Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

[Relambrien]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

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 don't think that was really implied, it seemed quite explicit to me. I took the last sentence to mean that. Of course, I could be misunderstanding what you're saying, so please correct me if I am.

Besides, the whole thing was just a demonstration to show that two paragraphs can have identical meanings even if one is much simpler-worded than the other; others have done similar things in this thread. I just decided to go further by doing it to his own post, as opposed to (as an example) Chrissi's "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."

EDIT: As per devonin's first reply in the thread, who's up for a CT Panel?

[coberst]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

The following is a comment one reader made:

I noticed this a lot with my daughter's high schools. She went through 3 ... and in two of them, it was incredibly cool to be stupid. There was a very strong bias against intellectuals. This carried over into our home life where she ridiculed her mother and me for being "smart." (Note: She is now 25 and barely making it on minimum wages).

Her junior year, we transferred her to one of the best schools in the region ... and suddenly it wasn't cool to be stupid anymore. She floundered horribly for 2 years, but never could quite make it work. Unfortunately, stupid had taken root.

The American culture is all about golf, sports, fashion, partying, and being cool and such. Not much room for intellect. Oh well I guess the Indians and Asians can take over from the USA as the center of technological achievement.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

See? Explain to me how in any way shape or form this post is relevant to the turn the discussion has taken?

He's quoting someone else from another forum entirely, to the point where I'm wondering if he actually read any of this before responding, or if it was simply time for some modified blogger software to insert a response he hoped would still be relevant.

[coberst]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Our vocabulary is our intellectual tool-box. The person with the largest vocabulary dies as the winner. Imagine the difference in what is discovered about reality for the individual with microscope, caliper, micrometer, plump-bob, and level in his intellectual tool-box versus he who has only a hammer, pliers, and yard-stick.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Imagine trying to measure the distance from here to twenty miles hence when you refuse to use anything except the microscope because it is the "best" tool.

You use a yard-stick when a yard-stick is called for, and a micrometer when a micrometer is called for.

To do otherwise is the height of folly.

Be careful up there in that ivory tower. I think the thin air is getting to you.

[Chrissi]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I am now convinced that coberst writes these essays while on drugs.

[SnS]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Grandiloquence! :l

[Relambrien]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Grandiloquence! :l

Normally I'd condemn such a response in a CT topic, but I think it fits quite well here. Anyway...

The person with the largest vocabulary dies as the winner.

Flat out wrong. The person with the largest vocabulary most certainly does not necessarily die as the winner. The person who has the best ideas, and implements them the best way possible dies as the winner, for he has made much more of an impact on society and benefited himself much more than someone who has memorized the dictionary.

Imagine the difference in what is discovered about reality for the individual with microscope, caliper, micrometer, plump-bob, and level in his intellectual tool-box versus he who has only a hammer, pliers, and yard-stick.

If a person measures a distance of exactly three yards with a yard stick, there is no difference than if he had measured it with a micrometer. Unnecessarily using the micrometer when the yard stick gives the exact same results is, as devonin put it, "the height of folly."

The American culture is all about golf, sports, fashion, partying, and being cool and such. Not much room for intellect. Oh well I guess the Indians and Asians can take over from the USA as the center of technological achievement.

You misunderstand. Intellectualism when it serves a purpose is very highly regarded, but intellectualism when it serves no purpose, and only exists for the sake of being intellectual, is condemned.

[lightshark]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

If a person measures a distance of exactly three yards with a yard stick, there is no difference than if he had measured it with a micrometer. Unnecessarily using the micrometer when the yard stick gives the exact same results is, as devonin put it, "the height of folly."

True, but this fact applies only to a distance of three yards, as Devonin implied. Anything requiring accuracy above a yardstick's will inherently require the micrometer. Fortunately, communication often does not need to be expressed in anything less than the "three yards," so the use of the micrometer is left to the discretion of the user.

Vocabulary is a tool whose sole purpose is to make thoughts and ideas easier to convey. Nonetheless, with the usage of increasingly precise words comes a certain degree of assertion, which is sometimes raised to the point of coercion. Consequently, vocabulary is too often turned against its purpose and made into a weapon.

It's also important to bear in mind that vocabulary's degree of improvement upon communication is strictly limited to the comprehension of the audience. Overstepping that boundary results in an actual decrease of communicative efficiency...

...unless, of course, you're addressing a room of English scholars or something of the like. : )

Intellectualism when it serves a purpose is very highly regarded, but intellectualism when it serves no purpose, and only exists for the sake of being intellectual, is condemned.

Agreed, and in today's society, intellectualism is sadly becoming a medium for manipulation. Then again, such a statement is difficult (or rather, contradictory) to say, since those with true intelligence (and once more, even that is subjectively defined) should be capable of resisting corruption.

[Relambrien]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

True, but this fact applies only to a distance of three yards, as Devonin implied. Anything requiring accuracy above a yardstick's will inherently require the micrometer. Fortunately, communication often does not need to be expressed in anything less than the "three yards," so the use of the micrometer is left to the discretion of the user.

Yes, that was my point. Except for the last sentence; I believe that in a situation where a yardstick's accuracy will suffice, the micrometer is unnecessary and shouldn't be used.

It's also important to bear in mind that vocabulary's degree of improvement upon communication is strictly limited to the comprehension of the audience. Overstepping that boundary results in an actual decrease of communicative efficiency...

...unless, of course, you're addressing a room of English scholars or something of the like. : )

Most people here agree with that. However, most people here also can comprehend the language in question, so the "decrease of communicative efficiency" is caused by the wordiness and unnecessarily complex structure of coberst's posts, rather than difficulty in understanding the words.

Agreed, and in today's society, intellectualism is sadly becoming a medium for manipulation. Then again, such a statement is difficult (or rather, contradictory) to say, since those with true intelligence (and once more, even that is subjectively defined) should be capable of resisting corruption.

And that's where we see confusion, since, as you say, "intelligence" is subjective, since it covers so many broad categories.

[Cavernio]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Devonin: You haven't said anything, however, you're pissed. You feel like coberts's 'talking down', when on my end, I haven't really seen that. A perfectly reasonable explanation of your reaction could be what Coberst proposed in the OP, and I'd be surprised if coberst hasn't seen that as a possibility/conclusion.
Of course, you've mentioned plenty of good of reasons why you don't like his posts, and there're plenty of other reasons why you'd be pissed. Just saying that he's probably taken your reaction against him as supporting his hypothesis, especially if he's as arrogant as you say he is.

If you actually want to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, you're likely going to not give a **** about what non-intellectuals think of you for doing so. I seriously doubt that the social pressure of conforming to laziness and having fun, seen in some social circles in highschools, carries much weight past those years. Unless there's a witch-hunt or something, I don't feel condemned for wanting to be intellectual.
Furthermore, if you are right, and society does condemn intellectuals for being so without a purpose, condoning or condemning it is as bad/as good as good for any past-time, such as partying or playing video games. There's no reason to scoff someone for what they enjoy simply because it doesn't suit your personal meaning/goals in life. Of course, being intellectual may never be useless, as it can arguably help you in just about any life situation, and so now we can think of it as either intelligence is never condemned, (since apparently people don't condemn it when it's useful) or that people condemn it only when they can't see it's immediate use. The latter's probably the case, and is also unfortunate because you're likely to only realize that being intellectual has the power to be useful across many different areas of your life if you're intellectual in the first place. Of course, there's plenty of smart people who curse intelligence; ignorance is bliss.
I'm done rambling.

[tsugomaru]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Darn, now I actually care about this topic. I'm really itching to say something, but I know it'll be pointless because Coberst doesn't read anything here.

What really angers me the most is the reply that Coberst posted. The world is not ran by "smart" people, although some of it is, it is not completely ran by "smart" people. Knowing a lot of things isn't the only way to be "successful" in life. Are they blinded by their own "intelligence"? They clearly did not know what they did to their daughter when they forcibly moved their daughter from an environment she may have enjoyed for their own selfish gains. Had they actually cared for her, they would have talked to her. She was probably old enough, considering she was in high school, to understand and make her own decisions rather than to be guided like a little four year old.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Devonin: You haven't said anything, however, you're pissed.

I'm not pissed. I take issue with what Coberst does, and what is implied by his behavior. If he'd ever actually tailor a response to the people he's responding to, he could have responded to my issues instead of continuing to demonstrate what I take issue with.

You feel like coberts's 'talking down', when on my end, I haven't really seen that. A perfectly reasonable explanation of your reaction could be what Coberst proposed in the OP, and I'd be surprised if coberst hasn't seen that as a possibility/conclusion.

I don't think he's talking down to us, I think he's showing a complete lack of respect for us. There's a very key difference. I'm also certainly not reacting "Like in his OP" I'm not being an anti-intellectual unless my issues with Coberst stem from his being an intellectual. That is not a claim I'm going to assert at all. I scarcely consider him an intellectual at all, and my issue is with his posting style showing a total disregard for the people and community he is involving himself with.

Of course, you've mentioned plenty of good of reasons why you don't like his posts, and there're plenty of other reasons why you'd be pissed. Just saying that he's probably taken your reaction against him as supporting his hypothesis, especially if he's as arrogant as you say he is.

While I would admit the possibility that he is taking my negative view of his posts as some proof of my anti-intellectualism, I think to make that claim is ridiculous, and I would love to see some evidence that my problems with him stem from a condemnation of intellectualism, since it is in fact exactly the opposite.

If you actually want to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, you're likely going to not give a **** about what non-intellectuals think of you for doing so.

As an intellectual, I care not one whit what anybody thinks about -me- but as an intellectual, I have the utmost respect for what people think of my opinoins and statements. You can tell this because I actually respond to you, instead of posting some general statement to everyone who tries to engage me in a discussion.

I seriously doubt that the social pressure of conforming to laziness and having fun, seen in some social circles in highschools, carries much weight past those years. Unless there's a witch-hunt or something, I don't feel condemned for wanting to be intellectual.

I quite agree, thus we both disagree of Coberst's position that in fact those pressures -do- carry great weight.

Furthermore, if you are right, and society does condemn intellectuals for being so without a purpose, condoning or condemning it is as bad/as good as good for any past-time, such as partying or playing video games.

I don't think society condemns intellectuals...I -disagree- with Coberst.

There's no reason to scoff someone for what they enjoy simply because it doesn't suit your personal meaning/goals in life.

I agree completely. I scoff at nobody because they engage in a persuit that is not to my liking, unless that persuit is intrinsically harmful to the rights of those around me. More to the point: I won't scoff at you for exercising your right to choose the kind of person you are, In fact, I'll defend your right to make that choice quite vehemantly, but if you decide to use that choice to be a jackass I'll scoff at you for being a jackass.

[Cavernio]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Err, I suppose I didn't make it clear that I only meant my first paragraph to be directed at you Devonin. The rest was meant to be me simply rambling about/around points that were raised.

[devonin]

Re: Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

I went back over it a few times thinking to myself "man, the rest of this response seems a little off to me, did I -really- give that impression?" Ah well, no harm, no foul. In general my responses are still valid to the discussion, they just need to be viewed as a little less pointed than they perhaps were.