One of the most aggravating things to me in this world has to be the absolutely rampant anti-intellectualism that dominates so many conversations and debates, and its influence just seems to be expanding. Do you think there will ever actually be a time when this ends? I'd hope so once people become more educated and cultural changes eventually happen, but as of now it honestly infuriates me like few things ever have.
“In 1976, a professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley published an essay outlining the fundamental laws of a force he perceived as humanity’s greatest existential threat: Stupidity.
Stupid people, Carlo M. Cipolla explained, share several identifying traits: they are abundant, they are irrational, and they cause problems for others without apparent benefit to themselves, thereby lowering society’s total well-being. There are no defenses against stupidity, argued the Italian-born professor, who died in 2000. The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren.”
https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity
This is why I am 100% in favor of normalizing regularly having things like computer/internet literacy tests msybe every half decade to ensure you are actually smart enough to use the internet in a responsible manner. Don’t pass? No internet access for you outside of things educational material, cooking recipes, or sending messages to people. No access to your social media or conspiracy theory groups or anything else that’ll harm your brain.
It’ll either encourage people to get better at cheating, give up on using the internet entirely, or they might actually try to learn something and better their lives.
Some will definitely complain that they’re having their rights violated (USA), but if it keeps the Internet safe from stupidity even by a small margin, I’ll gladly take it.
I am so sick of reading proposals like this from probably-white non-US Westerners who have probably never actually had to engage with the idea that racism exists. This might get some fascist groups off the internet, sure, but it would also likely push oppressed minority groups who do not necessarily have access to quality education out. That’s the history of minimum IQ requirements for voting, mind you.
Put this proposal in front of a Proud Boy and they’ll likely be in favor of it, because they believe whites are the only people smart enough to pass it. They’ll stop being in favor once it goes into effect and they’re included along with groups they hate in the “not allowed online” crowd, but the groups they hate, some of whom’s situations may be made direly worse by the lack of unrestricted internet access, will most likely be pushed out too.
Here we have a person who has never considered the important question: Who among us is intelligent enough to decide where the line lies between good enough and not good enough?
When do we consider someone too stupid to use the Internet? Bottom 50%? Bottom 10%? If bottom 10%, what do we do about the people who score exactly with 10.1%? They’re nearly indistinguishable from the bottom 10% in terms of performance, yet they still get to go online?
Who decides which sites and services are ok? The government? The ISP? The site creators? You? What happens when your approved messaging service adds short form videos? Adds group chats?
The ultimate problem: There are no good answers to any of these questions, and if you think you have one, you are almost certain to have missed something significant in your evaluation of the options.
Which gives you billionaires who have the power to make decisions uninterrupted by commoners.
And then the billionaires themselves have idiots among them.
, who will lose their money quickly.
The Marching Morons
Thanks a lot for that link. I am a hardcore science fiction nerd, yet I had never crossed paths with that one. Indeed relevant in this debate, too.
I have decided that it is safe to assume that everyone is an idiot, including me, and behave accordingly: act deliberately with an open mind, making no assumptions, and remain curious.
Frank Herbert’s Bene Gesserits had a tenet in which they remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves, ostensibly to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.
Coming back around to my point: I think we’d all get along a lot better if we’d all agree we’re all stupid, but we can get better.
These are good points and good techniques IMO, and to add on–
Humans have always been drowning in the unknown, hence our chronic set of coping mechanisms, but on top of that, in this high-tech information civilisation we currently live in, now we’re drowning in information, as well. Which leads to some big problems, of course.
As in-- it takes considerable effort, honesty and openness to form a decent perspective on most subjects these days, particularly significant ones, and because of that hurdle, I fear that most people (you, I, everyone) are inclined to ‘settle’ for flawed understandings of topics, even with best intentions. Or at worst, some of us form whatever ludicrous opinions simply because it makes us feel better / at peace / self-righteous.
Point is-- it seems like the world just has way too much information for people to handle these days, effectively worsening our collective mental health and communal behavior, one might say.
remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves,… to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.
Not to spoil a 60 year old book, but didn’t they have a plan to genetically engineer a literal savior to mankind with hundreds of years of selective breeding? A little like the pot telling the kettle it’s too sure of itself.
“the world” is not anti-intellectual, you just hang out with the wrong people
Some folks can’t much help who they hang out with. Any American is literally surrounded by thousands of miles of other Americans, and anti-intellectualism is rampant in the country. It’s not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that “I’m a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants.”
It’s not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that “I’m a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants.”
It’s not? Assuming you could get yourself there, I mean.
I’m very specific about my friends, I promise you that isn’t the problem. It’s more of an observational thing, and it is clearly present in western society at the very least. Even with my friends, we are still an insignificant minority compared to the larger population.
I believe there is an evolutionary purpose to human stupidity though, and it’s the reason we’ve come so far as a species. Without writing a novel here, look up the concept of simulated annealing, which is conceptually related to natural selection. The short version is, when searching for a better solution to problem in a sea of functionally infinite possible solutions, if you only ever try solutions you can see that are categorically better than the solution you currently have, you will (with statistical certainty) end up in a local maxima. That is to say, without stupid people, no one would have ever looked at a cow udder and thought, “yeah, I wanna get in on that”, and as a result many humans throughout history would have gone without nutrients necessary for their survival.
I have no idea who first drank cow’s milk, that’s not the point, don’t @ me. The point is, stupid people try stupid stuff, many times it is just as stupid as it looked, but sometimes that stupid thing turns out to have previously undiscovered potential benefits which smart people notice, research, and help integrate into our society, resulting in others’ lives being better.
You know, the only thing that keeps smart people from trying stuff is cultural boundaries and social fitness, which in itself is something evolutionary grown and includes small progress to a local maxima? You know, that the only thing that keeps us from trying unconventional stuff is often the lack of money, which inherently comes from the state. The politics decide about money and they also cater to stupid voters or to business interests. This in itself is stupidity. The answer of stupid is evolutionary benefitting is just fine on the surface, but if you look at the complexity of issues, it is not as clear. And then there is my opinion that i would rather accept some local maxima while some scientists try unconventional stuff than have stupid people always thinking theyre right DKing all the time, because it is exhausting! I know it is not a choice, but if one thinks being and staying stupid is fine, which might be the consequence of “stupidity is evolutionary advantageous”, then I would rather fight the premise, because that would not be acceptable to me.
Oh for sure, please, nobody tell the stupid people about my theory. They’re smarter than they look…
the world would be a much more terrifying place if stupid people doing ‘evil’ (never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity) stuff were instead evil and highly intelligent. I like this version better. we like to think that intelligence brings with itself high morals and every intelligent person is an agent of good. some people might just want to watch the world burn, but that’s a discussion for another thread, I think.
imagine a highly intelligent musk or spez. ugh
You know that much more intelligent people are still doing evil stuff right now and more often than not, because other people do either not act intelligent or consequential. I have a few examples: grandchildren-trick in germany, which relies inherently on grandparents being naive or ignorant about technology or that they might be betrayed. They never thought about that, in that regard you might count being ignorant or naive also as stupid. Another example: some people get into magazine subscriptions and never stop them, even though they do not like it, just because unsubscribing is too inconvenient or saying no to the sales man is too hard. Another one: People go to financial advise and do not know most things about personal finances and investments. So they literally have to trust the advisor, who sometimes only works to get the most out of his customer into his own pocket, that could only be avoided through knowledge and experience, which are traits, that are also associated with smartness. Although not all those people maliciously choose to exploit those naive or lazy or ignorant people, they rely heavily on them to earn their money. If those people would not let themself get exploited, there would literally be less evil, because it could not be commercialized in that way. Hell, even corporate and governmental employees are sometimes as stupid as they could not even send a simple e-mail (there are examples), and would not even learn it, if shown.
I do not accept any answer like “those people that exploit others will find ways”, as you do not know if it would be that way.
I also do not accept anything defending the exploited people, who in my opinion are not inherently stupid from the mentioned circumstence and I do not mean any harm to them. But the things that happened are literally stupid things, that could easily be avoided, so they have done something stupid, as does anyone in this world, so no evil feelings there, just improving the debate focus.
And to answer anything, that would say that some people might have a disability or illness and therefore might be easier to exploit, which could be the case. Those could also be exploited, even if everyone becomes smarter, but: there is a solution to that and that is societal support and care work. If you have a right to health care and to be supported by society to make up for your disabilities, then a judge or judgementally assigned professional might decide for you, so that you do not have any disadvantages due to those circumstances.
Had a discussion about hydrogen cars on Lemmy the other day
The discussion involved:
- Easily provably wrong claims (“Hydrogen isn’t getting any support for the government, thats why it’s not succeeding”). 2 second google click, and article directly from government showing how they support it.
- Kept telling me that a HUGE part of the argument should be ignored (efficiency). Science doesn’t allow you to simply ignore parts of the debate. And, the efficiency difference wasn’t even a small amount (apparently the difference in efficiency was 30%-40% or more, so not a small amount).
- Character attacks against myself and any references I posted (oh, she’s a physicist, even they’re wrong sometimes).
- Conspiracy theories against battery companies or whatever
- Nitpicking arguments. I posted a youtube video, and 1 point was incorrect (or outdated). They pretended that invalidated the entire argument (and when i posted references which added credibility to a few of the other arguments, they just dismissed me).
- They kept saying “batteries are obsolete and are an old idea”. Water pipes are also old, but, they get refined constantly. Batteries are also evolving constantly. This is borderline common sense…
- They kept saying I wasn’t understandable or rambling or whatever.
The internet has emboldened people who barely passed school because on the internet, they’re anonymous and nobody knows who they are. People who know them however in real life would likely ignore their comments.
I think the problem is, its less time consuming to make up nonsense and shout over people, than actually provide accurate, well-referenced information
In a debate, the idiot will try to pull you to their level so they can beat you with experience.
idiots cite cliches
now you respond touché
telling us how you argued with another idiot on the internet doesn’t really tell us much about anti-intellectualism
it honestly just looks like you’re one of the emboldened.
and now me too! maybe this framing isn’t the most helpful… not the “smartest” framing
If you can provide a way to approach that example differently, I’m open to suggestions. It’s an example of my experience, where my comment includes many of the common techniques they employ
Your comment is
- A character attack (point 3)
- You’re saying case studies and examples aren’t relevant to the conversation (point 2). That’s dismissing evidence.
Why isn’t my experience relevant, and why can’t we post our experiences? Are we required to simply say “yes” or “no” and not why?
Wow so you actually think this is evidence, okay. I’m not even sure how to approach this. I was pretty gentle with you and your character too. I was a fucking asshole to a Hexbear user in another thread.
It does come down to character though. By putting one person as “intellectual” and the other “anti” it’s creating a hierarchy between perspectives. So then the question is an ethical one, is it justified to dismiss another perspective based on XYZ. I’m guessing in this case, dismissing you is the “anti”, right? Based on whatever criteria you’ve chosen. But what happens if we select different criteria?
Congratulations on being an asshole. But being subtle doesn’t change anything (even Trump tried, and got a gag order).
What criteria would you pick to change character attacks, blatant assumption, dismissal of evidence (without counter evidence), incorrect comments, or marketing nonsense (like “water battery” or “greenwashing”) into intellectual arguments?
Your points dispproving hydrogen as a viable energy solution for the future are a bit silly. It’s like saying the future isn’t possible because what is available now. I would actually say you’re being anti-intellectual because you’re not being open minded and solution oriented, which are intellectual traits.
You might need to read the discussion, as I was being solution oriented (Hydrogen has many good uses, and I agreed with that based on evidence).
But, the original poster started using buzzwords (I blocked the guy, so don’t remember them fully, but there was a lot), character attacks, and dismissing major evidence. Character attacks aren’t a valid debating technique…
Fair I don’t have enough context.
Anti-intellectualism is a strategy employed by some rich people that control some mass media outlets to keep people away from being class conscious.
You’re absolutely fooling yourself if you think anti-intellectualism is a “rich people” thing. If rich people disappeared, anti-intellectualism would still exist
That’s not what my statement posits.
What does your sTaTeMeNt PoSiT exactly?
Is your first language English? I can help explain but need to know if you didn’t understand because of a language barrier or you read it too quickly.
Only when people stop giving credence to the argument that you don’t actually need to read or learn math or science to get a job and pay your bills.
Video calls and recordings. Chatgpt. Why will future generations need scripture and math for everybody?
Some should learn it though.
Nope. Everyone will choose not to learn, and we’ll be doomed.
I wouldn’t say “the world” is anti-intellectual, some populists are. The US right is definitely anti-intellectual and they have better PR so you’re getting a lot of if in the media. It’s because Republican voters are mostly from small towns and not well educated so the party is trying to demonize education as something elitist. It’s the same in Poland where the ruling, far-right party’s electorate are mostly people from smaller towns and villages. But in Spain where the right wing voters are mostly upper class and well educated and left wing voters are working class you don’t see a lot of anti-intellectual rhetoric. For example the anti-vax movement during covid was mostly non-existent here. I think UK is the same: right wing party is the party of well educated voters so they don’t promote anti-intellectual ideas.
Populists are anti-intellectual because it is a prevailing opinion. That’s what populism means.
It’s prevailing in some countries as I explained, not in the entire world IMHO.
But it’s not just some countries, it’s our entire corner of the world - for my purposes the more or less “western aligned” one.
I’m Norwegian and we’ve just almost definitely flipped conservative again after a remarkably efficient belly flop by “Labour”. They fucked up bad enough even local elections turned markedly conservative, in some cases ending basically 100 years of Labour tradition. Sweden is seeing a marked rise in the “immigrant bad” Sverigedemokraterna, which were pretty fringe until recently. Germany has the whole AfD thing going on. You already mentioned Poland and the UK. There’s also Hungary in the same vein. Slovakia just turned pro-Russia which is inherently hard to couple with intellect. All of this has been fairly noticeable over the past decade, and that’s just the Euro view. In the US they went from “your suit sucks” to “you weren’t born here” and then really jumped the shark.
You’re confused. We’re not talking about countries turning right, we’re talking about countries being anti-intellectual. It’s not the same. Far-right Spanish parties are not anti-intellectual, far-right UK parties are not (IMHO) anti-intellectual. Also, is the other way around: people are not voting for far-right parties because they are anti-intellectual. Attacking education is just a tool used by right with parties to create division between “us” (the God fearing, traditional values loving conservatives) and “them” (the educated elites that want to destroy the traditional way of living). The growing anti-intellectual sentiments is just a result of right wing parties gaining power, not the other way around.
Can we start with anti-I-Need-My-Dopamine-Hit-Every-10-Minutes?
Between people’s ever depleting attention span and our desire for acceptance on social media, I just don’t see how you can even begin to tackle “anti-intellectualism”.
Most people use these platforms to comment on a headline and never read the article. Perhaps we could all decide to use these platforms properly and use the downvote button to bury comments that, while funny or otherwise emotionally engaging, are clearly not accurate or providing value to the topic of discussion.
By upvoting funny comments and rewarding hive-mind mentality, we’re partly to blame for the lack of intellectualism.
Lemmy is far better than Reddit regarding the use of downvotes, but many people still use it as an emotional disagreement button rather than something used to hide useless/irrelevant content. I only downvote when somebody says something completely fucked or starts trolling.
I don’t think upvoting funny comments is necessarily wrong, but there is a lack of meaningful engagement a lot of the time.
Lemmy is far better than Reddit regarding the use of downvotes, but many people still use it as an emotional disagreement button rather than something used to hide useless/irrelevant content
I don’t know if I’d agree at all with the idea that Lemmy is any better, in my experience, people still use the downvote button as an “I Disagree” button 99% of the time. There’s less people here, so it’s less pronounced (you’ll get -9 instead of -300 for expressing an against-the-grain opinion), but the pattern is still just as present
I’ve only found people who say really stupid shit get completely downvoted to the floor on Lemmy and there are almost always extensive responses. Anecdotes aren’t the best evidence, I guess my experience was very different.
However, at least you can actually see if people upvoted or downvoted and not just the total, so people are less inclined to just hop the train straight away. Depends largely on the instance though. I’m pretty sure Hexbears can’t even downvote.
It is tricky to get someone to recognise that they aren’t knowlegable enough. Even if you say it as gently as possible, some will still hear “you’re dumb” and no one likes that.
Also it’s a great tool to manipulate people : “I don’t need a scientist trying to explain me life from the depths of their lab !! I have commonsense !!”My favorite quip about common sense is “common sense isn’t”
This smells like someone who considers himself an “intellectual” and is sick of people disagreeing with him.
That may be the case but it doesn’t change the strong current of anti-intellectualism in modern societies.
It’s useful to those in power, for example.
No disagreement there, but simply declaring that “those who don’t see things my way are anti-intellectual” is a drastic over-simplification of how things got this way. Declaring it into Lemmy, which an echo chamber of progressives and communists (including myself) means we all know who he’s talking about, which means it’s just a progressive dog-whistle for the “them” that we want to be mad at.
There are a lot of intelligent people who hold what I’m sure OP would consider anti-intellectual stances. I live around them, work with them, play games with them, etc. it’s much more valuable to understand who they are and how they got to their beliefs than it is to simply vilify them.
I haven’t seen the argument “disagreement is anti-intellectual” being used here, though I’m sure people act that way. It’s hard to be disagreed with: people tend to entrench rather than change.
It’s still worth noting that anti-intellectualism is pushed as a tool of division and control though. Sure it occurs naturally but weaponized at a systemic level it is much more of a threat to society.
Or someone who’s seen brexit happen, or the rise of right wing populist parties everywhere that want to ban books and discount expert advice on climate, the economy, etc.
Observing democratically-elected governments being unable to address existential threats to the human race is certainly food for thought.
This smells like jumping to conclusions.
It was but OPs replies seem to confirm it.
What’s wrong with that? Just an example, imagine living in a world where most people consume animal products without second thought, despite the absolute moral atrocity that is committed as a result of it. You’d be pathetic to not be outraged at it. People should care about the consequences of their actions, but most people hypocritically selective in what ways they are.
Is it anti-morality or anti-intellectualism you were concerned with? Now I’m confused.
Both. Most people who eat meat would say animal abuse is wrong, all while ignoring their own contribution. A lack of intellectual honesty and logical consistency that leads to moral problems is also anti-intellectual. They would say slavery is wrong because it is prejudice, and unjust for ‘xyz’ reasons, while also saying ‘xyz’ reasons aren’t good enough to change their mind away from eating meat.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
To follow-up my snarky reply What if we’re the bad guys here?-NYTimes OpEd (non-paywall) This has a good take on how being “intellectual” is potentially an elitist take.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Fascists and dictators are often supported by intellectuals. Being an intellectual doesn’t mean you’re on the right side of history.
Drinking game: click on a random username in the comments section and take a shot every time they start talking out of their ass
My account doesn’t count (although I am flattered, weirdo)
Add in surface level observations of ‘if you are so smart you would realise not everyone is an idiot’ or ‘you have to understand their perspective better’ and maybe 1/2 comments you are slamming a shot. I guess people don’t read comments anymore. (Probably never did.)
Science is the best means by which we can understand the objective truth about the world around us. It’s a shame that people are rejecting it in favour of conspiracy and superstition.
That’s just human psychology at work. Many of these BS explanations are appealing to a certain type of mind.
It’s the same to people. All the interest in the latest cancer medicine, people like science. They are not anti-science, they cannot tell the difference.
As long as conservatism exists, no.