On Stupidity

[Michael]

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," said H.L. Mencken in the era of Babbitt and the Scopes "monkey" trial. Several generations later, one might speculate that no publisher has ever lost money with a book accusing Americans — particularly young ones — of being stupid.

The most influential book in that genre is surely Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963), in which he argues that the American dislike for educational elitism derives from a number of interlocking cultural legacies, including religious fundamentalism, populism, the privileging of "common sense" over esoteric knowledge, the pragmatic values of business and science, and the cult of the self-made man. With some cyclical variation, Americans tend to distrust, resent, and even feel moral revulsion toward "intellectuals."

As an English professor, I can attest to the power of that element in American culture, as can just about anyone in any academic field without direct, practical applications. When a stranger asks me what I do, I usually just say, "I'm a teacher." The unfortunate follow-up remarks — usually about political bias in the classroom and sham apologies for their poor grammar meant to imply that I am a snob — usually make me wish I had said, "I sell hydraulic couplers," an answer more likely to produce hums of respectful incomprehension.

On Stupidity (http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/08/2008080101c.htm)

Interesting article - and an age old topic. Young people are stupid. Almost a stereotype, but I must admit, the evidence seems to be pretty damning - and the problem does seem to be getting worse.

It does seem like anti-intellectualism is on the rise in American culture. Any thoughts on this topic?

I may also add that I don't think this is unique to the USA - rather that the US is merely just far ahead on the curve. All trends are global now.

[Dominick]

If you'd replace 'stupidity' with 'ignorance', I'd agree. Young people are definitely not more stupid though, possibly the contrary.
But with schools that merely serve as training grounds for corporate drones, which in turn is the result of the merger between political and economical, or rather, financial, interests, and the complete lack of a general education, who's to blame here ? Not the youngsters, but the very generation that deplores the situation.

[partofme]

If you'd replace 'stupidity' with 'ignorance', I'd agree. Young people are definitely not more stupid though, possibly the contrary.
But with schools that merely serve as training grounds for corporate drones, which in turn is the result of the merger between political and economical, or rather, financial, interests, and the complete lack of a general education, who's to blame here ? Not the youngsters, but the very generation that deplores the situation.

I think both are to blame. Yes the education system in this country sucks but also there is a lack of intellectual curiosity among the young and culture that views intelligence and intellect as being "nerdy". Young people are more focused on social standing than anything else and the smart kids are outsiders and the cool kids are the jocks and cheerleaders. At least that was the case 11 years ago when I graduated. There where some exceptions in which intelligent kids did gain popularity so long as they never talked about it outside of class.

[SMadsen]

The worst part is that ignorance almost seems to be celebrated in USA. For example, the quiz shows over here tend to focus on the brigthest contestants (with exceptions, though) while American shows seem to focus on the most ignorant. The Fox show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" is perhaps the most prominent example. In an episode, a high school history teacher was asked, "Are all birds mammals?". He thought long and hard and finally, while being cheered by the audience, he answered yes!

I mean, c'mon, if that's the teacher, what are the kids to do? :D

[Americano]

The worst part is that ignorance almost seems to be celebrated in USA. For example, the quiz shows over here tend to focus on the brigthest contestants (with exceptions, though) while American shows seem to focus on the most ignorant. The Fox show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" is perhaps the most prominent example. In an episode, a high school history teacher was asked, "Are all birds mammals?". He thought long and hard and finally, while being cheered by the audience, he answered yes!

I mean, c'mon, if that's the teacher, what are the kids to do? :D

Many are taught to believe their big book of myths answers all questions.

[dilettante]

Some quick thoughts (I haven't read the whole article yet):

1) It might be interesting to see to what extent this intellect-based rejection flows the other way. As best I can tell, a large part of antipathy toward intellectuals stems from the perception that they are "snobs" who hold the rest of the population in disdain, de-valuing those who do not meet their intellectual standards. I think there is certainly some evidence of this mentality among the intellectually elite, though I don't know if it has become more virulent in recent years. It is certainly the case that those who wish to align themselves with intellectuals, or appear to be intellectuals themselves, often begin by verbally bashing the ignorant masses, often in political/religious/cultural terms. Such tendencies (or at least the perception of such tendencies) likely generates no small amount of anti-intellectualism.

2) This raises the question of what it means to be "stupid," "ignorant" and "intelligent." My academic advisor is an extremely intelligent man, recognized in his field of study, well published and well received. Yet, I discovered the other day, he doesn't really know how to use a computer at all.
How do we define "intelligent"? Which skills count and which do not? And to what extent does familiarity and skill with technology shift the balance? I'd hazard that many claims about kids being stupid come from adults who define "intelligent" in a way which marginializes forms of intelligence and skills that arose more recently.

3) Similarly, there is the question of practicality. There exists the perception that much of what makes up "intellectualism" is impractical and functionally useless. In part this is doubtless because those engaged in fields which lack the perception of immediate practical use often claim intellectual status as a means of defending themselves.
America has long placed a great value on practicality; if it is not useful, it is not valued. Speaking from the field of history (which generally lacks an immediate practical application), I can attest that one is constantly challeged with the "so what?" question, both by those within and without the field. This can be a useful prodding at times, but it demonstrates that knowledge for its own sake (like, say, art for its own sake) has little value in most American eyes. Those who earn a living based on such things are, consequently, often viewed as parasitic by the "prodoctive" members of society. Indeed, "intellectualism" and parasitism are often seen as related, if only because the intellectual must generally rely for his/her lifestyle and support on the work of many un-intellectual laborers, farmers, tradesmen,...etc.

[partofme]

Some quick thoughts (I haven't read the whole article yet):

1) It might be interesting to see to what extent this intellect-based rejection flows the other way. As best I can tell, a large part of antipathy toward intellectuals stems from the perception that they are "snobs" who hold the rest of the population in disdain, de-valuing those who do not meet their intellectual standards. I think there is certainly some evidence of this mentality among the intellectually elite, though I don't know if it has become more virulent in recent years. It is certainly the case that those who wish to align themselves with intellectuals, or appear to be intellectuals themselves, often begin by verbally bashing the ignorant masses, often in political/religious/cultural terms. Such tendencies (or at least the perception of such tendencies) likely generates no small amount of anti-intellectualism.

2) This raises the question of what it means to be "stupid," "ignorant" and "intelligent." My academic advisor is an extremely intelligent man, recognized in his field of study, well published and well received. Yet, I discovered the other day, he doesn't really know how to use a computer at all.
How do we define "intelligent"? Which skills count and which do not? And to what extent does familiarity and skill with technology shift the balance? I'd hazard that many claims about kids being stupid come from adults who define "intelligent" in a way which marginializes forms of intelligence and skills that arose more recently.

3) Similarly, there is the question of practicality. There exists the perception that much of what makes up "intellectualism" is impractical and functionally useless. In part this is doubtless because those engaged in fields which lack the perception of immediate practical use often claim intellectual status as a means of defending themselves.
America has long placed a great value on practicality; if it is not useful, it is not valued. Speaking from the field of history (which generally lacks an immediate practical application), I can attest that one is constantly challeged with the "so what?" question, both by those within and without the field. This can be a useful prodding at times, but it demonstrates that knowledge for its own sake (like, say, art for its own sake) has little value in most American eyes. Those who earn a living based on such things are, consequently, often viewed as parasitic by the "prodoctive" members of society. Indeed, "intellectualism" and parasitism are often seen as related, if only because the intellectual must generally rely for his/her lifestyle and support on the work of many un-intellectual laborers, farmers, tradesmen,...etc.

What I don't get about that is that if people seem to look down on me or think I'm ignorant or uneducated in a field it inspires me to learn something about it in order to proven them wrong in the future or for self improvement. It may make me mad but at the same time it does point out flaws or what can be perceived as a flaw. Too bad it isn't taken as constructive criticism.

[SMadsen]

I absolutely agree with you in this, Partofme. A feeling of inferiority is solely the problem of he who feels that way. I don't for a moment believe that intellect or even any degree of "pseudo-intellect" can cause anti-intellectualism but rather that it exists for very different reasons. Anti-intellectualism exists way before any claim of such a causality.

[dilettante]

What I don't get about that is that if people seem to look down on me or think I'm ignorant or uneducated in a field it inspires me to learn something about it in order to proven them wrong in the future or for self improvement. It may make me mad but at the same time it does point out flaws or what can be perceived as a flaw. Too bad it isn't taken as constructive criticism.

I think this ties back into what is perceived to be of value.

For example:
If someone looks down on me because I don't know much about the presidential candidate's economic strategies, I may well be inspired to go learn more about that topic.
On the other hand, if someone looks down on me because I haven't kept up with the latest who's-cheating-on-whom news from Hollywood, I'm not any more likely to go pick up the latest issue of Cosmo, and I am likely to henceforth think less of that person for judging people on such a trivial basis.
The difference is largely that I value the knowledge in the first instance and not in the second. And, in either case, if the person is insulting or demeaning, I'm likely to resent them regardless of whether I attempt to better myself.

Having grown up in the South and since lived and traveled in the Northeast and Southwest, I've often been shocked by the belittling, insulting arrogance with which people from one culture treat those from another. And each antipathy uses the others to justify itself. "Anti-intellectualism" is one such form of bigotry against a group with different cultures and values, but it certainly feeds, in some part, on a condescending arrogance (often loosely tied to political or religious criticism) that calls itself "intellectual".

I certainly wouldn't say that anti-intellectualism is caused by intellectual disdain (it has many causes), but I think it would be a mistake to presume that self-labeled intellectuals were entirely innocent in the spread and sustenance of such antipathy.

[partofme]

I think this ties back into what is perceived to be of value.

For example:
If someone looks down on me because I don't know much about the presidential candidate's economic strategies, I may well be inspired to go learn more about that topic.
On the other hand, if someone looks down on me because I haven't kept up with the latest who's-cheating-on-whom news from Hollywood, I'm not any more likely to go pick up the latest issue of Cosmo, and I am likely to henceforth think less of that person for judging people on such a trivial basis.
The difference is largely that I value the knowledge in the first instance and not in the second. And, in either case, if the person is insulting or demeaning, I'm likely to resent them regardless of whether I attempt to better myself.

Having grown up in the South and since lived and traveled in the Northeast and Southwest, I've often been shocked by the belittling, insulting arrogance with which people from one culture treat those from another. And each antipathy uses the others to justify itself. "Anti-intellectualism" is one such form of bigotry against a group with different cultures and values, but it certainly feeds, in some part, on a condescending arrogance (often loosely tied to political or religious criticism) that calls itself "intellectual".

I certainly wouldn't say that anti-intellectualism is caused by intellectual disdain (it has many causes), but I think it would be a mistake to presume that self-labeled intellectuals were entirely innocent in the spread and sustenance of such antipathy.

I think that specific "intellectuals" may indeed do this but what I am meaning is a problem with intellectualism rather than a group called intellectuals. I think their is general dislike of intellectualism and that knowledge out of a book is no good because it isn't hands on and that common sense trumps it. An example would be people that give me advice about how to deal with my kids when sick and say my doctor doesn't know what she is talking about. I think having a education on the subject is better than having a few kids and not having one when it comes to treating a illness but many do not and see the doctors as people that think they are hot shots that do not know how to really deal with children.

[Michael]

Some quick thoughts (I haven't read the whole article yet):

1) It might be interesting to see to what extent this intellect-based rejection flows the other way. As best I can tell, a large part of antipathy toward intellectuals stems from the perception that they are "snobs" who hold the rest of the population in disdain, de-valuing those who do not meet their intellectual standards. I think there is certainly some evidence of this mentality among the intellectually elite, though I don't know if it has become more virulent in recent years. It is certainly the case that those who wish to align themselves with intellectuals, or appear to be intellectuals themselves, often begin by verbally bashing the ignorant masses, often in political/religious/cultural terms. Such tendencies (or at least the perception of such tendencies) likely generates no small amount of anti-intellectualism.

Well, perception is reality. If intellectuals are believed to be 'snobs' and thus assumed and treated as snobs, then yes, intellectuals will appear to be snobs. No way around that. That intellectualism itself is 'snobbish' by definition (because it is not common) just reinforces this.

I think this is related to the celebration and high status of pop-culture. Pop-culture is by definition 'common'. Anything that is not 'common' is thus, 'elitist' by definition. Now throw in a hefty dose of political propaganda attacking 'elitism' and what you get is a strong cultural bias against all intellectual endeavors.

2) This raises the question of what it means to be "stupid," "ignorant" and "intelligent." My academic advisor is an extremely intelligent man, recognized in his field of study, well published and well received. Yet, I discovered the other day, he doesn't really know how to use a computer at all.
How do we define "intelligent"? Which skills count and which do not? And to what extent does familiarity and skill with technology shift the balance? I'd hazard that many claims about kids being stupid come from adults who define "intelligent" in a way which marginializes forms of intelligence and skills that arose more recently.
Yes, this is an excellent point.

But is it good enough to counter the 'evidence' of massive and wide-scale grade inflation from standardized tests?

I agree with Dominick above, "stupid" is the wrong word here. "Ignorance" is the real issue and that does raise the question about what standard is being used to judge. When it comes to computers and technology, the over 50 set does seem quite ignorant (almost stupid in fact) in comparison with those who are much younger. No question about that.

3) Similarly, there is the question of practicality. There exists the perception that much of what makes up "intellectualism" is impractical and functionally useless. In part this is doubtless because those engaged in fields which lack the perception of immediate practical use often claim intellectual status as a means of defending themselves.
America has long placed a great value on practicality; if it is not useful, it is not valued. Speaking from the field of history (which generally lacks an immediate practical application), I can attest that one is constantly challeged with the "so what?" question, both by those within and without the field. This can be a useful prodding at times, but it demonstrates that knowledge for its own sake (like, say, art for its own sake) has little value in most American eyes. Those who earn a living based on such things are, consequently, often viewed as parasitic by the "prodoctive" members of society. Indeed, "intellectualism" and parasitism are often seen as related, if only because the intellectual must generally rely for his/her lifestyle and support on the work of many un-intellectual laborers, farmers, tradesmen,...etc.
A celebration of the simple and uncomplicated life (the 'commonality' of popular culture) as supreme is I think related here too.

Lets just see how long that factory lasts in business without the financiers, lawyers, inventors, scientists and computer programmers. Intellectuals are not all ivory tower professors of obsurities and antiquities. It takes a strong political will to believe (and pretend) that these 'elitists' are all parasites.

[SMadsen]

I think it's adherence to a pure and simple conservatism that gives rise to anti-intellectualism. The power of the educated to provide change and progress is not very comforting to those who seek comfort in the status quo.

Just today someone wrote on another forum that Barack Obama "want to steer us to total socialism, and eventual communism". If this kind of nonsense isn't generated out of fear of leaving the "comfort zone" then I guess I don't know humans as well as I thought.

I think the question is why Americans adhere so much to conservatism as they do. One would think that revolutions, civil wars, cultural melting pots and leaderships in technological advances, to name a few, would point towards an extraordinary progressiveness, but it doesn't quite seem to have had that effect. Maybe religion has a major say in this. Maybe conservatism is a natural reaction to those things. Or maybe it's a combination.

[partofme]

I think it's adherence to a pure and simple conservatism that gives rise to anti-intellectualism. The power of the educated to provide change and progress is not very comforting to those who seek comfort in the status quo.

Just today someone wrote on another forum that Barack Obama "want to steer us to total socialism, and eventual communism". If this kind of nonsense isn't generated out of fear of leaving the "comfort zone" then I guess I don't know humans as well as I thought.

I think the question is why Americans adhere so much to conservatism as they do. One would think that revolutions, civil wars, cultural melting pots and leaderships in technological advances, to name a few, would point towards an extraordinary progressiveness, but it doesn't quite seem to have had that effect. Maybe religion has a major say in this. Maybe conservatism is a natural reaction to those things. Or maybe it's a combination.

In my area which is very conservative it is both religion and resistance. Agriculture is the main industry here outside of towns and farmers do not like the idea of any sort of growth because they see it as infringement on their old way of life and they value tradition above all. Everybody else seems to be conservative mainly because they see conservatism and the republican party in particular as God's people that want to defend Christian values and make sure secularism doesn't take over. Abortion is a big part of what drives this as well as homophobia and other things. Then you have the gun issue which covers almost everybody else. Yes there are progressive people here but they mainly are in the closet and only discuss it among themselves. Go out to any local restaurant and the conversations are always conservative in nature and still even racial at times with many people. Many democrats here are resistant to Obama not really because of him as a person but because he is views as being too "liberal" (American definition) and his race and unconventional background is also a factor with some. I don't mean to bring this into a political discussion only but Obama does represent what many around here hate about society in general even if they don't really know much about him at all.

[Michael]

I think it's adherence to a pure and simple conservatism that gives rise to anti-intellectualism. The power of the educated to provide change and progress is not very comforting to those who seek comfort in the status quo.

Just today someone wrote on another forum that Barack Obama "want to steer us to total socialism, and eventual communism". If this kind of nonsense isn't generated out of fear of leaving the "comfort zone" then I guess I don't know humans as well as I thought.

I think the question is why Americans adhere so much to conservatism as they do. One would think that revolutions, civil wars, cultural melting pots and leaderships in technological advances, to name a few, would point towards an extraordinary progressiveness, but it doesn't quite seem to have had that effect. Maybe religion has a major say in this. Maybe conservatism is a natural reaction to those things. Or maybe it's a combination.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. And yes, the interesting question is, why is America so conservative?

Oddly enough, the USA is (and long has been) one of the most well educated nations in the world. The USA has always had the highest percentage of college graduates and post-grads in the world (as a percentage of the population). On this basis, the USA has more "intellectuals" per capita than anywhere else in the world.

[partofme]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. And yes, the interesting question is, why is America so conservative?

Oddly enough, the USA is (and long has been) one of the most well educated nations in the world. The USA has always had the highest percentage of college graduates and post-grads in the world (as a percentage of the population). On this basis, the USA has more "intellectuals" per capita than anywhere else in the world.

There is a video on Youtube in which the editor of The Economist was speaking at Berkley and he suggested that there is a strong correlation between liberalism and high population densities and he thinks it is because people are much more scattered out than in Europe for example. In a way this makes sense since rural areas tend to be conservative and urban areas more liberal.

It's towards the beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PVHbsMYDR8

[The Sister]

rural areas tend to be conservative and urban areas more liberal.


That's true if you look at the red state vs blue state map!

But I wonder if America really is conservative - maybe it's just about voting patterns, the election process and the squeaky wheel rule - the right is much louder than the left. Remember Janet Jackson's breast scandal - really did anyone really even see the breast much less be offended by it? Wasn't the uproar really just a few loud right wingers?

Maybe being liberal is just unfashionable and this economic crisis will make doing the right thing and caring about others will be the 'in' thing!

[partofme]

That's true if you look at the red state vs blue state map!

But I wonder if America really is conservative - maybe it's just about voting patterns, the election process and the squeaky wheel rule - the right is much louder than the left. Remember Janet Jackson's breast scandal - really did anyone really even see the breast much less be offended by it? Wasn't the uproar really just a few loud right wingers?

Maybe being liberal is just unfashionable and this economic crisis will make doing the right thing and caring about others will be the 'in' thing!

I see much of it as a masculinity issue. For some reason where I live everybody has to prove they are tough. They have to drive big trucks, have tribal tattoos, have big bumper stickers that say things like "fear this", and show they are some sort of bad ass. Republicans are seen as the tough guys and democrats as the pussies. That's part of it. Another is that it's a religious country and republicans are supposed to be the Christian party. It's probably a mixture of many different factors. Really the ideologies of conservatism and liberalism mean nothing to the average voter. It's perception of their social club and where they fit in. But again this is only part of it.

[Michael]

I see much of it as a masculinity issue.
Yes, one only has to look at Republican culture issue-framing since Reagan's time.

Republicans = manly, tough, resolute
Democrats = wimpy, weak, indecisive

The Republicans have been remarkably successful with this framing. Low-information voters tend to internalize these kinds of propaganda frames.

And yes, I agree entirely that political party affiliation has everything to do with one's 'socio-cultural' club and nothing to do with policy. Its like the 'red team' vs the 'blue team' and people are dedicated to their team - come hell or high water - just because it is their team. Issues be damned.

[Americano]

I see much of it as a masculinity issue. For some reason where I live everybody has to prove they are tough. They have to drive big trucks, have tribal tattoos, have big bumper stickers that say things like "fear this", and show they are some sort of bad ass. Republicans are seen as the tough guys and democrats as the pussies. That's part of it. Another is that it's a religious country and republicans are supposed to be the Christian party. It's probably a mixture of many different factors. Really the ideologies of conservatism and liberalism mean nothing to the average voter. It's perception of their social club and where they fit in. But again this is only part of it.

Simple peer group appeal, no different than mass spectator sports, with well-compensated political demographic experts exploiting the weaknesses for their respective affiliations.

[Michael]

Simple peer group appeal, no different than mass spectator sports, with well-compensated political demographic experts exploiting the weaknesses for their respective affiliations.
Yes this is good - I've always found political partisanship to be most similar to sport team affiliations. People tend to choose one party (or sport team) and support it for the rest of their lives - regardless of any issue.

[Americano]

Yes this is good - I've always found political partisanship to be most similar to sport team affiliations. People tend to choose one party (or sport team) and support it for the rest of their lives - regardless of any issue.

Makes sense when critical thinking in a majority of households consists of which 200+ channels of mostly mindless entertainment is the priority.