Why is anti-intellectualism so rampant?

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.

OP is giving me a whole Otto from A Fish Called Wanda vibe....

"Apes don't read philosphy"
"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. "

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.

Because. You know. Murica. And stuff.

Being able to convey something in a concise way is sexy. Lol.

Then I am decidedly un-sexy. I'm verbose and even then rarely get my point across. Articulation is not my strong point.

I'll join you in this one. I am the same way.

I don't think being an intellectual means using polysyllabic words or tortured syntax.

It doesn't mean being able to spew out a lot of facts.

To me, it means being curious about other people's point of view, respecting individual and collective differences, being open to new perspectives.

I think what gives intellectualism a bad reputation is that it appears to be so egotistical and narrowminded.

The smartest people I know are the people who never have to impress me with how smart they are.

Being able to convey something in a concise way is sexy. Lol.

Then I am decidedly un-sexy. I'm verbose and even then rarely get my point across. Articulation is not my strong point.

Kudos for recognising a pattern. Next step is to start working on it.

I ramble when I get going. It is a weakness that I sometimes truly despise in myself. I'm working on crystallising my point into a quickly read blurb, but when I'm tired and have to translate, the success rate is usually low. I remind myself that a long text might be more about my ego and less about readability.

And another successful bait thread. Way to go OP!

it's a shame that you don't know the op

And another successful bait thread. Way to go OP!

Baited or not, I think it's a really good, respectful and intelligent conversation. So meh.

I'd agree!

Nothing much to add to this conversation, and more here to keep up with the discussion than anything else, but I did always wonder why my fellow students found it so deeply and personally offensive when I did complete and hand in homework and assignments on time.

Hopefully this will shed some light.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but one thing that really annoys me is when people try to demonstrate superiority through the vocabulary they choose.

A person with some kind of literary or economics degree suddenly sounds so fancy that I'd have to get the same degree to grasp what the point is that they are trying to make. So I have to ask them to "dumb it down" for me and just this once step down from that high horse.

They create barriers to boost the ego, but I highly admire people, who can discuss their area of expertise, whatever it may be, so that both professionals and laymen follow their train of thought.

It may have nothing to do with demonstrating superiority, or ego-tripping or whatever.

Its a real problem that over time America has become more and more post-literate. People read less than ever, have less word knowledge than ever, and actually seem proud of it.

Compare political speeches presidents gave even in the last century with what they do now. G.W. Bush used to get up there and slowly drawl at about a 6th grade level. Compare that to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

What sounds nicer to the ear...what is more inspiring, more eloquent...Teddy's speech, or Bush's?

We shouldn't be threatened by language...or call people elitists for it.

This isn't to say that *kitten* who pull out obscure latin etymology and puke it all over their guests at dinner don't deserve a beverage in the face, but language that today people dismiss as "superiority" was not very long ago perfectly commonplace.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but one thing that really annoys me is when people try to demonstrate superiority through the vocabulary they choose.

A person with some kind of literary or economics degree suddenly sounds so fancy that I'd have to get the same degree to grasp what the point is that they are trying to make. So I have to ask them to "dumb it down" for me and just this once step down from that high horse.

They create barriers to boost the ego, but I highly admire people, who can discuss their area of expertise, whatever it may be, so that both professionals and laymen follow their train of thought.

It may have nothing to do with demonstrating superiority, or ego-tripping or whatever.

Its a real problem that over time America has become more and more post-literate. People read less than ever, have less word knowledge than ever, and actually seem proud of it.

Compare political speeches presidents gave even half a century ago with what they do now. G.W. Bush used to get up there and slowly drawl at about a 6th grade level. Compare that to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

What sounds nicer to the ear...what is more inspiring, more eloquent...Teddy's speech, or Bush's?

We shouldn't be threatened by language...or call people elitists for it.

This isn't to say that *kitten* who pull out obscure latin etymology and puke it all over their guests it dinner don't deserve a beverage in the face, but language that today people dismiss as "superiority" was not very long ago perfectly commonplace.

Okay, throw this in then, compare Reagan's speeches to Obama's. It's not a political party comparison, it's generational, at least in my opinion. We've become way too compartmentalized. A leader must be able to engage the masses. If you are only able to communicate with people in your own profession or party then your professors failed you.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but one thing that really annoys me is when people try to demonstrate superiority through the vocabulary they choose.

A person with some kind of literary or economics degree suddenly sounds so fancy that I'd have to get the same degree to grasp what the point is that they are trying to make. So I have to ask them to "dumb it down" for me and just this once step down from that high horse.

They create barriers to boost the ego, but I highly admire people, who can discuss their area of expertise, whatever it may be, so that both professionals and laymen follow their train of thought.

It may have nothing to do with demonstrating superiority, or ego-tripping or whatever.

Its a real problem that over time America has become more and more post-literate. People read less than ever, have less word knowledge than ever, and actually seem proud of it.

Compare political speeches presidents gave even in the last century with what they do now. G.W. Bush used to get up there and slowly drawl at about a 6th grade level. Compare that to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

What sounds nicer to the ear...what is more inspiring, more eloquent...Teddy's speech, or Bush's?

We shouldn't be threatened by language...or call people elitists for it.

This isn't to say that *kitten* who pull out obscure latin etymology and puke it all over their guests at dinner don't deserve a beverage in the face, but language that today people dismiss as "superiority" was not very long ago perfectly commonplace.

I think he was pretty exclusively referring to said *kitten*.

I love language and I use "big" words all the time. In part because I want my kids to grow up surrounded by phrases other than "lolz" and in part just because I want to. I like the way certain words feel when rolling off the tongue - I'm also really interested in the etymology of words.

I don't think people are elitists because they use big words, but I think some people use big words to create the illusion of intelligence - which, whatever, do your thing.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but one thing that really annoys me is when people try to demonstrate superiority through the vocabulary they choose.

A person with some kind of literary or economics degree suddenly sounds so fancy that I'd have to get the same degree to grasp what the point is that they are trying to make. So I have to ask them to "dumb it down" for me and just this once step down from that high horse.

They create barriers to boost the ego, but I highly admire people, who can discuss their area of expertise, whatever it may be, so that both professionals and laymen follow their train of thought.

It may have nothing to do with demonstrating superiority, or ego-tripping or whatever.

Its a real problem that over time America has become more and more post-literate. People read less than ever, have less word knowledge than ever, and actually seem proud of it.

Compare political speeches presidents gave even in the last century with what they do now. G.W. Bush used to get up there and slowly drawl at about a 6th grade level. Compare that to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

What sounds nicer to the ear...what is more inspiring, more eloquent...Teddy's speech, or Bush's?

We shouldn't be threatened by language...or call people elitists for it.

This isn't to say that *kitten* who pull out obscure latin etymology and puke it all over their guests at dinner don't deserve a beverage in the face, but language that today people dismiss as "superiority" was not very long ago perfectly commonplace.

I think he was pretty exclusively referring to said *kitten*.

I love language and I use "big" words all the time. In part because I want my kids to grow up surrounded by phrases other than "lolz" and in part just because I want to. I like the way certain words feel when rolling off the tongue - I'm also really interested in the etymology of words.

I don't think people are elitists because they use big words, but I think some people use big words to create the illusion of intelligence - which, whatever, do your thing.

I might be an old fart but for the life of me can't type text messages in spoken language.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but one thing that really annoys me is when people try to demonstrate superiority through the vocabulary they choose.

A person with some kind of literary or economics degree suddenly sounds so fancy that I'd have to get the same degree to grasp what the point is that they are trying to make. So I have to ask them to "dumb it down" for me and just this once step down from that high horse.

They create barriers to boost the ego, but I highly admire people, who can discuss their area of expertise, whatever it may be, so that both professionals and laymen follow their train of thought.

It may have nothing to do with demonstrating superiority, or ego-tripping or whatever.

Its a real problem that over time America has become more and more post-literate. People read less than ever, have less word knowledge than ever, and actually seem proud of it.

Compare political speeches presidents gave even half a century ago with what they do now. G.W. Bush used to get up there and slowly drawl at about a 6th grade level. Compare that to Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

What sounds nicer to the ear...what is more inspiring, more eloquent...Teddy's speech, or Bush's?

We shouldn't be threatened by language...or call people elitists for it.

This isn't to say that *kitten* who pull out obscure latin etymology and puke it all over their guests it dinner don't deserve a beverage in the face, but language that today people dismiss as "superiority" was not very long ago perfectly commonplace.

Okay, throw this in then, compare Reagan's speeches to Obama's. It's not a political party comparison, it's generational, at least in my opinion. We've become way too compartmentalized. A leader must be able to engage the masses. If you are only able to communicate with people in your own profession or party then your professors failed you.

Not a Reagan fan, but he had one of the most brilliant sentences ever spoke by a President. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!"

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.