Anti-intellectualism

[Drake Tungsten]

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

Agreed. I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I think Loinburger kicks ass.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"retaliatory intolerance"

It appears as if I have an error.
30 minutes later
Fixed. thanks for pointing that out Whaleboy.


EDIT: Yaaay I got a sig.
...Does this prove my egomania in wanting to show my presence in the minds of everyone?
Yes, yes it does. What a vain man!
But then again... I GOT A SIG

[Sandman]

There are lots of intellectuals; doctors, architects, authors, etc.

But the most useless intellectuals are also the ones who are the quickest to proclaim their status as 'intellectual'. Postmodernists, other theorists, cultural commentators, 'contemporary' artists, critics, students etc.

I suppose I'm an intellectual, but I've never thought of myself as one, and I possess a great admiration for those who have actually gone and done something worthwhile. I'm always ready to give people praise for training to be a nurse, for example. So much more useful than what I do.

[Standup]

I would encourage you to raise fingers (the number of which is your choice) to the bullies and ask away! Ultimately, their prejudices (as highlighted clearly in this thread) should not stand in the way of your education.

Oh they didn't - i got to Uni, two degress and consumed vast quantities of booze. I didn't do it the way you suggested though. I changed my behaviour and became 'one of the boys'. Perhaps your insistence on sticking two metaphorical fingers up at your class mates is part of the reason you get a tough time ?

I didn't see it as a big compromise and eventually i realised part of the reason i was asking questions was merely to show off my knowledge, reading etc. The general level of debate in my O Grade english class not being high asking questions was largely irrelevant to my 'learning'. But why not save your questions for later or at a smaller tutorial group if you have them. Depends what you're studying though.

Enigma_Nova, sorry but to me you sound intolerant and arrogant but then i'm just a miserbale old git faced with doing the housework

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by loinburger
I don't see how this is a logical position to take. I mean, sure, there're a lot of different ways that intelligence (or talent, if you prefer) can manifest itself, but it doesn't follow that everybody's abilities are going to add up to some magic number -- it's entirely possible (and much more probable) that some people are going to be more generally competent than average, while others are going to be more generally incompetent than average.

And certain that you won't find an objective way to measure!
Occams's razor applies here.
There's always the off chance that people have ignored some aspect of our being, which the 'incompetants' are great at and the 'competants' suck at.
In any way, how do you measure competence across abilities?
Who is better - the Biochemist with his cancer killer or the Physicist with his theory of everything? Both would be outstanding in their field, but who gets the higher 'competency number'?
Now extend this to a Boxing champion. Which number is higher - the boxing champ's boxing ability or the physicist's physics ability?

I'm willing to bet that if you went out of your way to start acting like a dunderhead, then most of the people who are currently anti-intellectuals will probably turn into anti-dunderheads.

Enigma calls the ethics board
We have the Green Light on that one.
Perform this experiment. I'm interested to see the results.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I have no problem with anyone calling themself "intelligent". However I'd probably avoid anyone calling themself "intellectual", due to bitter experience. Every person I've met who calls themself "intellectual" has turned out to have a crap personality.

I used to get beaten up at school regularly, but as it was for wearing make-up I don't think it has much bearing on this discussion.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Standup
Oh they didn't - i got to Uni, two degress and consumed vast quantities of booze.

Enigma raises a skeptical eyebrow
So what about those things do you value?

I didn't do it the way you suggested though. I changed my behaviour and became 'one of the boys'. Perhaps your insistence on sticking two metaphorical fingers up at your class mates is part of the reason you get a tough time ?

It's entirely possible, but I reckon people should be able to express their beliefs, and so battle for that.
Conformism is the coward's way out of the conflict!
If people give others a tough time merely because of ignorance or xenophobia (or some other fault of the accuser), then I say we make the Accuser pay, not those who are picked on.

I was initially picked on whenever I moved somewhere, but very quickly people realised that I meant business! The indesire to fight for your beliefs is what tends to get you picked upon. The best way to avoid conflict is to be permanently prepared for it.

I didn't see it as a big compromise and eventually i realised part of the reason i was asking questions was merely to show off my knowledge, reading etc.

Enigma_Nova, sorry but to me you sound intolerant and arrogant

Try not to associate me with yourself.
BTW I do hold contempt for those that attack me or wish to subvert my efforts. Not to say that I'm intolerant, but it would be better for me if these people were no longer in the picture.

I respect that they have their beliefs, of course, and that they will follow them, but if the process of me following my beliefs conflicts with the process of them following their beleifs then there will be conflict!
I'm not so intolerant as I am unwilling to compromise... and not so arrogant as I am self-important. Remember, I am on the extreme end on the Individual / Group scale - You appear to be on the opposite end.
Changing yourself for the group? I honestly cringed at the thought.

Not that I'm intolerant of your belief, but that I would not tolerate myself if I believed what you believe. (Understand?)

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Hey!!! I made a sig!!!!! Happy days!!!!!!!!!!

Then I replaced you.
There is only one word capable of harnessing the power of this instance.
You, sir, have been

0WN3D

[loinburger]

Loinburger is assuming that an intellectual who is like-for-like as socially able as a rugby player, who asks a question in class would not get more flak than the rugby player asking the same question in the same manner.

You're right. I'm "assuming," based on experience, that the "intellectual" is going to get flak for being an arrogant twit -- that the intellectual is not as socially able as the rugby player, because the rugby player doesn't act like a condescending blowhard when he answers questions in class. Your "in the same manner" qualifier implies that you're asking questions in the same manner as a rugby player -- so, try being a rugby player for awhile, ask questions in the same manner, and report back on the results.

There's always the off chance that people have ignored some aspect of our being, which the 'incompetants' are great at and the 'competants' suck at.

And when that "aspect of our being" becomes relevant, then our definition of competence changes. Saying "Well, he might not be scholastically competent enough to get into college in 2004, but maybe he'll be be scholastically competent enough to get into college in 2104, so logically we can't say that he's scholasically incompetent" or whatever is just crap reasoning.

Who is better - the Biochemist with his cancer killer or the Physicist with his theory of everything? Both would be outstanding in their field, but who gets the higher 'competency number'?

Who bloody cares which one gets the higher "competency number"? That's no different than saying "Everybody is equally athletic, because you cannot objectively measure whether an olympic-class sprinter is faster than an olympic-class marathon runner!" Obviously both the chemist and physicist are intelligent, and obviously both the sprinter and the distance runner are athletic. We don't need a more fine-grained definition of intelligence/competence/athleticism/whatever, so the fact that our current definitions are coarse-grained in no way proves that our current definitions are meaningless.

Now extend this to a Boxing champion. Which number is higher - the boxing champ's boxing ability or the physicist's physics ability?

Who is more athletic -- the olympic-class sprinter, or the olympic-class weightlifter? Does the fact that you cannot objectively discriminate between them prove that I'm just as athletic as either one?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Loinburger is solid gold in this thread.

Agreed. I don't want to sound like a queer or nothin', but I think Loinburger kicks ass.

I believe the proper phraseology is:


WU TANG!

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True, which is the fault of the intellectual for attempting to communicate with those that do not want to listen. That does not mean that there is any sense of superiority, perhaps social ineptness. Unfortunately, lack of interest is not our concern, and it is that that breeds misunderstanding, hence mistrust and conflict. It is not the intellectual who is not interested. The education system must be improved.

There are only two things of which we can be certain:
1. The Universe exists
2. Human Stupidity
But, come to think about it, I'm not so sure about the universe.

Lack of Interest is caused by 2 factors (or a lack thereof):
1. A positive influence towards Interest
Parents rush to teach their children family values of respect and conformism, that they ignore to teach their children the difference of people and the value of those not of their kin.
Peers do much the same thing.
In fact, there's hardly any positive voice towards thinking about others represented!
2. An indesire to explore the option themselves.
Most people fear what they don't know.
Most people do not like change.
Most people are lazy.
Ergo, most people have a lack of interest in the thought patterns of others.

Lack of Interest (I shall henceforth call it Ignorance) is a fault of human nature.
The Smacktard Cycle (or ICAS Cycle) uses aspects of Ignorance, Conformism, Apathy and Stupidity to form a culture which devalues questioning and understanding.
I know very well that if we break the smacktard cycle, so that the old SAPIENS values will crumble, will enable a whole new set of values to be brought in.
Static-mindedness
Apathy
Prejudice
Igorance
Egotism (My way is automatically right)
Nonthinking (conformism)
Stupidity
...SAPIENS.
The problem with societies is that they're hard to break, and that they tend to throw endless hurdles at you.
Society, for all its problems, is so obcessed with self-preservation that it tries to take down the problemsolvers (like me) that want to fix it.
Some days I feel like letting Humanity go to ****, but where's the honour in that?

You'd need to undo the Dark Ages, remove the mindless conformism of Despotism and Religion, to even stand a chance of advancing humanity.
And while the powers-that-be still profit from a stupid populous, and the system has been refined over milennia...
I get the feeling that this Problem doesn't want to be solved!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
WU TANG!

is for the children.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Guynemer
WU TANG!

I hate you for using words I don´t understand

[Drake Tungsten]

I hate you for using words I dont understand

A man who knows not of the Wu is a very poor man indeed...

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by BeBro


I hate you for using words I don´t understand

Anti-intellectual bastard!


HATE CRIME!!!