re: The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism

quote:

---

You identified the purpose as being to make fun of people like you?

---

Thank you for proving my point.

So what makes me anti-intellectual?

Go!

I can't believe I am doing this, but I am going to step in here and side with Whiskey Papa, although I don't think I agree with WHY she is posting this.

If you actually read the article, it makes no distinction of party lines. The examples it cites are indeed indicative of a problem. It is like the stuff Jay Leno used to do when he asked random passersby these kind of questions.

I could make a snarky comment that THESE EXAMPLES of ignorance are more likely to be exhibited by members of the adult left, and that the average Trump voter is more affluent and accomplished than the lower income voters Hillary gathered, but even saying that would be a function of my own bias.

That being said, the terms "ignorance" and "anti-intellectualism" have been so conflated with the "uneducated white male" (formerly known as the "blue collar working man") stereotype that this headline is bound to incite the reactions seen on this board.

The guy has a point with this article, but it is a DIFFERENT issue than the red herring that was so prominent in the campaign. There are just as many idiots with a college degree as there are really intelligent and accomplished people without one, and this whole premise just needs to die.

quote:

---

Fair Share

---

Every time I see this one I want to punch a kitten.

Everything that's wrong with a blind obedience to emotions over logic and reason rolled up in one two-word phrase.

quote:

---

Knowing "why" the world and people are they way they are is a good thing to know, but the minute you start telling me how the world and people "should" be, you can frick right off.

---

Well said. They aren't teaching people how to think these days and then letting them come to their own conclusions.

They are starting with their own conclusions and then teaching people WHAT to think and how to arrive at those conclusions that are already predetermined.

There is certainly a trend to teach groupthink and shun ideas that aren't PC even if they are truth and this is very dangerous.

The world is more specialized than it's ever been. The old fashioned "university" education is antiquated and isn't any longer needed in my view.

In the 18th century, you had only two choices: Be a farmer or become a "scholar." Back then only a few rich kids went to college -- thus they had the time to spend on learning about the arts and humanities, etc. Most of the country simply didn't have the time or means to devote to it (you did all you could do just to eat).

Moreover, the universities then could ensure that the students were proficient in these rather arcane subjects because they didn't live in a very technically complex world. All there was to learn was the law, Latin, history and perhaps philosophy. The sciences and technology were infantile back then and have become exponentially more complex today. This is why you don't see polymaths like Gottfried Leibniz anymore: There's simply too much out there for even the brightest people to learn.

While I think we can do better, I am not concerned if the average student is not as expert in the arts and humanities as they were in ages past. History scholars don't make jack shite, whereas in the old days they were invariably of the upper classes. Priorities have changed.

quote:

---

Yes in the way they are currently taught and implemented these days everything has an agenda. Literally everything.

---

You watch too much Fox News

I don't watch cable news