One of the most aggravating things to me in this world has to be the absolutely rampant anti-intellectualism that dominates so many conversations and debates, and its influence just seems to be expanding. Do you think there will ever actually be a time when this ends? I'd hope so once people become more educated and cultural changes eventually happen, but as of now it honestly infuriates me like few things ever have.
Fascists and dictators hate intellectuals because they know better, and those mirroring their tactics to come into power love attacking intellectuals. They weaponise “they think they know so much better than you” when people who studied actually do know better about the topics they’ve invested time into, because most people love thinking they’re smart enough to beat anyone who disagrees. When you’re a teenager or older, it feels bad when someone corrects you, especially if you think you know what you’re talking about, and very few people know when to admit they were wrong.
Look at fascists all over the world, Lenin expelling the intellectuals, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the shit Erdoğan pulled, and politicians left and right trying to “approach the common man” by making shit up that feels nice. The ease with which humanity can be manipulated will never cease to amaze.
It’s not “dumb versus smart” either. Just look at what kind of drivel established computer scientists put out there when they discuss fields they have no understanding of. They think they’re so smart because they’ve got a nice degree, but forget that their smarts are only proven in a specific field and context.
Self-made people do the same. No matter how successful you are as a businessman, you’re not better at environmental studies or psychology than the experts, even when they’re less successful than you.
However, I don’t think “the world” is anti-intellectual. All across the world, the state funds colleges and students to gain an education. The world has become very pro-intellectual, probably since historically the rich and powerful were the same people who could get an education in the first place. Yes, the government doesn’t always listen tk experts, but that’s always been the case. Looking back at history, that may not even be a bad thing; “experts” with fancy scientific doctorates advocated for lie detectors (still used in some places), racial theories, subjugation of the “proven to be lesser” people, and eugenics.
You need a balance between “science says” and common sense, although in some areas such as climate change I really wish the scientists get more attention.
Fascists and dictators are often supported by intellectuals. Being an intellectual doesn’t mean you’re on the right side of history.
The anglosphere is anti-intellectual and some other parts are, but that does not mean the whole world is, and the influence of the anglosphere is waning fast.
wow a Hexbear user generalizing the “”“anglosphere”“” i bet you think you’re one of the smarties. which twitch streamer taught you about that one?
Insults show that he has a point. Where is your counter-argument?
how could I have a counter argument to something so solid?
Right. It is very difficult to find the couter-example to such a solid argument.
As long as conservatism exists, no.
deleted by creator
As long as there are financial incentives to keep people being anti-intellectual, we will never see a world where the average person acts in good faith and with good knowledge of the subjects they’re talking/debating about.
It’s not. We’d still be hitting rocks if we were anti intellectual.
“There are only two extreme outcomes and no other versions of events that could have possibly ever happened.”
I don't think there are only 2 outcomes. I asked a question regarding a potential of one absolute outcome.
I asked a question regarding a potential of one absolute outcome.
No, you wrote this:
It’s not. We’d still be hitting rocks if we were anti intellectual.
Where is the question? You presumed an absolute outcome and now expect everyone else to go along with it, nodding sagely to your smug presumption.
what a brain-dead response. Did you give it a second’s thought?
Wow what a useless and toxic response that says absolutely nothing. Making hexbear look really good!
Oh I’m sorry, you misunderstood. I’m not here adverting hexbear, because I don’t give a shit what you think about my platform. I’m making fun of you for having dogshit opinions.
No. Do you have anything to add?
By eliminating critical thinking, and polarizing everyone, those in power can do whatever they want, and the rest of us won’t be sufficiently organized to stop it.
I’m seeing positive signs though, labor unions getting successful settlements, and more awareness. So maybe?
It's just absurd that so many people fall into the shitter so incredibly easily without second consideration. But those who don't also need to get out of the mentality of 'I can't do anything' because even a single individual can have a massive impact in other people's lives and the world without major ambitions. Every time somebody says that, it just feels so pathetic, like they have given up attempting any responsibility and relinquished the last of their power even though so much more could have been accomplished. We collectively need to have a much stronger resistance to injustice in the world, and we are making progress, but it's so slow it's eclipsed by the amount of atrocious shit that happens almost every single day. I find it saddening how quick people are to resign themselves from doing something just because the odds are against them.
“Just absurd” is the language of someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on.
I assure you that (which you already know but aren’t processing for some reason) people are not setting out to live their lives in an absurd way.
It just means you’re tossing your hands up at the complexity of understanding something. Not a very disciplined approach to understanding for the 1% Intellectual in the room.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. There’s a lot of hopelessness and apathy, and it’s only helping those who commit the atrocities.
But before you judge, I’ll state that I’ve been a member of an activist group, progressivecoders dot org, for the last 5 years. I’ve worked on various projects, but overall watched the world situation get worse anyway. Even before that, I’ve done my best to be an activist and ally.
I’ve also been in the software industry for 30 years. I’ve watched it go from a genuinely useful and interesting information processing and delivery system, to a completely shittified ad delivery and surveillance tool. I’ve had to participate in it myself, I was actually part of the team that delivered the first animated GIF that made advertising that much more annoying. I worked for several of the big internet monopolies, and realized that it wasn’t an accomplishment, they just crack the whip that much harder, and I have CPTSD in exchange for free lunches and massages.
So yeah, I’m starting to give up. But it’s not for lack of trying.
A lot of things in life are perpetual changing.
Some day the pendulum will swing back to pro intellectual. Once people comprehend the damage the just like me leadership has done.
“the world” is not anti-intellectual, you just hang out with the wrong people
I'm very specific about my friends, I promise you that isn't the problem. It's more of an observational thing, and it is clearly present in western society at the very least. Even with my friends, we are still an insignificant minority compared to the larger population.
Any thought or idea that begins with “people are…” is doomed.
There is no such thing as “people;" there is I only you, this person here, that person there, and so on.
Perhaps not the whole world, but I’m many/most countries, the larger structures, like government and business, absolutely are anti-intellectual. Nice to have an academic friend group, but that doesn’t change the fact that capitalism makes education less accessible in order to rely on an undereducated workforce, and then politicians push it even further for the sake of easy control.
Some folks can’t much help who they hang out with. Any American is literally surrounded by thousands of miles of other Americans, and anti-intellectualism is rampant in the country. It’s not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that “I’m a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants.”
It’s not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that “I’m a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants.”
It’s not? Assuming you could get yourself there, I mean.
No country will just let in any rando. They have to want you there. There’s humanitarian programs, but largely you need to have something they want.
That’s typically special skills (MD, PhD, athletics, etc.). Or money. Money will get you anywhere.
People will always fear that which they cannot understand.
No.
It’s human nature to want to be the best, the most loved, the top dog. It helps to propagate the species.
If someone is smarter than you, it digs at the very core of that, and becomes a threat.
lol so you’re saying that you think we’re genetically programmed to mistrust “smart” people? I think you’re really reaching here
I think 'human nature' is far too broad to define in such a way, and making objective statements about it is wrong. In my opinion, the only definite thing you can say is that humans act out of self-interest (as do all living beings), but the motivation derived from it doesn't have to be destructive.
Traditionalism vs new approaches to things will never go away until technological progress at least stops accelerating and levels out a little bit. So, a Star Trek utopia basically, where fundamental physics has largely been nailed down.
That said, education is a separate topic, and has generally been trending in a positive direction for most of the past 4000ish years. This has actually made the conflict harsher, over time imo, as the traditionalists are starting to feel threatened at an existential level. Naturally, they’re going to meet that feeling of threat with traditional methods, and I’ll just let you consider our human history of conflict resolution methods to consider what that might entail.
We just don’t believe in our religious books anymore, though. We used to. And that’s a problem for some people. Like, the biggest problem that can exist for them, its about souls and salvation, not this “crude matter” as Yoda would say.
I don’t think anyone’s anti intellectual, people use rhetoric to defend their ideas, to defend their ways, to justify what they’ve already done. If you used your intelligence and started to agree with people, no one would challenge you, you wouldn’t run into anti-intellectual bias.
When you challenge people, or disagree with them, they’re going to use rhetoric against you, and that often is portrayed as anti-intellectual. If they think you’re a threat they’ll attack you by any means possible
While I don’t agree with OP’s view that the world as a whole is anti-intellectual, I also wouldn’t assume that these people don’t exist at all. I’ve personally had interactions with people who thought less of me or others for having a higher level of education, and (at least overtly) not in the sense that they were jealous. It was more of a general antipathy against people who know things / enjoy to learn, because they saw them as arrogant etc.
But this is probably more an example of tribalism.
It seems to be a rather prevalent point of view in some blue-collar circles. You’ll see some of them putting down higher education jobs as “lazy”, and propping their own jobs with long hours and physical work as “real” jobs. I’m thinking there’s some sunken cost going on there, as those same people will complain that their bodies are destroyed by the time they hit 40, somehow not making the link that overworking yourself with 60h might not be great for anyone, them included…
My dad has a PhD and he’s on his third marriage. Do you think I should ask him life advise? He’s dumb as hell unless you need a complex math problem solved. However, he feels like he can punch above his weight when it comes to other issues. It’s like a pro football player who thinks they could compete in any Olympic sport because they’re good at football.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think a lot of anti intellectual thinking is a combination of religious and corporate influence on the world.
Religion more or less teaches that you should believe what you’re told, not what you discover or learn for yourself. It’s a subtle but powerful way to discourage people from seeking the truths in life because they are genuinely convinced they’ve found the answer for everything.
Similarly with corporate influence so heavily a part of our lives people are quick to fall into the trap of consumerism. From a young age we are being conditioned to accept that it’s normal to have to pay multiple times for the same product and to replace our possessions regularly. The cost of living that way makes the time and expense of continuing education unattainable for the average person, which often leads to bitterness about their situation and anger towards those who are able to work a white collar job or live an easier life.
Both are problems without quickly enacted solutions. People have to be taught to think critically without being put off or angered when they get to topics that contradict what they want to believe.
It's not unpopular and more so true. Religion is anti-intellectual, and the main abrahamic ones double-dip hard on it. If you ever tried arguing with a religious person about faith, it's incredibly obvious how impactful it is on their critical thinking.
Capitalism also prefers anti-intellectual thinking because it makes people easier to manipulate and exploit into accepting shitty conditions and supporting the system. I think a large cause for the lack of critical thinking and self-reflection is because too many people live a very self-centred life where they consider themselves superior automatically and never take the time to question their beliefs, or if they do, refuse to face contradictions because it's harder than staying the same.
This smells like someone who considers himself an “intellectual” and is sick of people disagreeing with him.
This smells like jumping to conclusions.
It was but OPs replies seem to confirm it.
That may be the case but it doesn’t change the strong current of anti-intellectualism in modern societies.
It’s useful to those in power, for example.
No disagreement there, but simply declaring that “those who don’t see things my way are anti-intellectual” is a drastic over-simplification of how things got this way. Declaring it into Lemmy, which an echo chamber of progressives and communists (including myself) means we all know who he’s talking about, which means it’s just a progressive dog-whistle for the “them” that we want to be mad at.
There are a lot of intelligent people who hold what I’m sure OP would consider anti-intellectual stances. I live around them, work with them, play games with them, etc. it’s much more valuable to understand who they are and how they got to their beliefs than it is to simply vilify them.
I haven’t seen the argument “disagreement is anti-intellectual” being used here, though I’m sure people act that way. It’s hard to be disagreed with: people tend to entrench rather than change.
It’s still worth noting that anti-intellectualism is pushed as a tool of division and control though. Sure it occurs naturally but weaponized at a systemic level it is much more of a threat to society.
Or someone who’s seen brexit happen, or the rise of right wing populist parties everywhere that want to ban books and discount expert advice on climate, the economy, etc.
Observing democratically-elected governments being unable to address existential threats to the human race is certainly food for thought.
What's wrong with that? Just an example, imagine living in a world where most people consume animal products without second thought, despite the absolute moral atrocity that is committed as a result of it. You'd be pathetic to not be outraged at it. People should care about the consequences of their actions, but most people hypocritically selective in what ways they are.
Is it anti-morality or anti-intellectualism you were concerned with? Now I’m confused.
Both. Most people who eat meat would say animal abuse is wrong, all while ignoring their own contribution. A lack of intellectual honesty and logical consistency that leads to moral problems is also anti-intellectual. They would say slavery is wrong because it is prejudice, and unjust for 'xyz' reasons, while also saying 'xyz' reasons aren't good enough to change their mind away from eating meat.
moral atrocity
Morals are in the eyes of the beholder. Most people don’t really care about animals all that much. Be outraged all you want, but if you can’t understand that your morals and ethics aren’t universal, you’re not as smart as you think you are.
I somewhat agree. The world isn’t black and white. And as a society we are very much still untwined with our primitive groupthink.
The world is very complex.
To follow-up my snarky reply What if we’re the bad guys here?-NYTimes OpEd (non-paywall) This has a good take on how being “intellectual” is potentially an elitist take.
