Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

[coberst]

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).

[Buffy]

Well, Richard Hofstadter was complaining about this issue forty years ago http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170, but the danger you're running here is to mix two kinds of anti-intellectualism.

 

The first form is the type that Prof. Hofstadter was complaining about, which focuses on the general disdain for learning fomented strongly by the association between learning and anti-American thought (in his time, communist infiltration of our bodily fluids). This is a somewhat artificial but strongly *political* trend in our society, and has to be recognized as predominantly a war among the elite for power.

 

The second form is more the more grassroots issue that the majority of people have about the *attitude* of "intellectuals." I had a boyfriend once who was really smart, but he was a total jerk about it, breaking into French whenever he could *solely* to show off how smart he was.

 

The important things to note about this are:

• Anyone with an ego, and even not much education can act like an "intellectual" and put people off: I think our president falls into this category, with even conservatives disliking his "I don't need to explain anything to you because I know I'm right."
  
• The issue is *not* learning or knowledge, its about *attitude* and *respect* (or lack thereof). Everyone knows that Clinton was a policy wonk, but he never talked *down* to people and always tried to explain his thinking to people as if they were equals. Interestingly, the people who seek simple answers are put off by this behavior, and *those* are the people who we worry about in that first form of Anti-Intellectualism.
  

I argue that in America we do indeed honor and seek to increase learning: more people go to school for longer than ever before.

 

What we still all don't like is a know-it-all who talks down to us.

 

Even those of us who are smarter than the folks who try to look down their noses at us.

 

You don't have to act superior to be considered smart,

Buffy

[coberst]

I think that America loves learning as long as that learning brings more consumer goods. I see little interest in what was once labled a liberal education. I have for three years tried to acquaint people with the concept of self-learning without a payoff in consumer goods. The concept is alien to our culture.

[Buffy]

I think that America loves learning as long as that learning brings more consumer goods. I see little interest in what was once labled a liberal education. I have for three years tried to acquaint people with the concept of self-learning without a payoff in consumer goods. The concept is alien to our culture.

Yes, its definitely "America's" exclusive desire for "consumer goods." Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the methods you've tried to "acquaint" them with liberal education.

 

That conclusion is not in the least bit egocentric or condescending. Nosiree Bob.

 

How's that workin' for ya,

Buffy

[coberst]

I would say that the conclusion is disappointing, frustrating, saddening, confusing, disheartening, discouraging, etc.

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting I agree with you both. :esmoking:

In Australia we have what we call the "Tall Poppy Syndrome"

people who ase seen to be "taller/higher? intellectually or in almost any other pursuit with perhaps the exception of sport, are 'cut down'; attacked and vilified.

 

Topics that are routinely discussed on these forums would rarely if ever be discussed by men in Australia unless you were part of a particular group or political party or unless attending a University.

 

There are a lot of things that inhibit learning -food water and shelter- in the 3rd world.

 

Some "intellectuals" are a pain in the butt. I think sometimes "intellectuals" have too big an ego (My Mensa score is. . .) or have disfunctional personalities.

I think the tight focus that is needed in cutting edge research is sometimes autistic/asperger's.

The creativity of cutting edge research (combining ideas that have never been combined before- sometimes serendipity) also takes a unique type of brain/personality. How these people communicate to the world is hard to imagine.

Communication itself in an art. Not everyone can do it. Actors like Geoffrey Rush can communicate 1,000 words with a movement of an eyebrow.

Not everyone can lecture not everyone can write. There are skills that need to be trained and learnt. Sometimes learning a discipline (psychology, economics, maths, physics etc etc) really involves just learning the discipline's "language," ergot and jargon. Then you can communicate quickly with others of your particular 'religion'. But this makes it harder for you to communicate with others who do not have your language.

Education then denies its Latin roots "to lead out' instead it focuses in narrowing communication skills. That is why good popular science writers are so rare

 

I think I blame our public education system a lot. A child who is different (is learning the violin instead of chucking rocks at moving cars) has his head pushed down the toilet bowl at school.

also parents. my ex-teacher wife could horrify you for hours. parents whop somehow spawn an intellectual kid don't know how to communicate with him.

 

I remember one story she told that shows you the level of "social gulf" that exists between those that value education and those who don't

She was talking to parents of a particularly bright kid in her care. he was a plumber she was a 'housewife". my wife suggested they buy the kid some books. They said later well we bought him a book. What do we do with it now?:D

 

Some schools in western Sydney teachers leave in a convoy all at once, so no one is left alone. They do playground duty back to back. Everything 'stealable' has been stolen. On Mondays they get a load of clean underwear from Vinnies a Catholic charity. The kids old underwear is burnt and the new underwear lasts them a week. No homework is done. Paper and pencils have to be given out at each lesson.

What sort of society are we breeding here?

 

Luckily I had a maternal Grandfather who indoctrinated my mum on the value of education. she gave up an enormous amount, surmounting huge difficulties,(she left school at 14) to give me an "education" strangely my father who had more education and a trade did not see the value of education.

Also interestingly she managed to indoctrinate my cousin who has ten kids many with degrees, most have or will finish High School (Mum failed with her she discovered boys at 15)

Sometimes I fell a little cheated by my mother's belief that education would open all doors, you also need luck, focus, patience and persistence ( a little money would help here too) as I now know as a disabled pensioner.

 

I am hopefully about to do some voluntary work for an Australian group The Smith Family". This used to be a charity for the poor. It has now changed its focus to zero in on helping kids with their education. Perhaps they got sick of picking up the pieces and thought some preventative work might be more valuable. It is providing support people and bursaries for kids. Things all our politicians have neglected.

 

Unless we pour a lot more money into education we will be creating a servant or welfare underclass who will not be able to compete with the highly trained Chines-asians & privately educated Australians. Teachers salaries do not attract the best. School Resources are often poor. family and social support non-existent.

The NSW government has responded to the Private school challenge by creating "selective schools" which rips the leaders the bright kids out of all the local schools. creating another kind of elitism. highly competitive and dog eat dog.

We have also a plethora of religious schools popping up everywhere. all of which are supported by the government. Most are good a few are fundamentalist and strange. The biggest "private' school segment is the Catholic Schools. The government cannot afford to ignore them or the rising power and money of the fundamentalists ("Hill-Song, Jewish, Islamic etc)

Our top private schools produce an elite clan who all speak the same language. (ask Prince Charles) (Is Bush a good example of US private schools??)

 

I have just spent the last year trying to raise over $100,000 to pay for my daughter to study in England. (Out of 10,000 applicants, she was one of 10 accepted) There is no government support for her. In fact support she would have got if she studied here, would not be available overseas. She just landed in england today.

Ironically two of her main teachers will be Australian.

 

Personally I would like to upgrade my qualifications. An MA costs $25,000 up front-if they accepted me- I was knocked back from a medical course when I was 50 because I was too old- not a good return on investment.

While disabled, my brain works tolerably well most days.

 

I am often annoyed at the bagging of us "baby-boomers". I and my taxes paid for and bult the infrastructure, the hospitals, the universities, the schools, museums. There was nothing after the war.

 

Now I find my kids having not only to pay dearly for the education at universities I built but also paying to go to museums and parks. Museums that my grandfather and great great grandfather supported. As a kid I lived in the Sydney Museum. My kids when young would spend days in the Powerhouse Museum but at $30-$40 a visit it was good I was well-heeled while bringing them up. Many public assets (electricity banks, insurance, telecommunications) governments have sold. Taxation by another name.

 

The Federal government taxes us so much that they now have a 20 billion surplice and no idea what to do with it ! (Election soon- that is after putting away 50Bil for their own superannuation "Future Fund")

Twenty billion invested in education in Australia would change the face of the planet. It just that there are no votes in it.

 

I ramble on, must stop. I begin to bore. :D

Dr. Who is on shortly:cool:

 

I neeed a TARDIS!!0.o :ebomb:

[REASON]

I think each of you have hit on a very important aspect of anti-intellectualism.

 

The Ego.

 

Those who are not well educated are obviously aware of that fact about themselves. A negative or defensive reaction by someone to an intellectual discussion, where they find themselves without knowledge on the subject, is a fairly typical reaction emanating from the ego. People who do not react from the ego are more likely to just admit that they don't know about the subject. But that means having to admit to some sort of shortcoming, and those who's attitudes and reactions are ego based, have a difficult time admitting such things for fear of condemnation. It is easier to attempt to reduce the level of the discussion by criticising the intellectual or the topic, than to become educated about the subject. Growing up in school, I was very aware of the ridicule directed at the kids who really wanted to learn and make good grades. Often, these kids were socially awkward as well, making the situation that much more difficult. I always gathered that the ridicule was a way of minimizing the value of intelligence and knowledge by those who didn't have as much, and were internally embarrassed or ashamed.

 

It doesn't help the situation that the ego can also drive the intellectual. As Buffy describes above, many intellectuals like to walk around as though they are superior to those around them and can command any discussion or topic with their superior knowledge (has anyone run into someone like that in these forums?). This attitude is also ego based and to me, actually reveals their insecurities as well. If they are not able to prove their intelligence, again they fear they may face condemnation. Arrogant, egotistical intellectuals provide added justification for the critical, defensive, ego driven attitudes of those not as educated, and only serves to fuel anti-intellectualism.

 

I believe this has been an ongoing problem for humankind throughout history. We tend to believe that our ego is the great protector of our fragile self image. But ironically, the more ego oriented we are, the more at risk we are of some sort of reprisal from others. What people want is respect and acceptance no matter what their condition, and that requires humility from within ourseves to be able to offer it to others. The ego has to be governed.

 

I would have thought that as we humans have become more knowledgable over the centuries, we would find more and more value for education, knowledge, and intellectualism. But it seems in our society that there exists a predominant disdain and irreverence for factual knowledge and education, particularly science education. These days ideology is king, and the greatest threat to a perceived and perpetual ideology is rational, factual, and educated debate. And if those who hang their hat on ideology are in power, we should not be surprised at a concerted effort to minimize or conceal the value of knowledge and intelligence within our society in favor of egotistical protectionism of belief systems, no matter how irrational. Anyway, it's worth more to the bottom line to distract society by promoting the value of consumerism.

 

Either way, there will be a huge price to pay.

[TZK]

Coberst, I still maintain that you started in the wrong place in your search for knowledge. I know you are brilliant and motivated, but again how can you efficiently use a tool you have not yet learned to operate to gain knowledge?

 

The answer to your specific questions requires knowledge from 2 related topics in philosophy.

 

Coherentism, and Minimalism (which has other names by various authors, but that doesn't matter as itself will tell you that it only matters what it refers to :ebomb: )

 

Coherentism recognizes that your understanding of the human mind is a collection of truths or constraints on beliefs that are logically connected with one another.

 

Yet it objects that for any such collection of constraints or beliefs, there are infinite variations where unconstrained beliefs vary. This means you and I can speak of the same thing, and yet have no clue what the other is speaking of. The obvious example is where you speak russian and I speak english yet we explain the same situation or idea. The language it is spoken in is really irrelevant to the idea.

 

A less obvious example is where we each have read or created terms to reference the same things, which is closely related to the different language example since this is how new languages formed back in the day. But for example I can speak of the limits of induction and someone else can speak of the assumptions of statistical theory and we can be talking about the same thing. Again the specific language is irrelevant.

 

For every constraint added, some previously allowed variations are ruled out, and yet there are still infinite variations left that consider the new constraint on beliefs. For example it will be a while before we find a reason to rule one language superior to another, so it persists that any idea can be expressed in any conceivable language.

 

The next question is how do we value different variations in comparison to one another? We will follow the path of discovery a person with a given belief set would go down.

 

He starts with a faith in his own beliefs, yet has trouble communicating them to others. They may be capable of translating their beliefs into similar language but there seems to be constraints on beliefs that differ between the two people. There are some core agreed upon constraints, but the two people seem to have different variations of these core constraints.

 

So the next step is presumably is for each person to try and use the core agreed upon constraints to show how their variation logically results. Or put another way, for each person to show how they came to believe so faithfully in what they believe.

 

Several things can then happen (assuming the people are mature about it, though they often aren't). One person can show the other, or they can both show each other, how aspects of their variation are actually not logical consequences of the core agreed upon constraints. Or, they find that the reason a constraint differs between them is because they had different experiences.

 

(Aside: In fact in this model the whole purpose of science is really to allow people who are not scientists to share constraints that scientists got from what they saw- capable reasoners already use the other "scientific" ideas that don't relate to documenting information etc)

 

If this is the first time a person is doing it, then it is likely that they will lose some of their variation on the core constraints as they realize those variations are the source of conflict with other people and are not completely necessary.

 

Minimalism-

 

After doing this several times the person may come to a realization: Although the person they debated with so far shared some beliefs related to their variation, it is possible that other people would have objections to other parts of their variation. And furthermore when these objections occur, either one of two things are true - either the person can convince the objector that the variation constraint is a logical consequence of a core agreed upon constraint (or something that needs to be observed) or the person realizes that the variation cannot really be proven.

 

Thus rather than waiting for such an argument to occur, he can just remove all variation other than that which he can immediately perceive the logical connection between it and core agreed upon constraints (or those constraints which he knows he can just show someone to be true by pointing to something in the world).

 

This has the benefit of A) never having a belief that he cannot argue for through simple logic

 

although the person could not have realized it before, doing this increases

processing efficiency. Example: Religious person thinking to himself ("God said thou shalt not kill... but in passage 38 he said though shalt defend thyself in x situation but if defending. blah blah ad infinitum

 

Alternative: A minimalist considering "honesty": "People speak of honesty when someone is dishonest, since the default is to trust people's word. So we will define dishonesty instead. People call someone dishonest when that person leads another to believe something that turns out not to be true, and the person leading knew it was not true. Therefore to do this is dishonest.

 

(Context is definition)

 

Minimalists reason that all humans start with core beliefs because of similarities like 1. They are human, 2. They live on earth, etc And therefore seek to justify all beliefs by relating them through simple logic to these core beliefs.

 

If you have trouble communicating to others, your problem is one of two things.

 

Summary-

 

Either A) You cannot see how, and therefore communicate how, your beliefs are immediate logical consequences of things people already believe. Therefore, why should they listen to your claim that they should read book x?

 

:esmoking: You experienced something (not your interpretation of the abnormal experience) which other people didn't experience and reasoned from this abnormal experience. If others do not experience any consequences of what you saw, then it does not concern other people. If they do experience consequences of what you saw, then you must use their experience of it as a constraint to reason from instead of your own.

 

If only your additional experience allows you to understand what everyone experiences the consequence of, then you must share the experience to get any further. But in the realm of human understanding (which you seem to be interested in), this is not likely to be the case.

 

It is important to recognize the difference between things which you reasoned upon using non core beliefs or abnormal experiences when you didn't have to and when you really do have to share an experience with someone to give them additional information. Unless what you want someone to read is a scientific study where x directly resulted in y, z percent of the time AND there was no way to deduce that was true from common experiences then you are the one who has a problem.

[coberst]

Michael..

 

Sounds a bit anti-intellectual. Education has become a consumer item. We become better and better at destroying our self. Without compensating increase in developing answers for living. The US is also a country who loves physical prowess but hates intellectual prowess.

[coberst]

Reason

 

It is our anti-intellectualism that finds fault with intellectual accomplishment. I think we would be wise to always point out when a person is behaving in an anti-intellectual fashion. I think that a capitalistic society values production and consumption and intellectuals cause friction for the cogs of industry. This kind of society wants followers not thinkers.

[coberst]

TZK

 

Whoo! I will have to study this. You have said a great deal. My God you are begining to write like me now.

[REASON]

Reason

 

It is our anti-intellectualism that finds fault with intellectual accomplishment. I think we would be wise to always point out when a person is behaving in an anti-intellectual fashion. I think that a capitalistic society values production and consumption and intellectuals cause friction for the cogs of industry. This kind of society wants followers not thinkers.

 

I agree. But what causes anti-intellectuallism? I was attempting to describe a basic element within humanity that can at least partially explain the source of anti-intellectual attitudes. It's fine to call someone out on their anti-intellectual attitudes if you think that might change their behavior, but what I think it will really require is a societal change in perception and reverence for intellectualism, which may need to begin with the attiudes of intellectuals. If intellectuals were perceived as people who use their knowledge and wisdom strictly for the betterment of society, including the cogs of industry, it may be more difficult to assign a negative image to them. Intellectuals will have to find a way to do that without coming across as elitist or condescending, which is difficult for ego driven intellectuals. But there will always be those who feel threatened by people who are more highly educated or are very deep thinkers in how they process information.

 

I also agree that in this capitalistic society of ours, or in any dictatorial, monarchical, or fascist state, the arrogance of those running the show, and their lust for power and wealth, perpetuates their need for an ill-informed society. Evidence for this is shown in the need to control sources of information and education, such as the media and universities. But in our highly exalted democratic society, we have a better opportunity to correct this. And again, it may require that intellectuals find it within themselves to speak up, speak out, and resist the perponderance of distortions and disinformation that seems to continue to be so prevalent, in order to gain more credibility, and work toward the betterment of society.

 

It is time for a reality check!

[coberst]

reason

 

You make a very good point.

 

I think that we are witnessing the death of professionalism. Perhaps I am naïve to think that professionals were ever professional.

 

Wiki tells me that the classical meaning of professional was limited to Divinity, Medicine, and Law. Since classical times many other occupations than these three have come to be recognized within society as professional.

 

Arnold Toynbee wrote a “Study of History’, which “is the longest written work ever composed in the English language…In it he traces the birth, growth and decay of some 21 to 23 major civilizations in the world.”

 

“He argues that for civilizations to be born, the challenge must be a golden mean; that excessive challenge will crush the civilization, and too little challenge will cause it to stagnate. He argues that growth is driven by "Creative Minorities," who lead the uncreative masses by example (called "mimesis").”

 

“He argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside, but from the deterioration of the "Creative Minority" (who leads the uncreative majority by example) into a "Dominant Minority" (who forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience). He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. He argues that a civilization has broken down is when it forms a "Universal State," which stifles political creativity.”

 

He argues that as civilizations decay, they form an Internal Proletariat and an External Proletariat. The Internal proletariat is held in subjugation by the dominant minority inside the civilization, and grows bitter; the external proletariat exists outside the civilization in poverty and chaos, and grows envious. He argues that as civilizations decay, there is a schism in the body social, whereby abandon and self-control replace creativity, and truancy and martyrdom replace discipleship by the creative minority.

[REASON]

“He argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside, but from the deterioration of the "Creative Minority" (who leads the uncreative majority by example) into a "Dominant Minority" (who forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience). He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. He argues that a civilization has broken down is when it forms a "Universal State," which stifles political creativity.”

 

He argues that as civilizations decay, they form an Internal Proletariat and an External Proletariat. The Internal proletariat is held in subjugation by the dominant minority inside the civilization, and grows bitter; the external proletariat exists outside the civilization in poverty and chaos, and grows envious. He argues that as civilizations decay, there is a schism in the body social, whereby abandon and self-control replace creativity, and truancy and martyrdom replace discipleship by the creative minority.

 

Why do I feel that our society is currently on a fast track to this type of decay as described by Toynbee? Your brief summary of his arguments for societal decay resonates with what I often feel these days.....that we are in the midst of experiencing the process of such decay.

 

Does Toynbee offer an opinion based on his findings of a way in which to reverse the trend? Could it be that intellectuals, those who have devoted there lives to knowledge, education, creativity and expression, need to make a stronger effort to find a voice; to be heard; to lead?

 

I can't imagine that they are unaware of the nature of the true threat to our society.....the manipulation of history, the erosion of civil liberties and human rights, the abdication of justice, the subversion of truth, the concentration of political power, the militaristic exportation of our perceived exceptionalism, and of course, "fear itself," just to name a few.

[TZK]

 

“He argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside, but from the deterioration of the "Creative Minority" (who leads the uncreative majority by example) into a "Dominant Minority" (who forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience). He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. He argues that a civilization has broken down is when it forms a "Universal State," which stifles political creativity.”

 

One thing of this nature that happens is that anti-intellectual people begin to use straw man arguments based on claims of prior intellectuals to justify blocking out the claims of current intellectuals.

 

And by anti-intellectual people I mean simply people who live their lives according to the bandwagon effect rather than by holding truth as the ultimate power.

 

And so it becomes increasingly difficult to explain to these people why something they are thinking or doing is not the best approach, as at each stage they misapply the last person who did so's ideas to erect a barrier to new knowledge.

 

Then after the information age you get a global version of this effect!

 

If we hold that Jesus et al were philosophers who brought early knowledge, then all religious based anti intellectualism falls into this category.

 

Considering this, Compare 2 people: Tesla, and Newton.

 

Tesla was a renegade intellectual who waved his intelligence in everyones' faces by showing brilliant things he could do with it. He took the magician's approach to it and rarely gave up how he did things. He had inventions (like an rc car) that he never explained and were later reinvented by someone else for general use.

 

Newton was an intellectual who created a simple system whereby anyone could reason out simple truths about their surroundings. The system is not a particularly advanced approach to increasing knowledge, but it allows society to use people who aren't that self aware to increase knowledge.

 

Of the two who do you think of more when it comes to lost potential:

 

Tesla the man who gave people the message, there are those who know things that you do not.

 

Newton, the man who gave average people the license to disregard the claims of intellectuals because their claims didn't follow the same system that allowed them to figure out where the ball they toss is going to land.

 

The issue is self awareness, and the only people who could have provided any cure have been choked out of academia.

[coberst]

Reason

 

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

 

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

 

Many weeks ago a forum member suggested that I might be interested in the author Ernest Becker and I was given the following web site.

Ernest Becker Foundation This is a great one hour audio about Becker’s ideas given by a very good lecturer.

 

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

 

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

 

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

 

The only disagreement I have with Becker’s tapestry is in this solution he offers. I am convinced that he has failed to elaborate on an important step that is implied in his work but not given sufficient emphasis. That step is one wherein the general adult population takes up the responsibility that citizens of a democracy must take on; adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities.

[LaurieAG]

Hello Coberst,

 

It is our anti-intellectualism that finds fault with intellectual accomplishment. I think we would be wise to always point out when a person is behaving in an anti-intellectual fashion. I think that a capitalistic society values production and consumption and intellectuals cause friction for the cogs of industry. This kind of society wants followers not thinkers.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. I have been attacked relentlessly in the past by people who have accused me of 'making up' the common term 'mindless pap', and when I point out that the term appears regularly in TV critic appraisals, I find myself accused of wanting to be right all of the time by these same people (who incidentally support GWB and Dick Cheney).

 

I was recently discussing Robert Penn Warrens book 'All the Kings Men' and was responded to in the following way:-

 

No kidding! Kings have been taking advantage of the Proletariat since society began. So your main error here is in flogging "America" rather than "greedy politicians" (hey, and *everywhere* not just here!), which not only diminishes your argument, but makes you look uneducated, or at the very least partisan (i.e. that you're just another politician, probably making the point for your own personal gain).

 

So, could I ask all of the people who have actually read the book (because it isn't about Kings and the proletariat, but political corruption in the deep south and its inevitable consequences) to provide feedback in the context of the topic at hand (not the (more important) underlying theme of the book, do the ends justify the means).