Why is anti-intellectualism so rampant?

TadaGanIarracht

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because thy're aware of the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

TheVirgoddess

The internet is a tool.
The search engine a filter.
The intelligence of the mind (generalised) a restricting factor for what one might find when filtering, and also what one will wade through and have to make decisions about (this activity or that), as well as take with a grain of salt or not. The mind also peoduces content. It's all our own fault and responsibility.

So you guys don't agree that the importance of education and the general intelligence of people is declining? It's always been that way, we're just more aware of it now?

AglaeaC

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I don't agree entirely. We do want to know stuff, but the way people who read 'wikipedia' learn is through a vast amount of incoherent material. People wanting to learn the basics of something still need a textbook format, be it paper or digital. And since many don't like to read books, they only ever scratch the surface of stuff. Such is the road to jack of all trades, master of none.

TheVirgoddess

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I can't be the only one that searches something innocuous and three hours later is still reading completely unrelated stuff on Wiki?

SunofaBeach14

The internet is a tool.
The search engine a filter.
The intelligence of the mind (generalised) a restricting factor for what one might find when filtering, and also what one will wade through and have to make decisions about (this activity or that), as well as take with a grain of salt or not. The mind also peoduces content. It's all our own fault and responsibility.

So you guys don't agree that the importance of education and the general intelligence of people is declining? It's always been that way, we're just more aware of it now?

It's always been the case that general intelligence is declining? We're just more aware that people are more stupid?

Edit: typo. Beer. I blame beer.

TadaGanIarracht

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I don't agree entirely. We do want to know stuff, but the way people who read 'wikipedia' learn is through a vast amount of incoherent material. People wanting to learn the basics of something still need a textbook format, be it paper or digital. And since many don't like to read books, they only ever scratch the surface of stuff. Such is the road to jack of all trades, master of none.

People learning through Wikipedia is an issue all in itself.

TheVirgoddess

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I don't agree entirely. We do want to know stuff, but the way people who read 'wikipedia' learn is through a vast amount of incoherent material. People wanting to learn the basics of something still need a textbook format, be it paper or digital. And since many don't like to read books, they only ever scratch the surface of stuff. Such is the road to jack of all trades, master of none.

I wikipedia. I know it's user submitted content, so I don't think it's the be all, end all of everything, but it does lead me to new topics and new knowledge. It's like the shaky, unstable gate into wonderland.

tycho_mx

In regard to internet, ignorance, and intellectualism: there is a difference between intelligent and being knowledgeable. I love learning, I like comprehending things, and I'm ignorant of so much stuff....

The difference is that the smart person understands he's ignorant (nothing wrong there, no one is born knowing. I don't know how to weave a basket, how to fletch an arrow, or how to jailbreak an iPhone. I can learn) and the person who doesn't - and still thinks he's competent and has an opinion as or more valid than the true experts in a field.

I'll give you the example of Jenny McCarthy. Educated in the best of Google university, but without any real medical training. And still in a crusade against vaccines, against all demonstrable medical science.

Another one? Climate change. Climate scientists to an overwhelming majority agree that humans have something to do with the changing climate on earth (the term for this is "anthropogenic", or generated from humans). That includes other factors like solar flares, mini ice-ages, natural buffering from oceans, magnetic storms, etc. In other words, pretty much none of the scientists that study this say that humans have nothing to do with this (there is debate on the magnitude, and whether it is cost-effective to abate this or simply make efforts to adaptation). And yet, if you ask a layman, 50% of them say it's still under debate, that there is no consensus, and that for "balance" we need to consult the dissenting views. It's like consulting the dissenting view on whether the earth is round, but we try to "respect" the absurd claims against all reasonable standard.

TheVirgoddess

The internet is a tool.
The search engine a filter.
The intelligence of the mind (generalised) a restricting factor for what one might find when filtering, and also what one will wade through and have to make decisions about (this activity or that), as well as take with a grain of salt or not. The mind also peoduces content. It's all our own fault and responsibility.

So you guys don't agree that the importance of education and the general intelligence of people is declining? It's always been that way, we're just more aware of it now?

It's always been the case that general intelligence is declining? We're just more aware that people are more stupid?

Edit: typo. Beer. I blame beer.

Ah, got it. Thanks for explaining.

_John_

If anything the Internet/digital age to me is helping the "average" "excel" far more than ever. There is so much information out there that actual knowledge is easier to find and because the search is easier more can be learned and applied by those less talented that may not have had the opportunity before.

AglaeaC

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I don't agree entirely. We do want to know stuff, but the way people who read 'wikipedia' learn is through a vast amount of incoherent material. People wanting to learn the basics of something still need a textbook format, be it paper or digital. And since many don't like to read books, they only ever scratch the surface of stuff. Such is the road to jack of all trades, master of none.

I wikipedia. I know it's user submitted content, so I don't think it's the be all, end all of everything, but it does lead me to new topics and new knowledge. It's like the shaky, unstable gate into wonderland.

I like it, too, it's a quick and easy stepping stone. For instance texts on yoga are easily grasped out of an umbrella perspective, which is how I need to build information. But for school stuff textbooks and PubMed rule.

SunofaBeach14

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I don't agree entirely. We do want to know stuff, but the way people who read 'wikipedia' learn is through a vast amount of incoherent material. People wanting to learn the basics of something still need a textbook format, be it paper or digital. And since many don't like to read books, they only ever scratch the surface of stuff. Such is the road to jack of all trades, master of none.

I wikipedia. I know it's user submitted content, so I don't think it's the be all, end all of everything, but it does lead me to new topics and new knowledge. It's like the shaky, unstable gate into wonderland.

I was taught by my professors to read everything with a critical eye and a thought to the author's bias and message. If anything, something like wikipedia is an opportunity for professors, not a hindrance, they just need to stop teaching ideology and restart teaching how to think critically.

trojan_bb

Great thread....check out the Ayn Rand movie or read her works for a different take on the whole 'capitalism sucks' spiel.

If you don't support Ayn Rand at 19 and reject her by the time you're 30, there's something wrong

I actually agree with you - in part because things have so radically changed from the market forces she was writing about. Nonetheless, it's important to understand all sides, and I think her approach to holding entrepreneurs/capitalists in such high regard still commands a high priority in our understanding of the dynamics at work in a society.

The only book of hers that I continue to hold in any regard is The Fountainhead because it is about the rights of a man to his own thoughts and creations (in that case, architecture). Atlas Shrugged reads like a mix between Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray with trains and copper mines instead of whips and red rooms of pain.

Fountainhead is probably my favorite book. Atlas Shrugged...ehh, some parts are good (famous Francisco monologue comes to mind)

Fountainhead though...brilliant. Much less Objectivist ideology and better storytelling,

AglaeaC

Thanks for a fabulously peaceful sharing of thoughts and ideas, my heart is all warm and fuzzy now. Will stop by in the morning, it's way past my bedtime already.

TheVirgoddess

If anything the Internet/digital age to me is helping the "average" "excel" far more than ever. There is so much information out there that actual knowledge is easier to find and because the search is easier more can be learned and applied by those less talented that may not have had the opportunity before.

That's an interesting thought. I'm probably the only one on this thread that doesn't have a degree (oops, is my insecurity showing?) and I feel like the internet has helped me quite a bit in my quest to learn ALL THE THINGS.

But, at the same time, a lot of that knowledge is opinion based rather than fact based, and that's where stuff gets dangerous. I never read only one article on anything I'm learning about - I need to consider all sides. But most people? I just don't think they do. I think they take the first result Google gives them and calls it day.

BigVeggieDream

I'm not claiming to be a fan of anyone, but that is my point. We've bred a group of leaders who cannot communicate. They're too busy listening to themselves talk. And that goes for both sides of the aisle. Until we start pushing civic responsibility again and communication skills over ideology and conformity we will have more of the same. Take FDR, Lincoln, Reagan, and JFK together and you have great leadership skills through fantastic communication skills from both sides of the aisle.

I wasn't saying you were. I was just qualifying my statement as not being one of the Reagan worshiping people out there, so my judgement isn't a partisan one.

Lleldiranne

I know that chicks dig nerds.

As long as they look rich in their leased beemers

Nerds rule the world now. Tesla is way more my Nerd style.

Anti-intellectualism serves capitalism, keeps us living in fear, keeps the little man from figuring out he's just living in indentured servitude. There, I said it. *waits for hate mail*

1. Tesla is a very capitalist company... in fact, it is not just capitalist, it is a company with a discretionary consumerist (often satirized as the worst part of capitalism) agenda.
2. Capitalism thrives when there are markets that quickly adapt and adjust for new information. Ill informed or ill educated people make that hard and, consequently, are against the needs of a capitalist economy
3. Well regulated (not necessarily highly regulated) capitalism eliminates the distinction between "capital" and "labor." In our modern, mixed economy, most "labor" are also "capitalists."

1. Tesla is a very capitalist company... in fact, it is not just capitalist, it is a company with a discretionary consumerist (often satirized as the worst part of capitalism) agenda.

I was responding to the assertion that only Nerds with BMWs attract the attention of women. All I was saying is that I prefer Teslas to BMWs. But in all reality, BMW is producing quite a nice electric vehicle, so not really a valid comment on my preferences.

2. Capitalism thrives when there are markets that quickly adapt and adjust for new information. Ill informed or ill educated people make that hard and, consequently, are against the needs of a capitalist economy

Yes, I agree. Would you say that the Capitolism in the US is thriving? Does it serve us well? I didn't think so. I believe this to be directly linked to anti-intellectualism.

3. Well regulated (not necessarily highly regulated) capitalism eliminates the distinction between "capital" and "labor." In our modern, mixed economy, most "labor" are also "capitalists."

I have to admit I'm not completely sure what you're talking about here. Although, in the US (my experience of capitolism "free market") capitolism, labor nor our practices in economics are well regulated. Again, something I think intellectuals would argue is leading to our rapid downfall.

See and here I thought you were referring to the scientist/inventor/engineer Nikola Tesla. He did a lot of work with electricity around the same time as Edison, but promoted AC over Edison's DC. (I'm actually glad of his preference of AC for powering my home). I guess I missed the connection to the earlier reference of BMW :ohwell:

TadaGanIarracht

If anything the Internet/digital age to me is helping the "average" "excel" far more than ever. There is so much information out there that actual knowledge is easier to find and because the search is easier more can be learned and applied by those less talented that may not have had the opportunity before.

That's an interesting thought. I'm probably the only one on this thread that doesn't have a degree (oops, is my insecurity showing?) and I feel like the internet has helped me quite a bit in my quest to learn ALL THE THINGS.

But, at the same time, a lot of that knowledge is opinion based rather than fact based, and that's where stuff gets dangerous. I never read only one article on anything I'm learning about - I need to consider all sides. But most people? I just don't think they do. I think they take the first result Google gives them and calls it day.

I don't have a degree.

RainRedfield

Because humans thrive on being clueless?

I'm grateful to be a both a nerd and a geek... Would that be a Nerk or a Gerd?

Lleldiranne

The internet has played both a positive and negative role. People are more aware of how they present themselves because the vast amount of people who see what is put on the internet. But everything being so readily available has helped us become lazy. If we want to know something we look it up and we're done.

No longer do we want to understand what we learn.

I can't be the only one that searches something innocuous and three hours later is still reading completely unrelated stuff on Wiki?

I don't do it so much on wikipedia (although I have sometimes), but when I looked things up in good old fashioned encyclopedias and dictionaries, that happened to me quite often. On Wiki, it's the links that can distract me, in the paper-bound versions it was all the pictures.