. But if you have read this thread more than one member sees it as a flame.

I will leave it now for others {members} to judge.

 

[there4eyeM]

Choosing to be offended by the post seems to be reaching. Essentially, it merely expresses, a bit over elaborately perhaps, a personal opinion.

 

[DarkFury]

Choosing to be offended by the post seems to be reaching. Essentially, it merely expresses, a bit over elaborately perhaps, a personal opinion.

Never said I was offended. But I know a flame when I see it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not surprising that some who are the most opposed to well thought out and logical ideas might be offended by this thread. Seems like they think all ideas are equally valid if they came from painstaking research, or if the idea just happened to pop into their head, and otherwise generally match their preconceptions.

 

[Tehon]

Ronald Reagan's influence on this "problem" cannot be overstated in my opinion.
His policies in regards to education and his views of higher education in particular have had quite an effect on Reaganites.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ684842.pdf

 

[Compost]

At present a person can be blissfully ignorant of how to locate Kenya on a map, but know to a metaphysical certitude that Barack Obama was born there, because he learned it from Fox News. Likewise, he can be unable to differentiate a species from a phylum but be confident from viewing the 700 Club that evolution is “politically correct” hooey and that Earth is 6,000 years old.
-- Bill Moyers​

Last fall, I found myself in a debate with a friend about the extent to which American society -- the masses, not "high society" -- is ever more disdainful of intellectuals and the ideas, specifically public policy ideas, they put forth that are based upon "tons" of critical research and analysis. My friend noted that there is a tide of anti-intellectualism, a movement he called it, that is overtaking the nation. I, hadn't heard of such a thing at the time, so I said the very idea that there'd truly be such a movement is absurd. It turns out my friend was right and I was wrong.

My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated.

My friend assured me that while I may encounter a person or two of that ilk, what'd I'd find is literally hundreds of folks, mostly conservative, who wouldn't know the truth and details of much of anything about which they have vociferously strong opinions, ones for which, bolstered by the anonymity of the Internet, they have no shame airing. In short, he asserted that the U.S. is populated by literally millions of even dumber and duller "Donald Trumps" who think that because he's (1) managed to make billions (presumably) must be "smart," and (2) insofar as he's echoing their sentiments take his doing so as as their imprimatur.

I presaged my journey on USMB by looking on the WWW to find out just what the hell anti-intellectualism is, thinking perhaps it might have been something other than what the term suggests most obviously. So what is it? As stated on Rational Wiki, "anti-intellectualism refers to the resentment or mistrust of intellectuals, intellectual pursuits, and the sciences." Another writer further categorizes it as "the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility." Well, yep, it's pretty much what it sounds like.

But inasmuch as it is, why do so many folks actually think that being opposed to rigorous thinkers and the ideas and information they uncover is anything worth being or doing? Humanity went through the "Dark Ages" once long ago. Are we, in a manner of speaking, about to do so again, albeit (one would hope) due to something other than the calamitously belligerent overthrow of the "global powers?"

One would think that the lessons learned in the first Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, complimented by the knowledge gained in subsequent years, would be enough to inform pretty much anyone, highly learned or not, not to reject intellectually driven exploration of ideas of governance and public policy. Yet it seems that's exactly where we are headed.

Now one might ask what be the causes of this anti-intellectual movement. The fact is there are quite a few authors who've posited answers to that question. At the risk of irking the anti-intellectuals who've read this far into the post, I'll cite some of them.

• A Brief History of Anti-Intellectualism in American Media
  
• Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America
  
• The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
  
• On anti-intellectualism in the United States of America
  
• Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind
  
• Conservatism and the Intellectual
  
• Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
  
• The New Plague in America: The Denial of Reason
  
• The GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge

Read any or all of those essays at your leisure. What gives rise to the anti-intellectual movement isn't nearly as important as is the very reality that the American citizenry is so profoundly dull in its thinking that the phenomenon actually exists. What is most astounding is that voters on both sides of the aisle will hear the vapid claims issued by their preferred party leaders and just accept that crap as though it is true, largely it seems because the remarks are issued by someone in their party, not because they have actually bothered to find out whether "their guy" or "the other guy" has developed a better case based on the body of facts that actually are facts not taken out of context.

Sadly, what the non-conservative readers here must by not be thinking is that this revolt against rationality is a conservative thing. This presents a problem, though. Just how should one go about arguing against the rejection of rationality and the outright anti-intellectualism that often characterizes conservative politics? When one party thinks evolution is a wacky theory, and hundreds of climate scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the world so they can get rich off government research grants -- and more importantly, encourages and exploits resentment and people who are well-educated as part of its political program -- just how are liberals supposed to respond?

It isn't easy to answer that question, although I would argue that Republicans have not rejected science, as is often charged. Listen to the way they talk about climate change. They actually speak as though they accept the validity of the scientific method and scientific conclusions. They just lie about what those conclusions are in this particular case, alleging falsely that 1) there's a lot of disagreement among climate scientists, when in fact there isn't; and 2) the scientists whose findings they don't like are engaged in fraud, which would be a subversion of science were it true.

In thinking about the matter as being a conservative problem, I am reminded of the old story about Adlai Stevenson. A woman came up to him and told him he had the votes of every thinking American. That's all well and good, he replied, but I need a majority. Everything that's old is new again.

I don't think anti intellectualism is a "thing". I do think that many people toss out the word "anti" in place of thoughtful debate.

 

[midcan5]

An interesting thread and after much thought I've come to the conclusion fighting anti-intellectualism is an impossible task. But maybe that is OK so long as the forces of darkness don't win too many battles. People do change though, look at the changes after civil rights, or Brown, or look at Morris Dees, or consider the white supremacist whose own daughter was not perfect and that single thing allowed him to see how prejudice and white supremacy were wrong.

No time now, I want to check out links as I save the good ones. Also two items below on topic. One is on conspiracy thinking, the other on anti-intellectualism in America. Great book when you have time.

"I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver believes what he does because that is the kind of thinker he is or, to put it more bluntly, because there is something wrong with how he thinks. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they interpret and respond to the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn’t mad (or at least, he needn’t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution – in a word, of his intellectual character." The intellectual character of conspiracy theorists | Aeon Essays

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/3/7/b/37b81ce2e2fc340f/Jennifer_Nagel_on_Intuitions_about_Knowledge.mp3

"If you haven’t read the book—which is forgivable; it’s very long and dense—then you may assume that Hofstadter argues that anti-intellectualism is a threat to the authentic best in the American tradition, and that he thinks of it as a problem that can be solved, so that the country can have the flourishing intellectual culture and enriched public life it deserves. Not true."

The Tea Party is timeless

The liberal will always be contrary to the conservative's certainty. When truth is a given thought is closed.

"It accepts conflict as a central and enduring reality and understands human society as a form of equipoise based upon the continuing process of compromise. It shuns ultimate showdowns and looks upon the ideal of total partisan victory as unattainable, as merely another variety of threat to the kind of balance with which it is familiar. It is sensitive to nuances and sees things in degrees. It is essentially relativist and skeptical, but at the same time circumspect and humane."

"Intellectuals dwell in the realm of ideas and values, where almost nothing is ever right without qualification. So if anti-intellectualism is a natural aspect of a democratic society, humility ought to be a natural aspect of intellectual life." Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism In American Life

Other stuff.

'The difference is that while foxes and hedgehogs are both capable of changing their minds in meaningful ways, weasels and cacti are not. They represent different forms of degeneracy, where a rich way of thinking collapses into an impoverished way of thinking.'

The Cactus and the Weasel

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not an 'anti-anti-intellectualism' 'fight' (not trying to be argumentative). Intellectualism (without going into too much definition), in itself, is not particularly charming.
Any effort needs to be put into stimulating healthy examination of self and existence. This doesn't even require books (though, nothing against books, either).
People need to understand what it means to be human, how our brains and perceptions function, how linguistics serves and dis-serves us.
Basics, requiring neither age nor exceptional intelligence to comprehend.
Honest intellectual engagement.
Dualism seems to have great appeal, however. The vast majority is seduced into 'us vs them', 'good vs evil', and various unexamined followings of 'god' images.

 

[Unkotare]

At present a person can be blissfully ignorant of how to locate Kenya on a map, but know to a metaphysical certitude that Barack Obama was born there, because he learned it from Fox News. Likewise, he can be unable to differentiate a species from a phylum but be confident from viewing the 700 Club that evolution is “politically correct” hooey and that Earth is 6,000 years old.
-- Bill Moyers​

Last fall, I found myself in a debate with a friend about the extent to which American society -- the masses, not "high society" -- is ever more disdainful of intellectuals and the ideas, specifically public policy ideas, they put forth that are based upon "tons" of critical research and analysis. My friend noted that there is a tide of anti-intellectualism, a movement he called it, that is overtaking the nation. I, hadn't heard of such a thing at the time, so I said the very idea that there'd truly be such a movement is absurd. It turns out my friend was right and I was wrong.

My experience here on USMB is directly a consequence of that conversation. I joined the forum fully expecting to find scores upon scores of individuals presenting political ideas that synthesize myriad ideas taken from all manners of critical research. I thought sure that a political forum would be chocked full of individuals who present their ideas and conduct conversations much akin, at least in terms of intellectual rigor if not necessarily in terms of comprehensiveness, akin to those between a master's or doctoral degree candidate orally defending their thesis/dissertation before a review panel. I expected the majority of posters/members would be Independents having advanced degrees and deep knowledge of the subjects about which they wrote. Lastly, I really expected to learn more about the topics of which I elected to partake in the discussion, and I thought sure I'd rarely have reason to have something to say that hadn't already been beautifully (organizationally and literarily) articulated.

My friend assured me that while I may encounter a person or two of that ilk, what'd I'd find is literally hundreds of folks, mostly conservative, who wouldn't know the truth and details of much of anything about which they have vociferously strong opinions, ones for which, bolstered by the anonymity of the Internet, they have no shame airing. In short, he asserted that the U.S. is populated by literally millions of even dumber and duller "Donald Trumps" who think that because he's (1) managed to make billions (presumably) must be "smart," and (2) insofar as he's echoing their sentiments take his doing so as as their imprimatur.

I presaged my journey on USMB by looking on the WWW to find out just what the hell anti-intellectualism is, thinking perhaps it might have been something other than what the term suggests most obviously. So what is it? As stated on Rational Wiki, "anti-intellectualism refers to the resentment or mistrust of intellectuals, intellectual pursuits, and the sciences." Another writer further categorizes it as "the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility." Well, yep, it's pretty much what it sounds like.

But inasmuch as it is, why do so many folks actually think that being opposed to rigorous thinkers and the ideas and information they uncover is anything worth being or doing? Humanity went through the "Dark Ages" once long ago. Are we, in a manner of speaking, about to do so again, albeit (one would hope) due to something other than the calamitously belligerent overthrow of the "global powers?"

One would think that the lessons learned in the first Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, complimented by the knowledge gained in subsequent years, would be enough to inform pretty much anyone, highly learned or not, not to reject intellectually driven exploration of ideas of governance and public policy. Yet it seems that's exactly where we are headed.

Now one might ask what be the causes of this anti-intellectual movement. The fact is there are quite a few authors who've posited answers to that question. At the risk of irking the anti-intellectuals who've read this far into the post, I'll cite some of them.

• A Brief History of Anti-Intellectualism in American Media
  
• Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America
  
• The Dumbing Of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces
  
• On anti-intellectualism in the United States of America
  
• Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind
  
• Conservatism and the Intellectual
  
• Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
  
• The New Plague in America: The Denial of Reason
  
• The GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge

Read any or all of those essays at your leisure. What gives rise to the anti-intellectual movement isn't nearly as important as is the very reality that the American citizenry is so profoundly dull in its thinking that the phenomenon actually exists. What is most astounding is that voters on both sides of the aisle will hear the vapid claims issued by their preferred party leaders and just accept that crap as though it is true, largely it seems because the remarks are issued by someone in their party, not because they have actually bothered to find out whether "their guy" or "the other guy" has developed a better case based on the body of facts that actually are facts not taken out of context.

Sadly, what the non-conservative readers here must by not be thinking is that this revolt against rationality is a conservative thing. This presents a problem, though. Just how should one go about arguing against the rejection of rationality and the outright anti-intellectualism that often characterizes conservative politics? When one party thinks evolution is a wacky theory, and hundreds of climate scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to deceive the world so they can get rich off government research grants -- and more importantly, encourages and exploits resentment and people who are well-educated as part of its political program -- just how are liberals supposed to respond?

It isn't easy to answer that question, although I would argue that Republicans have not rejected science, as is often charged. Listen to the way they talk about climate change. They actually speak as though they accept the validity of the scientific method and scientific conclusions. They just lie about what those conclusions are in this particular case, alleging falsely that 1) there's a lot of disagreement among climate scientists, when in fact there isn't; and 2) the scientists whose findings they don't like are engaged in fraud, which would be a subversion of science were it true.

In thinking about the matter as being a conservative problem, I am reminded of the old story about Adlai Stevenson. A woman came up to him and told him he had the votes of every thinking American. That's all well and good, he replied, but I need a majority. Everything that's old is new again.

What a self-indulgent, pretentious, hyper-partisan, load of crap. ^^^^^^^