Lately it seems like I've been hearing/reading the word "intellectual" in a fairly negative sense. Consider:
quote:Because, of course, the academic-intellectual-media Establishment of America has nothing but contempt, in the main, for our military.
That's from OSC's latest World Watch. I don't intend for this to become a debate over OSC or I would have posted on the other side. Indeed, World Watch is not the only place I've heard the word used thusly, it's merely a convenient example. My question is a more general one. Why is "intellectual" being used as a pejorative here, and what does it mean?
Dictionary.com defines intellectual as:
quote: 1. a. Of or relating to the intellect. b. Rational rather than emotional. 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem. 3. a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent. b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
Generally, when I use the word, I am using definition 3b. I find so much value in Hatrack precisely because I consider it a gathering place for intellectuals.
It disheartens me to see a word that describes something I consider very valuable used as a pejorative. I haven't been maliciously mocked for being intelligent since elementary school, and I like to think that's not what's happening on here. So what gives?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My gut reaction to the question in your thread title is: "When Republicans realized they could label all liberals as such and get away with using it that way."
Republicans are GOOD at redefining words. Liberal is a pejorative to them, and so is intellectual. It means people who have lots of book learnin' but no real common sense, no values, and no connection to real Americans.
Quite frankly I don't have any idea where OSC is coming from for slamming the media on troops. If anything, the media has slammed time and again the administration in office for the last decade and a half for its use of the troops and its failures to protect them. Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest. Is OSC trying to point out some secret plan of the media, to appear friendly on camera but behind the scenes is really hoping for their downfall? I have no idea, but it seems to me like his views of the media are rooted in the 70's, not the 21st century.
The only way to fight back against a negative use of a positive word is to A. Refuse to take offense and B. Use it all the time yourself, positively. It's the only way to help change a definition, refuse to use it or accept it in the form that the Republicans are trying to use it in.
Ever watch the Colbert Report? Whenever something upsets Colbert he goes off into his "this is just another east coast, liberal, intellectual, Ivy League smear campaign to try and blah blah blah whatever." He's mocking the Republicans. It's their excuse for everything they hate about Liberals. Defying all logic, they've managed to make a solid connection in the minds of their base that intelligent and educated equals heartless and lacking in values. And since it works, they'll continue to do it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
If you want an honest answer, it's the Ivory Tower syndrome. Some people show a propensity for putting theory and logic ahead of what people have found in the real world.
This isn't a new conflict and goes back at least as far as Aristotle and Plato... and as far ahead as McCoy and Spock.
Also, there are fashions in academia as well, even in the hardest of sciences. It is good to remind ourselves that yesterday's latest, greatest theory is today's quaintly laughable idea.
For a good fictional send up of the idea, check Stephenson's Cryptonomicon about the breakup of Randy and Charlene. If you want to see it in action, check this thread and notice how several people start trying to find ways to tell me that a seven passenger vehicle isn't a necessity for me. These are smart people who simply have no clue what my situation is like.
If you're just venting, you now have a target.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm pretty sure intellectualism has always been a bad thing to many people, because intellectuals tell them that they are wrong about stuff. The intellectuals usually have the better reasoning, but those being told they are wrong don't want to be wrong, so since they can't out-reason them, they claim intellectuals exist in their own world and don't know what they are talking about. The end results are mistakes like the Iraq War, where intellectuals say one thing and the people choose to ignore them.
This dynamic is at least as old as the execution of Socrates for essentially just this - he kept questioning things that people didn't want questioned, so they convicted and killed him. Anti-intellectualism is not a new thing.
Then again, "intellectuals" contribute to the problem by trying to wield the authority of reason without actually reasoning well. They are prone to forget that limits of their reasoning, which have been well-documented by the more skeptical intellectuals. And they are prone to jump to wild conclusions without reconsidering all their premises. When intellectuals become arrogant on account of their intellectualism, to the point where they trust their own intellect too much, then they begin to transform intellectualism into something negative.
On top of that you have people who think they are intellectuals because they can talk like an intellectual does, but who don't actually use their intellect all that much, or at least don't do it properly. These people also tend to give intellects a bad name, because they sound like intellectuals, but don't have the reasoning to back it up, and thus are wrong a whole lot.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When did being an intellectual become a bad thing?
When intellectuals stopped being Men, Thinking, and instead became Thinking Men.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Intellectuals have a long history of being called "Bad". The first thing the Nazi's did when they came to power was to wipe out the Intellectuals--calling them all Jewish Elites. Mao built his power on destroying the intellectuals of China, and holding back their technological revolution by 20 years. Any hint of revolution in Iran begins with their intellectuals, who the clerics have recently moved to control.
Why?
Because intellectuals have the time and the resources to criticize the status quo. That is dangerous to those who use the status quo to maintain, or take, power. Yet they are an elite class, some of whom take themselves too seriously, so they can be an easy target to hit.
Jefferson was an intellectual. Lee was one too. Marx and Engels were intellectuals. Lenin and Stalin were not. Rumsfeld and the entire neo-Con movement are intellectuals. Carl Rove and . I believe that President Bush is an intellectual hiding behind a fake down-home accent.
Not all intellectual theories work. There is a hubris in intellectuals demanding that they do. That is where those who attack them get their ammunition.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Carl Rove
Karl Rove never finished college. And Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale. Smart, definitely, but not the intellectual elite they so happily criticize.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lenin was an intellectual.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why is "intellectual" being used as a pejorative here, and what does it mean?
Dictionary.com defines intellectual as:
It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Q: When did being an intellectual become a bad thing?
A: Whenever intellectuals were bad.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
quote:It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
What is that culture that is in fashion, then?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
Not really....other than the prison scandals I have not heard a lot of complaints about the actual soldiers in the Armed Services, and the media is one of the largest groups of people to complain about lack of troops, lack of funding, and lack of equipment for those very troops.
I think the press have been more supportive of the troops than the administration have been.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
I suspect it has a lot mroe to do with certain cultures in fashion outside intellectual circles - the conservative relativism exemplified by FOX News, in which no viewpoint is more rationally justified than any other, and thus where the most popular viewpoint wins. This is an approach that conflicts directly with intellectualism, which typically asserts that a well-justified viewpoint held by one person trumps even a super-popular view that isn't backed by any evidence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the media is one of the largest groups of people to complain about lack of troops, lack of funding, and lack of equipment for those very troops.
Complaining about lack of supplies and troops is not, in itself, an act of support nor criticism for the war.
We don't have enough troops and supplies over there, [so we should send more as soon as possible.]
We don't have enough troops and supplies over there, [so we whould bring them home as soon as possible.]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tes -- nope. I don't think so.
It has nothing to do with populism or evidence. It has everything to do with certain beliefs being commonly held by intellectuals which are contrary to the beliefs of the speaker.
Most pejoratives used to describe political persuasions can be boiled down to "people who disagree with me, the bastards".
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Most pejoratives used to describe political persuasions can be boiled down to "people who disagree with me, the bastards".
Which is why so much of Card's punditry makes me sad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You bastard. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
[ May 10, 2006, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, I've been reading Bujold's Curse of Chalion, so the word "bastard" has taken on a slightly different flavor lately. (The Bastard is one of the five gods worshiped by the quintarions in that book.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It has nothing to do with populism or evidence. It has everything to do with certain beliefs being commonly held by intellectuals which are contrary to the beliefs of the speaker.
I think part of the problem here is the definition of "intellectual" that's being used.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
*bedroom voice* You bad, naughty intellectual.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think it's as simple as schoolyard jealousy. Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
What is your position then? Where is this upswelling of negativity from the media? I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Other than the single soldier seen in all those photos, the Abu Gharib scandal was blamed on administration officials and top level generals. I haven't seen any animosity towards the average troops. Reporters are embedded by the dozens with the troops, and they aren't saying bad things, they are talking about bravery and courage under fire, and are questioning why things from the government aren't going better, and how this effects the troops.
Point me in the direction of this anti-troop movement from the media, because I just don't see it.
Also, saying things like "the troops need more armor, the we need more troops" so on and so forth IS support of the troops. The majority of the media, when they say that, do not follow it with "but we don't have it, so let's just pull out now." Some individual newspeople, like Lou Dobbs say that, but actual reporters do not, at least now from what I've seen.
Just because you can imagine what they might be thinking the next sentence would be: [so let's bring them home], doesn't mean that is what they are actually thinking, and it certainly isn't what the majority are saying on air or in print.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think it's as simple as schoolyard jealousy. Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
This is a very dim view of people.
Can you explain why having more of attribute X would automatically cause jealousy/envy/dislike in others who don't have as much of X?
Or in other words:
Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
What about those of us that were?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Is there really much doubt in anyone's mind here that branding intellectualism as somehow "bad" is just another in a long, long tradition of using labels to redefine the "opposition" in (especially political) debate?
I thought this "anti-intellectual thing" was something fresh and new -- some sort of conservative GOP perfidy -- until I was reminded of what passed for political discussion earlier in our history. A tour of the political posters/cartoons/essays exhibit in the Lincoln Presidential library & museum convinced me that, if anything, Americans today are at the most polite we've ever been.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is there really much doubt in anyone's mind here that branding intellectualism as somehow "bad" is just another in a long, long tradition of using labels to redefine the "opposition" in (especially political) debate?
I do. That is, I don't doubt that it's used that way but I absolutely doubt that's all there is to it or that everyone who has a distrust for intelligence which lacks common sense is merely labeling their political opponent.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So...
you're saying then that generalizing a negative attitude toward "intellectuals" is a reasoned response to something?
If so...to what?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:This is a very dim view of people.
Can you explain why having more of attribute X would automatically cause jealousy/envy/dislike in others who don't have as much of X?
Or in other words:
Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
No. But we're not talking about some vague activity. School isn't badminton. If I'm a world champion foosball player, you could know me for years and never know that. If you're smarter than most people around you, it's hard to conceal.
School is the most formative experience in a child's life, and teachers, administrators, and parents all hold up the students who are best at school (ie, the smartest kids, or in some cases the hardest working ones) as the shining ideal of what everyone should work to be. If that's not you, chances are you resented that kid. If that is you, then you know what I'm talking about.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by erosomniac: *bedroom voice* You bad, naughty intellectual.
C'mere, baby. You should see the size of my....hypothalamus.
quote:posted by Jim-Me: That is, I don't doubt that it's used that way but I absolutely doubt that's all there is to it or that everyone who has a distrust for intelligence which lacks common sense is merely labeling their political opponent.
The problem with common sense is that it's rarely common and never agreed upon*.
quote:posted by Scott R:
quote:posted by El JT de Spang: I think it's as simple as schoolyard jealousy. Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
This is a very dim view of people.
Can you explain why having more of attribute X would automatically cause jealousy/envy/dislike in others who don't have as much of X?
Or in other words:
Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
Perhaps Mr. Spang went a bit too far in implying that such lack necessarily causes jealousy. That's certainly not the case, and I doubt it's, "as simple as," a grade school mentality. But I think he's more right than wrong. Jealousy towards those who have more or are better at something is a pretty common human experience. I don't think there's anyone anywhere who can't sympathize with that to some degree.
I think the larger problem with this tactic is that intelligence isn't exactly the most respected trait in America. I hear/read news reports all the time about how our schools are going downhill. I read an article in Time a little while ago that indicated as many as a third of our students won't finish highschool. When the intellect is viewed with this kind of disdain is it surprising?
And when you have pundits and respected - though not always respectable - figures railing against intellectuals should we expect it to get any better?
*EDIT - Stop...reverse that.
[ May 10, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's what's wrong with government run by a bunch of intellectuals. Ahh the political wisdom of Matt Groening.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Perhaps I'm saying it's just as much labeling to say that someone who distrusts fads in education merely "hates intellectuals", even if the label is self-applied.
Look, I have a healthy respect for education, but PhD's will often be the first to tell you that their doctrate is more a reflection of their stubborness than of their intelligence. There are people who seem to value education, specifically their own education, above everything else. I think they are just as misguided as religious fundamentalists and for much the same reason. The same charge could probably be brought against me because I tend to value my personal experience above everything else.
*shrug*
There is no question that some people are out of touch, is there?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:School is the most formative experience in a child's life
I strongly disagree with this. I think family life is far more formitive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I hope you're right. And you may well be, but school certainly had a big hand in shaping me, my brother, and my friends.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's been my experience that the only people who have a bigger persecution complex than religious believers are people who think they're smarter than other people.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Since I don't fit either of those categories, I really couldn't say.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
As an engineer heavily involved in the manufacturing process, I picture 'intellectuals' as remote/removed design engineers. They can sit at their desk, do computer simulations, follow every design best practice, and research every little aspect of the product that they can think of. Then comes the part where people actually have to make it. And 99 times out of 100 it doesn't work the first (or 2nd or 3rd) time. Heck, sometimes it's not even manufacturable.
So I picture intellectuals as feeling they always know the right thing to do and how to do it. The only problem is that it's often BS that doesn't work when the rubber meets the road. The thing is, especially in a political and social arena, these are real people's lives that are being impacted by these experiments. That bothers me.
Marx was an intellectual that came up with the perfect form of gov't/society. Stalin's Russia & Mao's China are what happened when people actually tried this genius system.
I'm not saying intellectuals are always bad. I'm just saying that there really is something to be said for common sense & real world experience.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
Look, I have a healthy respect for education, but PhD's will often be the first to tell you that their doctrate is more a reflection of their stubborness than of their intelligence.
Four years into a phd program, I wonder if I will ever use my brain again. But, if I say this aloud, I offend a whole lot of people. So, while I agree, I would not go so far as to say most phds agree (one almost had her head explode when someone said that- very amusing). A phd program is in many cases 4-8 years of torture. If you make it through, there is a sense of arrogance. "I suffered X years to be able to say this, my opinion is better than yours." Makes perfect sense when you are part of it. Pretty offensive if you aren't. As far as smart people being persecuted, I think it is a copout to claim I am so smart no one loves me. In elementary school, I claimed that. Then I realized, I never took a moment to think about anyone else's interests. The fact that I understood math without help wasn't why they didn't like me. The fact that I had no common interests and then rubbed it in their face that math wasn't a problem for me was why they hated me. In high school, things were different. When someone finally found out my GPA and test scores, it was the big news of the day because no one could believe that I had the scores I did, including my bf. I got over the fact that I was smart. Of course, considering my handle, I am sure that claim can be argued. (I picked it on a different board as a fantasy version of my career choice and I am awful about picking handles so have kept it for other boards).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My issue with so-called "intellectuals" is an issue with those people who are intelligent, but who for some reason feel the need to constantly reaffirm their intelligence to themselves in the way that they converse with the outside world. It's like, "I AM SO SMART WHY DON'T YOU THINK I'M SMART MY MOMMY SAYS I'M SMART I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THIS OBSCURE THEORY NOW AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT IT'S BECAUSE I'M SMARTER THAN YOU."
And of course, if you disagree with the obscure theory, it also means that the "intellectual" is smarter than you. To me, if you have to put THAT much effort into it, if you feel the need to PROVE that you're smart, then you're pretty insecure about it.
I've told this story before: When I was in high school, they announced the National Merit Scholars in a school-wide assembly. I was one of them. My teachers weren't all that surprised, but for the rest of the day, my classmates came up to me and said things along the lines of, "Wow, I never knew you were smart!"
-pH
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
From a right/left political viewpoint, I need to make two notes.
One, however laughably, the "intellectual" division gives conservatives an angle by which they can claim populism, working off the resentment of those college-educated people who seem to have it easy, working off the sweat and blood of the real, salt-of-the-earth by God Americans. That Bush was a mediocre Ivy League student from a wealthy family whose friends bailed him out of numerous bad business dealings was an irony that didn't get a lot of play. Bush spent a lot more time showing off his cowboy duds than his diploma.
More cynically, my suspicion is this: you quite deservedly get a lot of criticism when you let oil businesspeople do your environmental damage surveys for drilling, coal people come up with the numbers for air quality standards, energy companies come up with the rules regarding energy regulation, and so on. So you say, "Well, they're the people who know the business. Where else would you expect us to draw experts in the field?..."
Hmm. Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?
What's that dirty 'A' word? Academia...
Now to be certain, there are professors and the like who never emerge from the ivory tower, and spend their lives doing little more than commenting and writing about one anothers' work. But there's also a lot of people putting their own time and money into doing hard research in the field. And they all get tarred with the same brush.
Becuase if you want to keep your cronies in high places, you have to make those academic, "intellectual" experts into such inherently dishonest, disreputable, and worthless people that you never have to give an answer to why you wouldn't choose them, beyond sniping their "intellectualism".
So the next time someone derides someone as an intellectual, do the world a favor and tell their lazy butt to define their terms and actually engage their mind, rather than engaging in vague, second-hand punditry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the next time someone derides someone as an intellectual, do the world a favor and tell their lazy butt to define their terms and actually engage their mind, rather than engaging in vague, second-hand punditry.
Yeah, 'cause making sweeping arguments about a group of people is just silly, isn't it?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
To me, an intelligent person sounds different than an intellectual. When I hear "intellectual" used as a pejorative name I think of the kind of people who all gather togethor and repeat commentaries that they read in the newspaper to each other, nod their heads in agreement, and congratulate each other on being so smart . I think these (the people described in the first few paragraphs) are the people he's talking about. Not the people who really are intelligent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What would your response be to Sterling's post if he removed the word "lazy" from his last sentence, Dag?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*reads A Canticle For Liebowitz*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What would your response be to Sterling's post if he removed the word "lazy" from his last sentence, Dag?
That the idea that the only place unbiased experts exist is academia is false, and that his motive-reading is another error.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not sure what you mean.
He's saying that experts, regardless of their actual position as an academic or not, are still labeled as such, and thus discredited. He's saying they do in fact exist outside of academia.
And as far as motive reading goes, I think you have to go a bit further than to just say he is in error in this case. I agree with some of what he's saying. I think you have to actually counterpoint him in this case. It's either that or we just have to take your word over his, without any specifics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He's saying that experts, regardless of their actual position as an academic or not, are still labeled as such, and thus discredited.
I didn't say Sterling said there were no experts outside academia. I specifically used the word "unbiased" in describing his (implied) claim. Here's what he said:
quote:Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?
What's that dirty 'A' word? Academia...
quote:And as far as motive reading goes, I think you have to go a bit further than to just say he is in error in this case.
He's said they have this motive to discredit academia. He hasn't come close to proving that they have that motive.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
fugu13, yes, Lenin was an intellectual and one of the few dictators who did not mistrust intellectuals. Stalin, a semi-eduacated man from the provinces, distrusted intelectuals like Lenin and Trotsky.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think he was just trying to see things from all Engles.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by BaoQingTian: I'm not saying intellectuals are always bad. I'm just saying that there really is something to be said for common sense & real world experience.
There surely is. But I don't think that intellectualism and common sense are as mutually exclusive as some seem to.
quote:posted by Jim-Me: There is no question that some people are out of touch, is there?
Certainly not. But if someone means to attack the arrogant or self-righteous, they should use those words. It's as dishonest to imply that intellectuals are smug, strutting bastards as it is to imply that theists are suicide bombers. The issues involved in each may be related, but they are not causal.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: [QB] My issue with so-called "intellectuals" is an issue with those people who are intelligent, but who for some reason feel the need to constantly reaffirm their intelligence to themselves in the way that they converse with the outside world. It's like, "I AM SO SMART WHY DON'T YOU THINK I'M SMART MY MOMMY SAYS I'M SMART I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THIS OBSCURE THEORY NOW AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT IT'S BECAUSE I'M SMARTER THAN YOU."
I wonder, though, whether they're actually trying to show off or whether they just, y'know, like talking about those obscure theories. I mean, I get a huge kick out of discussing molecular biology and evolutionary theory with people because I enjoy those subjects. I certainly don't care whether it makes me look smart (or stupid, sometimes, if my position happens to be wrong). Could it possibly be that you're taking offense where none was meant?
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite well aware that there are talkative assholes out there who flaunt their test scores and Ivy league degrees. But I've gotten a similarly offended response from folks before when my bio major friends and I are deep in discussion about the biochemical pathways involved in cytokinesis, and it's certainly not due to any pretension on our end. Excessive geekiness, maybe. Frantic attempt to not fail our classes, absolutely. But we're not trying to show anyone up, any more than the big guy with the Local Sports Team jersey on, whooping when his team makes a score on the bar television, is trying to make non-sports fans feel bad.
quote:And of course, if you disagree with the obscure theory, it also means that the "intellectual" is smarter than you. To me, if you have to put THAT much effort into it, if you feel the need to PROVE that you're smart, then you're pretty insecure about it.
Again, I have no idea what the people you're talking about are like, and for all I know, they may in fact be know-it-all jerks. But if there's one thing I've learned in college, it's that stuff is complex. There are plenty of things that only make sense if you've put in the time and energy to learn about them in detail. Complaining because (for example) a physicist corrected your layman's misunderstanding of string theory is akin to complaining about the Jiffy Lube guy for telling you that your car needs X obscure part replaced, even though you've taken a look at the part and it doesn't look like there's anything wrong with it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:But I've gotten a similarly offended response from folks before when my bio major friends
And in that context (a discussion with other friends), I don't find it irritating in the least.
However, there is no reason to address the rest of the world with a certain "intellectual" attitude all the time. In this case, when I say "intellectual," I'm meaning it in terms of I'm-so-smart snobbery. I don't like it when people feel the need to constantly prove that they're smart, attractive, wealthy, kind, whatever. If you feel the need to prove it all the time, maybe you don't think you're as [insert quality here] as you think you are.
-pH
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Fair 'nuff. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have similar feelings about pretentious, rabid indie music fans.
Don't pretend you've never yelled, "Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want!" You have. Sheesh, at least I'm not ashamed of my music collection, even if it DOES include Nsync.
-pH
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Don't pretend you've never yelled, "Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want!" You have.
I haven't. And I never will.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You will. Oh, you will.
AND YOU WILL DANCE! Dance for your diplomat!
+500 points if you get the cartoon reference.
-pH
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Don't pretend you've never yelled, "Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want!"
Guilty. Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Don't pretend you've never yelled, "Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want!"
Totally have. And the most recent was last week. We snuck that into the dance mix for a friend's birthday party. Trust me, it was amazing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: [QUOTE] Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
Jealousy is somewhat a part of human nature. Was it Confucius who said that nothing can be done perfectly, because perfection inspires jealousy... thus even perfection is imperfect?
Kids dislike smarter kids because they are different, and they represent a challenge. I think that's the root of jealousy: someone who is "better" than you are is stronger and more dangerous to you.
If conservatives are so up in arms about the "intellectuals," take a note from the school-yard rulebook and chalk this one up to name-calling, IMO. There is neither anything to it, or anything to argue against, since the real target here is a straw-man. Very convenient for all involved.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Kids dislike smarter kids because they are different, and they represent a challenge.
I don't think anyone has ever disliked me specifically because I was smart. I have, however, been disliked for:
Dressing differently. Having parents who pay for things. Going to a four-year college. Apparently, thinking I'm better than everyone else (because if I didn't, I wouldn't be going to a four-year university ). Not having sex (and I don't mean guys not liking me for it. GIRLS didn't like me for it). Not doing drugs. Worrying about my appearance. Being greedy. Understanding where major labels are coming from.
I really don't think that most people who are disliked are disliked SOLELY because they are intelligent.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
no, like I said, its because that intelligence is representative of a threat. The person who is intelligent will do better than you in school, make you look bad, maybe outwit you in a contest. These are real challenges to a young person, just as they are to us all.
If you scratch even deeper, maybe an intelligent person is uncomfortably aware of your shortcomings; more able to peirce to the heart of an issue and expose you. Certainly I have felt wary of those who seemed TOO perceptive, TOO able to strip away my walls against the world. Intelligence is much more than a shiney toy, it is a real tool which people do recognize as an advantage, even as kids.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Orincoro, I don't think the threat is intelligence per se. People don't like others they can't relate to. The obviously different person challenges the norm and, in a way, threatens the comfort of the status quo.
I mean, that's why pH's list makes sense. The people who dislike her don't do it because she's intelligent but because of the qualities she has that set her apart.
If someone's approachable and personable, then that person will not be shunned, regardless of intelligence.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, most of the complaints posted here about intellectuals I've heard about Christians. Just change Intelligence with Morally Superior, and Smart with Pious.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I thought about pointing out the same thing, Dan, except I thought it might sound like whining coming from me because I was also going to point out that nobody started a thread wondering why it's ok to bash Mormons or Fundamentalists
Also, I don't think it's about actual intelligence or moral superiority, but about arrogance (as others have pointed out).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think people don't like "intellectuals" because they don't like getting told what to do, or how to think. Add on the fact that intellectuals quote obscure things no one else cares about, use a game with assumed rules called logic, see themselves as holding truth beyond outsider's comprehension, and put themselves up as authorities beyond question (except by other intellectuals). When you think of yourself as special, act like you are special, and try to control peoples lives accordingly - then get ready to be hated and dispised.
However, as Dan has said, it isn't just intellectuals these things can be attributed. Its just that in today's Western society it is the "intellectuals" who have most of the megaphone.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: When you think of yourself as special, act like you are special, and try to control peoples lives accordingly - then get ready to be hated and dispised.
That's not just "intellectuals," but also people who tell me what to think about them. As well as people who say I shouldn't wear red shoes or eat KitKat bars.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
I thought it was people with talk shows who had the microphone...
I dislike bashing "intellectuals" as such. If you want to bash someone's opinion, come out and say what offends you. But to mock someone simply for being "intellectual" sounds too much like glorifying stupidity. Just my nitpicky 2 cents.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I thought about pointing out the same thing, Dan, except I thought it might sound like whining coming from me because I was also going to point out that nobody started a thread wondering why it's ok to bash Mormons or Fundamentalists [Smile]
Also, I don't think it's about actual intelligence or moral superiority, but about arrogance (as others have pointed out).
Jim-Me: To be fair, I think you should recognize that several of us have posted repeatedly on how silly it is to over-generalize regarding ANY group of people.
And, I'd also like to point out that you've apparently said it IS reasonable in the case of "intellectual bashing" and haven't answered my question as to why you think that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: When you think of yourself as special, act like you are special, and try to control peoples lives accordingly - then get ready to be hated and dispised.
That's not just "intellectuals," but also people who tell me what to think about them. As well as people who say I shouldn't wear red shoes or eat KitKat bars.
Or the religious right.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:posted by BaoQingTian: I'm not saying intellectuals are always bad. I'm just saying that there really is something to be said for common sense & real world experience.
There surely is. But I don't think that intellectualism and common sense are as mutually exclusive as some seem to.
quote:posted by Jim-Me: There is no question that some people are out of touch, is there?
Certainly not. But if someone means to attack the arrogant or self-righteous, they should use those words. It's as dishonest to imply that intellectuals are smug, strutting bastards as it is to imply that theists are suicide bombers. The issues involved in each may be related, but they are not causal.
Color me dishonest then, but from what I've seen there's a certain amount of arrogance among those commonly labeled 'an Intellectual.'
Attention Hatrack etymologists! We should make up a new word for what we're describing, since the main objection here seems to be that conservatives have hijacked a word and tried to change the popular definition. Some adjectives I've seen are: out of touch, belief in their own superiority, arrogant, lacking common sense, PhD holding, outspoken on social issues.
Then, we can call people names with greater precision and less wasted breath
I'll admit, my inspiration comes from this: "Killing is wrong. And bad. There should be a new, stronger word for killing. Like badwrong, or badong. Yes, killing is badong. From this moment, I will stand for the opposite of killing: gnodab." Minus 5 points from your IQ if you know what movie I'm quoting.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I recognize that, Bob. (Insert "Hatrack Liberal Cabal does not exist" boilerplate )
And I intended this:
quote:Perhaps I'm saying it's just as much labeling to say that someone who distrusts fads in education merely "hates intellectuals", even if the label is self-applied.
Look, I have a healthy respect for education, but PhD's will often be the first to tell you that their doctrate is more a reflection of their stubborness than of their intelligence. There are people who seem to value education, specifically their own education, above everything else. I think they are just as misguided as religious fundamentalists and for much the same reason. The same charge could probably be brought against me because I tend to value my personal experience above everything else.
*shrug*
There is no question that some people are out of touch, is there?
as an answer to your post specifically. You didn't comment, so I didn't elaborate.
Kate's and Dan's parallels with the Religious Right are right on target.
I don't think it's reasonable, but as so many people like to say (truthfully) about terrorism, there are reasons for it. I gave a few, I think.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: When you think of yourself as special, act like you are special, and try to control peoples lives accordingly - then get ready to be hated and dispised.
That's not just "intellectuals," but also people who tell me what to think about them. As well as people who say I shouldn't wear red shoes or eat KitKat bars.
That's not a reference to this thread is it? Nobody here is telling you what to think about "intellectuals". We're just having a conversation.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: When you think of yourself as special, act like you are special, and try to control peoples lives accordingly - then get ready to be hated and dispised.
That's not just "intellectuals," but also people who tell me what to think about them. As well as people who say I shouldn't wear red shoes or eat KitKat bars.
Or the religious right.
Or the people that use the term religious right
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And how have I tried to control your life?
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
Well, I'm joining in the conversation. And by constantly using "intellectual" as a pejorative (which was the subject of the thread,yes?), I think it suggests being intellectual is a bad thing. Hence, my opinion *points upward to previous post*
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
And just for the record, nobody start in on the KitKat bars, if you know what's good for you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And just for the record, nobody start in on the KitKat bars, if you know what's good for you.
Give me a break...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(really tempted to use one of those laughing smilies or maybe a high five smilie)
Good one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And how have I tried to control your life?
Do you have an opinion?
Do you communicate that opinion in widely recognizable ways, such as speaking or writing?
If so, then you've tried to at least shape my life. Don't worry, I don't begrudge you the attempt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shaping is different than controlling.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
And who here is controlling?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shaping is different than controlling.
Has anyone here read The Dreammaster by Roger Zelazny?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The Religious Right is doing nothing more than trying to shape your life, kmboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The political efforts that I endorse and support are generally less interested in my personal life than those supported by the what I called the religious right. That, perhaps, was a misuse of term. I should have said Moral Majority. Although I think my conflation of the two is understandable, it wasn't correct.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, my point is that I think the 'religious right' and 'intellectual left' have many similarities. They both want to tell people what to do on a personal as well as community level. They both think they know so much better than everyone else. They both think that their proposed lifestyle is better for everyone if they just adopt it. It's really pretty hard to criticize one and not the other. That was all I was trying to get at. Sorry if I came across as a jerk.
To me, increasing polarization is the real enemy here. Unfortunately, all sides of the spectrum manage this nicely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You didn't. I think that the intellectual left is generally more interested in your money than what you do with your personal life and is less interested in the morality of individual decisions and more interested in the morality of corporate or community decisions.
That, of course, is very general. It is true of the intellectuals I know - and I guess most of the people I spend my time with would be considered intellectuals.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that the intellectual left is generally more interested in your money than what you do with your personal life
Whay you do with your money is your personal life.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jim-me...thanks. I didn't immediate grasp that as a reply to my earlier question, but I see how it does a fine job.
As a non-member of the non-existent Hatrack liberal cabal™, I appreciate your clarification.
As a Ph.D., I would have to say that generalizing about experiences in getting that degree is also dangerous. As with any major lie milestone, there are going to be those for whom achieving it was a huge let down, or ultimately not worth the effort. There will also be a great majority for whom it was merely a doorway to the next big effort/accomplishment. For a very lucky few, it not only served as a transformational experience, but was recognized by them as such when it happened.
I have used my degree well, not precisely in my original specialty area, and think back with a mixture of fondness and infinite perplexity on the process of achieving it. In the end, I think the more telling question is how many people who acquired a Ph.D. wish that they'd quit their academic career at the BA/BS level, or just after high school.
What proportion of PhDs have adopted an anti-intellectual attitude or listen with rapt attention to the pundits who bemoan the negative impact that intellectuals have on daily life?
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Well, my point is that I think the 'religious right' and 'intellectual left' have many similarities. They both want to tell people what to do on a personal as well as community level. They both think they know so much better than everyone else. They both think that their proposed lifestyle is better for everyone if they just adopt it. It's really pretty hard to criticize one and not the other. That was all I was trying to get at. Sorry if I came across as a jerk.
We're so lucky that only those two groups share those traits, aren't we? I mean, if this was something all humans were prone to doing, life would be nearly unbearable.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What is your position then? Where is this upswelling of negativity from the media? I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Other than the single soldier seen in all those photos, the Abu Gharib scandal was blamed on administration officials and top level generals.
This appears to no longer be an active issue on this thread, but I thought it deserved a response anyway.
The media does occasionally portray our troops in a positive light, because the media's hatred of Bush is stronger than its hatred for the military; thus, on any issue where there is potential conflict between the administration and the troops on the ground, such as availability of body armor, the media will sympathize with the troops in order to undermine Bush. On the whole, though, the mainstream media expends a decent amount of effort to make the U.S. military look like rapacious butchers.
The Abu Ghraib coverage is the most egregious example, attempting to make sneering Lynndie England the 'face' of the U.S. military in Iraq, but there have been many others. The press will generally believe any claim that makes our troops look bad; this is why we get uncritical repetition of any claim of the U.S. killing civilians, no matter how credible.
Eason Jordan, the Chief News Executive at CNN, claimed in late 2004 and early 2005 that American soldiers were deliberately torturing and killing journalists. He eventually resigned, but Linda Foley, president of the Newspaper Guild & Communication Workers of America, later reiterated Jordan's claims: "Journalists ... are also being targeted ... in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq... They target and kill journalists ... from other countries, particularly ... Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example."
Newsweek a year ago printed unsubstantiated claims that Gitmo personnel had been flushing Korans down toilets, etc., a story that prompted violent riots & was eventually retracted.
Peter Arnett of NBC, undeterred by his 'baby milk factory' and 'Operation Tailwind' fiascos at CNN, went on to encourage America's enemies by telling Iraqi state TV during the invasion that "Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war against Iraq maybe a week, and rewriting the war plan. The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan… So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war..."
In an interview, ABC White House correspodent Terry Moran (hardly a right-wing warmonger) acknowledged that "there is ... deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong."
This is not an exhaustive list.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: As with any major lie milestone...
that's a precious typo, Bob, considering the subject Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
I think there is really nothing positive that can or should be said about Abu Ghraib. Actually.
And tv news is not intellectual.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Well, my point is that I think the 'religious right' and 'intellectual left' have many similarities. They both want to tell people what to do on a personal as well as community level. They both think they know so much better than everyone else. They both think that their proposed lifestyle is better for everyone if they just adopt it. It's really pretty hard to criticize one and not the other. That was all I was trying to get at. Sorry if I came across as a jerk.
We're so lucky that only those two groups share those traits, aren't we? I mean, if this was something all humans were prone to doing, life would be nearly unbearable.
Hence the closing statement (emphasis added):
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: To me, increasing polarization is the real enemy here. Unfortunately, ALL sides of the spectrum manage this nicely.
I agree it's hardly unique to these two groups...they were just the two named in this thread, and probably 2 of the groups that have the most sway over how the average person in this country is able to live their lives.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
Well, at least you aren't talking about the "Hollywood Elite." That gives me a skin rash.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: attempting to make sneering Lynndie England the 'face' of the U.S. military in Iraq
But it was okay when they made Jessica Lynch the 'face' of the U.S. military in Iraq?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Getting back to the topic, when I use 'intellectual' in a pejorative sense, I really mean pseudo-intellectual -- those who do *not* engage in critical thinking but employ empty sophistry to reinforce their own preconceptions. An outstanding example of such 'intellectuals' are those who published Alan Sokal's hoax paper:
Such nonsense is far too common in academia (outside of the hard sciences), where those guilty of it make each other feel superior and sophisticated in comparison to what they regard as an uneducated populace of plebes.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Getting back to the topic, when I use 'intellectual' in a pejorative sense, I really mean pseudo-intellectual -- those who do *not* engage in critical thinking but employ empty sophistry to reinforce their own preconceptions.
I think "pseudo-intellectual" makes a fabulous pejorative phrase.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: attempting to make sneering Lynndie England the 'face' of the U.S. military in Iraq
But it was okay when they made Jessica Lynch the 'face' of the U.S. military in Iraq?
No, but I don't see that as particularly pro-military. It's more of an unhealthy media interest in unpleasant things happening to pretty young girls (Natalie Holloway, etc.).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think that the intellectual left is generally more interested in your money than what you do with your personal life
Whay you do with your money is your personal life.
Oh, we don't care what you do with what's left of your money!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think that the intellectual left is generally more interested in your money than what you do with your personal life
Whay you do with your money is your personal life.
Oh, we don't care what you do with what's left of your money!
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Oh, we don't care what you do with what's left of your money!
Funny, but still not true. The left wants regulation and/or prohibition on how people spend their money on tobacco, their homes, their businesses, the size of their toilet tanks, guns, political speech, etc.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely, many on the "right" (and in many cases most) are perfectly okay with regulations on homes, businesses, some forms of political speech, drugs similar to tobacco, and even many classes of weaponry. I don't have any data on toilet tank regulation among the right.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
True, the left has no monopoly on authoritarianism.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most of those tendencies aren't authoritarian. For instance, its been understood since the conception of modern economics that an economy without laws (aka regulations) protecting the operation of the market is an ineffectual economy.
Its also been known for quite some time that letting anybody who cares to acquire, say, chemical weapons, is problematic for those in a society who prefer to stay alive.
I have no particular excuse for those who support the suppression of political speech .
A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I didn't say Sterling said there were no experts outside academia. I specifically used the word "unbiased" in describing his (implied) claim. Here's what he said:
Nor did I say that academia is the only place to find unbiased experts. I said that it's much easier to justify hiring experts with a predisposition to find particular ends if you first disqualify experts from academia.
quote:He's said they have this motive to discredit academia. He hasn't come close to proving that they have that motive.
I stated a possibility, I noted it was a cynical one, and I don't need to prove anything to state a possibility, least of all to you.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
I agree and disagree. I think all laws are implemented out of a desire to control (events, resources, people, etc.) Perhaps it would be better to inject the word "purely" in? But then I don't think anyone ever really supports a law purely out of a desire to control; it's always with an eye to the "greater good." I don't know, but I think the definition as it stands is unsatisfactory.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nor did I say that academia is the only place to find unbiased experts. I said that it's much easier to justify hiring experts with a predisposition to find particular ends if you first disqualify experts from academia.
No, but you definitely implied it: "Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?" You then posited "academia" as the pleace to find people who don't "obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?"
quote:I stated a possibility, I noted it was a cynical one, and I don't need to prove anything to state a possibility, least of all to you.
I didn't say you did have to prove anything to me. Not in the least. I was merely responding to someone's request that I back up my equally valid and equally supported by evidence statement of possibility. Surely you agree that's fair.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In a broad sense of control, all laws are intended to control, yes; I'm speaking in a narrower sense. Somewhat analogous to the tests done to determine if speech-limiting laws are in violation of the first amendment -- is the law aimed at ends the government has a legitimate interest in? Does it advance those ends? Does it minimally impinge speech in doing so? Is it content-neutral? et cetera.
A similar test could easily be envisioned (though not be used in courts, it would belong with the legislature) for determining if a law avoids being about control.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, but you definitely implied it: "Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?" You then posited "academia" as the pleace to find people who don't "obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?"
To refine: "experts" in a field drawn directly from companies with a financial stake in coming to particular findings, who are likely to have a continued stake in said companies, have a clearly defined conflict on interest with regard to the research they will be doing.
Overcoming the appearance of impropriety requires dismissal of other fields from which such experts could easily be drawn.
Conceivably if you could find former industry experts who do not have a continued financial stake in such findings, you could also avoid the appearance of impropriety. But I suspect such individuals would also be dismissed in many situations, likely for the stated reason that their research or techniques are out of date.
I speak in the alleged mindset of those who would engage in such a strategy, with regard to avoiding the appearance of impropriety, albeit in an admittedly satirical tone.
quote:I didn't say you did have to prove anything to me. Not in the least. I was merely responding to someone's request that I back up my equally valid and equally supported by evidence statement of possibility. Surely you agree that's fair.
If you see that as your intent, then yes, I would agree that's fair.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: A willingness to impose laws isn't authoritarian, its when people support laws out of a desire to control that it becomes authoritarian.
I agree and disagree. I think all laws are implemented out of a desire to control (events, resources, people, etc.) Perhaps it would be better to inject the word "purely" in? But then I don't think anyone ever really supports a law purely out of a desire to control; it's always with an eye to the "greater good." I don't know, but I think the definition as it stands is unsatisfactory.
The "greater good," of course, is subjective.
-pH
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Too true, pH. There is very little that can be portrayed as objectively good.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
there's a lot that can be "portrayed" as objectively good...
there's very little good that comes without a price.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah. Like marshmallows. They're really good, but brother, you gotta pay money for them.
You don't ever just see someone giving away marshmallows, now do you? Don't think so. That would be plain crazy.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: there's a lot that can be "portrayed" as objectively good...
there's very little good that comes without a price.
I shouldn't have used the word "portrayed". There's very little that is objectively good.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: You know, most of the complaints posted here about intellectuals I've heard about Christians. Just change Intelligence with Morally Superior, and Smart with Pious.
Except intellectuals aren't identified as a common belief group. There is no "intellectual conclave," we have no doctrine, and that makes it very different. The reasons some people are wary of religious people will be different because they are a group.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Religious people" aren't a common belief group either except in a very broad sense. The loud ones can give that impression. Maybe I should call them "pseudo-religious".
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Kate, you are on one today. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Um, isn't this whole thread about treating Intellectuals as a common belief group, and then criticizing them en-masse, the way some do with religious folks?
Anyway, I've discovered the solution. Its a quick little test to see if you are really a dangerous intellectual or a dangerous anti-intellectual.
The Intellectual/Anti-Intellectual Quiz
Questions
A) Evolution is
5) Proven by my intellectual superiority 4) A major scientific theory that defines the slow and measurable growth and diversity of life from the earliest stages to present by ways of... 3) How God created the world 2) Not how God created the world. 1) God's joke on intellectuals, designed to lead those with more learning than faith into humiliations galore. 0) A plot of Satan.
B) Communism failed in Russia because:
5) I was not there to lead it as theoretically it should have been led. 4) because Russia was a vast agricultural economy and Communism as described by Engles and Marx is based on the evolution of a capitalist/manufacturing economy. Forced to change its structure to meet this new dynamic, totalitarian influences…… 3) To much corruption, to little motivation for the working man. 2) The US made it fail. USA! USA! 1) Godless systems always fail. 0) It was a plot of Satan’s
C) Beliefs other than your own 5) Are wrong. 4) Are worth considering with an open mind, ready to spark exciting and interesting debate to follow, preferably following Roberts Rules of Order. 3) Are confusing 2) Can be divided into those which are Christian, and may be right, and those that are wrong. 1) Are UnAmerican 0) Are plots by Satan.
D) Democrats are 5) In need of my enlightened and intelligent leadership 4) Are one of the two historical political parties in the United States, a deviant from the original Whig party, in the early 1900’s they transformed themselves into a populous party…. 3) In a good position for the next elections 2) In trouble, as usual. 1) Godless heathen who deserve our wary pity and our most stringent efforts to evangelize them. I suggest a mission to DNC Headaquarters. 0) A plot by Satan
E)God is:
5)A plot from Satan 4)Not to be found in any one religion, but through the study of the world and all its knowledge 3) Love. 2) Yes. God Is. 1) All I care about. 0) Proven by my moral superiority.
Add all the numbers from your choices together to get your score:
25) You are THE intellectual, but then again, you knew that. 20-24) You party in the Ivory Tower. 15-19) You bask in the shadow of the Ivory Tower. 10-14) You laugh at those in the Ivory Tower. 5-9) You have explosives and know how to use them on the Ivory Tower. 1-4) You work vigorously to direct God’s awesome might—fire, brimstone, lightning and the occasional hurricane—at those heathen who dare build a new Tower of Babel. 0) I would comment on this, but you know that this quiz was a plot of Satan’s.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
too much time on my hands. Nobody is keeping me busy talking about sex or God...or knitting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A) 4 and 3 say 3.5 b) 4 and 3 so 3.5 c) between 4 and 5 say 4.2 d) 4 and godihope 3 so 3.5 e) 2 and 3 and 4 settle firmly at 3
17.7 Yeah - about right.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Irregardless: On the whole, though, the mainstream media expends a decent amount of effort to make the U.S. military look like rapacious butchers.
As opposed to, say, it being more of an unhealthy media interest in authority figures involved in scandal (Bill Clinton, etc.)?
quote:posted by Irregardless: No, but I don't see that as particularly pro-military. It's more of an unhealthy media interest in unpleasant things happening to pretty young girls (Natalie Holloway, etc.).
I agree.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
20, I guess I party in the tower. Funny because all my answers were very open-minded, all 4s.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
A) 4 B) 3 C) 3, 4, and 5. Solid 4. D) Between 2 and 3, but closer to 3. Gonna give 'em a 2.85 E) Afraid I don't see an attractive answer there. I'm gonna have to go ahead and give myself a -13.85.
I always suspected you were a minion of Beelzebub.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
4,3,4,2,3
16.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That survey was a plot from Santa.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
A.) 4 B.) 3 C.) 5 D.) 0 E.) 2
Total: 14
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A) 3.7 B) 2.9 C) 3.5 D) 3.5 E) 1.5
Total: 15.1
I'm strongly tempted to modify some of my fuzzy boundaries to get down to the 10-14 range. I guess I'm more likely to try to take down the Ivory Tower from within.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Since some are not pleased with the questions, I will add a few more, and update the scoring later.
F) Assume there are 1,000,000 types of animals. In that case, how many animals did Moses put on the Ark?
5) I don't do math. 4) Ooooh, a hypothetical. I love hypotheticals. I could do hypotheticals all day. May favorite was..... 3) Um, 2,000,000 2) Well, there were 2 of each animal, plus him, his wife, his son's and their wives, let me look that up.... 1) 0. Moses didn't put any on the Ark. Noah did. 0) Your question is obviously....a plot of Satan's.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I must comment: Engles and Marx were intellectuals, yes. But so, clearly, were Franklin and Jefferson. And the men whose writing they drew upon in drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
That one's easy, Dan. The answer is obviously
Q) How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, Dan, as I recall, there were supposed to be seven pairs of the clean kinds of animals, and one pair of the rest. So the 2 million would not be correct. Can I get 6 points? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
... I party in the ivory tower?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
KoM, why would you get points for pointing out that one of the wrong answers is wrong?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because I pointed out that it's wrong in a different way from the way it was intended to be wrong?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
G The best sport is 5) Chess 4) One that does not involve sweating. 3) Football, Baseball, Basketball, or Hockey 2) Enjoyed with a cold beer. 1) Drinking cold beers. 0) Is a plot of Satan's to take us away from prayer.
H How much wood could a woodchuck chuck 5) Is that a European Wood Chuck or an African Wood Chuck? 4) Woodchucks do not have oposable thumbs, so their ability to chuck, or throw, a peice of wood is nil. 3) As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. 2) Not as much as I can. 1) Woodchuck, them is darn good eatin. 0) Woodchucks are a plot...well, maybe not, but tongue twisters are a plot by satan to trick us into blaspheme.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
KOM-1 extra I-point for taking the time to point out a factual error. Another extra I-Point for vigourous debate defending your reasoning.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)