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

[Unkotare]

Could it possibly be more obvious that those who stick their pinkies in the air and bemoan "anti-intellectualism" are just pretentious posers who want everyone to know that THEY are 'intellectuals'? What a transparent, self-important little performance.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, despite what one might gather from this forum, anti-intellectualism isn't unique to the right. Sometimes science, reason and reality are not emotionally satisfying enough for some people. The result can only be a farce, a tragedy or both.

 

[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.

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.

I don't know why you're attempting to deny it if you were okay with heavily implying it in your post. You should take responsibility for your claims when it's pointed out, instead of pretending. The quotes I've boxed can easily be interpreted by anyone as claiming that the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one. That's a silly claim, but pointing out that it's silly isn't my point, it's that you made you post much larger than it had to be to claim that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Could it possibly be more obvious that those who stick their pinkies in the air and bemoan "anti-intellectualism" are just pretentious posers who want everyone to know that THEY are 'intellectuals'? What a transparent, self-important little performance.

We call those people pseudo-intellectuals where I come from.

 

[TNHarley]

What a pretentious OP. If you were any more full of yourself, you would need a lift to get out of bed.

 

[320 Years of History]

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."

The second issue is the OP calling for doctorates

Blue:
Clearly you don't know what "akin" means. Were you aware of that word's meaning, you'd have realized I did not call for folks to have doctoral degrees, or even master's degrees. FWIW, I didn't mention baccalaureate degree candidate thesis papers because, in general, one doesn't have to defend those thesis papers.

Red:
I think you also don't understand the meaning of "expected."

Where EVERY voice can be heard

...Every voice can be heard on USMB. One of the tacit themes or implications one might legitimately take from the the OP is whether everything every voice may say is worthy of being said and deservant of the audience giving credence to that which every voice says.

the OP's statement of wishing or wanting to cull certain members or thoughts is a ploy to tilt the board.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.​

What a ridiculous supposition on your part. I certainly know there is nothing I can actually do to tilt the membership one way or another, so I would not waste my time endeavoring deliberately to do so. I do not tilt at windmills. I do not see a conspiracy buried in the words and deeds of people who want to implement different approaches than I do and who aim to do so in different orders than would I, most especially not in the words and findings of robustly researched ideas presented by experts on the subject matter under discussion in any given conversation/debate.

 

[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.

I don't know why you're attempting to deny it if you were okay with heavily implying it in your post. You should take responsibility for your claims when it's pointed out, instead of pretending. The quotes I've boxed can easily be interpreted by anyone as claiming that the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one. That's a silly claim, but pointing out that it's silly isn't my point, it's that you made you post much larger than it had to be to claim that.

And now you have thrice illustrated the phenomenon the thread is about. Over half the of the things you "boxed" aren't quotes at all. Additionally, and more importantly, you've moved from asserting in the absolute that "Conservatives are 'anti-intellectual' to claiming that "the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one." That's at least a start. Perhaps if you keep rereading the post and linked material you'll discover that I don't actually care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative, and that my source of annoyance is anti-intellectualism, regardless of whether it's expressed by conservatives or liberals.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, despite what one might gather from this forum, anti-intellectualism isn't unique to the right. Sometimes science, reason and reality are not emotionally satisfying enough for some people. The result can only be a farce, a tragedy or both.

It is constrained to the right no more than is having brown eyes.

Emotional satisfaction is a fine thing to seek, but it is not a good thing to desire in evaluating, making and administering public policy. Indeed, it has no place there.

 

[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.

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.

I don't know why you're attempting to deny it if you were okay with heavily implying it in your post. You should take responsibility for your claims when it's pointed out, instead of pretending. The quotes I've boxed can easily be interpreted by anyone as claiming that the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one. That's a silly claim, but pointing out that it's silly isn't my point, it's that you made you post much larger than it had to be to claim that.

And now you have thrice illustrated the phenomenon the thread is about. Over half the of the things you "boxed" aren't quotes at all. Additionally, and more importantly, you've moved from asserting in the absolute that "Conservatives are 'anti-intellectual' to claiming that "the 'anti-intellectual movement' is mainly a Conservative one." That's at least a start. Perhaps if you keep rereading the post and linked material you'll discover that I don't actually care whether anti-intellectuals are liberal or conservative, and that my source of annoyance is anti-intellectualism, regardless of whether it's expressed by conservatives or liberals.

So, you claimed Conservatives are the main part of the 'Anti-Intellectual Movement', and then started denying you heavily implied that. Maybe you didn't read your own post. It's a bit long, I didn't really want to read it either. It's okay.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

I've not expressed disdain for any members in my OP. What I've expressed distaste for is:

• lame lines of thought aired in public, be it on this forum or elsewhere, and
• refusal to critically evaluate matters by consuming rigorously developed thought on those matters.

Was it perhaps naive for me to have expected more intellectualism in the ideas and thoughts expressed on this forum? Maybe so.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Clearly you don't know what "akin" means. ......

We're all very, very proud of you.

 

[Correll]

First of all, I agree that this is flame bait.

...​

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.

....

Secondly, you are conflating anti-intellectualism with anti-elitism.


You specifically reference Donald Trump, and his supporters, so I will use him as an example.


Donald Trump is known to be smart. He is literally an Ivy League Graduate.

This is not a problem for his supporters, who are obviously the Core of the group that OP is targeted.

Because they are NOT anti-intellectuals.

What they are "anti" is elitist who dismiss them and their voices as not worthy of consideration.

For examples of that, one only has to look at the many liberals on this site who joyfully use such bigoted terms as "Redneck" or who viciously ridicule lower class or less educated whites.

 

[Unkotare]

......
Was it perhaps naive for me to have expected more intellectualism in the ideas and thoughts expressed on this forum? Maybe so.

Words cannot express our admiration for you.

 

[Picaro]

Could it possibly be more obvious that those who stick their pinkies in the air and bemoan "anti-intellectualism" are just pretentious posers who want everyone to know that THEY are 'intellectuals'? What a transparent, self-important little performance.

We call those people pseudo-intellectuals where I come from.

We call them fatuous asshats around here. They're hypnotized by their own circular reasoning, and they are convinced nobody else notices their fallacies, they're so gosh darn clever. n stuff.

 

[OldLady]

I have always understood that there was a strain of anti-intellectualism in American culture. We are do-ers more than thinkers, but it doesn't mean we are unable to think. Having come from a long line of blue collar Americans in a rural area, the "pie-in-the-sky" ideas of intellectuals and even intellectual pursuits like philosophy, art, etc. are looked down on as foolishness. There is much more important work to be done. My folks and the folks that live around me are not, by any means, stupid, though. IMO, the phenomenon you see in the open forums on USMB is a combination of (1) the freeing effects of anonymous social media and (2) a crazy election cycle that has never, in my memory, been quite so insanely hyperbolic. It's a new language, a new form of jello wrestling, or something. We don't go out in our garage for a smoke and talk to our neighbors this way, face to face, or even at Town meeting.

As you have seen in the responses here, posters have the ability to read and follow your long and complexly worded posts, understand them and respond to them. Most of us haven't the time or the inclination to engage in the type of discourse you are famous for. Sometimes it seems to me that you are deliberately walling yourself off from us masses with your stacks of expert "studies" and mountains of obscure words. It is frequently very difficult to figure out what your opinion actually IS, buried in those very long and unnecessarily complex posts.
I enjoy conversing with you, when I have time and don't already have a headache. You have reasons for your opinions and you explain what they are and why, up front. Sometimes, your presentation is overwhelming, however.

 

[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.

thanks for the 'thanks', 'Lady

 

[320 Years of History]

Off Topic:
Before responding to specific comments from your post, I want to make clear. I don't want the thread discussion to be about me, and a lot of your comments are about me or any specific members of USMB. The thread is intended to be a discussion in the abstract about the phenomenon of anti-intellectualism in the U.S. The USMB forum is merely one place in which that trend can be observed.

it doesn't mean we are unable to think.

I agree.

a long line of blue collar Americans in a rural area

I'd rather not incorporate work (or social) position/type into the discussion. I don't think anti-intellectualism has anything to do with that. Blue and white collar individuals have the tools needed to refrain from anti-intellectualism. Folks who perform both types of work show themselves willing to be anti-intellectual.

the phenomenon you see in the open forums on USMB is a combination of (1) the freeing effects of anonymous social media and (2) a crazy election cycle that has never, in my memory

It makes sense that those two factors have something to do with it.

posters have the ability to read and follow your long and complexly worded posts, understand them and respond to them.

I would expect they can and do. My main complaint/observation is that often, but not always, the responses aren't all that well thought out, (2) don't take into consideration key relevant facts, and/or (3) overemphasize minutia and ignore central themes, one or all of which lead to lines of discussion that really don't address the main topic at hand.

That this is a venue whereby one has ample time to critically and objectively examine and seek facts, that is, to exercise intellectualism, and yet folks often don't is troubling. Be that as it may, while part of my OP's gripe applies to a lot of chatter in the forum, I am most dismayed by the anti-intellectualism manifest in the proclamations our elected officials make. Their puerility flows down to the general electorate, if only by validating the supposed merit of "everyman's" remarks, thereby deteriorating the quality of discussions and thought that occur here and in the mainstream populace. That can only be part of the malaise that has brought our national political debate and legislative processes to the odiose state in which we today find it.

Sometimes it seems to me that you are deliberately walling yourself off from us masses with your stacks of expert "studies" and mountains of obscure words.

Okay...I can't move you from thinking that. I provide the content I do for a few reasons:

• To show I'm not inventing out of thin air, pulling it out of my ass, if you will, the facts and conclusions that support my positions.
• To make available to interested readers the very same information that led to arriving at the conclusions I arrive at so that if they want to refute it, they can do so cogently and with regard to the specific information upon which my views are based.

The point isn't to wall myself off, but rather to share information so that the quality of the discussion is enhanced, not minimized.

As for my vocabulary, well, that is what it is. I try to be precise in my word choice; less ambiguity is, IMO, better than more. I don't generally need to or care to leave "wiggle room" in my statements. Frankly, I use the words I use; others use the ones they use. Conversationalists making the effort to fully comprehend what each says -- thematically, denotatively, connotatively, and focally -- is what matters.

You have reasons for your opinions and you explain what they are and why, up front. Sometimes, your presentation is overwhelming, however.

On complex topics, yes, I can see how that may be, particularly to folks seeking 30 second glances. Then again, on complex topics, there's a lot to consider to express a comprehensive viewpoint. Plus, if one is to espouse and air a staunch viewpoint on a topic, I think it incumbent upon them to present a clear and well developed explanation/argument for why one has that viewpoint. I'm fine with exposing the entirety of my position, the "meat" as well as the nuances of complimentary "flavoring," on "whatever." Accordingly, I'm also okay with folks making the case that my argument/explanation is rationally flawed. What I'm not okay with, however, is folks merely claiming the flaw is there and not cogently showing as much be so.

I understand that not everyone will be of a mind to attempt doing that. However, as noted in reply to the prior quote, I make available the information they need to do so. Of course, reading research papers and synthesizing information from several of them -- not an unlikely need as research papers often cover very narrow topics -- takes time. But, hey, taking the time, even if it's a few weeks, and responding with a strong set of remarks makes for a far more valuable and substantive conversation. High quality discourse is much better, IMO, than is rapid retorts of equivocal intellectual merit.

 

[OldLady]

Off Topic:
Before responding to specific comments from your post, I want to make clear. I don't want the thread discussion to be about me, and a lot of your comments are about me or any specific members of USMB. The thread is intended to be a discussion in the abstract about the phenomenon of anti-intellectualism in the U.S. The USMB forum is merely one place in which that trend can be observed.

it doesn't mean we are unable to think.

I agree.

a long line of blue collar Americans in a rural area

I'd rather not incorporate work (or social) position/type into the discussion. I don't think anti-intellectualism has anything to do with that. Blue and white collar individuals have the tools needed to refrain from anti-intellectualism. Folks who perform both types of work show themselves willing to be anti-intellectual.

the phenomenon you see in the open forums on USMB is a combination of (1) the freeing effects of anonymous social media and (2) a crazy election cycle that has never, in my memory

It makes sense that those two factors have something to do with it.

posters have the ability to read and follow your long and complexly worded posts, understand them and respond to them.

I would expect they can and do. My main complaint/observation is that often, but not always, the responses aren't all that well thought out, (2) don't take into consideration key relevant facts, and/or (3) overemphasize minutia and ignore central themes, one or all of which lead to lines of discussion that really don't address the main topic at hand.

That this is a venue whereby one has ample time to critically and objectively examine and seek facts, that is, to exercise intellectualism, and yet folks often don't is troubling. Be that as it may, while part of my OP's gripe applies to a lot of chatter in the forum, I am most dismayed by the anti-intellectualism manifest in the proclamations our elected officials make. Their puerility flows down to the general electorate, if only by validating the supposed merit of "everyman's" remarks, thereby deteriorating the quality of discussions and thought that occur here and in the mainstream populace. That can only be part of the malaise that has brought our national political debate and legislative processes to the odiose state in which we today find it.

Sometimes it seems to me that you are deliberately walling yourself off from us masses with your stacks of expert "studies" and mountains of obscure words.

Okay...I can't move you from thinking that. I provide the content I do for a few reasons:

• To show I'm not inventing out of thin air, pulling it out of my ass, if you will, the facts and conclusions that support my positions.
• To make available to interested readers the very same information that led to arriving at the conclusions I arrive at so that if they want to refute it, they can do so cogently and with regard to the specific information upon which my views are based.

The point isn't to wall myself off, but rather to share information so that the quality of the discussion is enhanced, not minimized.

As for my vocabulary, well, that is what it is. I try to be precise in my word choice; less ambiguity is, IMO, better than more. I don't generally need to or care to leave "wiggle room" in my statements. Frankly, I use the words I use; others use the ones they use. Conversationalists making the effort to fully comprehend what each says -- thematically, denotatively, connotatively, and focally -- is what matters.

You have reasons for your opinions and you explain what they are and why, up front. Sometimes, your presentation is overwhelming, however.

On complex topics, yes, I can see how that may be, particularly to folks seeking 30 second glances. Then again, on complex topics, there's a lot to consider to express a comprehensive viewpoint. Plus, if one is to espouse and air a staunch viewpoint on a topic, I think it incumbent upon them to present a clear and well developed explanation/argument for why one has that viewpoint. I'm fine with exposing the entirety of my position, the "meat" as well as the nuances of complimentary "flavoring," on "whatever." Accordingly, I'm also okay with folks making the case that my argument/explanation is rationally flawed. What I'm not okay with, however, is folks merely claiming the flaw is there and not cogently showing as much be so.

I understand that not everyone will be of a mind to attempt doing that. However, as noted in reply to the prior quote, I make available the information they need to do so. Of course, reading research papers and synthesizing information from several of them -- not an unlikely need as research papers often cover very narrow topics -- takes time. But, hey, taking the time, even if it's a few weeks, and responding with a strong set of remarks makes for a far more valuable and substantive conversation. High quality discourse is much better, IMO, than is rapid retorts of equivocal intellectual merit.

OFF TOPIC: Do you really think it's necessary to back up every opinion or statement with an expert's say-so? I have learned and read and heard and thought about so, so many things in my life. I don't think it's necessary to substantiate every idea I have or every statement I make. If a poster challenges me, I might try to oblige with an article, if the poster seems serious and not just making noise. The world is not a doctoral board, 320. It isn't necessary to carry on as if it were.
Anyway, back to the thread. From one of the articles you listed:

On the influence of agrarian lifestyle
In the 19th Century, the population of America was still largely rural. Agrarian lifestyles demanded a capacity for consistent physical labor and a highly specialized knowledge. The study of classical knowledge, of poetry, philosophy, mathematics, history, etc., was seen as largely unnecessary. The old adage "Curiosity killed the cat," perhaps best exemplifies some of the quasi-spiritual association of intelligence with a tendency towards wickedness. For example, Rev. Bayard R. Hall is said to have written of frontier Indiana in 1843, "We always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness" ("Renaissance"). Perhaps the idea was that, as every man is supposedly just as likely as the other of being evil, it was a safer bet to disarm all men intellectually that they might not have an arsenal of wit with which to commit some heinous crime. Also, as America was (and is) still a relatively young nation, a bitter taste was still fresh in the mouths of colonial descendants, of aristocracy and the so-called "high class". The image of the self-made man, the underdog, or a bumpkin who had no need for anything but his own determination, developed into an ideal, perhaps even exemplifying the American dream. After all, we were nothing but a series of little colonies that had rebelled against and won our independence from the great British Empire.

That "attitude" has not disappeared, and I think it is common in much of America. I think it has always been, since our founding. Mistrust of the overly clever politician or the Philadelphia lawyer or the guy in the suit using words no one understands..... they're likely to trick you. Classical knowledge--the "liberal" arts--is still considered 'fluff' for the idle rich. And individualism and anti-elitism are still a strong undercurrent. You say it doesn't matter the occupation or where they live, that all people have the means to overcome "anti-intellectualism," but the point isn't 'overcoming' it -- it's not a lack of education. It's an attitude in a good part of this country. Of course you can speak to them intelligently about scientific issues and anything else, for that matter. But you better wear your jeans and act like someone who puts their pants on the same way as us. Or you will be suspect. I guess that's what I mean by "anti-intellectualism." And again, I believe it does not mean people are stupid or wilfully obtuse. It's just mistrust. The types of "anti-intellectualism" you point to in the political arena these days are just foolishness. Not true anti-intellectualism. I don't think the way people carry on here is real.
Maybe I'm the one being too naive.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you really think it's necessary to back up every opinion or statement with an expert's say-so?

When I find myself speaking/writing to an audience who has no basis to accept that I know what I'm taking about or that there is substantial and substantive foundation/merit for my conclusions, yes. I don't need to do that when I'm speaking with close friends, family, or clients. They all know me quite well. Indeed, the very reason I'm speaking with my clients is because they have the utmost trust in the verity and merit of the analysis I and my team can bring to bear in delivering solutions/conclusions to them. That's just not so in a forum like this. Indeed, it'd be the height of arrogance for me to offer unfounded premises, inferences and conclusions. Doing that is even more insulting to one's audience than are vulgar personal aspersions.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, despite what one might gather from this forum, anti-intellectualism isn't unique to the right. Sometimes science, reason and reality are not emotionally satisfying enough for some people. The result can only be a farce, a tragedy or both.

It is constrained to the right no more than is having brown eyes.

Emotional satisfaction is a fine thing to seek, but it is not a good thing to desire in evaluating, making and administering public policy. Indeed, it has no place there.

That's what I'm saying. There are like a third of Democrats who don't believe in evolution. Then there is the anti-vaccination crowd. Urgh.

And then there is the "Bernie or Bust" folks. Do they not get how pressure politics is supposed to work? She won. Make her woo you!

But I ramble...