The War on Intellectualism

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Joe Sixpacks can be biased, or can partake in the dumbest theories that are popular in their circle.

think about the wonderful idealist that dreamt of a democratic Iraq. think of the excellent Republicans who only rely on casino-capitalism.


Your words are hollow.

Dude, you're a moron and you're completely missing the point. Siro never said that he thought non-intellectuals came up with good ideas. His point was merely that intellectual people can often convince themselves of really stupid things. For example, John C. Calhoun and slavery. He stated it quite clearly, and it's mindboggling to me that this point went over your head.

[Aeson]

I agree... "intellectual" should have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone has a backbone or not. Or is brave or not. Or has a moral center or not.

But it's a term (along with others like professorial) that's been loaded to insinuate that those areas are deficient in those who appear intelligent, or even just use big words. When someone says "intellectual" in regards to a politician, they are generally making those insinuations without actually addressing the nature of the person in question in those specific regards. Which is of course... dumb.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
I beg to disagree. Being intellectual often is part of leadership. A leader can be intellectual and be able to make decisions simultaneously, especially if those decisions are unpopular (they're intellectuals with a lot of factual knowledge remember ).

first you agree that being intellectual is not a necessary part of leadership.

second, if we agree on a set of leaders to check up on, we can try and see how many of them were really intellectuals.

If a leader merely needs enough intellectual capacity to understand the right choices, then there are many potential presidents walking around the globe...

a) no ****. that's why proven intellect is never the pre-requisite for leadership in a democracy.
b) intellect is not all it takes. it's just the smaller of a whole range of qualities - topping all, are boldness and political know-how.

I want the best of the ****ing best out there. People with enough background, intellectual and experiencewise, so they can make the best decisions.

there's a reason why bosses and managers are not always the most proficient or intellectual in their organization.

a leader doesn't need to hold all the answers. just to know how to ask the right questions, and then to reach a decision.

If you're not intelligent enough yourself you have to rely too much on advisors who can manipulate you and who can have their own agenda, cf. G. Bush Jr. who surrounded himself with a truckload of neocons who succesfully hacked his rule.

Hey the neocon advisors you hate so much, are actually very intellectual people, many of whom could wipe the floor with you, in an argument.

You disagree with them, but you can't deny that neo-conservatism is an intellectual faction. You merely suggest that any one of them should have been the president, instead of Bush.

What's the difference if the agenda is that of the advisor, or the president? What you dislike is the agenda itself.

Your implicit statement is that the leader needs to be an intellectual you agree with. There are plenty of intellectuals that you don't agree with, and you'd probably object them being the president because of their views.

That's why I think it is more important that a leader has enough common sense, and enough critical thinking to challenge different advisors. This is a necessary pre-requisite for a good leader.

Many people who aren't intellectuals have common sense and critical thinking, even when they haven't tackled foreign affairs issues, or don't have an expertise in economy.

Many people who are intellectuals have poor judgement in areas outside their expertise, and their wealth of knowledge does not promise decision making abilities in issues of life-and-death.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Dude, you're a moron and you're completely missing the point. Siro never said that he thought non-intellectuals came up with good ideas. His point was merely that intellectual people can often convince themselves of really stupid things. For example, John C. Calhoun and slavery. He stated it quite clearly, and it's mindboggling to me that this point went over your head.

My point is exactly that people convincing themselves of really stupid things can be found anywhere, be they intellectual or not.

The sentence "intellectuals can be biased... etc" is completely irrelevant. Yes intellectuals can be biased, just like religious people or people with any other type of conviction can be. He's certainly making it seem so intellectuals are most likely to be biased partaking in the dumbest theories that are popular in their circle.

Btw thanks for calling me a moron. Much appreciated

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Traianvs
think about the wonderful idealists that dreamt of a democratic Iraq. think of the excellent Republicans who only rely on casino-capitalism.

Your words are hollow.

democratic iraq was thought up by intellectuals.
capitalism is an intellectual rage.
you're repeating my point without realising.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Traianvs


My point is exactly that people convincing themselves of really stupid things can be found anywhere, be they intellectual or not.

The sentence "intellectuals can be biased... etc" is completely irrelevant. Yes intellectuals can be biased, just like religious people or people with any other type of conviction can be. He's certainly making it seem so intellectuals are most likely to be biased partaking in the dumbest theories that are popular in their circle.

Btw thanks for calling me a moron. Much appreciated

So you got into a big fuss about how his words were hollow even though you agreed with his point?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You disagree with them, but you can't deny that neo-conservatism is an intellectual faction. You merely suggest that any one of them should have been the president, instead of Bush.

What's the difference if the agenda is that of the advisor, or the president? What you dislike is the agenda itself.

Actually Bush is an "intellectual" as far as his background is concerned. He just avoids playing the part (I suspect intentionally, but it's possible his mental faculties have just degraded as well... he clearly was much more well spoken and intelligent sounding earlier in his career)... which may be the best example of how loaded the term has become in our society. It's better to appear a fool than to appear to know your stuff. And that's sad.

[Jaguar]

Relative to other presidents and presidential candidates, Bush is decidedly not intellectual. Relative to the populace as a whole, sure he is.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

first you agree that being intellectual is not a necessary part of leadership.

second, if we agree on a set of leaders to check up on, we can try and see how many of them were really intellectuals.

I never said intellectualism is an absolute necessity. I only think it helps on many occasions. I never claimed otherwise I think.

a) no ****. that's why proven intellect is never the pre-requisite for leadership in a democracy.
b) intellect is not all it takes. it's just the smaller of a whole range of qualities - topping all, are boldness and political know-how.

I was referring to the fact that there are many people with minimum intellectual capacities, but with plenty of other skills. I'd prefer someone with the necessary skills, including an intellectual (=rational scientific) mind, over someone with good motivation skills, organising skills etc but without an intellectual attitude. But okay that's just my personal opinion. If you like the mavericks who use their gut feeling then that's yours

there's a reason why bosses and managers are not always the most proficient or intellectual in their organization.

a leader doesn't need to hold all the answers. just to know how to ask the right questions, and then to reach a decision.

Yeah I agree. But having a wide background helps in making those decisions. It's not a coincidence that many of the managers I know have more up their sleeve than some management skills. I think it's all interrelated. You can't manage something you know little about. Again, my personal opinion.

Hey the neocon advisors you hate so much, are actually very intellectual people, many of whom could wipe the floor with you, in an argument.

I never said they weren't intelligent. Actually I'm not sure they'd wipe the floor with me . If it were about Iraq and so on, I disagree. They have overlooked so many things, neglected so much... I think guys like Wolfowitz, despite their enormous intellect, didn't have enough knowledge to see what lied ahead in Iraq. But that's another discussion


[/QUOTE]

[Dauphin]

People don't want to feel stupid. Being around people cleverer than them makes them feel stupid. As a clever person, dumb it down a bit for public consimption and you will go farther.

I don't believe this to be anything new in the slightest.

[Sirotnikov]

My point isn't that I prefer a leader to be a numb skull idiot with a reliable sixth sense.

I also agree with the gist of the article that disliking intellectuals for their "long words" is not a smart thing to do.

However, I have a problem with this quote:

Intellectualism is a quality we want in a leader. I would rather have someone who might be a bit dry and heavy on the facts than someone who is folksy and dead wrong any day.

Most of the dry and fact heavy people i know would make terrilble leaders.

I say that intellectualism and leadership ability are not the same things, and one is not a pre-requisite for another.

Sarah Palin looks to me like a leader type. The question is whether she'll be able to learn and understand issues she's never dealt with, and will her huge lack of experience hinder her ability to ask good questions, and doubt her advisors as much as she should. I don't know enough to tell.

On the other hand, Obama appears to be intellectual alright. But does he have the ability to cut to the chase with Iran? Does he have the ability to make bold decisions to keep Russian aggression at bay? In time of trouble, will he be a loyal ally to nations relying on U.S. support (india, south korea, jordan, japan)? I don't know.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Jaguar

So you got into a big fuss about how his words were hollow even though you agreed with his point?

Dude I was pointing out he was oversimplifying things by saying intellectuals would almost always (he says implicitly) partake in crazy theories that are popular in their circles.

I never agreed with him, where did you get that.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Aeson
But it's a term (along with others like professorial) that's been loaded to insinuate that those areas are deficient in those who appear intelligent, or even just use big words. When someone says "intellectual" in regards to a politician, they are generally making those insinuations without actually addressing the nature of the person in question in those specific regards. Which is of course... dumb.

To be honest, my own opinion is that intellectual politicians make a great No. 2.

Take Condoleca Rice for example. She's definitly an intellectual. She was a good advisor and is a good secretary. But I can't see her as a good leader.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
My point isn't that I prefer a leader to be a numb skull idiot with a reliable sixth sense.

I also agree with the gist of the article that disliking intellectuals for their "long words" is not a smart thing to do.

However, I have a problem with this quote:


Most of the dry and fact heavy people i know would make terrilble leaders.

I say that intellectualism and leadership ability are not the same things, and one is not a pre-requisite for another.

Sarah Palin looks to me like a leader type. The question is whether she'll be able to learn and understand issues she's never dealt with, and will her huge lack of experience hinder her ability to ask good questions, and doubt her advisors as much as she should. I don't know enough to tell.

On the other hand, Obama appears to be intellectual alright. But does he have the ability to cut to the chase with Iran? Does he have the ability to make bold decisions to keep Russian aggression at bay? In time of trouble, will he be a loyal ally to nations relying on U.S. support (india, south korea, jordan, japan)? I don't know.

Hmm, if Obama were to decide not to back up India or South Korea in some hypothetical situation, you would call it a lack of leadership?

Why is having leadership related yo your own preferences?

By the way don't worry. Obama's as pro-Israel as any politician in the US

[Aeson]

The question is if you think "intellectuals" can be good no 1's or not. ("Intellectuals" in quotes to denote how the term is applied to those who appear intelligent and may use big words.)

I personally don't think it's a negative. And given how it's commonly applied, actually a positive. Since it's applied to people who sound intelligent. Though being intelligent, or speaking intelligently, are not guarantees of leadership either. Just it's better than being someone who can't express themselves intelligently.