Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;698077 wrote: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).
All true--------unfortunately.
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).
All true--------unfortunately.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Your statements are all true. It seems Americans would rather be entertained (take a look at how much athletes, actors & musicians are paid) than be educated (take a look at how much teachers are paid.)
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
I don't think I'd pay anyone money to lecture me on how to swing a golfclub, unless they troubled themselves to constrain their pretensions quite! And if I thought my instructor was being too pretensious I would say...
"You really musn't talk above par, you overblown caddy! If I miss my swing because of yer high talk there'll be hell ta pay!"
That's pretty anti-intellectual!
But indeed, I think I would learn better from a rustic who somehow gypsied his way to proffesion! Let the farmer speak of medicine! Let the pharmasist teach me farms! Let the sheperd refute the great works with his widdled common sense! The trucker knows his maps...have him teach me geography!
and why?
Because this is what the American population,
Proudly calls a proper education!
"You really musn't talk above par, you overblown caddy! If I miss my swing because of yer high talk there'll be hell ta pay!"
That's pretty anti-intellectual!
But indeed, I think I would learn better from a rustic who somehow gypsied his way to proffesion! Let the farmer speak of medicine! Let the pharmasist teach me farms! Let the sheperd refute the great works with his widdled common sense! The trucker knows his maps...have him teach me geography!
and why?
Because this is what the American population,
Proudly calls a proper education!
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;698077 wrote: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).
Ok, you started off addressing the anonymity of the Internet community. Without body language, you suggest we cannot decipher the complete or real message. Then you vear off into something that any intellectual could mistake as a rant on United States intellectuals being unconsciously biased and therefor flawed intellectuals.
How does the nationality of intellectuals come into play, number one? And how does the invisibility of the internet persona relate to nationality, number two?
Oh wait, is that why I never run into any Asians on the internet?
A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.
How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.
Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.
People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.
How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?
Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.
People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).
Ok, you started off addressing the anonymity of the Internet community. Without body language, you suggest we cannot decipher the complete or real message. Then you vear off into something that any intellectual could mistake as a rant on United States intellectuals being unconsciously biased and therefor flawed intellectuals.
How does the nationality of intellectuals come into play, number one? And how does the invisibility of the internet persona relate to nationality, number two?
Oh wait, is that why I never run into any Asians on the internet?
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
I think he doesn't vear off so much as you would think, but you may have to change lanes to follow him, as one might say.
He uses the anonimity of the internet as a greater example of the effective anonimity that exists in other circumstances. Anti-intellectualism results from misunderstanding, and so his example of the internet suffices, since the internet can examplify written communication conducive to misunderstanding.
I think he is suggesting that the cadence of writing can sometimes cause a distaste in the reader which causes an unproductive bias. That seems reasonable, and not like a rant. And I don't think he specifies intellectuals as harboring anti-intellectualism.
I guess someone...could...mistake Coberst's modest assertion as a rant,...and in this case you may have.
difference of nationality is a factor contributing to anonimity, I would say. I think of anti-intellectuallism as a type of diplomacy, if not a productive one. Anti-intellectualism could perhaps be favored by multi lingual realities, where language may be seen as a wall or barrier, and so any one displaying mastery of language could be seen as ranting from atop that wall and making light of it.
He uses the anonimity of the internet as a greater example of the effective anonimity that exists in other circumstances. Anti-intellectualism results from misunderstanding, and so his example of the internet suffices, since the internet can examplify written communication conducive to misunderstanding.
I think he is suggesting that the cadence of writing can sometimes cause a distaste in the reader which causes an unproductive bias. That seems reasonable, and not like a rant. And I don't think he specifies intellectuals as harboring anti-intellectualism.
I guess someone...could...mistake Coberst's modest assertion as a rant,...and in this case you may have.
difference of nationality is a factor contributing to anonimity, I would say. I think of anti-intellectuallism as a type of diplomacy, if not a productive one. Anti-intellectualism could perhaps be favored by multi lingual realities, where language may be seen as a wall or barrier, and so any one displaying mastery of language could be seen as ranting from atop that wall and making light of it.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
double helix;702314 wrote: Ok, you started off addressing the anonymity of the Internet community. Without body language, you suggest we cannot decipher the complete or real message. Then you vear off into something that any intellectual could mistake as a rant on United States intellectuals being unconsciously biased and therefor flawed intellectuals.
How does the nationality of intellectuals come into play, number one? And how does the invisibility of the internet persona relate to nationality, number two?
Oh wait, is that why I never run into any Asians on the internet?
This OP of mine resulted from frustration from constant anti-intellectual responses that were wraped in complaints that I did not write properly. Thus I have combined the two different subjects. I think that anti-intellectualism may be the dominant ideology in America and it shops itself in many disguised forms.
How does the nationality of intellectuals come into play, number one? And how does the invisibility of the internet persona relate to nationality, number two?
Oh wait, is that why I never run into any Asians on the internet?
This OP of mine resulted from frustration from constant anti-intellectual responses that were wraped in complaints that I did not write properly. Thus I have combined the two different subjects. I think that anti-intellectualism may be the dominant ideology in America and it shops itself in many disguised forms.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
There is no doubt that Coberst writes properly and for the most part is correct in his spelling and word structure. It's obvious that he is intelligent and well read and likes to think and contemplate out of the box. If it is his intention to communicate to the masses and be understood, he is failing. If it is his intention to communicate to the very few that might understand his posts and thus respond, he has been successful. If he gains personal satisfaction in just writing, irrespective of his posts being read, only he can answer.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon;702517 wrote: There is no doubt that Coberst writes properly and for the most part is correct in his spelling and word structure. It's obvious that he is intelligent and well read and likes to think and contemplate out of the box. If it is his intention to communicate to the masses and be understood, he is failing. If it is his intention to communicate to the very few that might understand his posts and thus respond, he has been successful. If he gains personal satisfaction in just writing, irrespective of his posts being read, only he can answer.
Well said.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
Well said.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;702537 wrote: Well said.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
I am 73 as well, and it appears we have a somewhat similar need to express ourselves, although I, on a far less intellectual level. If you have read any of my posts you will see that aside from attempts at humor I have tried to engage readers thoughts on more than just trivia. Our society, it appears, is more into trivia and superficiality than substance.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
I am 73 as well, and it appears we have a somewhat similar need to express ourselves, although I, on a far less intellectual level. If you have read any of my posts you will see that aside from attempts at humor I have tried to engage readers thoughts on more than just trivia. Our society, it appears, is more into trivia and superficiality than substance.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;702537 wrote: Well said.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
Coberst, I enjoy reading your posts. I agree with Lon in that you appear well read and intelligent. But I do see at least one issue with your presentation. How can you spread your message if you are only reaching the people who already agree with you? Speaking down to the people never works. You must speak with the people.
I have been posting for more than three years. My fundamental message is 'get a life-get an intellectual life'. I am convinced that we must become more intellectually sophisticated than we are now or our species will destroy itself within the next 200 years.
My message is not received well by most people but I think that just making people conscious of the message is the first step in a long journey. I am 73 and will not be around to find out how successful I have been. However, I never was a scout leader or anything like that so this is my effort to do something for my community.
Coberst, I enjoy reading your posts. I agree with Lon in that you appear well read and intelligent. But I do see at least one issue with your presentation. How can you spread your message if you are only reaching the people who already agree with you? Speaking down to the people never works. You must speak with the people.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
As a side note: Long, elaborate discussions with large verbs and nouns does not an intellectual make. One thing a lot of intellectuals miss the mark on is the beauty and significance of simplicity.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
I miss well,
Like William Tell!
And you'll always find an apple on my teacher's desk!
jest kidding
Like William Tell!
And you'll always find an apple on my teacher's desk!
jest kidding
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;703049 wrote: Coberst, I enjoy reading your posts. I agree with Lon in that you appear well read and intelligent. But I do see at least one issue with your presentation. How can you spread your message if you are only reaching the people who already agree with you? Speaking down to the people never works. You must speak with the people.
"People who already agree with you"--it is amazing that you see that most people already think that self-actualizing self-learning is important and that many are already doing this and I am riding through the land thinking that virtually no one agrees with me--or rather no one understands me.
Therein lays the mystery of human nature. I am desperately trying to convince people that it is vitally important that we become more self reliant especially in intellectual matters and you perceive that most are already doing that. How does one account for this mystery.
I have been studying psychology for the last many months because I wish to comprehend why humans do the things we do. I suspect that if I knew that answer I would know the answer to the other.
"People who already agree with you"--it is amazing that you see that most people already think that self-actualizing self-learning is important and that many are already doing this and I am riding through the land thinking that virtually no one agrees with me--or rather no one understands me.
Therein lays the mystery of human nature. I am desperately trying to convince people that it is vitally important that we become more self reliant especially in intellectual matters and you perceive that most are already doing that. How does one account for this mystery.
I have been studying psychology for the last many months because I wish to comprehend why humans do the things we do. I suspect that if I knew that answer I would know the answer to the other.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;703050 wrote: As a side note: Long, elaborate discussions with large verbs and nouns does not an intellectual make. One thing a lot of intellectuals miss the mark on is the beauty and significance of simplicity.
I have lately become more sensitive to anti-intellectualism. It appears to me that yours is a good example of bias against intellectuals. I think that anti-intellectualism is more pervasive than racism and is perhaps as unhealthy for society.
I have lately become more sensitive to anti-intellectualism. It appears to me that yours is a good example of bias against intellectuals. I think that anti-intellectualism is more pervasive than racism and is perhaps as unhealthy for society.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
How is saying "Effective communication is more important than flexing your vocabulary for no good reason" evidence of anti-intellectual bias?
It shows anti-blowhard bias, and anti-arrogant jerk bias, but neither of those things are necessary requirements of an intellectual.
It shows anti-blowhard bias, and anti-arrogant jerk bias, but neither of those things are necessary requirements of an intellectual.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Devonin;703179 wrote: How is saying "Effective communication is more important than flexing your vocabulary for no good reason" evidence of anti-intellectual bias?
It shows anti-blowhard bias, and anti-arrogant jerk bias, but neither of those things are necessary requirements of an intellectual.
Thank you Devonin. I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at. Perhaps I need to use more linguistic rhetoric to get my point across to coberst.
It shows anti-blowhard bias, and anti-arrogant jerk bias, but neither of those things are necessary requirements of an intellectual.
Thank you Devonin. I'm glad someone understood what I was getting at. Perhaps I need to use more linguistic rhetoric to get my point across to coberst.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;703158 wrote: "People who already agree with you"--it is amazing that you see that most people already think that self-actualizing self-learning is important and that many are already doing this and I am riding through the land thinking that virtually no one agrees with me--or rather no one understands me.
Therein lays the mystery of human nature. I am desperately trying to convince people that it is vitally important that we become more self reliant especially in intellectual matters and you perceive that most are already doing that. How does one account for this mystery.
I have been studying psychology for the last many months because I wish to comprehend why humans do the things we do. I suspect that if I knew that answer I would know the answer to the other.
Coberst, you've missed my point entirely.
I was not implying that people, in general, already believe what you're saying. I was stating that your presentation only reaches people who already agree with you.
I'm hoping my redundancy will get my point across:
You can not reach the masses if you look down on the masses. You must learn to co-exist on the same level. Take Jesus or Gandhi, for example. To get their message across, they become of the people. They did not mock them for their stupidity or lack of knowledge. To get people to hear you, you must do the same.
And, you must learn that when one criticizes an intellectual that doesn't mean one is criticizing intelligence.
I'd be ticked off if someone called me an intellectual. Simply because intellectuals have a reputation for being smug, arrogant a-holes. But I'll always take being called intelligent as a compliment.
So, my point is, if you want to change the people's view of intellectualism, you must first change people's opinion of the intellectual.
**Now please read my statements above carefully. I am not anti-intellectual simply because I have a more humble, down-to-earth approach.**
Therein lays the mystery of human nature. I am desperately trying to convince people that it is vitally important that we become more self reliant especially in intellectual matters and you perceive that most are already doing that. How does one account for this mystery.
I have been studying psychology for the last many months because I wish to comprehend why humans do the things we do. I suspect that if I knew that answer I would know the answer to the other.
Coberst, you've missed my point entirely.
I was not implying that people, in general, already believe what you're saying. I was stating that your presentation only reaches people who already agree with you.
I'm hoping my redundancy will get my point across:
You can not reach the masses if you look down on the masses. You must learn to co-exist on the same level. Take Jesus or Gandhi, for example. To get their message across, they become of the people. They did not mock them for their stupidity or lack of knowledge. To get people to hear you, you must do the same.
And, you must learn that when one criticizes an intellectual that doesn't mean one is criticizing intelligence.
I'd be ticked off if someone called me an intellectual. Simply because intellectuals have a reputation for being smug, arrogant a-holes. But I'll always take being called intelligent as a compliment.
So, my point is, if you want to change the people's view of intellectualism, you must first change people's opinion of the intellectual.
**Now please read my statements above carefully. I am not anti-intellectual simply because I have a more humble, down-to-earth approach.**
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;703550 wrote: Coberst, you've missed my point entirely.
I was not implying that people, in general, already believe what you're saying. I was stating that your presentation only reaches people who already agree with you.
I'm hoping my redundancy will get my point across:
You can not reach the masses if you look down on the masses. You must learn to co-exist on the same level. Take Jesus or Gandhi, for example. To get their message across, they become of the people. They did not mock them for their stupidity or lack of knowledge. To get people to hear you, you must do the same.
And, you must learn that when one criticizes an intellectual that doesn't mean one is criticizing intelligence.
I'd be ticked off if someone called me an intellectual. Simply because intellectuals have a reputation for being smug, arrogant a-holes. But I'll always take being called intelligent as a compliment.
So, my point is, if you want to change the people's view of intellectualism, you must first change people's opinion of the intellectual.
**Now please read my statements above carefully. I am not anti-intellectual simply because I have a more humble, down-to-earth approach.**
I think that anti-intellectualism can be reduced only when more people recognize it in themself and point it out to others. Racism against people of color was not nor cannot be reduced by colored people being better people. When I say to you that your statements are biased against colored people you might be very surprised because you did not think you were biased because you have always been biased and everyone you associate with is probably biased. Such is the characteristic of bias. Such is anti-intellectualism.
I was not implying that people, in general, already believe what you're saying. I was stating that your presentation only reaches people who already agree with you.
I'm hoping my redundancy will get my point across:
You can not reach the masses if you look down on the masses. You must learn to co-exist on the same level. Take Jesus or Gandhi, for example. To get their message across, they become of the people. They did not mock them for their stupidity or lack of knowledge. To get people to hear you, you must do the same.
And, you must learn that when one criticizes an intellectual that doesn't mean one is criticizing intelligence.
I'd be ticked off if someone called me an intellectual. Simply because intellectuals have a reputation for being smug, arrogant a-holes. But I'll always take being called intelligent as a compliment.
So, my point is, if you want to change the people's view of intellectualism, you must first change people's opinion of the intellectual.
**Now please read my statements above carefully. I am not anti-intellectual simply because I have a more humble, down-to-earth approach.**
I think that anti-intellectualism can be reduced only when more people recognize it in themself and point it out to others. Racism against people of color was not nor cannot be reduced by colored people being better people. When I say to you that your statements are biased against colored people you might be very surprised because you did not think you were biased because you have always been biased and everyone you associate with is probably biased. Such is the characteristic of bias. Such is anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug said: "I was stating that your presentation only reaches people who already agree with you."
I disagree. First, not everyone that reads Coberst's posts understand what he is saying, and not everyone that understands what he is saying, agrees with him.
I think it is a fact that even historically, the masses have not engaged in what can be called deep thought. That is certainly true today and I suspect will be true into the future, despite Coberst's wish that in doing so, we can save mankind.
It's also a fact that anyone who speaks, writes or acts other than mirroring the masses, can be subjected to ridicule, and though often admired for their accomplishments and achievements, they are at the same time despised.
I disagree. First, not everyone that reads Coberst's posts understand what he is saying, and not everyone that understands what he is saying, agrees with him.
I think it is a fact that even historically, the masses have not engaged in what can be called deep thought. That is certainly true today and I suspect will be true into the future, despite Coberst's wish that in doing so, we can save mankind.
It's also a fact that anyone who speaks, writes or acts other than mirroring the masses, can be subjected to ridicule, and though often admired for their accomplishments and achievements, they are at the same time despised.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
I'm highly dubious of your basis for making this claim Coberst.
She says "You communicate in a way that makes the commone person think "Ugh, what an arrogant jerk" and yet your stated mission is to reach the common person, therefore, you aren't doing a very good job in accomplishing your mission."
Please explain to me how this is in -any- way shape or form anti-intellectual?
If you want to define "An Intellectual" as "Someone who speaks down to people, as though they are the sole source of information and wisdom in the world" then yes, she is being highly anti-intellectual by describing such behavior as bad.
If however, you define "An Intellectual" as "Someone who is a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect" Then nothing she has said is the slightest bit anti-intellectual.
What I'm seeing here is Coberst saying:
A: Coberst = Intellectual
B: Laneybug = Critical of Coberst
Therefore C: Laneybug = Anti-intellectual
When in fact, you can even accept A and B as true and still reject the conclusion you seem to think follows from those premises.
I can have respect for teaching as a profession and still think a given teacher is horrible. Just because she is being critical of -you- and -your- method of communication in -absolutely no way- implies a similar critical attitude towards -anyone else- let alone "all intellectuals"
She says "You communicate in a way that makes the commone person think "Ugh, what an arrogant jerk" and yet your stated mission is to reach the common person, therefore, you aren't doing a very good job in accomplishing your mission."
Please explain to me how this is in -any- way shape or form anti-intellectual?
If you want to define "An Intellectual" as "Someone who speaks down to people, as though they are the sole source of information and wisdom in the world" then yes, she is being highly anti-intellectual by describing such behavior as bad.
If however, you define "An Intellectual" as "Someone who is a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect" Then nothing she has said is the slightest bit anti-intellectual.
What I'm seeing here is Coberst saying:
A: Coberst = Intellectual
B: Laneybug = Critical of Coberst
Therefore C: Laneybug = Anti-intellectual
When in fact, you can even accept A and B as true and still reject the conclusion you seem to think follows from those premises.
I can have respect for teaching as a profession and still think a given teacher is horrible. Just because she is being critical of -you- and -your- method of communication in -absolutely no way- implies a similar critical attitude towards -anyone else- let alone "all intellectuals"
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon wrote: First, not everyone that reads Coberst's posts understand what he is saying,Her point was "This is due to his poor communication skills"
and not everyone that understands what he is saying, agrees with him.That is an assertion I can happily admit to sharing.
I think it is a fact that even historically, the masses have not engaged in what can be called deep thought.There's no reason to suspect, however, that simply because they don't engage in deep thought, that they are so critical of those who do, that you should term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done. I don't engage in experimental physics either, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-physicist. Coberst is engaging in rampant hasty generalization.
That is certainly true today and I suspect will be true into the future, despite Coberst's wish that in doing so, we can save mankind.Coberst's wish that in doing what? Making -everybody- into a critically analyzing philosopher who wiles away their day in deep thought about the way the universe works? Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers?
This is half the argument -against- Coberst's assertion that "Everyone's an anti-intellectual" These selfsame people you criticize for not engaging in deep thought are only too happy to let someone else do it so they can get on with the job of actually making the world work. Who is going to implement the world-saving measures the philsophers come up with, if philosophers are all we have?
It's also a fact that anyone who speaks, writes or acts other than mirroring the masses, can be subjected to ridicule, and though often admired for their accomplishments and achievements, they are at the same time despised.
If you are intending to reach the masses with your communication, and yet choose to communicate in a way that the masses find distasteful, that is not a failing of the masses. That is a failing of the communicator for being either ignorant of the means by which they should be communicating, or simply too arrogant to "lower" themselves to speak to the masses directly.
If anything, I think a far worse problem than "The masses" being "Anti-intellectual" is the problem of many intellectuals being rabidly "Anti-masses"
and not everyone that understands what he is saying, agrees with him.That is an assertion I can happily admit to sharing.
I think it is a fact that even historically, the masses have not engaged in what can be called deep thought.There's no reason to suspect, however, that simply because they don't engage in deep thought, that they are so critical of those who do, that you should term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done. I don't engage in experimental physics either, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-physicist. Coberst is engaging in rampant hasty generalization.
That is certainly true today and I suspect will be true into the future, despite Coberst's wish that in doing so, we can save mankind.Coberst's wish that in doing what? Making -everybody- into a critically analyzing philosopher who wiles away their day in deep thought about the way the universe works? Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers?
This is half the argument -against- Coberst's assertion that "Everyone's an anti-intellectual" These selfsame people you criticize for not engaging in deep thought are only too happy to let someone else do it so they can get on with the job of actually making the world work. Who is going to implement the world-saving measures the philsophers come up with, if philosophers are all we have?
It's also a fact that anyone who speaks, writes or acts other than mirroring the masses, can be subjected to ridicule, and though often admired for their accomplishments and achievements, they are at the same time despised.
If you are intending to reach the masses with your communication, and yet choose to communicate in a way that the masses find distasteful, that is not a failing of the masses. That is a failing of the communicator for being either ignorant of the means by which they should be communicating, or simply too arrogant to "lower" themselves to speak to the masses directly.
If anything, I think a far worse problem than "The masses" being "Anti-intellectual" is the problem of many intellectuals being rabidly "Anti-masses"
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;703578 wrote: I think that anti-intellectualism can be reduced only when more people recognize it in themself and point it out to others. Racism against people of color was not nor cannot be reduced by colored people being better people. When I say to you that your statements are biased against colored people you might be very surprised because you did not think you were biased because you have always been biased and everyone you associate with is probably biased. Such is the characteristic of bias. Such is anti-intellectualism.
Have you, then, recognized anti-intellectualism in yourself?
As I've said before, I'm not anti-intelligence, but I am anti-intellectual. As I've said before, people labeled as "intellectuals" are some of the most arrogant and self-involved people I have ever met. Biased? Sure. A bias based on experience.
Obviously you are not concerned with changing the image of the intellectual but are only concerned with changing those people who do not claim to be one. A sad state of affairs, really, because your message is squashed by the very image it represents. And that is the problem with intellectualism. I'd much rather sit and talk about the meaning of life with a stupid homeless man than talk with a stuffy intellectual who verbally regurgitates whatever he's read in one of his leather bound textbooks.
By the way, Coberst. African-Americans are no longer called "colored people." We are all colored. We all have pigmentation in our skin. If we didn't, we'd all be albino, which is the absence of pigmentation, of color. So, just calling African-Americans "colored people" is actually very inaccurate. How's that for a little intellectualism for ya?
Have you, then, recognized anti-intellectualism in yourself?
As I've said before, I'm not anti-intelligence, but I am anti-intellectual. As I've said before, people labeled as "intellectuals" are some of the most arrogant and self-involved people I have ever met. Biased? Sure. A bias based on experience.
Obviously you are not concerned with changing the image of the intellectual but are only concerned with changing those people who do not claim to be one. A sad state of affairs, really, because your message is squashed by the very image it represents. And that is the problem with intellectualism. I'd much rather sit and talk about the meaning of life with a stupid homeless man than talk with a stuffy intellectual who verbally regurgitates whatever he's read in one of his leather bound textbooks.
By the way, Coberst. African-Americans are no longer called "colored people." We are all colored. We all have pigmentation in our skin. If we didn't, we'd all be albino, which is the absence of pigmentation, of color. So, just calling African-Americans "colored people" is actually very inaccurate. How's that for a little intellectualism for ya?
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Devonin;703598 wrote: Her point was "This is due to his poor communication skills"
That is an assertion I can happily admit to sharing.
And I as well
There's no reason to suspect, however, that simply because they don't engage in deep thought, that they are so critical of those who do, that you should term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done. I don't engage in experimental physics either, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-physicist. Coberst is engaging in rampant hasty generalization.
I did not term them anti-intellectual
Coberst's wish that in doing what? Making -everybody- into a critically analyzing philosopher who wiles away their day in deep thought about the way the universe works? Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers?
Are you saying that intellectuals have made no contribution to the world? A Google search would prove you wrong.
This is half the argument -against- Coberst's assertion that "Everyone's an anti-intellectual" These selfsame people you criticize for not engaging in deep thought are only too happy to let someone else do it so they can get on with the job of actually making the world work. Who is going to implement the world-saving measures the philsophers come up with, if philosophers are all we have?
Intellectuals need not be Philosophers.
If you are intending to reach the masses with your communication, and yet choose to communicate in a way that the masses find distasteful, that is not a failing of the masses. That is a failing of the communicator for being either ignorant of the means by which they should be communicating, or simply too arrogant to "lower" themselves to speak to the masses directly.
Unfortunately, intellectuals write and speak as they think, and lack the capacity to speak in layman's terms. It's not deliberate on their part.
If anything, I think a far worse problem than "The masses" being "Anti-intellectual" is the problem of many intellectuals being rabidly "Anti-masses"
You have got a point there.
That is an assertion I can happily admit to sharing.
And I as well
There's no reason to suspect, however, that simply because they don't engage in deep thought, that they are so critical of those who do, that you should term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done. I don't engage in experimental physics either, that doesn't mean I'm an anti-physicist. Coberst is engaging in rampant hasty generalization.
I did not term them anti-intellectual
Coberst's wish that in doing what? Making -everybody- into a critically analyzing philosopher who wiles away their day in deep thought about the way the universe works? Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers?
Are you saying that intellectuals have made no contribution to the world? A Google search would prove you wrong.
This is half the argument -against- Coberst's assertion that "Everyone's an anti-intellectual" These selfsame people you criticize for not engaging in deep thought are only too happy to let someone else do it so they can get on with the job of actually making the world work. Who is going to implement the world-saving measures the philsophers come up with, if philosophers are all we have?
Intellectuals need not be Philosophers.
If you are intending to reach the masses with your communication, and yet choose to communicate in a way that the masses find distasteful, that is not a failing of the masses. That is a failing of the communicator for being either ignorant of the means by which they should be communicating, or simply too arrogant to "lower" themselves to speak to the masses directly.
Unfortunately, intellectuals write and speak as they think, and lack the capacity to speak in layman's terms. It's not deliberate on their part.
If anything, I think a far worse problem than "The masses" being "Anti-intellectual" is the problem of many intellectuals being rabidly "Anti-masses"
You have got a point there.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Honestly Lon, I think many intellectuals can present themselves in layman's terms. That, in my opinion, is part of intelligence. Knowing how to adapt in any given situation and being able to communicate (barring language/dialect differences) with pretty much anyone. I have found that intellectuals simply don't want to do so because doing so would take away their public status of intellectual and therefore lower them to the standards of everyone else. One thing that most intellectuals do not want. It's a vicious cycle.
As adults we have learned to speak, write, and think like adults (hopefully!) Yet, it is essential to understand how to communicate with a young child so that concepts and ideas can be passed to them. We certainly wouldn't wait until the child was an adult in order to teach them the necessary life skills they would need. That would be the definition of a bad parent.
Same with intellectuals. If one knows how to expend the energy required to think and speak like an intellectual, then one can certainly expend the energy required to learn to communicate efficiently with the masses.
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
As adults we have learned to speak, write, and think like adults (hopefully!) Yet, it is essential to understand how to communicate with a young child so that concepts and ideas can be passed to them. We certainly wouldn't wait until the child was an adult in order to teach them the necessary life skills they would need. That would be the definition of a bad parent.
Same with intellectuals. If one knows how to expend the energy required to think and speak like an intellectual, then one can certainly expend the energy required to learn to communicate efficiently with the masses.
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
As an aside, Lon, if you use quote tags around everything you quote, and then put your comments in plaintext outside the quote brackets, you make it much easier for people to reply to you, as opposed to the copty/pasting I have to do now.
Lon wrote: I did not term them anti-intellectualNope, you didn't, that's why I was very careful to state in the very sentence you responded to: "term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done."
Are you saying that intellectuals have made no contribution to the world? A Google search would prove you wrong.Um...no, I'm not saying that. Please show me where I said that. What I said was: "Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers? "
Philosophers and intellectuals can and have made many contributions to the world. Clothing and feeding themselves and carrying out all the other menial tasks that are required to keep the world working have historically not been among them.
Intellectuals need not be Philosophers.I fail to see how you can be an intellectual: "Someone who is a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect" And not be a philosopher: "Lover of knowledge" I use the term philosopher in the context of its actual defintion, not the popular image.
Unfortunately, intellectuals write and speak as they think, and lack the capacity to speak in layman's terms. It's not deliberate on their part.I consider myself to be an intellectual given the definition I described above in this post. I'm also perfectly capable of dealing with anybody at any level that I myself can function at. This means when I'm talking about a subject with somebody who is less well-versed in it than I am, I can speak in comparatively "laymen's" terms, and at the same time, when speaking on a subject with somebody who is much more well-versed in it than I am, I often need to ask to be spoken with in comparatively "laymen's" terms as well.
The term "layman" traces back to religion, where the laity were the people who were not trained members of the formal clergy. Nowhere in that term is the idea that these people are stupid, or ignorant, or uneducated. Just that they are not well-versed in that particular area of discussion.
You would need to speak in laymen's terms to Stephen Hawking if you were discussing the cricket world cup.
Someone who is "So intellectual" that they are actually -unable- to speak in other terms is someone who has had a severe lack in a very important aspect of their education.
"Laymen's terms" are the terms you use to -educate- Any time anyone has ever started receiving an education in anything, they have been spoken to in laymen's terms.
The claim that "intellectuals are incapable of speaking in laymen's terms" is frankly, ridiculous.
Lon wrote: I did not term them anti-intellectualNope, you didn't, that's why I was very careful to state in the very sentence you responded to: "term them "anti-intellectual" as Coberst has done."
Are you saying that intellectuals have made no contribution to the world? A Google search would prove you wrong.Um...no, I'm not saying that. Please show me where I said that. What I said was: "Who is going to feed, clothe, build and maintain shelter for this wonderful world of philosophers? "
Philosophers and intellectuals can and have made many contributions to the world. Clothing and feeding themselves and carrying out all the other menial tasks that are required to keep the world working have historically not been among them.
Intellectuals need not be Philosophers.I fail to see how you can be an intellectual: "Someone who is a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect" And not be a philosopher: "Lover of knowledge" I use the term philosopher in the context of its actual defintion, not the popular image.
Unfortunately, intellectuals write and speak as they think, and lack the capacity to speak in layman's terms. It's not deliberate on their part.I consider myself to be an intellectual given the definition I described above in this post. I'm also perfectly capable of dealing with anybody at any level that I myself can function at. This means when I'm talking about a subject with somebody who is less well-versed in it than I am, I can speak in comparatively "laymen's" terms, and at the same time, when speaking on a subject with somebody who is much more well-versed in it than I am, I often need to ask to be spoken with in comparatively "laymen's" terms as well.
The term "layman" traces back to religion, where the laity were the people who were not trained members of the formal clergy. Nowhere in that term is the idea that these people are stupid, or ignorant, or uneducated. Just that they are not well-versed in that particular area of discussion.
You would need to speak in laymen's terms to Stephen Hawking if you were discussing the cricket world cup.
Someone who is "So intellectual" that they are actually -unable- to speak in other terms is someone who has had a severe lack in a very important aspect of their education.
"Laymen's terms" are the terms you use to -educate- Any time anyone has ever started receiving an education in anything, they have been spoken to in laymen's terms.
The claim that "intellectuals are incapable of speaking in laymen's terms" is frankly, ridiculous.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
The implication of Laneybug's post, I suspect is a seperation "above" rather than a seperation "sideways"
There is a marked difference between "I am not the same as you" and "I am not the same as you, I'm better"
There is a marked difference between "I am not the same as you" and "I am not the same as you, I'm better"
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;703601 wrote: Have you, then, recognized anti-intellectualism in yourself?
As I've said before, I'm not anti-intelligence, but I am anti-intellectual. As I've said before, people labeled as "intellectuals" are some of the most arrogant and self-involved people I have ever met. Biased? Sure. A bias based on experience.
Obviously you are not concerned with changing the image of the intellectual but are only concerned with changing those people who do not claim to be one. A sad state of affairs, really, because your message is squashed by the very image it represents. And that is the problem with intellectualism. I'd much rather sit and talk about the meaning of life with a stupid homeless man than talk with a stuffy intellectual who verbally regurgitates whatever he's read in one of his leather bound textbooks.
By the way, Coberst. African-Americans are no longer called "colored people." We are all colored. We all have pigmentation in our skin. If we didn't, we'd all be albino, which is the absence of pigmentation, of color. So, just calling African-Americans "colored people" is actually very inaccurate. How's that for a little intellectualism for ya?
The standard technique in racial bias is to blame the colored person. The standard technique in anti-intellectual bias is to blame the intellectual.
As I've said before, I'm not anti-intelligence, but I am anti-intellectual. As I've said before, people labeled as "intellectuals" are some of the most arrogant and self-involved people I have ever met. Biased? Sure. A bias based on experience.
Obviously you are not concerned with changing the image of the intellectual but are only concerned with changing those people who do not claim to be one. A sad state of affairs, really, because your message is squashed by the very image it represents. And that is the problem with intellectualism. I'd much rather sit and talk about the meaning of life with a stupid homeless man than talk with a stuffy intellectual who verbally regurgitates whatever he's read in one of his leather bound textbooks.
By the way, Coberst. African-Americans are no longer called "colored people." We are all colored. We all have pigmentation in our skin. If we didn't, we'd all be albino, which is the absence of pigmentation, of color. So, just calling African-Americans "colored people" is actually very inaccurate. How's that for a little intellectualism for ya?
The standard technique in racial bias is to blame the colored person. The standard technique in anti-intellectual bias is to blame the intellectual.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;703752 wrote: The standard technique in racial bias is to blame the colored person. The standard technique in anti-intellectual bias is to blame the intellectual.
The standard technique in poor debate is refusing to answer the question put to you.
The standard technique in poor debate is refusing to answer the question put to you.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon;703665 wrote:
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
Society will always have "subgroups" and I find nothing wrong with that. Simply because a person can fit into a subgroup, or even many subgroups, does not mean they are intentionally and purposefully alienating themselves from society by saying "I am different and I am better."
As Devonin said, it's one thing for a group or an individual to say "I'm different." It's another thing to say "I am better." Difference does not necessarily denote superiority. It seems to me that many so-called intellectuals would like to be considered superior, not simply different.
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
Society will always have "subgroups" and I find nothing wrong with that. Simply because a person can fit into a subgroup, or even many subgroups, does not mean they are intentionally and purposefully alienating themselves from society by saying "I am different and I am better."
As Devonin said, it's one thing for a group or an individual to say "I'm different." It's another thing to say "I am better." Difference does not necessarily denote superiority. It seems to me that many so-called intellectuals would like to be considered superior, not simply different.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;703752 wrote: The standard technique in racial bias is to blame the colored person. The standard technique in anti-intellectual bias is to blame the intellectual.
You are showing your true colors, coberst, and your redundancy is boring. You're acting like a dog that can't get a particular scent out of it's nose so it keeps going over and over the same ground.
Why don't you try responding to some of my arguments? It is really much too easy and convenient to simply label me as an anti-intellectual and think your point has been made by doing so. Take some initiative. Stretch those mental muscles and engage me.
Name calling is simply child's play and has no basis in any intellectual conversation. Now, if you want a discussion about intellectualism, go over some of my posts and begin to respond in a manner that suggests you are an intellectual.
You are showing your true colors, coberst, and your redundancy is boring. You're acting like a dog that can't get a particular scent out of it's nose so it keeps going over and over the same ground.
Why don't you try responding to some of my arguments? It is really much too easy and convenient to simply label me as an anti-intellectual and think your point has been made by doing so. Take some initiative. Stretch those mental muscles and engage me.
Name calling is simply child's play and has no basis in any intellectual conversation. Now, if you want a discussion about intellectualism, go over some of my posts and begin to respond in a manner that suggests you are an intellectual.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Laneybug----------Do you actually know any bona fide intellectuals or have you read any of their works? Their are very few in this world that are considered bona fide intellectuals. There are some that refer to certain people as being an intellectual an that does not make it true. For example: Noam Chomsky is recognized internationally as a bona fide intellectual. Karl Marx was considered a bona fide intellectual.
BTW---In one of your prior posts you quoted me with a post that was attributable to you, not me.
BTW---In one of your prior posts you quoted me with a post that was attributable to you, not me.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Well apparantly Coberst considers himself a bona fide intellectual, since he has equated issues with himself to be issues with intellectuals.
Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
I'm quite curious.
Edit: And as for the "You quoted me saying something that you actually said" some examination of the post shows this:
Lon wrote:
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses,
but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc.
In fact, the reason this problem came up was that in your own post she was quoting, you left off a [ quote] tag that needed to be there. The exact error you told her was her attributing her own words to you is recreated by simply hitting the "quote" button on your post. Read her post this way:
Laneybug wrote:
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
[quote=Lon]It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
Society will always have "subgroups" and I find nothing wrong with that. Simply because a person can fit into a subgroup, or even many subgroups, does not mean they are intentionally and purposefully alienating themselves from society by saying "I am different and I am better."
As Devonin said, it's one thing for a group or an individual to say "I'm different." It's another thing to say "I am better." Difference does not necessarily denote superiority. It seems to me that many so-called intellectuals would like to be considered superior, not simply different.
Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
I'm quite curious.
Edit: And as for the "You quoted me saying something that you actually said" some examination of the post shows this:
Lon wrote:
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses,
but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc.
In fact, the reason this problem came up was that in your own post she was quoting, you left off a [ quote] tag that needed to be there. The exact error you told her was her attributing her own words to you is recreated by simply hitting the "quote" button on your post. Read her post this way:
Laneybug wrote:
As a side note: Has anyone besides myself noticed that a vast majority of intellectuals actually like separating themselves from the "common" masses?
[quote=Lon]It's not just some intellectuals that like separating themselves from masses, but a host of others as well. Athletes, actors, artists, skinheads, goths etc. etc.
Society will always have "subgroups" and I find nothing wrong with that. Simply because a person can fit into a subgroup, or even many subgroups, does not mean they are intentionally and purposefully alienating themselves from society by saying "I am different and I am better."
As Devonin said, it's one thing for a group or an individual to say "I'm different." It's another thing to say "I am better." Difference does not necessarily denote superiority. It seems to me that many so-called intellectuals would like to be considered superior, not simply different.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
I think you are making too many assumptions (ass-u-me---makes an ass out of u and me). I do not recall equating Coberst to being an intellectual, in fact, quite the contrary. Intelligent and well read I believe I said, but not an intellectual. Also, I think you are assuming that Coberst thinks of himself as an intellectual. I suspect he would like to be and is in fact "Self Actualizing".
I think you are making too many assumptions (ass-u-me---makes an ass out of u and me). I do not recall equating Coberst to being an intellectual, in fact, quite the contrary. Intelligent and well read I believe I said, but not an intellectual. Also, I think you are assuming that Coberst thinks of himself as an intellectual. I suspect he would like to be and is in fact "Self Actualizing".
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon;704289 wrote: Laneybug----------Do you actually know any bona fide intellectuals or have you read any of their works? Their are very few in this world that are considered bona fide intellectuals. There are some that refer to certain people as being an intellectual an that does not make it true. For example: Noam Chomsky is recognized internationally as a bona fide intellectual. Karl Marx was considered a bona fide intellectual.
Yes, I have read some bona fide intellectuals work. Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx included. But my understanding of this debate is not about "bona fide intellectuals" but about people who consider themselves intellectuals whether they truly are or not.
BTW---In one of your prior posts you quoted me with a post that was attributable to you, not me.
Yeah, I noticed that. I screwed up the "quote" brackets. The post, which is yours, that I was responding to is below my little mess up.
I just edited the aforementioned post. Thanks for pointing it out!
Yes, I have read some bona fide intellectuals work. Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx included. But my understanding of this debate is not about "bona fide intellectuals" but about people who consider themselves intellectuals whether they truly are or not.
BTW---In one of your prior posts you quoted me with a post that was attributable to you, not me.
Yeah, I noticed that. I screwed up the "quote" brackets. The post, which is yours, that I was responding to is below my little mess up.
I just edited the aforementioned post. Thanks for pointing it out!
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon;704352 wrote: Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
I don't think he is. Perhaps it's the attitude of superiority that bothers me in general.
Also, I think you are assuming that Coberst thinks of himself as an intellectual. I suspect he would like to be and is in fact "Self Actualizing".
Assuming? Yes. Not all assumptions make "an ass out of u and me," though. Some are founded in truly valid preconceptions. My preconception is that Coberst tends to talk down to the very people that he is of. Is he articulate and fairly intelligent? Certainly. But, in my opinion, those two qualities are practically negated if one does not present them in a format that is conducive to the very thing he wants..... furthering everyone's intelligence and level of self-actualization. If that is not what he wants and he simply enjoys putting his mental prowess on display, well, then this whole conversation is pretty much null.
Sometimes, the very pursuit of so-called intellectualism can inhibit learning if it is sought after for the wrong reasons. And, as far as I know, self-actualization has little do with pretension.
I don't think he is. Perhaps it's the attitude of superiority that bothers me in general.
Also, I think you are assuming that Coberst thinks of himself as an intellectual. I suspect he would like to be and is in fact "Self Actualizing".
Assuming? Yes. Not all assumptions make "an ass out of u and me," though. Some are founded in truly valid preconceptions. My preconception is that Coberst tends to talk down to the very people that he is of. Is he articulate and fairly intelligent? Certainly. But, in my opinion, those two qualities are practically negated if one does not present them in a format that is conducive to the very thing he wants..... furthering everyone's intelligence and level of self-actualization. If that is not what he wants and he simply enjoys putting his mental prowess on display, well, then this whole conversation is pretty much null.
Sometimes, the very pursuit of so-called intellectualism can inhibit learning if it is sought after for the wrong reasons. And, as far as I know, self-actualization has little do with pretension.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
My final say on this matter----I can't speak for Coberst and if it sounds like I have jumped to his defense, it's probably because we are of the same age (73) and feeling very good about being on this side of the grass and able to give pre-dementia thinking a whirl. Laneybug, you list your age as 22 in your profile, my compliments to you for engaging in a discussion above and beyond the mundane as so many of your peer group on this Forum are won't to do.
And D--------I have enjoyed your posts as well.
And D--------I have enjoyed your posts as well.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon;704366 wrote: Laneybug, you list your age as 22 in your profile, my compliments to you for engaging in a discussion above and beyond the mundane as so many of your peer group on this Forum are won't to do.
Thank you, Lon. Although, I've never seen youth as an excuse for stupidity. Inexperience, maybe. But not stupidity. And isn't age simply a number of how many years spent in this current vessel? Another topic altogether!
Thank you, Lon. Although, I've never seen youth as an excuse for stupidity. Inexperience, maybe. But not stupidity. And isn't age simply a number of how many years spent in this current vessel? Another topic altogether!
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
I think you are making too many assumptions (ass-u-me---makes an ass out of u and me). I do not recall equating Coberst to being an intellectual
Lon, you really need to start being able to take a general statement and not assume it was being attributed to you. If I was going to say -you- describe him as an intellectual, I would say so directly, likely quoting where you said so.
I very clearly and blatantly said, and I quote: "Well apparantly Coberst considers himself a bona fide intellectual, since he has equated issues with himself to be issues with intellectuals."
Please show me where I said you equated Coberst with being an intellectual?
I was curious, since you did leap to his defense, whether between you and Coberst you could equate your statement that very few people are intellectuals (such as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx) with his statement that he is among this select group.
What is it with this forum and dodging actually answering a question by appealing to a technicality?
Lon, you really need to start being able to take a general statement and not assume it was being attributed to you. If I was going to say -you- describe him as an intellectual, I would say so directly, likely quoting where you said so.
I very clearly and blatantly said, and I quote: "Well apparantly Coberst considers himself a bona fide intellectual, since he has equated issues with himself to be issues with intellectuals."
Please show me where I said you equated Coberst with being an intellectual?
I was curious, since you did leap to his defense, whether between you and Coberst you could equate your statement that very few people are intellectuals (such as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx) with his statement that he is among this select group.
What is it with this forum and dodging actually answering a question by appealing to a technicality?
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
You Otta Be an Intellectual!
If one half of one percent of the population acquires the hobby that I call the ‘intellectual life’ such a group could be the foundation for a new “Age of Enlightenment.
The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century. “The men [in the 18th century the enlightened were still only half enlightened] of the Enlightenment united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom, above all, freedom in its many forms—freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one’s talents, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom, in a word, of moral man to make his own way in the world.
It appears to me that following the completion of our schooling the normal inclination is to pack up our yearbook and our intellect into a large trunk and store it in the attic. Occasionally one might go up to the attic and reminisce about the old days.
What I propose is that following the end of our school days we begin a gradual process of self-actualizing self-learning.
This period of our life is generally filled with our duties to family and career so that not a great deal of time is available for extraneous matters. However, time is always available for important things and the important thing is to ‘keep curiosity alive’.
I suspect that if one does not engage in non job related intellectual efforts for the twenty years between the end of schooling and mid-life that the curiosity with which we started life will have dried up and blown away.
What are non job related intellectual activities? Such activities are what I consider to be intellectualism. Intellectualism is active engagement with ‘disinterested knowledge’.
There is in industry the concept of ‘applied research’, which is research looking for a good way to build a new mouse trap; there is also a concept called ‘pure research’, which is a search for truth that may or may not lead to an enhancement of the ‘bottom line’.
Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.
The goal of intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."
If one half of one percent of the population acquires the hobby that I call the ‘intellectual life’ such a group could be the foundation for a new “Age of Enlightenment.
The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century. “The men [in the 18th century the enlightened were still only half enlightened] of the Enlightenment united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom, above all, freedom in its many forms—freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one’s talents, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom, in a word, of moral man to make his own way in the world.
It appears to me that following the completion of our schooling the normal inclination is to pack up our yearbook and our intellect into a large trunk and store it in the attic. Occasionally one might go up to the attic and reminisce about the old days.
What I propose is that following the end of our school days we begin a gradual process of self-actualizing self-learning.
This period of our life is generally filled with our duties to family and career so that not a great deal of time is available for extraneous matters. However, time is always available for important things and the important thing is to ‘keep curiosity alive’.
I suspect that if one does not engage in non job related intellectual efforts for the twenty years between the end of schooling and mid-life that the curiosity with which we started life will have dried up and blown away.
What are non job related intellectual activities? Such activities are what I consider to be intellectualism. Intellectualism is active engagement with ‘disinterested knowledge’.
There is in industry the concept of ‘applied research’, which is research looking for a good way to build a new mouse trap; there is also a concept called ‘pure research’, which is a search for truth that may or may not lead to an enhancement of the ‘bottom line’.
Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.
The goal of intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Why do you assume that people, in general, are not self-actualizing? Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. Do you personally know the 6 1/2 billion members of our planet to make that call? If not, than it is not your call to make and your self-actualization certainly does not give you permission to judge your fellow man.
I agree with you. Continued learning is a good thing. But it is your sweeping generalizations that are most appalling.
"True nobility is not being superior to one's fellow man. True nobility is being superior to one's former self."
I agree with you. Continued learning is a good thing. But it is your sweeping generalizations that are most appalling.
"True nobility is not being superior to one's fellow man. True nobility is being superior to one's former self."
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;704641 wrote: Why do you assume that people, in general, are not self-actualizing? Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. Do you personally know the 6 1/2 billion members of our planet to make that call? If not, than it is not your call to make and your self-actualization certainly does not give you permission to judge your fellow man.
I agree with you. Continued learning is a good thing. But it is your sweeping generalizations that are most appalling.
"True nobility is not being superior to one's fellow man. True nobility is being superior to one's former self."
To learn is to generalize.
I agree with you. Continued learning is a good thing. But it is your sweeping generalizations that are most appalling.
"True nobility is not being superior to one's fellow man. True nobility is being superior to one's former self."
To learn is to generalize.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;704678 wrote: To learn is to generalize.
All generalizations are false.
Let me put it a non-ironic way: To generalise is to learn -poorly- How can you call yourself a highly critical thinker if you are apparantly willing to content yourself with generalities that you haven't proven properly?
Most every post you make is -full- of generalisations, straw men, and tacit assumptions with absolutely no proof to back them up. This does not make you an intellectual. At best this makes you someone who thinks they are an intellectual because they can quote intellectuals and use intellectual language.
Persuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge (which you seem to claim is the hallmark of the intellectual) leaves no room at all for generalising. If you want to claim to be interested in knowledge for its own sake, then in every field of endeavour, you need to strive for as precise and specific an understanding as you can manage.
To do anything less is to show that field no respect as a valid subject for intellectual discourse.
Put yet another way: To an intellectual, close enough is never good enough.
All generalizations are false.
Let me put it a non-ironic way: To generalise is to learn -poorly- How can you call yourself a highly critical thinker if you are apparantly willing to content yourself with generalities that you haven't proven properly?
Most every post you make is -full- of generalisations, straw men, and tacit assumptions with absolutely no proof to back them up. This does not make you an intellectual. At best this makes you someone who thinks they are an intellectual because they can quote intellectuals and use intellectual language.
Persuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge (which you seem to claim is the hallmark of the intellectual) leaves no room at all for generalising. If you want to claim to be interested in knowledge for its own sake, then in every field of endeavour, you need to strive for as precise and specific an understanding as you can manage.
To do anything less is to show that field no respect as a valid subject for intellectual discourse.
Put yet another way: To an intellectual, close enough is never good enough.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Devonin;704373 wrote: Lon, you really need to start being able to take a general statement and not assume it was being attributed to you. If I was going to say -you- describe him as an intellectual, I would say so directly, likely quoting where you said so.
I very clearly and blatantly said, and I quote: "Well apparantly Coberst considers himself a bona fide intellectual, since he has equated issues with himself to be issues with intellectuals."
Please show me where I said you equated Coberst with being an intellectual?
I was curious, since you did leap to his defense, whether between you and Coberst you could equate your statement that very few people are intellectuals (such as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx) with his statement that he is among this select group.
What is it with this forum and dodging actually answering a question by appealing to a technicality?
Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
I very clearly and blatantly said, and I quote: "Well apparantly Coberst considers himself a bona fide intellectual, since he has equated issues with himself to be issues with intellectuals."
Please show me where I said you equated Coberst with being an intellectual?
I was curious, since you did leap to his defense, whether between you and Coberst you could equate your statement that very few people are intellectuals (such as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx) with his statement that he is among this select group.
What is it with this forum and dodging actually answering a question by appealing to a technicality?
Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
coberst;704678 wrote: To learn is to generalize.
How so?
I completely disagree with your statement, but I'm interested in knowing why you equate learning with generalization. What brought you to that conclusion?
How so?
I completely disagree with your statement, but I'm interested in knowing why you equate learning with generalization. What brought you to that conclusion?
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
Lon wrote: Perhaps between the two of you, you could come up with a list of reasons for me, why Coberst is in the same league as Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx?
Um...was this you directing my earlier statement at Laney and Myself? Or were you posting that to somehow prove where I said -you- thought Coberst was an intellectual?
If the former: I suspect Laney and I know myself do not consider Coberst to be in the same league as Chomsky and Marx, so I have no intention of coming up with a list to support that because I don't believe it.
If the latter: He says he's an intellectual, you say people like Marx and Chomsky are a very small select group that you call intellectuals.
My use of that challenge to the two of you was done so because he is the one who feels he is an intellectual, you feel intellectuals are a select group, and you jump to his defense at every chance, so I figured by including you in the challenge, I might actually get a response, since Coberst seems to enjoy demonstrating his ostrich impression by never actually replying to my questions or issues.
Um...was this you directing my earlier statement at Laney and Myself? Or were you posting that to somehow prove where I said -you- thought Coberst was an intellectual?
If the former: I suspect Laney and I know myself do not consider Coberst to be in the same league as Chomsky and Marx, so I have no intention of coming up with a list to support that because I don't believe it.
If the latter: He says he's an intellectual, you say people like Marx and Chomsky are a very small select group that you call intellectuals.
My use of that challenge to the two of you was done so because he is the one who feels he is an intellectual, you feel intellectuals are a select group, and you jump to his defense at every chance, so I figured by including you in the challenge, I might actually get a response, since Coberst seems to enjoy demonstrating his ostrich impression by never actually replying to my questions or issues.
Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning
laneybug;704805 wrote: How so?
I completely disagree with your statement, but I'm interested in knowing why you equate learning with generalization. What brought you to that conclusion?
Inductive reasoning is our means for learning. This wiki site will give you some understanding of inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
I completely disagree with your statement, but I'm interested in knowing why you equate learning with generalization. What brought you to that conclusion?
Inductive reasoning is our means for learning. This wiki site will give you some understanding of inductive reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning