↪dimosthenis9 I feel your pain. The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

Actually we did not. what we saw was populism reposnible for countless atrocities. Perhaps the Pinochet regime in Chile is a counter example, but nowhere have academics put their ideas in practice. Their ideas might have inforrmed policy, but the decisions have been taken elsewhere. Take the great dictators in history. They were not academics, again with some exceptions, Mugabe in Zimbabwe for instance, but he hardly ranks as the worst of the bunch. .

And being paid to do painting means bought painting .... wut? — Tobias

Yes - someone pays to to paint something, and that is what you do.

No, you get paid for something because you have a certain skill or trait that people pay money for. — Tobias

That is a necessary condition but ability is no reason to do anything.

People pay to hear an educated philosopher lecture because they think they learn more from him or her. And lo and behold, they are probably right, because the man or woman in question has been dedicating her or his time to the subject. That is what academic education provies you with: time, a structure in which you are educated and educators that have obtained distinctions making it creible to think they are fit for their jobs and know what they talk about. — Tobias

Well, as a chinese professor said to guest student who wanted to write a thesis about human rights in China: "That is too boring." Skill in painting often means you can paint anything and get a good result. Why should that differ from philosophy? Why would you tell something that people wanted to hear? "Pleasant", "useful" philosophy? "Enlightening"? "Meaningful"?

What is the alternative? No knowledge.

It would be sort of hypocritical to start to make prescriptions. But it makes me personally feel dead inside when the educated elite talk about human beings like they are children who need to be guided around by the adults who know better. That is because I see it as an abuse of authority. However, those who take the opposite extreme reach the same conclusion. We’re now talking in the language of wrathful extremes, which gets everyone nowhere.

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions. My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

But it makes me personally feel dead inside when the educated elite talk about human beings like they are children who need to be guided around by the adults who know better. — kudos

By all means, I can relate to that.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

That is because I see it as an abuse of authority.

I think, rather, that this is an expression of authority, not an abuse of authority.

How else is the exercise of authority supposed to look like, if not in telling people what to do, who they are, what is really are, and so on?

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions.

That's Thatcherian!

Do you really think that all the people who don't pursue academic achievement do so as a matter of their own choice?

My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals.

Or perhaps there is nothing deliberate about it, no consent, just "the flow of things".

I teach and so I see all kinds of people who do not know what I know, but who will know in the future. Why do you think I have mysteriously forgotten how it is to be a student? — Tobias

It's a cognitive bias:

The curse of knowledge is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, who is communicating with other individuals, assumes they have the background knowledge to understand.[1] This bias is also called by some authors the curse of expertise.[2]

For example, in a classroom setting, teachers have difficulty because they cannot put themselves in the position of the student. A knowledgeable professor might no longer remember the difficulties that a young student encounters when learning a new subject. This curse of knowledge also explains the danger behind thinking about student learning based on what appears best to faculty members, as opposed to what has been verified with students.[3]
/.../
The term "curse of knowledge" was coined in a 1989 Journal of Political Economy article by economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber. The aim of their research was to counter the "conventional assumptions in such (economic) analyses of asymmetric information in that better-informed agents can accurately anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much.

The academic is likely to encounter the traditional way of life with a critical eye perhaps because of what they believe they know; sure they know things, but do they know better so as to decide for someone else?
— kudos

Yes of course they do. Say you have a broken car. Then you take it to the mechanic. If you have a problem with your skin, you go to a dermatologist and when you have a legal question you go to a lawyer. Try taing your skin problem to the garage and your car to a lawyer and see whether your problems are solved or not. Academics are just specialised in some field or other and therefore they know more about that subject.

And well, acadmeics do not decide for you. Policy makers do. They decide what behaviour you may perform and what not. they could also use conviction or nudging. But all of that is perfectly straight forward no? I do think you agree that society needs laws and policy.

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?
Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular?

However, I did not know academics had more rights than other people. They are more well respected socially maybe. That is logical. They know more about the subject at hand. It is that simple.

Maybe in the New World, but perhaps not even there consistently. In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.).

You assume there is some 'ideology' which apparrently the acaemically trained share. This is not true. — Tobias

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them.

You also seem to unerestimate academics. Why would they just apply dogmatic strictness? you think that scholars of the field of linguistics are so dim that they do not understand language is a living instrument? Of course they do. Their vision is not somehow clouded by 'academic' reasoning and thinking as you seem to suggest, it is expanded by it.

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means?

The difference between non-academic and academic writing and argumentation is that academic writing and argument has standards of rigour

Rigour which is relevant only to academics.

The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness
— kudos

This sounds like an argument an anti-vaccine layman might make. Pity the poor virologist who toils in the lab. — jgill

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists?

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control — kudos

Fair is fair, the system of higher education was devised for precisely this purpose. It's why the elites protested at the prospect of commoners being allowed into this system.

(Just like the police force was established to protect the upper classes from the lower classes, and not to "uphold the law".)

And it will go on failing. — dimosthenis9

On the contrary.

On the contrary — baker

So for you everything works fine then and it doesn't need any change? Or that it will stop happening some day soon? I m not sure I got where you stand on this.

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

I think you ascribe too much significance to the university system. I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation. They find it has little to do with their lives unless they choose to join the closed, self-involved, self-regarding community of academics. They may benefit from contacts they make, but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education. There is no "oligarchy of the intelligentsia" here in God's favorite country, at least.

I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation — Ciceronianus

Doesn't that say something? Universities seem to care more as to create useful workers for the markets and less to create useful people for the societies in general.

but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education. — Ciceronianus

I think he mostly means about academics attitude towards students and common people and not so much about students themselves.

I’m not suggesting by this we run around and grab the pitchforks for a good ol’ fashioned witch-hunt, but surely we should give the common person some respect for choosing his/her destiny even if it doesn’t fit in with the value system of professors and (private) educational institutions. My reading of Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends,’ inspires me to say a valuable structure in power and politics can’t be found without the consent to some degree of all the people within it as moral equals. — kudos

Yes, I agree. Where do you see the academic class blocking the life path of what you call 'common people'? I agree that our current ' diploma democracy' as we say in Dutch is flawed. Our policy makers should represent the people and curently the balance between academically educated and non-aacademically educated is off. I do not think though the academic education is the problem per se, but the academically educated seem to be privoleged in other ways as well. I do not think we are that far off actually.

It's a cognitive bias: — baker

Yes, there might be a bias, however the question is how severe it is. Education would be impossible if the educator and the educatee would inhabit different worlds.

As a better-informed agent, you are unable to correctly anticipate the judgement of less-informed agents; in short, you cannot relate to them. Now, in a teacher-student setting, this can be irrelevant, because the only thing that matters are the teacher's expectations and standards. But outside of such a setting, it can be of vital importance. See, for example, the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Simply calling people stupid, irrational, and such doesn't help much. — baker

Sure there might be miss-matches. The funny thing is when policy makers see the ineffectiveness of the vaccination campaign they hire academics or commercial consultants to divise a way of communication that does reach the people.

Do you think this applies to all spheres of human effort, including questions of the meaning of life?

Is it up to academics to decide what the meaning of life is, in general and in particular? — baker

No, and there would not be an academic worth his'her salt who would state that he knows the meaning of life and that he should have the authority to tell others what it is.

In the Old World, having an advanced degree is mostly about status. For all practical intents and purposes, having an advanced degree (mostly regardless of the specialty) raises the person to the level of nobility, or at least aristocracy. If I would find myself in a situation where I would be expected to bow my head before someone with a Ph.D., I wouldn't be surprised. Even in informal settings these people expect to be treated with special reverence (others must greet them first, even if the person with the advanced degree is visibly younger; they get to sit down first, eat first, etc.). — baker

Well I come from the old world. I have obtained a Ph.D. Nowhere is there anyone bowing for me. Nor do I expect such a thing. I do not know which country you describe but it is not the Netherlands... Perhaps 50 years ago this might have been different, I do not know. May I ask you if there are any job openings in this country for plodding legal scholars?

Do the academically trained not believe something like "We are better humans than the average Joe"? I believe they do. Also, society at large seems to believe this about them. — baker

There might be snob-like academics, but I have encountered that sentiment more often in people who just made a fortune in business. And there are all kinds of peope just bshing academics and bluntly proclaiming that their knowledge is all bollocks. I do not think we feel better. I know it is sometimes tiring to discuss a complex subject of which you happen to know something with someone who does not, but still thinks he does. That does lead to me thinking "I am better", but does sometimes lead to a feeling of annoyance especially because some people think the subject is easy or 'common sense' whereas if it was I would not have spent years studying it. But no... better... that would be a very silly thing to feel. I cannot speak for all academics though.

Fachidiot. Do you know what this German term means? — baker

Yes. 'Of course', I might add, but you will probably accuse me of academic arrogance. ;)

Rigour which is relevant only to academics. — baker

No, it is relevant to each of us. Science and academia have made our lives a lot better. I in any case choose evidence based practices over the hunch or intuition of some kind of person with a peculiar opinion.

Should actual lay people, Tom, Jane, Mary, Henry, be convinced to get vaccinated by the arguments given by the virologists? Do they have such an obligation to the specialists? — baker

No, not at all. The state should be covinced that it is in the public interest to raise vaccination rates, because believe it or not people are actually dying and I belief, based on the opinions of experts, that vaccines stop people from dying. There are a number of ways to do that of co urse and I hope they consult lawyers among other people to discuss the pro's and cons.

Yes, I agree. Where do you see the academic class blocking the life path of what you call 'common people'? I agree that our current ' diploma democracy' as we say in Dutch is flawed. Our policy makers should represent the people and currently the balance between academically educated and non-academically educated is off. I do not think though the academic education is the problem per se, but the academically educated seem to be privileged in other ways as well.

In Europe perhaps less so because tuition fees are not as high as they are in North America. Here the technology gap has greatly increased the requirement for extended education to reach high-paying jobs. In addition, there's the sheer attendance factor in these institutions. You can't have fifty percent of the population going into debt investing their entire life savings and youth on something and then "Sorry we've got nothing for you."

The influence these disciplines have is also now more far-reaching. Data scientists, programmers, engineers, journalists, are in a greater sense more a part of our lives and the roles they play have increased in complexity and influence on the behaviour of the ordinary person. In 1951 they didn't need to ask themselves, "Will x news headline cause anxiety and depression?" because maybe only thirty percent of people in the neighbourhood even read the newspaper on a daily basis.

You have a large section of the population who have invested heavily in something: something that grants them certain powers and privileges. I'm not saying they're blocking anyone from happiness, or there's anything wrong with universities teaching kids to succeed in their field. But there is a system in place that poses a potential for a class divide and an ideological crisis. That's all, no blame or anything on anyone, just plain old crass cynicism.

You have a large section of the population who have invested heavily in something: something that grants them certain powers and privileges. I'm not saying they're blocking anyone from happiness, or there's anything wrong with universities teaching kids to succeed in their field. But there is a system in place that poses a potential for a class divide and an ideological crisis. That's all, no blame or anything on anyone, just plain old crass cynicism. — kudos

Agree. Is there a clear alternative? Isn't it necessarily the case that higher skilled expertise will likely be more useful and better paid than an unskilled role? It might be good if minimum wages and conditions for less skilled workers were much higher, but that's a separate matter.

In a larger sense, is a meritocracy unfair?

I got the feeling after “laymen have a perspective on things that the more educated classes do not know,” that it was almost laughable. This is common sense. If I were to start somewhere it might be wondering about that.

In 1951 they didn't need to ask themselves, "Will x news headline cause anxiety and depression?" because maybe only thirty percent of people in the neighbourhood even read the newspaper on a daily basis. — kudos

Long before that defense pundits and military planners carefully manipulated news media to support the war effort. And perhaps not everyone read a newspaper, but almost all listened to the radio.

Fair enough. percentage-wise, the technology affected roughly the same demographic, but it would reach more individuals and see more frequent usage. The U.S. population now is recorded at approximately 333 Million. In 1940 the census recorded approximately 132 Million. So while the approximate 90 percent figure is similar, that percentage represents significantly more people. Plus those people are able to carry this device with them all the time and perform more actions with it in addition to all the functionality of television and radio combined.

it was almost laughable. This is common sense. If I were to start somewhere it might be wondering about that. — kudos

Oh do tell. Which bit was common sense and which bit was laughable or were they the same bit?

In a larger sense, is a meritocracy unfair? — jgill

That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it? I can't say that I have ever seen a meritocracy in action anywhere. It sounds idealistic.

The same. When someone professes to have some all-encompassing ability to understand another's life experience it starts looking a lot like they are fixing their gaze on them with the intent of using them as a means.

That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it? — Tom Storm

If there is conflict between academia and the non-academic world, there is assuredly meritocracy in the former within disciplines, leading to personality if not funding squabbles. Sometimes those involved might assuage their feelings by displaying a touch of arrogance towards the less educated. This is unfortunate, but occurs occasionally. It's not pretty. On the other hand, higher education itself does not lead to meritocracy in a more general population since standards vary significantly across the globe. Just a few random thoughts.

I got ya. I agree completely. As an occasional advisor to a various departments over the years, I've seen precisely this.

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

But where did it fail? I can't think of any examples.

The problem with academia is that it's pompous. Men are idolized and academics live vicariously through them.

It's doomed to be a world apart from simple truth. It's a matter of taste and not pure fact.

Arrogance is the root of popular thought, a defense mechanism.

In my opinion it should be assumed everyone must be completely wrong, if not partially right.

In the end we're left with the sum totality of our lives and relationships, and none of it was meted out by books, and how well you understood everything had nothing to do with the richness of your experience. Much as academics would love to make pretense otherwise.

A slice of humble pie is not in our future, though; we're too impressed with ourselves.

Men without original thought memorize the complexity of dead minds, speak in maths, and hold human genius (an arbitrary popularity contest) up as a monolith. Lost in the details, we forget to believe that it's our time to shine, the living.

You can't write the equation that states anyone has to indulge in any of it and yet still can't learn the lesson they need to learn.

I'm not against the free proliferation of profound thought, but it needs to be put into perspective. It's a toy.

Men without original thought memorize the complexity of dead minds, speak in maths, and hold human genius (an arbitrary popularity contest) up as a monolith. Lost in the details, we forget to believe that it's our time to shine, the living. — theRiddler

I agree with the sentiment but all that we do rests on the shoulders of luminaries who came before us. Everything from the germ theory of disease to vacuum cleaners. Do we turn out back on what the greats have contributed to our culture? Living in the present is never possible since the past is what makes us. Unless you want to do a Pol Pot...

It's a toy. — theRiddler

Tell us how it's a toy - what do you have in mind.

I'm against the idea that there are "greats."

Einstein wasn't concerned with being "great." That's folly.

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination.

It's such a slippery slope, and so easy a trap to fall into, the notion that humans, by consensus, are an authority on what can and cannot be. That anyone is an expert on what is.

And that our scope is narrowing the more information we acquire.

We desperately need to take everything with a grain of salt; that's why I say it's a toy.

Question everything, ruthlessly dissect our statements for accuracy.

Conformity and acceptance of the forms that be is deadly.

Because to truly understand the complexity of nature is to understand weirdness that is unlikely to ever cross anyone's mind.

Academia isn't complete. There are arenas of thought we lack the perspective to grasp, as of yet.

When it comes to the universe, the more "unrealistic" the imagination the better.

Mad science, in other words, is the future.

Yes, universities don't stifle enough people.

I don't necessarily blame the universities, but we all know ambition and ego poison the well.

Don't ascribe any limits to reality, is a good suggestion, in my opinion. We have to experiment with out-of-the-box hunches. There is more here than meets the eye.

Space is not the only frontier.

Einstein wasn't concerned with being "great." That's folly. — theRiddler

Greats are never concerned about their own greatness - that's what makes them great. And it is interesting you raise him as this suggests his intrinsic significance before we even explore his work. :wink:

Mad science, in other words, is the future. — theRiddler

Then that just becomes another criterion of value and elevation. What's the difference?

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination. — theRiddler

Can you provide an example?

What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination — theRiddler

Let's see, about 140 articles on mathematics research sent to ArXiv.org daily. The lack of imagination is astounding.