[ExI] I accuse intellectuals... or else (was Re: Why is there Anti-Intellectualism? (re: Atheism as somehow different than other religions))

[Tomasz Rola]

Hello and Happy New Year everybody,

First, thanks for answers. It have taken me some time to munch them. I
should also write, maybe too late a little, but I think I was 
expecting/looking for something else. Actually, I wanted to make a list of 
intellectual Ghenghis Khans. My reason was this: since there really seems 
to be a resentment towards intellectuals and no resentment should be 
without a cause, so what exactly is that cause?

Who lost what because of what?

So far, not many names found. Among those found there are dubious
cases (I was not able to find enough against them). By civilised
standards, maybe two (maybe four) could be added to my list, making
the total of maybe two, maybe four. Those in fact need more research
for which I have no time at the moment, so it is possible I will erase
them later.

My second thought is this. A very rough (and taken from the ceiling)
estimate of a number of intellectuals is, I dare to say, some 0.1% of
population living in cities above 100,000. It is probably smaller than
this in less populated areas. Anyway, this gives some 100,000-200,000 people
or so for a US-like country. Now, the list of names is really short, even 
if I could accept all of them. Does this make anti-intellectualism similar 
to, say, racial prejudices? My guess is yes, it does.

Damien, Rafal and Mirco - your answers are below.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Damien Broderick wrote:

> On 12/26/2009 5:02 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > > After many decades of intellectualism, the common people have developed
> > > >  (evolved?) a healthy distrust of the intellectuals, mainly of the
> > > >  social
> > > >  intellectuals. In the future this distrust will probably grow stronger,
> > > >  as we
> > > >  will reap the fruits of many silly ideas implemented as policies.
> >
> > Uhum... You know, I am not challenging you, but if you (or anybody) could
> > give me a list of intellectualists (names, specialty area, you got the
> > idea), whom I am to blame... And if you don't mind, for what exactly?
> >
> > The longer such a list, the more interesting from my point of view. Give
> > me those names, I beg you.
> 
> In US: the neocons are intellectuals, of a sort. They happily provided the
> Iraq war. Dr. Leon Kass is clearly an intellectual, and he helped to ban
> embryonic stem cell research. The doctrines of both these geniuses, on the
> other hand, seem to have been welcomed by a large proportion of the common
> people. On a more highbrow level, if Heidegger wasn't an intellectual, nobody
> is. He would be despised by the common people as someone who wrote
> incomprehensible horseshit for a living, but for all that he was a great
> supporter of the Nazi Volk so who knows how their muddled minds would have
> responded.

Martin Heidegger, a philosopher. His guilt: giving active support for
Nazism. I can accept this case into my list, but it seems to me, he
was "simply" charmed by Nazism just as milions of people around the
world and this had not much to do with him being an intellectual. He
could have as well be electrician or physician. It does not make him
innocent but unless he invented gas chambers I would have to let him
go.

Leon Kass - a physician and bioethician, phd in biochemistry. His case
is much different. I have read about him in wikipedia and from what I
have read I could support at least some of his decisions or opinions. For 
example, I am not a big euthanasia supporter (I understand and accept the 
fact that "there are cases" but I am strongly against using such cases as 
an excuse for generalisation - which is, coincidentally, so good from 
economic point of view, just cut them off and save loads of money). I 
don't consider myself neither religious nor ethical (I guess explaining is 
beyond the scope of this thread and list). So my reasons may be different 
from his, yet I cannot find him guilty. Also, I was feeling a bit 
uncomfortably about utilising embryos as a source of stem cells. I don't 
care much about their eventual sancticity but I want to minimize my 
katzenjammer. But look what happened - there is another way, we can 
reverse adult cells back into their stem state. And I am very happy now. 
So much for Leon Kass - in my eyes, he does not qualify and he can go.

Yes, even if I could speculate about his postponing some
research. Frankly, I don't think we should do whatever we want. But we
should think about what we do want or will want and what this really
means in the longterm. A lot of people seem to think this is some kind
of races, that we should do whatever we need and by whatever means
that happen to be here. Maybe it is so indeed. But unfortunately we
don't know rules of this race. Maybe it's not the fastest horse that
wins? Anyway, the first thing they taught me during my driving course
was "when in doubt, slow down".

Anonymous neocons - I grok the term is for "neoconservative". Being
from Europe, it doesn't ring any bell besides being, perhaps, an
oxymoron. You sound unsure about their intelligence level. Do they
have any kind of web-based publication list, so I can try to assess it
by myself?

> There seems some confusion in this thread between non- or unintellectual and
> anti-intellectual. Most humans are not intellectuals, but they don't
> necessarily condemn those who are, although some of the more thuggish might
> well shove their "pointy heads" down the toilet bowl pour le sport.

Oh, thugs are so sweet. They dream of things that possibly turn
against them in the long run. Making everybody "normal" and without
individual opinions (beyond the "normal" boundaries). Or making
slaves of eggheads and counting on them magically replenish just like
any other cattle. Either thugs will pay or their children. Just a
matter of time.

Pity, however, that they take so many bystanders down the tarpit.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> ### Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Karl Marx, Friedrich
> Engels, Noam Chomsky, almost any random sociologist since Emile
> Durkheim, Upton Sinclair, Paul Krugman, Joseph Lincoln Steffens,
> Albert Einstein, Jeremy Rifkin - collectively contributing to the
> enactment of a staggering number of stupid policies, starting with
> meat packing regulations and genetic engineering limits all the way to
> affirmative action, social security, and the Fed.
> 
> Rafal

Some of those names are more or less familiar, some not (Keynes,
Galbraith, Durkheim, Steffens and Rifkin - I will read about them one
day, I hope). Could you be more specific? Because when I know
something about the name I still cannot imagine what kind of wrong is
connected with them? Anyway, I can try and make an effort.

Karl Marx - philosopher, political economist, historian etc
etc. Guilt: founder of communism, I guess.

Friedrich Engels - social scientist, political theorist,
philosopher. Guilt: founder of communism, right?

I have heard about them from time to time. However, as much as they
were mentioned sometimes (on the 1st May for example), I cannot recall
anybody giving me explanation why exactly they were so cool. I think I
can temporarily include them into my list, however before I leave them
there forever I need to learn what exactly were their postulates (find
this "Capital" behemoth and have a look). I have no time to do this
right now.

Upton Sinclair - a journalist, writer, Pulitzer winner. I guess he can
be named as an inspirator of creating the Food and Drug
Administration. Is it his guilt? Or maybe his socialist bent?

I have just read throu first three chapters of "The Jungle".

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Jungle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_packing_industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

What I have found there was consistent with what I met in other
authors' writings on similar topics. Exposing such things is very much
welcomed. Personally I think it were guys like Sinclair (and those who
did not write books, they too), delivering constant kicking in the
young capitalism' lower back, so that it had to get up and move on to
something better (which is supposed to be a today's state of
things). Judging what I have learnt about those times, nobody would
like to live in them unless born into a rich and lucky family. I doubt
human nature changed much - I have heard some nasty stories about
young Polish capitalism as it was creating itself (some of them call
for new Upton Sinclair, oh my) and I believe those stories could have
been worser but nowadays standards are better a bit.

Paul Krugman - economist, journalist. Professor at Princeton Uni and
hmmm... a Nobel Prize laureate in Economy. I think I have read some of
his articles available somewhere on the net.

Noam Chomsky - linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political
activist. Professor emeritus at MIT. I have read some of his
non-scientific works.

Krugman & Chomsky - I have always thought those two were rather
harmless? What did they do?

Albert Einstein - a physicist, Nobel in Physics.

Common, man. What have Albert done wrong? Does it have something to do
with the A-bomb? What exactly?

Overally, thanks to your mail I have finally started reading "The
Jungle". Besides this, I need some more explanations from you. What
those guys did so badly that I should put them on my list?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Mirco Romanato wrote:

> Il 27/12/2009 0.02, Tomasz Rola ha scritto:
> >
> > give me a list of intellectualists (names, specialty area, you got the
> > idea), whom I am to blame... And if you don't mind, for what exactly?
> 
> For example, Greenpeace is against the use of chlorine to disinfect water.
> Could we consider the policy-maker of Greenpeace some intellectuals?
> 
> Why I Left Greenpeace
> http://www.waterandhealth.org/drinkingwater/greenpeace.html
> The return of Killer Chlorine
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/24/numberwatch_chlorine/

Not sure of this... Did they propose anything in exchange of chlorine?
Did they conduct studies all around the world checking substance
levels etc? Moneywise, I've read making water by chlorine for one
person for a year costs only $0.50. How are the alternatives doing?

While Greepeace sometimes does not look all that bad, overally the eco
movement makes me feel uneasy, like a histeric mob yelling their
truths into my face. This noise only makes me go around them... in a
big circle. Besides, aggressive attitude does not promise much
intellect inside the circle, and since I use to connect intellectual
with reasonable mind effort and seeking truth... If they have this
kind of guys I would rather suspect they are kept in a cellar and have
not much to say other than from time to time invent some catchy idea.

Sure, I may be wrong. If only one could prove the link between some
intellectuals inside Greenpeace and cholera outbreak, the guys go on my
list. But they have to actually exist (and have names).

On the other hand, cholera spread from Peru to other countries in
which there had been no changes in chlorination policy, I guess? After
reading this page, I have some doubts that GP is the only culprit. Me
thinks, holes in public funds did a lot to cholera spreading. If there
was no chlorination at the time, it could have been because of money
shortage and not necesarrily because of GP's bad advice.

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/cholera/cholera_f.html

> Dewey?
> Supporters of Whole Word reading versus Phonics
> http://www.improve-education.org/id58.html

John Dewey - philosopher, psychologist, educational reformer. PhD from
Johns Hopkins University. A number of honoris causa doctorates from
around the world. The idea of "whole-word" reading does not sound
cool. I'm thankful they taught me by phonics. However, in wikipedia
articles on Dewey, whole-word and phonics I could not spot anything
about him screwing pupils' minds so badly. 

I have read these articles (as well as your link and the "phooey on
Dewey") and they suggest (indirectly) that whole-word is still used and
picture Dewey as some kind of malevolent socialisto-communistic
propagator of uniformity:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/20392
http://www.improve-education.org/id42.html

The article on phonics claims this is actually the approach being used
nowadays:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics

And his biographical note says he was an anti-stalinist and defended
freedom and democratic ideals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

The only opposer to phonics worth calling him by name was 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann

I guess, if Dewey was in the same camp, they would have issued a word
or two?

So, IMHO John Dewey does not qualify, due to the lack of hard evidence...

> The opposition to OGM by so many it is too long to list them (left, center and
> right)

What is OGM - if not something connected to ogg (music codec and container)?

> The prohibitionist of drugs?

Well?

> The laws, in California for example, that force ex-sexual parters males named
> by a woman as father of her child to pay even if they are not the real father.
> No-fault divorce with alimony [for the woman]?
> 
> http://laws.justsickshit.com/california-stupid-laws/

Sounds scary :-). So, I may visit California one day but then my d!ck
will stay in Texas, armed with a colt. But, seriously, this is
_The_Fact_: women are amongst the most successful predators on our
planet. The men can be divided into those, who acknowledge _The_Fact_
and those who become a "husbie" before they say "o mamma mia" (they
can say anything else, knowledge of Italian is not a required
qualification).

So, a law or not a law, they are dangerous beasts. And beautiful, sometimes.

Case dismissed... :-)

> > Otherwise, it is encouraging my suspicion, that this "blame the stupid
> > intellectuals/scientists/hackers/all-the-wiser-folk" story is just pure
> > manipulation by someone who is trying to cover his/their trails.
> 
> It is evident you don't read the page I linked.

Mmm, no I did not. I have skimmed through it and decided it had not
much to do with my questions... I know, I posted them as responce to
your mail. You have simply fallen victim to my chronic inability to follow 
h2h communication standards.

After reading it, however, it is now obvious this article is yet
another voice that should have interested me. So, let's try to mend
the damages :-).

The first half is description of interesting phenomenon. I have
nothing to oppose here, however what could be discussed is whether
labelling the high-IQ people is correct. For example, I'd rather seek
for something interesting even if not quite new. It can be really old
if only I can have some reflection upon it. Besides, I've never
thought about myself in terms of "leftism", "rightism" or anything
like this. I simply try to gather facts and learn from them. Cannot
recall of political party describing itself as "rational" in the first
place (now I would be wary of it as it could be packed with clever
sillies).

Yes, I've made an unspoken assumption that I am one of high-IQ herd. I
don't have any problem with this. ;-)

The second half concentrates on uncorrectness of political
correctness. Myself I am not a fan of this idea (i.e. PC). So again,
not much to oppose. But I would like to know, who introduced this
concept into media and our lifes. You know, a success that has no
fathers, no mothers? Very surprising. And if this is not a success,
than why we are being forced into using it?

My only ideal about correctness is that the truth is always
correct. Sometimes it needs to be told in a way that does not hurt
other people. But that's all. Those who were unable to deal with the truth 
are gone. Expect same in the future. As of adding politics to anything, 
this is the way to blow it up.

> They are not stupid. They are smart. Very intelligent.
> But they substitute the use of an expert system evolved and selected in
> mammals to manage emotions and social relations with general intelligence that
> is not able to manage and elaborate so much informations.
> If you use a hammer instead of a screwdriver it is not strange that the screws
> don't work as intended.

Me is interested in how their brains worked so they only used the
hammer. Maybe this can be cured by retraining their neural nets? Just
a little, of course. Only brain bath, no brainwashing.

> > Anybody? You can't imagine how happy I will be. Really. You can (kind of)
> > make my day brighter.
> 
> Do you ever asked yourself why people in leading positions in academia and
> politics (and sometimes also in industry and commerce) is so often plagued
> with silly ideas?
> Can they really be all so stupid?

Frankly, I think it depends whom are we talking about. In case of
politicians, I guess they know quite well what they are doing (well,
they should or else we should be totally screwed by now). If they play
stupid afterward it's like in those stories - husband comes back,
finds wife and the other guy in bed, then the other guy starts crying
and asking to let him go. What a heartbreaker.

In academia - it's probably a different story. Trying to find grants,
five minute long attention of the crowd, inside games... Complicated
issue.

Also, I have observed that silly ideas sometimes come from people who
know very well there is no chance to realise them.

And still sometimes, wrong input = wrong output. Yea, they make
mistakes on occasion.

In commerce, promoters of silly ideas self-eliminate. That's it.

All seems to be a game-theoretical real life challenge.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **