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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.).
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
).![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
