What Are the Dangers of Anti- and Pseudo-Intellectualism?

in dtube •  7 years ago 


MAJOR QUESTION right now, very much related to the issues of lack of critical thinking that I've been talking about lately. What are your thoughts? Leave them in a reply!


▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Pseudo-intellectualism is dangerous because it’s not honest. It’s people acting like they are experts on topics when they are not. It’s people teaching people without credentials on the topic. It’s artifice, it is used to deceive people and control them. Very often in American culture recently, the few intellectuals we have are ostracized, and the pseudo-intellectuals control the populace and the media.

I agree, but anti-intellectualism isn't particularly honest either

Hmm i am totally agree with you @davidpakman and i think there is a solution to stop all this. The best place to start would be to cool down the political rhetoric. It is difficult to listen to the other side when tempers are hot. Additionally, though "facts are stubborn things," there is often plenty of room for disagreement on policy. Discussions ought to focus there. Civility can be reestablished, but it takes a collective effort. Tell me what you think on this. Is i am thinking right? Good night.

Hayek used to call them 2nd hand dealers of ideas and pointed out how dangerous this can be. He was distinguishing Intellectuals from Experts as the term Intellectual shifted over time.

Futhermore, it blur the line between real experts and pseudo experts for some people, wich put them in the same basket. Then, for crucial topic like climate change, both side are treated as important and thoughtful, even if one side is heavily supported by scientists. It's dangerous for our very own physical and mental health.

yeah well said @melvin.etniopal.. you are right it's really dangerous.

Try to talk about the subject and not about how many (paid) scientists are supporting your non-sense.

And it doesn't happen only in America, the phenomenom is strong and real in Canada too.

yup Canada is also gonna face problem in future due to this.

I think it is bad to conflate the two subjects/words.

Anti-intellectuals are the ones who would rather believe their local pastor instead of science and academia.

Pseudo-intellectuals are you guys, who just repeat what the science authority says. If you would have done even a few minutes of unbiased, scientific research on climate change you would have come to the conclusion that the whole hysteria around it is a hoax.

The sea levels rose by 120 meters (~400 feet) in the past 20.000 years and we humans survived it. I am not saying that we do not influence our climate and that we should not pay close attention to what is happening with it, but the current alarming narrative and all this save the polar bear bs, is the very definition of Pseudo-Intellectualism.

I do think I try to distinguish between the two

Maybe I was a little harsh, but here we use the term "pseudo-intellectual" for people who present scientific arguments, but do not offer a scientific explanation.

In example:

Science says we need to stop climate change. --> Pseudo-intellectual

Science says we need to stop climate change, because ... ---> Intellectual

Science says we need to stop climate change, so we should do climate change because all scientists are crooks. ---> Anti-intellectual

Accusing us of being pseudo-intellectual is rather ironic from someone screaming hoax, bs and making it very own definition of Pseudo-Intellectualism.

It is not my definition.

Pseudo-intellectuals are people who think they are intellectual but do not even have a single clue about the matter at hand. Sure, you watched a Docu with Matt Damon on the problem, but that does not make you intellectual.

The way Trump speaks is obviously Anti-Intellectual, because he uses very simple words.

what you say sounds interesting but is using of simple words making you or me an Anti-intellectual? Clearly, that cannot be sufficient. An ability to describe things in simple words would be rather a gift then lack of intellect.

I strive...ehhhm want to use more simple language because of that very reason. Many pseudo intellectuals love to hide behind fancy words and it is no wonder people are so frustrated with science if you have to learn a whole langugae to be part of the discussion.

yep. Jut mentioned F.A.Hayek was talking about this back in 1940's...nothing changed. The consequences can be disastrous....

How is it not bs, when people are crying about a sub group of bears that evolved a few 100,000 years ago (due to extremely cold climate)?

You mentioned Dunning-Kruger. It seems to be this anti-intellectual push is a way of insulating their ego from recognizing their faults and their deficiencies. Why worry about being smart enough and doing the hard work to improve yourself when you can just convince yourself you're awesome instead?

Yeah, very good point

We are all responsible for asking ourselves if we are using opinion, judgement, and emotion when we state some point, or do we know. If the latter was the case, I suspect there would be a whole lot less rhetoric. Be safe, be well, and thank you for this thought provoking post.

To maybe approach this from another angle: I am anti-science in a way that I think huge parts of the scientific community are full of it. To me critical thinking demands to never take anything for granted no matter how decorated the person saying it is.

Even people like Einstein hated the American science community and for good reasons. You guys only talk about people who talk about science instead of talking about science.

Then you follow Rene Descartes and his 'Method'. Of course you can find childish mentality amongst otherwise well respected scientists. My problem with science is that our system (Europe) pours PhD's in thousands and the quality suffers. It is all about sucking money from EU and politics rather then research. The science is created per order. For me this system lacks credibility and becomes untrustworthy. How can I take seriously research on Global Warming when I know that it was created for money. Ridiculous.....and easy to become Anti-intellectual as you say..

yeah, I actually studied some philosophy to become the douchebag I am today ;)

The problem with stupid people is they lack the mental faculty to process their own stupidity. And here's John Cleese with an excellent explanation on the matter. ;)

Didn't you ever see the Documentary made about this? It came out in 2005, I think. A man who was cryogenically frozen is thawed hundreds of year in the future. When he interacts with people he meets in the future, they can barely understand him, despite the fact that they are all speaking English. The US President is a wrestler, and the farming industry is in dire straights because the plants are watered with a sports drink instead of water. That president just hires his inexperienced friends to fill out his cabinet. It's hard to imagine any of that happening now, right?

Lets admit the world is going crazy . In the near future everybody will think they are right and clever due to sistem that protects them. If you will say a rubbish thing and anyone will confrunt you , you will call protection and you will be protected.
This world is going crazy , people , lets change that .

this post very nice..i like dtube channel...thanks for sharing this post...

Dave Chappelle just gave me some hope on his 'Equanimity' on Netflix. Said it was plain to see how trump was messing up. Hilarious.

Agreed. I've never even been a Chapelle fan, but I found that comedy special perfectly timed and honest.

om vote have me :D

David,

Regarding climate, there's so much you can do as an individual. I'd encourage you to look into the effects that a meatless (or better yet, vegan) diet has on the planet. And whether or not you adopted it fully, you're in a position where you could do so much good just by educating.

Personally I tend to assume people are politically motivated more than genuinely concerned about the planet unless they're also taking steps to treat the planet well themselves. And it's easy to forget that supporting something politically doesn't pardon us from the consequences of our actions. Not saying you're guilty of that, just I think you can have a big impact by reminding people that there are things we can do on our own, regardless of what policies win or lose.

I'm not sure what qualifies people as anti- or pseudo-intellectual in this case other than they disagree with you. It seems basically just an assertion that your side is correct. Maybe you are correct. But there are plenty of people who vote for Clinton for unsophisticated reasons too.

Upvoting because I like your content and what you bring to Steemit, but those are my thoughts :)