Reply
Fri 21 Sep, 2007 12:17 pm
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ?'intellectual'.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate?-having or exhibiting self-importance).
coberst,
....but you yourself avoid "intellectual writing" which you consider beyond your capacity . In reference to Wittgenstein for example I remember you saying you were waiting for "Wittgenstein for Dummies".
"anti" is a pretty emotionally charged word to attach to something.
what i envision is that every time you have an argument with a so-called "intellectual," he decides your position is "anti-intellectual" and the upshot is no "intellectual" debate ever occurs.
i agree people should be treated better for thinking more, instead of being bullied, teased, and excluded from society.
but that's kind of what they teach in school isn't it? think back, real hard- the teacher rewards people that stay in line with her whims, sit when told, stand when told, and stfu. intellectuals get treated like know-it-alls, which they sometimes are, just for coming to any conclusions as a result of thinking. it's not just "society" that does it. it's part of the system. yeah, it's a problem.
what helps is that it's the computer dorks of yesterday practically running the world of today- that's changed respect for geeks a bit- but that doesn't always have the profound change in the early years that you and i would like. i'd stay away from "anti" just the same, and besides- there are times geeks do have to be put in check before they think themselves better than everyone else.
but in the end its the intellectuals who rule the world isnt it?
and they use all the non intellectuals as soldiers
OGIONIK wrote:but in the end its the intellectuals who rule the world isnt it?
and they use all the non intellectuals as soldiers
uh? Bush, an intellectual?
If the world was ruled by intellectuals, I think you could see the difference..
tinygiraffe wrote:"anti" is a pretty emotionally charged word to attach to something.
what i envision is that every time you have an argument with a so-called "intellectual," he decides your position is "anti-intellectual" and the upshot is no "intellectual" debate ever occurs.
i agree people should be treated better for thinking more, instead of being bullied, teased, and excluded from society.
but that's kind of what they teach in school isn't it? think back, real hard- the teacher rewards people that stay in line with her whims, sit when told, stand when told, and stfu. intellectuals get treated like know-it-alls, which they sometimes are, just for coming to any conclusions as a result of thinking. it's not just "society" that does it. it's part of the system. yeah, it's a problem.
what helps is that it's the computer dorks of yesterday practically running the world of today- that's changed respect for geeks a bit- but that doesn't always have the profound change in the early years that you and i would like. i'd stay away from "anti" just the same, and besides- there are times geeks do have to be put in check before they think themselves better than everyone else.
I suspect anti-intellectualism is not an accident. It is in the air we breath. Our capitialistic culture desires solid producers and consumers and not trouble makers who have critical thinking skills.
Quote:......capitialistic culture desires......
Anthropomorphic assignment of
psychological concepts to
social entities.
Quote:...trouble makers who have critical thinking skills..
Are you specifically referring to your celebrated proponent of that phrase, Bertrand Russell, who got into trouble with the US authorities over his sexual promiscuity and anti-nuclear activities ?
i'm new, and have to assume the two of you always do this...
but what have you got against bertrand russell?
coberst,
Is this an example of CT ?
I observe that a mature student of mine of limited ability is reluctant to take part in debate but instead of recognizing this reluctance as indicative of his own limitations he projects those limitations and reluctance onto others using "societal forces" as an impersonal "reason" for his failure to communicate.....(Forgive them O Lord for they know not what they do). Having thus rationalized this position to himself he is then compelled to reify its status by messianically proposing it wherever he can (on multiple forums for example). The fact that he fails to defend its "straw man status" is effectively diluted within the self imposed workload of handling his copious postbag.
tinyg,
I've got nothing against Russell
Within his "mission" of teaching others about "the merits of CT", coberst uses Russell as a seminal source reference. He appears to be simplistically unaware that oposition to characters like Russell had little to do with their "intellectualism".
tinyg,
Alas, I'm already spoken for....but send present anyway !
ah, well i really do appreciate you explaining it.
other than that i thought it was an okay topic, i'll let you two get back to it
fresco wrote:tinyg,
Alas, I'm already spoken for....but send present anyway !
lol, i deleted that because it wasn't the sort of thing that worked as well with page 2, but let the rest of a2k guess what it was
Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst wrote:but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate?-having or exhibiting self-importance).
Makes you wonder why the survey that the National Science Foundation conducts every five years or so shows that the number of humanities doctorates in the United States consistently rises by over 10% (some 10,000 scholars) each time the study is made, and that over half of them are in tenured positions. Apparently
someone likes paying these people to lecture on intellectual matters. I know you prefer to stick with your pre-formed diagnoses even when they are contradicted by statistical reality, though, so I'm sure you'll come up with some vague reason why these data can be ignored.
D W Eisenhower
"An intellectual is a man who takes more words,
than necessary to tell more he knows-- Eisenhower
"Every child ought to be more intelligent than his parents-- C D
"Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ?'intellectual'. "
How to get rid of this problem sir?
Re: outed
tinygiraffe wrote:dwight eisenhower wrote:An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more he knows
oh no! who told him?
Eisenhower apparently was also an anti-intellectual.
Re: D W Eisenhower
Ramafuchs wrote:"An intellectual is a man who takes more words,
than necessary to tell more he knows-- Eisenhower
"Every child ought to be more intelligent than his parents-- C D
"Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ?'intellectual'. "
How to get rid of this problem sir?
I think that the way to rid ourself of this anti-intellectual problem is to make people conscious of this bias by telling them.
do you think it's possible to "overintellectualize" anything?
The following is a comment one reader made:
I noticed this a lot with my daughter's high schools. She went through 3 ... and in two of them, it was incredibly cool to be stupid. There was a very strong bias against intellectuals. This carried over into our home life where she ridiculed her mother and me for being "smart." (Note: She is now 25 and barely making it on minimum wages).
Her junior year, we transferred her to one of the best schools in the region ... and suddenly it wasn't cool to be stupid anymore. She floundered horribly for 2 years, but never could quite make it work. Unfortunately, stupid had taken root.
The American culture is all about golf, sports, fashion, partying, and being cool and such. Not much room for intellect. Oh well I guess the Indians and Asians can take over from the USA as the center of technological achievement.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace