
Geek anti-intellectualism: replies - revorad
http://larrysanger.org/2011/06/geek-anti-intellectualism-replies/
======
bluekeybox
The more I have been studying, the more it has been coming to me that
knowledge must not be an end to itself. This is because there is an infinite
amount of knowledge out there (care to catalogue the shapes of grains of sand
on Earth?), but only a very small subset of it is useful (for example, the
fact that sand consists mostly of SiO2 represents much more useful knowledge
than the above-mentioned detailed catalogue of shapes). Knowledge is an
attempt to describe complexity, and since complexity of the Universe is
enormous, the amount of knowledge that can be gathered is enormous as well. So
one must not seek knowledge indiscriminately.

The traditional academic way of teaching material to students has been to
cultivate the idea that knowledge (academic knowledge in particular, something
that went without mentioning) is of tremendous value in and out of itself. I
disagree with this (see my argument about grains of sand). Some kinds of
knowledge are more valuable than others.

Now that we all agree with this, the question becomes what is it that we
value. The problem is that people define value in different ways. Some talk of
spiritual value (which I find to be complete nonsense -- an artifact of a
runaway brain process). Some talk of some "eternal" value that will benefit
humanity in a very long term (but I tend to be skeptical of claims that cannot
be measured). The bottom line is that this is not an argument about knowledge
but an argument about either values or priorities. Given a choice to know (for
example, whether or not a killer will come to your house tomorrow) or not to
know, most sane people would choose "know". The "intellectualism" the author
espouses is the type of intellectualism that relies on emotional thinking to
instill the belief that we have a "duty" to know even things that are of
little measurable value. I am sorry, but I prefer to see numbers first.

Ironically, the reason why becoming a scientist is not a great life decision
compared to, for example, becoming a lawyer, a businessman, or even a computer
programmer, is that science does a poor job measuring its own impact (i.e. it
is ironically not empirical enough), despite of the fact that it claims to be
based entirely on our ability to measure and on the empirical method. In other
words, science, while denying religion for the most part, itself relies on
this religious-type thinking that knowledge possesses some mystical value in
itself (it doesn't).

 _Small edit_ : I wish there were more good scientists, not less. I think the
value of scientific contribution is enormous. I only think that our current
way of doing science (grants, journal citation indexes, reviews by very small
circles of peers which can often be mistaken, ignorance of financial aspects,
the coupling with teaching) is a bad way and that a better one is possible.

~~~
RainFlutter
The fundamental point underlying science and basic research is that it's
generally not possible to know the value of knowledge before you, well, know
it. Your perspective is extremely shortsighted.

If humanity only invested in projects of "measurable value," there would be no
computer programmers, because there would be no computers, because we would
not understand physics, because physics requires esoteric mathematics, and
what good did fiddling with numbers ever do for anyone? No measurable value
whatsoever!

~~~
bluekeybox
> The fundamental point underlying science and basic research is that it's
> generally not possible to know the value of knowledge before you, well, know
> it

Oh no, I wasn't arguing against science -- to the opposite, I wish that
scientific achievement was better recognized by our society. I was making a
claim that when science does achieve something, the value of those
achievements is not "tracked." I fully understand that our whole technological
economy depends on the achievements of science. The problem I was trying to
solve is, basically, why is it then that scientists don't make a lot of money
(a small fact, which, I believe, causes a "brain drain" to the financial
industry, etc). I believe that if science correctly "tracked" its achievements
(either by replacing the current journal citation rank by something more
closely resembling a currency, or by implementing a better patent system, or
both), more good science would have been made.

I think that the high-brow idealism you often find in science is a product --
not the origin -- of the current academic system. The reason there are many
idealists in science is not because science requires idealism, but because the
pragmatists end up somewhere else. As a result, the high-strung idealism
devalues science in the eyes of the public.

~~~
RainFlutter
Oh, I see.

That would be interesting if it were possible. I'm not sure how you would
manage it, though. Scientists already have an implicit incentive not to throw
their careers away on unimportant research, and one of the major problems
leading to the whole "publish or perish" trend is that it's really just
impossibly hard for anyone who isn't directly involved in a narrow slice of
research to evaluate that slice effectively, while anyone who IS involved in
that narrow slice of research probably can't evaluate it objectively.

But some kind of prediction market or 'kickstarter' type model might do a
better job than the grant model in figuring out how to dispense limited
funds...? I'm not sure how you'd get it up and running with credibility and
authority, but it's interesting to think about.

------
3pt14159
Most of his arguments come from flawed premises* and are riddled with logical
fallacies, especially straw man, no true Scotsman, hasty generalization, and
appeal to authority. But the essence of his argument essentially comes down
to:

    
    
      (1) "There are geeks that are anti-intellectual"
      (a premise I reject)
    
      (2) "The geeks that are anti-intellectual are an increasing larger subset of geekdom"
      (ironically (given that he advocates for facts), an opinion given without facts)
    
      (3) "Anti-intellectual geekdom is bad"
      (something I would concur with if it weren't a contradiction in terms)
    

*(e.g., geeks love knowledge, we go to parties and talk about up and down quarks, politics, theory of the mind, nature of reality, Aristotle vs Plato, metaphysics, and all sorts of philosophically rooted stuff)

~~~
contextfree
This sounds like an implicit disagreement over how "geek" should be defined,
which is bound to be a silly argument (on both sides) as it's a slang term
that's always meant different things to different subcultures, so there's no
"real" definition.

Personally I wouldn't use the word "geek" like he does either, but if you
scroll down to "bchjam"'s post on this thread, I think you'll get a good idea
of the kind of thing he has in mind =)

------
p4bl0
I know HN is not really a place to talk politics, but something in the article
surprised me:

    
    
        > leftist academics who were already anti-intellectual
    

I'm French so maybe this is different in Europe and in the US (if it is, that
would surprise me too), but since when "leftist" are anti-intellectual? It
seems to me that it's quite the opposite. Let alone "leftist academics" who I
can't even start to imagine being anti-intellectual.

To be clear, I _really_ don't want to start a political discussion here. What
I would like is just an anwser to: Is the part of the article I quoted
something people find normal in the US or does it seems weird there too?

Thanks :-).

~~~
crux_
The US has a deep divide in academia between folks who wish the study of
philosophy and literature had ended in 1950 or so, and those who embraced what
came after (perhaps a little too strongly).

(Alternatively you could maybe draw the line with the end of the
Enlightenment, but not quite as starkly...)

~~~
ryanklee
For more information on this see C.P. Snow's over half-century-old lecture,
"The Two Cultures." Within it he posits a great rift between the humanities
and the sciences. The lecture is very much relevant to this discussion. As a
side note, Edge.org posits itself as an abridging third culture in direct
relation to antagonisms between the humanities and sciences. Also on this
front is 3 Quarks Daily, which is a more or less excellent feed of multi-
discplinary geekdom.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures>

<http://edge.org/>

<http://www.3quarksdaily.com/>

~~~
crux_
Great info, but a clarification of my comment may be in order: I wasn't
talking about the "sciences" vs "humanities" divide (which is huge), but a
divide that goes deeply within humanities itself, which is much more of a
left/right divide (hence the "leftist" wording in the original article).

~~~
ryanklee
Do you mind expanding on this? I am having trouble seeing an internal divide
within the humanities between those that want a continuation of the study of
lit and phil and those that would like to see it cease. The reasoning that
normally goes into the defense of lit and phil seems to be essential to the
reasoning that might go into the defense of any sub-field of the humanities.
Do you mean to posit an alliance of lit and phil with leftist politics and
everything else with rightist politics?

~~~
crux_
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "1950" comment, is all -- making
fun of one camp's deep backlash against post-modernism (among many other
things).

------
wccrawford
I still think he's confused. I've never yet met a geek that was anti-
intellectual. Anti-college, anti-snob, anti-something... But not anti-
intellectual.

The 2 are too much at odds. The geek loves information, and (often) spreading
that information, and using that information. Information is a geek's stock-
in-trade.

He continues to claim that he's only talking about geeks, but by definition he
can't be. Because anti-intellectual means anti-geek. And I've never yet met a
geek who hates other geeks. Okay, maybe some particular brand of geek rubs
them wrong, but not all geeks.

~~~
logicchop
I teach philosophy at a university. Whenever we discuss basic issues about the
mind, my computer science students are always dismissive about any and all
positions that don't simply say "the brain is a computer, the mind is
software." It turns out that this is a pretty naive and simplistic way of
thinking about the issue; but that's the "easy" way for them to frame the
problem, and they often think that, because computer science is difficult
subject, this response must be pretty good.

~~~
joelangeway
I find this deliciously ironic. I can hear myself arguing as a sophomore CS
student, "but whatever is going on that constitutes the mind is observably a
process on information that happens entirely inside your skull, of course we
can model it with software," to which I would today answer "you can model any
phenomena with software, stating as such doesn't constitute a model."

------
turbojerry
"There are Jewish anti-Semites, too."

Now that is anti-intellectual, see-

Semitic is a Language Group, Not a Race or Ethnic Group

<http://www.counterpunch.org/hamod07122003.html>

I'm a geek, I'm not anti-intellectual however I am anti-BS, whether it is the
above statement or whether it is any of the intellectually bankrupt -isms,
Marxism, Fascism etc or religious dogma that goes against all the evidence for
evolution or other scientifically validated theories. All of which have been
promoted as being "intellectual", Fascism was famously promoted at Harvard
before WWII, Marxism has been promoted at innumerable universities and now we
have creationism attempting to be "intellectual" via the idea that there is a
"controversy" that pits it along side the theory of evolution in terms of
being able to explain how we as a species came to be the way we are. I'm also
anti-prophet, that is I do not believe that there is any human being that has
all the answers to all questions. Experts to me are useful as long as they are
not experts in the domains of BS.

------
Typhon
I knew, before reading the first line of the article, that he was not suddenly
going to change his mind. He managed to go lower than my lowered expectations
by saying he had "hit a nerve", which doesn't mean anything about his degree
of insight.

The root problem of this debate is that the word « geek » has lost any kind of
meaning a few years ago. There is no clear definition of it, and it's become
an empty buzzword.

Every time I see the word « geek », it reminds me of Orwell's essay about «
Politics and the English Language »
([http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-and-the-
eng...](http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-and-the-english-
language.htm))

« _The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies
"something not desirable."_ »

Well, the word 'geek' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies « A
bunch of people who do not necessarily share any goal, ideology, cultural
references or lifestyle, but that we lump together because it fits our
simplistic worldview »

~~~
forensic
Geeks don't get to define themselves. The word has clear meaning UNLESS you
ask a geek.

The definition of geek being used is one that comes from wider society, where
anyone interested in computer gadgets as a primary life interest is generally
classified as a geek.

Go meet some non-geeks and you'll quickly learn the proper definition of geek.

~~~
Typhon
My claim : There is no proper definition of 'geek'.

In order to refute such a claim, you mustn't limit yourself to saying there is
one, you must say what it is and prove it is indeed _the_ proper definition of
'geek'

Unfortunately, the definition you give is wrong. The word geek used to mean
"someone who's passionate about something". It also used to mean something
like "freak".

In any case, I have seen people whose primary life interests was RPGs or
literature be classified as 'geeks'.

Also, "computer gadget" in itself is a vague phrase. Lumping together people
because they're somehow connected to computers in some way is stupid.

What is there in common between a video games producer like Peter Molyneux, a
millionaire entrepreneur like Bill Gates, an ideologist hacker like Richard
Stallman, an amateur programmer like myself, and a technician that takes care
of a university network of computers ?

~~~
forensic
>"Unfortunately, the definition you give is wrong. The word geek used to mean
"someone who's passionate about something". It also used to mean something
like "freak". "

 __"used to" __

> Also, "computer gadget" in itself is a vague phrase. Lumping together people
> because they're somehow connected to computers in some way is stupid.

So you think society's definition is stupid. Ok.

The similarity between all those people is that they all are very interested
in computers. They are all geeks.

~~~
Typhon
« _So you think society's definition is stupid. Ok_ »

Just because you claim something is "society's definition" doesn't imply it is
anyone's definition but yours.

« _all those people is that they all are very interested in computers_ »

Not necessarily. Not in the same way. Not to the same extent.

------
hsmyers
I apply a simple test—Who is Edgar Lee Masters?, Rupert Brooke? Tintoretto?
Hardy? George Mallory? William Morris? I’ll even throw in one most geeks get
even if they haven’t read—Edward Tufte. Not a long list, but good enough to
give me a clue as to where someone stands… Note that this is not liberal or
conservative, neither one side of the campus or the other, these are in fact
people that you could easily become familiar with at any reasonable library or
bookstore. It would require you to wander ‘beyond the fields we know’ (quick,
who said that?), i.e. set aside the books on Scala and Lisp etc. and go look
around, it is never too late to expand horizons.

------
bchjam
I kept hearing the same cliche over and over in my head as I read this:

Shipping code wins

~~~
pnathan
And pair that with the well-known facts that:

* quality takes time

* the amount of low-quality "ship it in a hurry" code is immense.

And we quickly see that "shipping code wins" is the root cause of our crap!

~~~
bchjam
I'm all for higher standards of what counts as shippable. However, years spent
perfecting the wrong idea will probably yield something of questionable value
at best. I don't know what the right balance is but I never got closer to
knowing by just thinking about it without some sort of feedback loop.

------
dusklight
It's not ant-intellectualism, it's anti-pendantry.

------
rkon
The entire article is honestly just an overly verbose, misguided,
disorganized, incoherent straw man.

Geeks say classics are worthless because they're long and hard to read? Peter
Thiel is out to ruin college just because it's 'elitist'? Books are no good
because they're written by one person?

Give me a break -- he doesn't even bother citing anything to support his
premises. These points are so laughably far from reality that no one should
waste their time addressing them. It's not even worth reading this article
except as an example of faulty logic and how _not_ to write a persuasive
piece.

~~~
joelangeway
And the only "classic" mentioned was "War and Peace". I haven't read that one
but I've read Anna Karenina, also by Tolstoy, and a few of Dostoevsky's books.
Yeah they're long, but they're long like concept albums are long. They're
classics 'cause they're awesome, not 'cause some imaginary egghead wants to
bore you with them!

