Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.

How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.

Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.

People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.

How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?

Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.

People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).

I agree with your post, but is it not an obvious thing to point out?

coberst,

Yes, you are indeed right, is this not what Nietzsche pointed out about equality and the common market place, people distrust intelligence, there are no higher men. Most people take pride in their anti-intellectualism, could it be the path of least resistence? God loves the redneck, he made so many of them. I suppose it is a like relation to not trusting fully the brute strength of another to serve your self-interest, not a comfortable place to be.

People are animals. Animals do what they do because of their genes and environment. Talking philosohy to an animal no doubt will get a variety of actions. A backhand, thrown waste, beating of the chest, violence, or no resopnse. Why would you be surprised that human animals respond the same way? Better still, humans even have a name for part of that…ego. If you tell them something that makes sense, and they did not know this, to you that may be a good thing. To their animal brain, it means that you demonstrated they were ignorant, and simultaneously that you knew more, and were willing to challenge them on it.

Thems fighting words…to the animal (or the ego, or whatever you call it).
Philosophy without psychology is blind.

-Mach

Aye.

You might be correct. I point it out because anti-intellectualism is like the air we breath, few are conscious of it. In making the reader conscious of it I hope to decrease its presence in our culture.

The truth out of the matter:

Take a public speaking course and acting classes. If 90% of the people in an audience watching a movie can understand what is said I don’t really understand why they couldn’t understand anything you want to tell them.

The big problem is with the TIME NEEDED to digest what is being said, some of what we learn cannot be communicated to people without an educational background or experience.

Next trying to talk to an audience who is not INTERESTED in what you have to say, no matter how educated… is worthless.

The fact of the matter is, why should you cater to their instincts? Why not ask for them to commit to the interaction?

Utlimately though, we don’t live long enough to individualize (communicate one on one and make everything clear to each person) what we want to communicate to everyone in an audience because that’s the kind of thing we’d have to do if we wanted to communicate correctly.

I always thought about making a Forum with a “wiki” format with tabs, you write your post/essay/etc, and then you allow other people to REWRITE what you wrote to make it clearer… I wish we could do the same for spoken speaches or videos, via wiki-youtubizing what you want to say.

I think we should work on “wiki-fying” philosophy thesis/essays/papers, etc. I’d like to see papers that are the work of more then one person, because many people can’t conceptualize or write what they are trying to say well.

THEY may think they are but that’s their ego-centric point of view. We tend to personalize our language to suit how our mind works and this is why we suffer so much mis-communication.

I guess you are right, though I think that anyone that is not consious of it already are not going to listen.

superculture

Some excellent ideas here. The problem is that almost all readers on these forums seem to think that if they cannot read and reply within 5 minutes it doesn’t count. We have a visual passive culture that is not well suited for critical reading.

Rhinoboy

I think that if people heard from many others that anti-intellectualism is not healthy they will get the idea. If only a few of us point this out then the people will not hear. If we pay attention to Madison Avenue we will discover that the trick is repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, rep…

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin.

-Imp

Hi everyone!

I think it was Einstein who stated that it is remarkeable that a formal education does not always entirely kill curiosity-------that is a very ruff recall of his statement. I think the essence of its meaning though is that it is important is not to kill the wonder found in every child. You cannot legislate wonder, imagination and delight in the world, but you can try to provide a rich context in which its potential will be realized, as seeds in fertile soil. Context, society has its responsibility to this potential, if it fails, its own future self is degraded and quality spirals downward.

boagie

I have little doubt that the American educational system is intentionally designed to make good producers and consumers who will not gum up the wheels by becomeing critical thinkers. Our system has left us all seriously learning handicapped.

Well Im not so optimistic on this front, but successfull it would be a great thing, so keep up the good work :slight_smile:

Interesting. Are you assuming that the language of the 12 year old is not as developed as that of the 18 year old? How can you be so sure? Generally, how do you define these differences? Mannerisms? Vocabulary usage? The ideas being discussed? Why is it that the language of a 12 year old easily infuriates the 18 year old?

Sorry. It seems that my questions are a bit irrelevant to the topic being discussed here. :smiley:

chaos

I have 5 children and 7 grandchildren and believe me there is a world of difference between a 12 and 18 year old.

how can you blame people for something they are not even consciously doing?