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

The liberal left, to which most of the 'intellectuals' belong, have been in complete control of the education system at all levels since at least the 60s, so this is all at their feet. They are more concerned with with bathroom someone uses and if the kid gets the proper indoctrination on 'social justice' issues than if they actually learn how to think (not what to think). The retardation of our broader culture can be layed at the feet of the entertainment industry, also completed dominated by liberal leftists. In short, frick the left. And frick your shitty threads.

quote:

---

So rejecting them means you don't care to know or need to know who the first president was?

Or care who said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or care who said, "I have just begun to fight!"?


Or even who said, "What this country needs is a good five cent cigar."?

---

This is conflating two different issues. What is branded as anti-intellectualism is what I was describing, not what you are describing. Our intellectuals have ceased teching facts and only teach doctrine. They don't teach names and dates, only propaganda.

You know what we learned in public school American history:
slavery was evil

the south is evil

Lincoln freed the slaves

The Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) gave us all the things that make society livable (sanitation, clean food, taxes, labor unions, and regulation of evil corporations)

FDR was a god who showed us that social safety nets are awesome and won WWII. Nazis were evil racists that needed to be stopped, just like the South in the Civil War. Remember, Lincoln freed the slaves!

Nixon was a crook.

LBJ ended racism with the Civil Rights Act and Great Society

That's it.

They only focus on those points because it supports their agenda that says more government is always the answer, and the only people who disagree with progress are racist Nazis that must be destroyed.

Here's what happened:
In the beginning, education taught facts, math, and how to think. The how to think portion was taught in higher education.

Then, higher education was changed from how to think to what to think. Since industries no longer had use for these people taught what to think about the humanities, they sponsored the creation of specialized college curriculums that would teach only what they wanted graduates to know (business, marketing, human resources, etc). Those who wanted private sector jobs flooded into engineering or these new job placement degrees. That left only ideologues and elitists learning the humanities.

Those people who were taught what to think created the Department of Education, which put in place federal education standards creating standardized testing.

School funding was tied to Standardized test scores. Since standardized tests mostly focus on English and Math, school districts adjusted their curriculum to better prepare students for the more heavily weighted portions of the tests.

With less emphasis, and thus less class time, devoted to science and history, those who were taught what to think crafted abbreviated curriculum which reflected the progressive version of history (as I showed above). It talks about movements and ideals, not people, places, or events since that stuff takes too much time.

This emphasis on standardized testing and a rejection of actually teaching critical thinking has created a society of morons who are blissfully ignorant about history, that socialism is cool and righteous, and believe that war is the only answer to people who don't agree with them.

quote:

---

There are such things as educated idiots who rule the roost in many education settings.

---

This. It goes both ways. Elitists act like arrogant bastards, so the ignorant either ignore them or emulate them. Those who are educated, but not elitist, call the elitists out for being arrogant and wrong and are labeled as "anti-intellectuals!" Those who emulate the elitists then copy that behavior and shout down anyone who doesn't agree with their mentors because they aspire to be little elitists themselves. The more educated people question what the elitists say, the more labels are thrown at them and the worse those labels get.

The ignorant don't want to be labeled and don't want to associate with arrogant pricks so they just tune it all out and watch whatever reality tv show or sporting event that's on that night.

I think the level of proficiency in geography (ofc history too), myself included, is atrocious. it's literally being unaware of the world around us.

We're teaching kids what to Think, not how to think.

I am late to the party but I love this stuff. Thanks for posting it and starting a conversation.

A few thoughts:

The author assumes the position that his premises are objectively true ( e.g. climate change and evolution) and are thus settled science. He also assumes the premise that anyone with a contrasting worldview is immediately a knuckle dragging primate. This kind of condescention is creating the very anti intellectualism he is warning us about.

Secondly, there was a thread a few days ago about the fallacy of peer review in academia. The 'elite' group of researchers who attain the status of peer reviewer do so through a self selecting mechanism of back-scratching thereby narrowing the focus of science to proving preconceived notions as opposed to challenging accepted norms. That is not the pursuit of objective truth. Novel research can't get funded if it doesn't first accept the premise of 'founded science' ( again - see climate change).

I agree with the overall premise of the article that America suffers from an anti-intellectualism. I believe its multifactorial but comes partly from the absolute LACK of a diversity of opinion among intellectuals at the university level due to the hostile nature with which contrasting ideas are received.

quote:

---

The author assumes the position that his premises are objectively true ( e.g. climate change and evolution) and are thus settled science. He also assumes the premise that anyone with a contrasting worldview is immediately a knuckle dragging primate. This kind of condescention is creating the very anti intellectualism he is warning us about.

---

THIS!

quote:

---

Secondly, there was a thread a few days ago about the fallacy of peer review in academia. The 'elite' group of researchers who attain the status of peer reviewer do so through a self selecting mechanism of back-scratching thereby narrowing the focus of science to proving preconceived notions as opposed to challenging accepted norms. That is not the pursuit of objective truth. Novel research can't get funded if it doesn't first accept the premise of 'founded science' ( again - see climate change).

---

This as well.

The other problem is that he conflates those who shout down opposition with those who are branded as anti-intellectuals. In reality, those doing most of the shouting ARE the so-called intellectuals! These are highly educated people who are calling everyone racists, misogynists, tools of the patriarchy, etc. These people have college degrees and often masters degrees. They then turn around and deride everyone who doesn't think like them as some knuckle-dragging neanderthal, or even worse, an embodiment of the evil colonialists who are responsible for all of the world's ills and all of their personal shortcomings.

Those who don't about the founding of our country and basic facts about history are a product of our school curriculums which have all but abandoned history and science. What little they teach is steeped with progressive propaganda. Since dissent, speaking out of turn, and conflict resolution, and discipline have all but been eliminated from our schools, we are now seeing the result.

At the same time, the welfare state has eliminated the motivation for large swaths of our society to even have a use for education in the first place. You can't teach people who don't want to learn.

This is a multi-faceted issue, but at the heart of it is lots and lots of bad federal policy.

quote:

---

So rejecting them means you don't care to know or need to know who the first president was?

---

Not exactly.

quote:

---

who the first president was?

Or care who said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or care who said, "I have just begun to fight!"?

---

The salient question in each instance is not really "who". "Who" is a matter of rote.

Certainly 'who' is interesting, but the important question should be "why" and "how". Failure to address those belies the real worthlessness of our current educational system.

quote:

---

Those who don't about the founding of our country and basic facts about history are a product of our school curriculums which have all but abandoned history and science. What little they teach is steeped with progressive propaganda.

---

they must not be doing it very effectively, because i have yet to meet the savants who are aware that george washington was a slave owner who systematically oppressed women and people of color, but *didn't* know that he was also the first president.

i have encountered my fair share of students who don't know that world war i preceded world war ii. but it's not because they were fed a diet of maoist lesbian poetry instead. it's because they didn't learn or know ANYTHING, period.

and i seriously think you guys are overstating the influence of radical professors and their indoctrination of students. they mustn't be doing too good of a job either, because last i checked donald trump was elected president and most americans identified as center-right, politically. the truth is, we can't even get most of our students to read the syllabus. but you guys are convinced we're turning them on to the finer points of third-wave feminism with a snap of our fingers. i *wish* i had the kind of influence you attribute to me and my colleagues ;- )

the cause of this "ignorance" of civics and basic facts and history and humanities? i'd look to the de-emphasis of the history and humanities in favor of STEM, but i don't think that's the whole story. what i'm not buying is that this is a partisan issue. it goes way beyond that.