
Why is there Anti-Intellectualism? - asciilifeform
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyAntiInt.htm
======
FleursDuMal
Am I alone in thinking this is quite a bizarre article which doesn't really
scratch the surface of anti-intellectualism?

His argument about children and their lack of genuine creativity seems a
little misplaced - they are disparaged as 'tinkerers' rather than creators,
but I can think of no better word than 'tinkerer' to describe Leonardo, or
indeed many other great artists/scientists.

Aside from all that, I can think of plenty of reasons why anti-intellectualism
would exist:

\- not all forms of expert knowledge are equally valid. It was only around 100
years ago that medical expertise progressed to the point where it was more
likely to cure than kill you.

\- the value of expert knowledge/intellectual capital can be hard to
determine. For example, once you move past the hard sciences, to sociology and
literary theory and beyond, how much is contributed to human knowledge and
wellbeing? How much power/status should be accorded to people in these
intellectual disciplines?

\- societies are composed of counterbalancing forces, between elements which
are conservative/progressive, peaceful/aggressive, practical/visionary etc. No
more than every business can be a startup, how can all people in a society
consider intellectual investigation the main objective, as opposed to more
mundane aspects of maintaining and running the society?

\- science seems to have been stranded on one side of an ideological divide,
where its support/derision is now a badge of political identity.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I don't know, I think it was fairly thorough -- at least, for a quick read on
somebody's webpage.

Regarding Leonardo as a tinkerer, based on his description of Mozart's works,
I'm pretty sure that this guy would find da Vinci to be creative.

As for the rest -- I was excited when he mentioned cost versus benefit for
curiosity, and disappointed that he didn't spend more time on it.

Curiosity is _dangerous_. I've been lucky to have survived several different
bouts of raging curiosity; as a species, curiosity about things like nuclear
reactions has brought with it the risk of self-annihilation. Space exploration
has claimed a number of lives, as has more conventional exploration throughout
history.

If you're one of the people that likes to equate everything that modern humans
do to some evolutionary development, then I think it would be easy to show an
evolutionary disadvantage for very curious creatures. The most curious have
pretty good odds of disappearing and never coming back, or getting themselves
otherwise killed or removed from the gene pool.

What would be left is the childlike curiosity that he was talking about --
curiosity sufficient for exploring the immediate environment, figuring out
what's good to eat and what isn't, what's dangerous and what isn't, and once
the environment becomes "safe", you stop exploring.

I have one quibble though: I don't think that this solves the case of anti-
intellectualism in the sense that most people would think of the term, which
is a hostile response to intellectualism. What he described was more of an
apathy towards rigorous curiosity; when I think of anti-intellectualism, I
think back to high school.

My guess is hostility towards intellectualism is just a way for some people to
level the social playing field against other people. Just as intellectuals who
are not well-suited to sports will sniff down their noses at the very idea of
chasing some stupid ball around a field, so do the greater majority of people
sniff down their noses at the very idea of exercising your brain if you don't
have to.

------
lionhearted
This made me smile:

"I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to
take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to answer this
question:

 _What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?_

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question.
Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be
called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose
cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in
serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way,
that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to
a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-
minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be
wrong?"

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Yeah but on the other hand some people that come off as close minded simply
have different axiomatic beliefs than you do. Things that look like logical
flaws to you can be perfectly consistent if they hold "belief x". Until you
address belief x arguing against specific flaws in their argument is about as
effective as hoping to convert catholics by making fun of the pope's hat.

~~~
jwilliams
There is a good TED talk along these lines:
[http://ted.org/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_m...](http://ted.org/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

~~~
nazgulnarsil
I find the reasoning specious because self described "liberals" and
"conservatives" mean all types of things when they describe themselves as
such. The results of studies involving correlations between conservative or
liberal ideology and other traits tells you more about differences in
favorable word connotations than anything important about individuals.

~~~
jwilliams
The actual paper behind this talk is here:
[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/998?ijke...](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5827/998?ijkey=9S1Vi6nUWCqY.&keytype=ref&siteid=sci)

There is a decent body of research and references behind it.

------
dgtized
The article makes too black and white a distinction between tinkering and
creativity. The author is also very focused on the concept of an idea being
fundamentally new in order for it be a creative action. I'm not certain that
you can so easily distinguish between a new idea and a variation on an old
idea.

As example, was the development of a cell phone a new idea? I believe the idea
of combining a radio, a simple computer, and a battery into a portable device
intended to connect to the existing telephone network is not particularly
creative, but an extraordinarily useful variation on existing ideas. A
variation that has had sufficient impact that we tend to think of it as a new
idea. If one goes back to the development of each of the pieces, I believe one
can paint a similar picture for each of the priors. Even if one goes back as
far as basic technology like fire, spears, agriculture or the wheel I think
similar stories could be told.

The point of this is _not_ that there are no new ideas under the sun, but that
tinkering is the process of experimenting, and I don't particularly believe
that it is possible to create a new idea (under whatever definition of new)
without experimenting or tinkering with the priors.

~~~
steveplace
_extraordinarily useful variation on existing ideas_

So could we postulate that tinkering and creativity are not discrete but
rather a continuous evolution (a bunch of variations)?

------
ShabbyDoo
I'm a bit annoyed by this:

"Why did the same society that flocked to Star Wars decide only a few years
earlier that the real adventure of going to the Moon was too expensive to
sustain?"

I kinda liked Star Wars, but I'm opposed to spending money on manned space
flight. IIRC, many in the scientific community think it's a waste of resources
as it costs 10x as much to build a vehicle that has a chance of returning a
human to earth safely as it does to send up an unmanned vehicle that can be
jettisoned when its work is done.

My point isn't to argue about the benefits of visiting the moon, but it's
somewhat ironic that an article on anti-intellectualism would pose such a
false question.

~~~
jacoblyles
Intellectuals share a common culture and common political beliefs from that
culture, which they often neglect to apply any sort of skeptical thought to.
That makes them like the rest of us, except they are more annoying because
they claim to be more objective and rational.

~~~
gnaritas
They are more objective and rational; that's what makes them intellectuals.

~~~
jacoblyles
In at least the one narrow area of their lives where they make a living,
maybe. And that's assuming that they are the kind of intellectuals that run
empirical tests on things and not the kind of intellectuals who invent
elaborate networks of concepts with little relations to the real world (post-
modernists, non-empirical sociologists, feminist philosophers, and literary
critics - I'm looking at you).

I see no evidence that intellectuals are less prone to human biases than the
rest of us (well, I suppose I qualify as an intellectual, but the rhetorical
point stands).

If you disagree with popular beliefs in academic social networks, you can be
shunned by your peers as quickly as a high school student that doesn't follow
the latest fashions. Human nature is universal.

~~~
gnaritas
I didn't say they were completely rational, of course humans are humans, but
intellectuals are _more_ objective and rational than non intellectuals, which
is all I said; I stand by my assertion. They're also more precise with words,
and tend to actually mean what they say rather than what you think they
implied.

~~~
anamax
> but intellectuals are more objective and rational than non intellectuals

I've spent too much time around intellectuals to take that seriously.

> They're also more precise with words, and tend to actually mean what they
> say rather than what you think they implied.

Actually, they're far more likely to play word games and set word traps. It's
how they preen. It's just like body-builders flexing, not that there's
anything wrong with that.

------
grandalf
I think he's defining what it means to be intellectual too narrowly. If he
considers only phd level research "intellectual" then of course he'll be
disappointed by an inventive game imagined by a child.

But what are most phd programs but social rituals in which people first absorb
all of the field's dogma, then take prelims, and then work on a niche area of
their own advisor's well known work? Such a ritual confers upon the
participant the status of "intellectual", but it's primary purpose is social
filtering, much like a fraternity hazing ritual or a Dick Cheney duck hunting
trip.

Why is creativity not more widespread? Simply because it isn't valued by
society. An established professor isn't looking for a totally fresh take on
ideas, he's looking for someone who highly values his existing contribution
and is willing to do grunt work in exchange for the stamp of institutional
approval.

This is also what Society wants. The role of the intellectual is to help keep
the status quo in society... hence hte need for a 5 year ritual to pass the
gilded baton. Now, anyone can simply look at the embossed seal and feel
totally confident that the recipient knows what he is talking about.

In my opinion, intellectuals are people who enjoy being rational and creating
biproducts of rationality. Most doctoral theses don't fall under this
definition. Most are so unbearable by the time of the defense that the student
drops the area of study completely and enters the private sector, aided by the
official seal of his institution and the perks of being part of a select
social group.

Some people don't like to read, to think, or to discuss ideas. So be it. Such
a person may still come up with a brilliant solution to a problem, even by
accident. In most cases such a person (like the phd student) has no incentive
to change the status quo, merely to play along with it and collect a paycheck.
But so be it.

Intellectuals typically surround themselves by others with similar interests
and skills. To the true intellectual, creativity is everywhere, from the
lyrics of a rap song to the carona on an espresso to the small improvement to
the glibc strlen function.

When creativity and insight are coupled with personal courage we get things
like linux, Einsteinian physics, and many smaller but equally courageous
accomplishments.

Sitting in academe complaining about anti-intellectualism is not creative,
intellectual, or courageous!

------
jibiki
The article is actually not about why anti-intellectualism exists. It is about
resolving the following paradox: all people are curious, but most are anti-
intellectual. His resolution is that the premise is false: most people, in
fact, are not curious (as he establishes by redefining curiosity.)

One thing that strikes me about most of the comments here on HN is that they
don't address the meat of the argument, which is that people are anti-
curiosity. It is very possible that anti-intellectualism is motivated by all
sorts of proximal causes, but the author's argument would still be valid if
people, by nature, just weren't curious.

Of course, addressing the author's argument is hard, because it is based on a
redefinition, and a fuzzy one at that. He wants curiosity to be something
above the sort of "tinkering" that children do to find out about their world.
He never sets any metrics, or really gives any examples, to show the
difference between the two.

~~~
anamax
> His resolution is that the premise is false: most people, in fact, are not
> curious (as he establishes by redefining curiosity.)

Thus demonstrating that he's making an "intellectual argument".

People are curious, they're just not curious in the way that he thinks that
they should be, which makes them, in his eyes, inferior. The article is his
"proof" of their inferiority.

Yes, those are sneer quotes.

------
santadays
Couldn't creativity be described with memetics. That ideas aren't tied to the
survival of their host but, like our genes, with their ability to continue to
replicate. Most ideas are just other ideas that have been refined to survive
new circumstances.

Intelligence has given our species an advantage because of the predictions we
are able to make on given evidence that allow us to avoid danger, the
mechanism that allows us to make these predictions is somewhat obfuscated at
this point.

So as a person develops from childhood their model of the world will contain
many contradictory ideas. Given a certain set of circumstances these
contradictions are brought to light and depending on the usefulness, and
sometimes, but not always, the correctness of the predictions each of these
ideas allowed one will survive or grow stronger.

The modern world has allowed us to measure things more closely, and more
rigorously trim our ideas. This is done mainly in smaller elite circles of
academia.

Then anti-intellectualism is simply the result of people who have models of
the world that reject ideas which would do them harm, sometimes with no real
benefit. I say no benefit because these new "intellectual" ideas simply aren't
verifiable to most of the population. Them believing these ideas would be
equivalent to believing parishioner.

However, I would say certain discoveries, or actions broaden general
populations worldview and prime them for scientific ideas. The moon landing,
technology in general are good examples.

------
tlb
Here's my rebuttal based on refutable statements.

I'm a curious and intellectual person. I spend most of my time learning and
exploring.

While I have traveled to various parts of the world, I would not spend months
traveling by foot or horse risking barbarian attacks, disease, and
hypothermia, in order to discover new land.

Therefore, it's possible that the Romans were curious and intellectual even
though they didn't explore Scandinavia.

------
karl11
The most important conclusion, in my opinion, is this one:

"there is a great deal of hostility toward [systematic and disciplined
inquiry] by people who feel their values threatened"

This is the most widespread and most damaging anti-intellectual mindset in our
country today. People do not take the time to understand their own values,
what makes them so, and are too stubborn to flip-flop when evidence emerges or
changes significantly.

~~~
gaius
On the other hand, that it threatens/opposes traditional values doesn't
automatically imply that it's worth doing, any more than something being
traditional meaning it should be exempt from revision.

~~~
kaens
Exactly - that's (one of the reasons) why systematic and disciplined inquiry
is important.

------
froo
Semi offtopic, but Ze Frank's attitude to anti-intellectualism.

<http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/050506.html>

------
tjic
> The Romans never explored significantly outside their Empire.

I can put this another way:

EVERY place that the Romans explored, they conquered.

~~~
pg
That's not true. They went on plenty of expeditions at the edges of territory
they controlled.

------
nazgulnarsil
anti-intellectualism often refers to being anti ivy league more so than actual
anti-rationality.

~~~
modoc
I think of it more as being a de-emphasis on grades versus sports in school,
how people will make fun of you for using a wide vocabulary with multi-
syllabic words, that being smart or well educated is much less important than
looks, being good at sports, etc...

You heard a lot of this sort of fuss over how Obama's speeches were phrased.
Lots of people were angry that he didn't "sound like one of us", or that he
was "talking down to us", etc....

For some reason seeing a football player make a touchdown doesn't make the
average person feel fat or slow, but hearing someone using "big words" and
talking about something harder to understand that last night reality tv show
seems to make the average person feel dumb or talked down to. And they lash
back.

~~~
iamwil
Supermodels seem to make the average woman feel fat though--enough that there
are people advocating plus-size models, etc.

What's shared between intellectuals and supermodels that isn't with football
players?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
in-group out-group dynamics. notice how everyone refers to a sports team as
"our" team. As if the people watching have anything to do with the team's
success.

~~~
eru
Yes.

[Though perversely they do influence the success of 'their' team. Where do you
think the money comes from?]

------
schtog
Defense. It is so obvious how some people make fun of it because they are
unable themselves.

------
DavidSJ
Two serious problems with the article (though I didn't read every word).
First, he says:

 _What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question.
Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be
called scientific._

This falsifiability criterion _is_ what determines whether a theory is
_scientific_ , but there is a larger category of theories which are not all
empirically testable yet are subject to _rational criticism_ , and are
therefore rational, though we must generally hold them with a lower degree of
confidence than we do our scientific theories.

In fact, his very claim is an example of a rational yet non-scientific theory!
For he himself has not provided us with the evidence it would take to prove
his theory that evidence is necessary wrong! And so we see that there are
meaningful, important ideas which can be judged on criteria other than
evidence (in this case, internal contradiction, though that is far from the
only criterion).

Second:

 _But the view that we all start out curious and creative, and have those
qualities systematically stifled, fails to address some core questions. Why
should it be possible to stifle these qualities at all? If there are people
who see benefit from stifling curiosity and creativity, why should those
benefits outweigh the benefits of encouraging curiosity and creativity? And
assuming that there are people with a vested interest in stifling curiosity
and creativity, why should they be able to prevail over those members of
society who value curiosity and creativity? If curiosity and creativity are
general traits of human beings, anti-intellectualism should be a rare and
aberrant phenomenon. It should be regarded as a variety of mental retardation,
or a condition as undesirable as impotence. The only possible conclusion is
that there is something fundamentally wrong with this model of human nature._

This is certainly not the only possible conclusion. Only if you presume that
human behavior never has unintended consequences must you think that someone
must see themselves as "benefiting" from an act in order to do it. The simple
fact is that our educational institutions _do_ do tremendous damage to
curiosity and creativity, and they do so despite having the _exact opposite
motivation_.

Further, his examples of civilizations that failed to make various or other
accomplishments (Sub-Saharan Africans, Romans, etc.) is only evidence that
problem-solving is _hard_ , and that the innate curiosity that human beings
are born with is not _enough_. We need a good _tradition_ of scientific and
rational discovery to complement our innate curiosity, in order to create
great things.

~~~
ww
>>>>I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question.
Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be
called scientific.

>>This falsifiability criterion is what determines whether a theory is
scientific, but there is a larger category of theories which are not all
empirically testable yet are subject to rational criticism, and are therefore
rational, though we must generally hold them with a lower degree of confidence
than we do our scientific theories.

The essence of anti-intellectualism is when we say that there are subjects
that are too deep or too laborious to discuss. Suppose we say that (1)
empiricism is not empirically testable, and then say that (2) empiricism is
true, and then say that (3) everything that is true must be testable. Now
suppose someone were to come along and say that (4) It is the case that (1)
and (3) are mutually exclusive. The shying away from statements/discussions
like (4) is the essence of anti-intellectualism which spawns from all manner
of modern philosophical beliefs. You'll notice a shying away of this type of
discussion in the article. Not inspecting your true core beliefs is what anti-
intellectualism is.

------
Ardit20
If we all like play, or tinkering as he puts it, then why is there anti-
intellectualism? Surely knowledge is the most interesting tinkering and
perhaps infinite.

I can not imagine anything more creative than two ancient people sitting there
and thinking, hmm we do need to keep a record of how much crop we are making
so that we can be prepared for natural disasters and not starve. I've noticed
that usually in the summer we do good, but in winter not so good, how much do
we need to survive winter? And then sitting there and thinking hmm well I
suppose if I make a line on this thing that means x amount, two lines mean
well x amount. Basically they are both agreeing on a communicating system
through symbols. If that is tinkering, then what is creativity? Is creativity
imagining what alien life looks like? Or is that tinkering? Is perhaps
creativity the synthesis of many tinkering? I simply don't get it, but then
the guy studies pseudo-science? It seems he is merely speculating and very
subjective. What do I mean by subjective? Well subjectivity is thinking of
what creativity could be. When one indulges in subjectivity they start making
their own rules, they start fantasising and lose track of reality. In my
opinion, that is what this guy is doing.

~~~
anamax
> If we all like play, or tinkering as he puts it, then why is there anti-
> intellectualism?

Because play, tinkering, and intellectualism aren't related in any way that
would mean "like play" or "like tinkering" would imply "like intellectualism".

