[ExI] Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?
Lee Corbin
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Dec 25 20:13:10 UTC 2009
John Clark wrote:
> The link Lee provided appears to be broken
James had originally supplied the correct link:
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/WhyAntiInt.htm
> but I think there are 3 reasons for Anti-Intellectualism:
>
> 1) Thinking is harder than accepting and nature often follows the path of
> least action.
> 2) Logic does not always give the answer that people want to hear.
> 3) Many believe that being certain is more important than being correct.
adding to my
4) [Accepting a dogma] gives people a working hypothesis
5) Few people enjoy thinking, and find they have better things to do.
All these are properly elaborated by crucial sociobiological
(evolutionary psychology) explanation.
1. "Thinking is harder", yes, and more expensive. Therefore
often dangerous and always costly.
2. People want to hear that which is consistent with
what they already believe (I do!). Otherwise you
pay penalties for indecisiveness and delay. Nobody
here, for example, would actually *enjoy* reading
even the strongest and most reliable new study
showing that evolution was wrong.
3. In many cases, unfortunately, being certain *is*
more important than being correct. While usually
true in leadership issues and time-critical decision
making, most of us, hopefully, enjoy those times
when we have the luxury of unhurriedly seeking
the truth.
4. Accepting, according to PCR, many things as provisionally
true furnishes a basis for further exploration and progress,
which is obviously beneficial. But this is essentially the
same as 2).
5. Thinking just for the fun of it has to be fairly
new on the EP scene, and today's culture is really
a throwback to a much, much more primitive time when
thinking reduced biological fitness. Indeed, having
many people who like to think is no longer an ESS
for any extant population---just look at who is
having lots of children.
Also, you have to admit that many people's disdain for
thinking and for intellectuals has a lot going for it,
given how much thinking Rousseau, Marx, Lenin, Hitler,
and Mao engaged in.
Probably the key difference between those bad guys
who brought us so much distress, and those whose
thinking has brought such wonderful benefit---
scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, and engineers
---is that the latter think locally and act locally,
whereas the former always have grand schemes, be it
nationalized health care or warding off global
warming, just so long as it requires trillions of OPM.
Lee
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list