Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

QFT


Coberst, you also seem to forget that this forum is PRIMARILY for the playing of and discussion of an online flash game based upon DanceDanceRevolution, whose playerbase is on average between the age of 13-18.

That there was a Critical Thinking forum at all was surprising to me when I signed up, and while we do have several posters who've recieved some formal training in the field (Myself, Kilroy_X, Chrissi etc) the vast majority of the userbase has not.

As such, you need to pay a little more attention to the audience of your posts. When you have the -identical- post on a very formal and intellectualized philosophical debate forum, and a forum about a game where you press arrow keys in time to the music, I think it is safe to say that you either aren't capable or aren't inclined to actually adjust the content of your topics to match the setting in which you propose them.

Burying an easy and simple point under a mound of useless verbiage neither strengthens your argument or makes you look intelligent, unless you equate looking pompous and self-absorbed with looking intelligent.

Respond to people's questions in a direct way that actually suggests you are both reading -and- comprehending what they say, instead of simply posting more logorrhea.

Take part in some threads that weren't started by you, instead of acting like you simply don't care about what anyone says who isn't named Coberst or talking to Coberst.

You've posted nowhere but CT, You've played no games of FFR, You've added no information to your profile. In other words, you are using this site for -nothing- except making your own threads, bumping your own threads, and responding to yourself.

As long as that continues to be your only purpose here, I'd continue to expect a chilly reception. We have a community here, one with a great sense of itself. You're standing on a hill, bellowing down into the town such that even when we can here you, nothing you say is so fascinating that we want to go up your hill to your little ivory tower to let you keep talking at us.

Yeah, no offense but I really don't understand more than half of what you say or really wish to even contribute anything to your threads. Of course, it's not because I'm "stupid" or "retarded", but because I haven't actually studied or learned enough to comprehend certain things. Even if my thoughts are sometimes complicated, I feel as though the diction and communication I use is suited for the audience here (except when people claim that I build "blocks of text" or the "Second Great Wall of China"

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

My point is: That is -all- he does. That is not all I do. I target certain things squarely at Kilroy and other trained philosophers, and some things I don't.

[Engler]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

That is not to say, however, that gamers can't be intelligent <_<.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Yeah, no offense but I really don't understand more than half of what you say or really wish to even contribute anything to your threads. Of course, it's not because I'm "stupid" or "retarded", but because I haven't actually studied or learned enough to comprehend certain things.

Further: There is a huge difference between "I don't understand what you're saying, because you're referencing concepts I just haven't happened to have studied" and "I don't understand what you're saying because even though I'm familiar with the subject, you write in such a vague way that I actually just can't unpack the meaning of your words"

[infinity.]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

It's not really that vague.
He just has an exceptional vocabulary.
Which is what you are obviously lacking.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I think that a claim like that could use some supporting. Can you please demonstrate where my vocabulary is lacking? For that matter, none of the words he uses are even especially impressive, certainly not the hallmarks of "an exceptional vocabulary" he just overuses everything, and adds words that are completely unnecessary to communicate the ideas he seems to want to communicate.

Communication is, tautologically enough, for communicating. Precision and clarity are more important than demonstrating that you know a lot of words. I could easily stretch a simple statement into an incredibly verbose paragraph, as I recall we had precisely that assignement in elementary school english. As I also recall, doing so was designed to show you the -importance- of clear, concise communication, rather than encourage people to use a thesaurus like a hammer.

[Engler]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I concur.

[infinity.]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I think that a claim like that could use some supporting. Can you please demonstrate where my vocabulary is lacking? For that matter, none of the words he uses are even especially impressive, certainly not the hallmarks of "an exceptional vocabulary" he just overuses everything, and adds words that are completely unnecessary to communicate the ideas he seems to want to communicate.

Communication is, tautologically enough, for communicating. Precision and clarity are more important than demonstrating that you know a lot of words. I could easily stretch a simple statement into an incredibly verbose paragraph, as I recall we had precisely that assignement in elementary school english. As I also recall, doing so was designed to show you the -importance- of clear, concise communication, rather than encourage people to use a thesaurus like a hammer.

If you were demonstrating your knowledge of words, then i'm not impressed.

Edit - Parenthetical, condescending, pompous, ornate, sociocentric, inhibitions, catalyst, beget, many more. His vocabulary isn't too baffling, but more sophisticated than the average forum-goer.

P.S - Expect to see me in ct frequently.

[somerndmguy]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

So let's instead put it into simpler terms.

You made a statement that devonin did not have a good vocabulary. Support that statement, please.

[infinity.]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

So let's instead put it into simpler terms.

You made a statement that devonin did not have a good vocabulary. Support that statement, please.

I didn't mean to say that.
I'm saying that if he can't decipher what Coberst is talking about, then he should expand his vocabulary, because its quite clear what the topic is.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I'm not saying "I can't understand the words he uses" I'm saying "He is not communicating his ideas nearly as effectively as he could be."

He appears to me to be wordy for the sake of being wordy, as though half the point of his post is to make everyone marvel at his vocabulary and ability to use a thesaurus.

When posting a topic for discussion, "deciphering" is not something people should be having to do. If you communicate yourself well (And people with useful vocabularies have myriad possibilities to pick from when deciding which word is the right word) people should simply be able to read, understand, and comprehend what you are getting at.

Obscurity is the natural enemy of critical thinking.

[Cavernio]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Devonin, you're supporting Cob's OP complaint about anti-intellectualism right now so much it's sad and paradoxical because you're not anti-intellectual.

What I have an issue with in Cob's posts is that they don't connect enough. I don't find them needlessly wordy, nor do I find they use big words just for the sake of it.
It's like he posts the randomness that floats in his head without fully congealing it for himself. I often have ideas/thoughts which I can't communicate very well, and I've been looked at like I was speaking in tongues before. I honestly think that cob just doesn't understand how people don't 'get' what he's saying. He should learn to communicate better. Take a couple of English courses or something...you'll learn to write coherently if you want decent grades.

As to trying to fit your posts to the audience, unless you have reason to believe otherwise, it's best to assume they know very little.

I suppose in a way you might consider me anti-intellectual cob, if you knew how I felt about my Dad. He's very intelligent and a pompous, arrogant prick. He's highly critical of errors that anyone makes, and he always makes comments about it-he doesn't keep them to himself. But it's not that I take him as pompous because he's smart-I take him as pompous because he's not nice. Although in public he won't say outright that people are stupid, he says it under his breath, or with friends/family. He can't listen to the radio without making snide remarks about things. Now that I've grown up and am more knowledgeable than him in a few areas, I actually see that sometimes when he makes remarks like those, I disagree with him.
It's one thing to be intellectual. It's another thing to not value people because they're not as smart as you, (or you don't think they're as smart as you.) Intellectuals often don't listen to people if they have the impression they're stupid, even if they say something that's not stupid. That and they'll assume the 'why' of the other person's opinion without actually asking 'why'.

[Relambrien]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I have to agree with devonin.

I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but I haven't posted in here for some time. I'll get to the main reason for that later, but for now I'll just focus on how coberst fits into it.

While I can understand coberst's posts well enough, their wordiness just leads me to avoid them. I don't want to have to sit through paragraphs of words I have to think to understand, when the -exact same point- could have been made in a much simpler form. The point of vocabulary is to have an arsenal of words to pick from that match your meaning, while remaining easy to understand. As a general rule, using the simplest word (or sentence structure, etc.) that retains your point is the best choice, because it lessens possible confusion.

As an analogy, I'll use web site development. You want the simplest type of code that keeps what you're trying to do. You wouldn't create a JavaScript that checks for resolution, then calls a specific CSS class based on the resolution to center the words on a page; you can just use the <center> tag. The only reason to use a more complex style would be to make something happen that can't be done with a simpler style.

Back to vocabulary, that means you should only use more complex words if simpler words don't convey your meaning to within the specificity you want, provided your goal is to communicate as effectively as possible. I'll use devonin's post as an example:

When posting a topic for discussion, "deciphering" is not something people should be having to do. If you communicate yourself well (And people with useful vocabularies have myriad possibilities to pick from when deciding which word is the right word) people should simply be able to read, understand, and comprehend what you are getting at.

I quoted a random sentence to explain. Using devonin's use of "myriad" as an example, the words "various" and "countless" aren't quite specific enough to work, since "myriad" implies a much greater number than "various" and more diversity than "countless."

At the same time however, he keeps the sentence "When posting a topic for discussion, 'deciphering' is not something people should be having to do." This could be changed to something like "When developing a topic upon which to confer, elucidation is an undesirable action which participants should not be obliged to take part in," but that only says the exact same thing in unnecessarily-complex wording.

In short, if you can get your point across equally well with two words, one more complex than the other, it's best to choose the simpler one for the sake of effective communication.

(Oh, and I said earlier I'd talk about why I haven't been posting. In short, it's because there haven't been any topics I have any experience with or can form an opinion on, since it's mostly been philosophy, and I'm not a particular fan of debating such things)

EDIT: I might as well show what I mean. What I'm going to do now is edit coberst's OP (in a quote) to say the exact same thing as it currently means, but with simpler wording:

Aversion to intellectual discussion discourages learning.

Most (over 90% according to studies) of the meaning we get from communicating comes from non-verbal (i.e. not spoken) things the other person does.

Thus, how do you communicate with a group of people you can't even see, who can be anyone from anywhere in the world? When talking face-to-face, there's so much more you know about the other person than what you know on the Internet.

Do you use language a 12-year old would prefer, or an 18-year old, or a 30-year old? Those who have been educated, those who haven't? How to help the 12-year old understand while not annoying the 18-year old and how to write such that a 30-year old appreciates it, while the 18-year old still understands?

Authors use editors who act as an outside group, who understand what's being written and the target audience.

How do I, who have been studying this for years, know what extra information to add that some need but others may find insulting?

Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) [Editor's note: kept in because it's a definition] is so rampant in the US that almost everyone is strongly biased against intellectualism, but is totally unaware of it. Because of this, they are averse to reading anything that may be considered "intellectual."

People could pay me to teach them how to swing a golf club, but teaching anything intellectual is seen as pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance). [Editor's note: Once again kept in because of definition]

There. See? A heck of a lot easier to understand, same meaning conveyed. There is absolutely -no- legitimate reason to try and make your words more complex if you can get the same point across in simpler terms. The only reason I can see is to convey an "educated, smart" appearance, but nobody likes it when someone acts smart for the sake of acting smart. Being intelligent for a purpose is praiseworthy, yes, but just to create an image of intelligence is just to be self-righteous.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Well, let's go paragraph by paragraph through the OP

First paragraph = thesis statement.

Second paragraph = "Non-verbal cues -> Most communication"

Third paragraph = "Communication is ideally tailored to the recipient & This process is based on utilizing observable criteria & the internet makes it difficult to discern such criteria"

Fourth paragraph = Elaboration of third paragraph

Fifth paragraph = Elaboration on tailoring by special case

Sixth = Elaboration on third paragraph

Seventh = " 'intellectual' forms of communication are largely disliked"

Eighth = Elaboration on seven. "intellectual" remains undefined.

Thus by the eighth paragraph we should be aware the entire post is completely without substance.

Communication is selectively effective, based on stuff. Yeah, great insight there Coberst.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Devonin, you're supporting Cob's OP complaint about anti-intellectualism right now so much it's sad and paradoxical because you're not anti-intellectual.

How on earth am I supporting his complaints about anti-intellectualism. I'm not saying word one that could even be construed that way.

I'm saying "The reason people are bothered by your posts is that you are wordy for no good reason, and that you seem to go out of your way to communicate poorly when every indication shows you should be bright enough to communicate quite clearly and concisely."

I might as well show what I mean. What I'm going to do now is edit coberst's OP (in a quote) to say the exact same thing as it currently means, but with simpler wording

But the problem with re-writing his post in simpler language is that it removes the aspect of his post where he was trying to be a smartass to imply that people here are giving him **** for "being an intellectual" when in fact, we're giving him **** for talking down to people for no good reason.

I'm really amused by his whole "How do I write, when I have 12, 18 and 30 year olds listening to me? It seems no matter what I do, someone will get pissed off" when in fact, the problem with his posts has nothing to do with the age group it appears to be written for.