As the Wiki article noted, anti-intellectualism is not the sole province of the United States. Some Australians to the contrary, I don't think we can blame American anti-intellectualism on Transcendentalism. The Transcendentalists were not anti-intellectuals.

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes for teaching evolution; Snopes was a high school biology teacher in Tennessee .

While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons.

The United States, as much as most nations, harbors contradictions that do not bear close intellectual scrutiny--like, "All Men Are Created Equal". Many of our sacred beliefs are like pills that should not be chewed before swallowing. They are too bitter. Better to encourage the unexamined life.

The organs of public information, whether that be the local school system, the free press (including radio and television), or book publishers, et al have a vested interest in maintaining a common consent to the status quo. That what Chomsky references when he talks about "the manufacture of consent". Consenting the status quo is inherently anti-intellectual. That's why my English teacher told me not to take Thoreau's Civil Disobedience essay seriously. It undermines the common consent, and there's likely to be nothing but trouble in doing that.

Are you just trying to point out that anti-intellectualism exists in the US or are you saying it is more of a problem here in the US and/or our day and age than it has in other places or other times? I think that the former may be a given since some form of "anti-intellectualism" (or anti whatever the majority think of as "intellectualism") exist nearly in ever place and every culture in history. However the latter which is "anti-intellectualism is becoming a bigger threat" may be harder to prove.

After all what constitutes "anti-intellectualism" if it is not based some kind of ideology/morality in and of itself (which to me sounds likely), and if beliefs are based on ideology then arguments against "anti-intellectualism" will have the same issues that any other debate between one or more ideologies/religions/system of beliefs etc. I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' to go after "anti-intellectualism", I'm just saying that if it turns out to be a type ideology vs ideology conflict than be ready for whatever can of worms that opens up. If for whatever reason the people supporting this "anti-intellectualism" do it as a kind of spin doctor/propaganda type thing than maybe it might be best to point out that these people are doing just that than to go after them because they support " "anti-intellectualism".

I don't know much about what you are calling "anti-intellectualism" but I'm somewhat leery of someone who frames a debate between to groups as the "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" since doing so may immediately be a kind of poisoning the well type fallacy which would make it a contradiction for those who claim to be in support of "intellectualism" if they so easily allow such a fallacy to be part of their argument. Or perhaps a better way to put it, any debate between "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" should be framed in some other way in order to avoid the obvious bias of labeling someone as "anti-intellectualism" could bring.

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. — Bitter Crank

Cause or result?

Cause or result? — Banno

That is a problem.

One piece of it is a need for certainty. Now that need can lead one to intellectual pursuit or intellectual flight. I suppose it depends on how much ambiguity about the truth one can stand.

I didn't think the thread would blow up; but, might as well address these posts instead of laying in bed. :halo:

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes for teaching evolution; Snopes was a high school biology teacher in Tennessee . — Bitter Crank

Well, yes, America was founded on a promise to never let authority get in the way of freedom. So, there are many ways in which anti-intellectualism can become systemic or structural. And, that's kind of the point. Intellectualism and authority don't mix well, at least politically in the US. Never has.

While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons. — Bitter Crank

If you read the Wiki entry, then there is evidence to support the notion that being an "egghead" was not something that has ever been encouraged in the US. Nowadays, they're called geeks and nerds with zits on their face, while being socially awkward, while the jockey gets all the girls...

Yes, it's us too.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/how-australia-became-the-dumb-country/news-story/eef010012e8879b0bcdf50192e4bfcb2

As the Wiki article noted, anti-intellectualism is not the sole province of the United States. Some Australians to the contrary, I don't think we can blame American anti-intellectualism on Transcendentalism. The Transcendentalists were not anti-intellectuals.

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes, a high school biology teacher in Tennessee for teaching evolution.

While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons.

The United States, as much as most nations, harbors contradictions that do not bear close intellectual scrutiny--like, "All Men Are Created Equal". Many of our sacred beliefs are like pills that should not be chewed before swallowing whole. They are too bitter. Better to encourage the unexamined life. — Bitter Crank

I may be wrong but some of the people who are labeled as supporting "anti-intellectualism" may be simply more against the beliefs and ways of the current establishment more than they are against things like "reason" and/or "logic" as the name anti-intellectualism may suggest. If the debate is actually between established vs contrarian views, then it is a fallacy of those who support the established view to try and paint the opposition as people who argue for "anti-intellectualism".

This is not much different to the tactics use to unfairly attack John Duns Scotus and his followers; which is where we get the word 'dunce' (as well as those stupid looking red caps) from. Since John Duns teachings where unpopular with many people during that time, it might have been easier to attack his character than to bother with attacking his ideas.

To be honest I don't know much about John Duns and what his ideas were (other than it was unlikely that he really was a 'dunce'), but I do know it is often easier to attack someone's character/use a poisoning fallacy to undermine someone's else argument as well as seemly strengthen their own.

More like an autopoÏetic structure, that creates and maintains a boundary against an appreciation for modern and postmodern (and soon hypermodern) intellectual enterprises.

The thing is, I don't think fundamentalism is the only basis for such a dynamic to emerge. Misplaced patriotism, a too exclusive concept of national identity, hell, even what Peterson does, by framing his enemy as neo-marxist postmodernism, these are all conducive to the developpment of a form of anti-intellectualism.

Are you just trying to point out that anti-intellectualism exists in the US or are you saying it is more of a problem here in the US and/or our day and age than it has in other places or other times? — dclements

I believe it is both. Again, the wiki entry is filled to the brim with America being the prominent example of anti-intellectual sentiment, based on-most likely-structural 'deficits' of intellectualism in places of government. I mean, if trust in God is of higher value than scientific truths or facts, then there really isn't much more that can be said about the situation.

However the latter which is "anti-intellectualism is becoming a bigger threat" may be harder to prove. — dclements

Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?

After all what constitutes "anti-intellectualism" if it is not based some kind of ideology/morality in and of itself (which to me sounds likely), and if beliefs are based on ideology then arguments against "anti-intellectualism" will have the same issues that any other debate between one or more ideologies/religions/system of beliefs etc. — dclements

It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance.

I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' to go after "anti-intellectualism", I'm just saying that if it turns out to be a type ideology vs ideology conflict than be ready for whatever can of worms that opens up. — dclements

Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across.

If for whatever reason the people supporting this "anti-intellectualism" do it as a kind of spin doctor/propaganda type thing than maybe it might be best to point out that these people are doing just that than to go after them because they support " "anti-intellectualism". — dclements

I'm not aware of people who are active, 'anti-intellectual's' (although Fox News comes awfully close to this label). It's more of a pathology that cannot be treated with reason alone.

Or perhaps a better way to put it, any debate between "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" should be framed in some other way in order to avoid the obvious bias of labeling someone as "anti-intellectualism" could bring. — dclements

Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'.

Australia was once essentially egalitarian, the mantra being that we look out for our mates. Universities, except for a brief period under Whitlam and shortly thereafter, are exorbitant, and hence the playground of the well-to-do. Mining and other primary industries have boomed, and so our economy shines with little intellectual input.

John Howard pretty much buggered all that in advocating me-first, selling the commonweal to bolster his electoral chances - and in so doing he followed the USA.

Despite that we continue to produce science and technology far above what one might expect for a small country.

"I believe it is both. Again, the wiki entry is filled to the brim with America being the prominent example of anti-intellectual sentiment, based on-most likely-structural 'deficits' of intellectualism in places of government. I mean, if trust in God is of higher value than scientific truths or facts, then there really isn't much more that can be said about the situation."
— Posty McPostface

But "trust in God" has almost always been considered of higher value than scientific truths or facts in Western society. As a hedonist nihilist (who is somewhat partial to certain eastern religion/philosophical beliefs) I'm well aware of the some of the mass insanity by the perpetual myth of there being some big guy in the sky watching us as well as some of the dangers of the encouragement of the "magical" type thinking that such beliefs brings. However I'm leery of labeling Christianity and other Abrahamic religions as a form of "anti-intellectualism" since religion is form of ideology and one has to be careful to only go after the bad aspects of any particular type of ideology than risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

"Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?"
— Posty McPostface

As far as I know climate change deniers are supported by corporate interests that are already sick and tired of dealing with all the expenses and red tape that Washington and liberal groups put before them. I imagine if you have nearly endless amount of billions gain through corporate profit and it might be useful to use some of those billions to buy influence in Washington as well as hire spin doctors and mass media to peddle what you want people to think. While this may considered as a form of corruption by us plebs who don't have access to such money/resources it isn't necessarily a form of "anti-intellectualism" if the people doing this are doing it out of their own best interests. Instead such actions might more accurately called Machiavellianism/ruthless pragmatism, even if sometimes using such distinctions might seem moot by those of us who fell harmed/threaten by their actions.

While not always motivated by the same reasons as those who support climate change denying, much of the other people who use corporate lobbying, mass media/spin doctors, etc to get what they want are just another type of Machiavellianist/ruthless pragmatist who wish to push their own agenda even if some of the side effects are politicians who seem more stupid in Washington than those who might be there if they were not meddling in the affairs of this country.

"It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance."
— Posty McPostface

As a person who tries to study philosophy, I do my best to avoid labeling the actions and beliefs of those who think differently than me as either "stupid/'ignorant" and/or "evil" even if it seems a given that they are.

I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge human beings are guided by whatever ideology/ culture/ religion/ system of beliefs/ etc that they subscribe to and not out of ignorance;although fear is a major factor. While it may be a given that these beliefs that we get direction from often (and or very often) have short comings in them, such is a problem with the human condition and not merely that we are idiots per say.

"Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across."
— Posty McPostface

Well the problems with the human condition could be said to be endemic, and potentially systemic but to say such things would be a gross understatement as to how bad things really are. In a nutshell you are fretting over certain issues while not exactly realizing what lays beneath the parts of the iceberg that which is a little bit harder to see.

"Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'."
— Posty McPostface

I personally think it as much of it as fabrication as well as anything else that comes from Abrahamic beliefs; however when one questionsing other things and realize what else they believe in are merely fabrications, then things can get more complicated then they might expected them to be.

if you really start questioning all the so called "self evident truths" they hold dear, they may not find much left to hold on to.

Well the problems with the human condition could be said to be endemic, and potentially systemic but to say such things would be a gross understatement as to how bad things really are. In a nutshell you are fretting over certain issues while not exactly realizing what lays beneath the parts of the iceberg that which is a little bit harder to see. — dclements

I don't catch your drift here. Though I think the allusion is to some evil or darkness inherent in man, no?

I personally think it as much of it as fabrication as well as anything else that comes from Abrahamic beliefs; however when one questionsing other things and realize what else they believe in are merely fabrications, then things can get more complicated then they might expected them to be.

if you really start questioning all the so called "self evident truths" they hold dear, they may not find much left to hold on to. — dclements

Yes, governments can be Machiavellian. What can I add to that trite statement? However, governments can change behavior in a democracy, so the question is what kind of democracy do we want? One with ignorant buffoon at the helm? I hope not; but, the reality is that we have a dangerous buffoon at the helm as it stands.

even what Peterson does, — Akanthinos

I certainly expected someone like you to find Borat funny. :vomit:

I certainly expected someone like you to find Borat funny. :vomit: — Akanthinos

That's because it is funny.

I would say most anti-intellectualism is actually well deserved these days.

Intellectuals get kudos when they stand somewhat against the establishment, when they're a gadfly on the establishment, or at the very least are impartial and capable of standing aloof enough to render judgement. That's how Left-wing intellectuals got respect when the establishment was traditionalist and Right-wing.

Intellectuals today, on the other hand, are part of the "liberal," globalist, multiculturalist establishment, they support it blindly. Some of them even admit openly that their unquestioning support for the absolutism of equality of outcome is a leap of faith.

In effect, they are largely conformist shills for the PC cult, too terrified to say boo to a mouse. That deserves not respect, but contempt.

So anyone who has some axioms as a fundamental belief, admits that this is the case, and then makes rational scientific arguments extrapolating from those axioms logically, is deserving of contempt?

So who isn't?

I don't want to start this thread straight off the bat with a straw man. However, America is rife with an anti-intellectual attitude perhaps originating with American Transcendentalism/Romanticism and proceeding throughout the years under the guise of free speech and religious freedom, eventually even into the education system itself, as seen, in anti-evolutionist or creationist 'interpretations' of science. — Posty McPostface

That is correct, and anti-scientific attitude towards evolutionary psychology (all psychology should be evolutionary based), innate gender differences, IQ differences, racial differences, mental illness of transgenderism, climate change hysteria, bad-economics, bad history, genocide deniers, embracers of islamofascism (as Hitchens calls it), moral and cultural nihilism/relativism, rise of national socialistic tendencies of progressive leftists etcetera.

Now, assuming that anti-intellectualism is a de facto serious issue that plagues the US, what can be done about it, and is it getting worse or better, in your opinion? — Posty McPostface

This is a prelude to national socialism enforced by progressives. Thought police is a clear sign of the decline of democracy.

What should be done? Uphold the first amendment. Free speech is necessary to any democratic society.

It is getting worse. Leftists seem to reduce their support for the first amendment. They hate free speech. They want control to implement their utopia, even if it means to destroy every human being in a holocaust ten times over.

I don't want to start this thread straight off the bat with a straw man. However, America is rife with an anti-intellectual attitude perhaps originating with American Transcendentalism/Romanticism and proceeding throughout the years under the guise of free speech and religious freedom, eventually even into the education system itself, as seen, in anti-evolutionist or creationist 'interpretations' of science. — Posty McPostface

The intellectuals are seen as responsible for the institutions, and the institutions are seen as fundamentally unrealistic. Let's arm the teachers! Huh? Maybe that suggestion won't pass into the realm of "institution", but it's amazing how much unrealistic stuff does get institutionalized. We cannot blame the institutions themselves, so we can only blame the so-called "intellectuals", for allowing the ridiculous to be institutionalized.

So anyone who has some axioms as a fundamental belief, admits that this is the case, and then makes rational scientific arguments extrapolating from those axioms logically, is deserving of contempt? — Pseudonym

If they do it in the teeth of evidence contradicting their axioms, without any attempt to address the discrepancy, while attempting to silence opposition, yes.

As you note, the rift between intellectualism and not seems to center on religion, with the religious believing intellectualism is but a lofty name for a dogmatically held and morally bankrupt value system.

Ted Cruz, "I think the Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson and the Republicans are the party of Homer and Bart and Maggie and Marge."

If they do it in the teeth of evidence contradicting their axioms, without any attempt to address the discrepancy, while attempting to silence opposition, yes. — gurugeorge

Interesting. So this absolutely incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, care to elaborate?

Also, the attempts to silence to opposition intrigues me. What is this opposition that no one has heard?

Interesting. So this absolutely incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, care to elaborate? — Pseudonym

People are not equal in their capacities, capabilities and inclinations.

Also, the attempts to silence to opposition intrigues me. What is this opposition that no one has heard? — Pseudonym

"Attempts."

Intellectuals are eminently worthy of blame, so I'm not sure I would advise something be done about it. We might just as well consider whether something ought to be done about anti-anti-intellectualism. A question like this depends on how the terms are defined, I might add. I would agree with the critique of intellectuals advanced by Sowell, for example, whom the article mentions, but not by fundamentalist Christians who dismiss evolution. The content of the opposition is not the same in all forms of anti-intellectualism.

In fact, I daresay, to turn the tables somewhat, that a failure to make proper distinctions, such as between various forms of anti-intellectualism, is itself a pretty anti-intellectual thing to do.

The Wikipedia entry on Anti-intellectualism in America — Posty McPostface

I wasn't up to the task last night, and I don't have time today (errands, anticipated heavy snow fall starting this afternoon, cleaning to do list, etc.) and I may never be up to the task, BUT...

...the Wikipedia article itself should be examined carefully, because the claim of anti-intellectualism may itself have ideological and other biases.

I loathe fundamentalism so it is quite convenient for me to call it anti-intellectual. Is someone entirely devoted to business and making money anti-intellectual? Well, maybe -- and maybe not. Can someone who pursues a narrow field of science (like particle physics and numerous other examples) be anti-intellectual? Are civil engineers who design sewers anti-intellectual? Sure - it's possible, and maybe not, depending how one defines "intellectual" and "anti-intellectual".

Intellectuals today, on the other hand, are part of the "liberal," globalist, multiculturalist establishment, they support it blindly. — gurugeorge

It is getting worse. Leftists seem to reduce their support for the first amendment. They hate free speech. They want control to implement their utopia, even if it means to destroy every human beings in a holocaust ten times over. — Youseeff

Some intellectuals, especially a lot of intellectuals in certain liberal arts fields, fit these descriptions. But a lot don't. Granted, the exudate of the screwy POMO and nouveau leftish intellectuals is draining out of academia and seeping into some parts of ordinary life.

Some intellectuals, especially a lot of intellectuals in certain liberal arts fields, fit these descriptions. But a lot don't. — Bitter Crank

I don't know about "a lot" - I think perhaps secretly there are definitely more than we think, but people (especially people with good positions and families to support) are so terrified of losing their jobs these days for stepping out of line with PC cult dogma, it's not as often vocalized, so the dogma is what's bruited abroad by default. To some extent obviously it's different in STEM, but these lunatics are even starting to encroach on maths and science now.

You have to have a fairly high level of achievement, or tenure or something like that, and a fairly good liberal "ant smell," like a Pinker or a Haidt, to get away with not toeing the party line, even to the fairly mild extent those guys do.

On the plus side, the PC cult isn't long for this world, because it's destroying the very respectability and power that made institutions like academia and business so attractive for them to take over. They're starting to cause financial problems too (e.g. universities losing customers, HR departments being more trouble than they're worth, etc.) - and that's really the bottom line, to a large extent. I think probably 20 years from now, there won't be a "gender studies" class in sight, and people will look back on this period of the past few decades like a kind of intellectual Tulipmania, shake their heads and wonder wtf people were thinking.

People are not equal in their capacities, capabilities and inclinations. — gurugeorge

OK, so which prominent "Liberal intellectuals" have claimed that "People are equal in their capacities, capabilities or inclinations." I've not heard any myself. I've heard a lot of people claim that race, gender and sexual it are not determining factors in all those things, but not that all people in the world are equal in those properties.

"Attempts." — gurugeorge

I see, what constitutes an attempt, in your view?