Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
A high IQ is certainly no indicator of success, or self-discipline, as my existence has illustrated, time and again.

However, since I have neither success nor self-discipline, why do you feel the need to destroy what little pride I take in my IQ?  To quote the great Mayor Richard M. Daley, "What do you want, my shorts?!"  Bully...

I guess it is good to have a President who is extremely smart, but not a genius, as geniuses tend to be neurotic basket cases with no social skills.  

Back to the IQ.  I do wonder what the av. IQ on ET is.  I bet I am on the lower end here.  

Also, why is it ok for people to flaunt their wealth, beauty and power, but not their intelligence?  Maybe it is not such an issue in Europe, but until a week ago, being smart was considered elitism, something one should be ashamed of, here.  Intellectual people are in the closet in the country.  Only allowed to be cerebral in company of others like themselves.  I think smart people should show off.  Supermodels don't think, "I should only wear sweatpants and oversize t-shirts in public, so other people don't feel inferior to me."  Wealthy people don't live in trailer parks out of tact.  No, they flaunt it, making everyone else aspire to be like them.  Intelligent people should flaunt it too, and maybe people will begin to desire to emulate them.  Make it cool to watch Nova and read books.  Maybe Obama will do that.

Here's a fun read:

Mark Ames: Elite versus Elitny

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This problem in the US was discussed in Hofstadter's "Anti-intllectualism in American life" back in the 60s. Since then the Republicans have used the "elitism" theme to attack liberals in general - while giving massive funding to right-wing think tanks (see Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal")

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It runs far deeper than politics.  I had friends in elementary school who would pretend to be less intelligent than they were, would fail tests on purpose, for fear of ridicule.

Actually, the person I am thinking of grew up in Holland before moving to the States as a kid.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But if you have powerful political forces pushing an ideology they help shape the culture in general. The political becomes the personal - as in the cases you refer to.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced it is entirely top-down.  In a Democracy, you can try to impose ideology from the top, but you also have to pander to the ideology of the bottom.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But where did THAT ideology come from ? Hofstadter tried to trace the origins of the anti-intellectualism which existed then - actually the 1950s - and (as I've noted before) locates the roots of the ideology before the establishment of the US in Puritanism. But then examines its development and the ways in which it became deeply rooted in American culture:

In his unsurpassed survey, Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect.
...

The force of Hofstadter's insight into persistent anti-intellectualism despite the rising legitimacy of technical experts would be clear five years after he published his book. George Wallace ran well in several Democratic Party primaries, and eventually, too, as a third-party candidate, while campaigning against "pointy-headed bureaucrats" -- precisely the classic identification of intellect with arbitrary power that Hofstadter had identified as the populist hallmark.

There was a left-wing version of this presupposition, too. A populist strain in the 60's student movement, identifying with the oppressed sharecroppers of the Mississippi Delta and the dispossessed miners of Appalachia, bent the principle "Let the people decide" into a suspicion of all those who were ostensibly knowledgeable. Under pressure of the Vietnam War, the steel-rimmed technocrat Robert S. McNamara came to personify the steel-trap mind untethered by insight, and countercultural currents came to disdain reason as a mask for imperial arrogance.

In his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966, Ronald Reagan deployed a classic anti-intellectual theme -- portraying students as riotous decadents. Real education was essentially a matter of training, and breaches of discipline resulted in nihilism and softness on communism. The Nixon-Agnew team proceeded to mobilize resentment against "nattering na-bobs of negativism," successfully mobilizing a "silent majority" against a verbose minority. That was to flower into a major neoconservative theme thereafter.

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i15/15b00701.htm




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series