[ExI] Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?

[jameschoate at austin.rr.com]

---- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote: 

> adding to my
> 
>    4) [Accepting a dogma] gives people a working hypothesis

And what is the different between a dogma and a working hypothesis in some other context?

>    5) Few people enjoy thinking, and find they have better things to do.

No, people think. They just do it in different ways.

> All these are properly elaborated by crucial sociobiological
> (evolutionary psychology) explanation.

How so? Many of the things we discuss are beyond evolutionary forces in that they don't affect our procreation success. Evolution is concerned with with reproduction rates at the individual and group levels as compared to other individuals/groups. Things that don't effect that can't be strictly or completely explained by it. It's comparative to epigenetics and how it dooms Dawkin's biological perspective (see Margulis for example).

> 1. "Thinking is harder", yes, and more expensive. Therefore
>     often dangerous and always costly.

How so? More expensive in what way?

> 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.

That evolution is wrong or that evolution doesn't work the way we thought? Those are distinctly different issues, it's not about right and wrong really.

> 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.

Those are where one has to do something, it's not really right/wrong in the strictest sense, it's a game theoretic pay-off matrix.

> 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).

I think the 'provisional' consideration is important, it is not in fact covered in #2. I'd say you're getting closer to the point that was why I submitted the question.

> 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.

Why does it have to be fairly new? Evidence? We've got at least three other species of hominids besides our own making jewelry, painting, etc. That covers a couple million years of hominid evolution, doesn't sound very new to me.

> 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.

No, actually I don't. I don't think your assertion here has any real evidence to support it.

> 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

I'll call bullshit on that one. Without all these same guys the 'bad guys' as you class them wouldn't have gotten off the ground. You are drawing a false distinction here.

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --