4 ms·

>For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of t

>For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals. So... intellectuals were right about the issues that they were focused on, but somehow populists are right that they are out of touch? Those seem contradictory to me, if they are problematically out of touch, then why were their ideas still correct? Who cares? At worst these seem like separate qualities, clearly being out of touch didn't make them wrong about the actual issues directly.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
No, populists were wrong about the issues that they were focused on. That doesn't mean that intellectuals were right, about anything. Intellectuals can be wrong on any given issue (especially since, for any issue, you can find an intellectual on both sides). But more to the point, intellectuals can be wrong (or at least completely out of touch) in the choice of questions that they think are important.
jerf 10y ago
Those were two cherry-picked examples of things intelligentsia got right. It was not a claim that they get everything or almost everything right. I generally share the author's opinions about intellectuals as a category, and the gold standard was, in my opinion, a particularly good choice of an example that intellectuals get right where the common man is often quite wrong. The same concrete connection to the real world that so often leads the common man to be more correct about some very simple things that the intelligentsia misleads them here, because money is not a very concrete thing. It can seem like it is, because you've got this "cash" and this "gold" and it all seems very concrete, but the true driver of the economy, how people subjectively measure value, is very abstract. But intellectuals can also say some blitheringly idiotic things, like promoting the glorious Five Year Plans when anybody who has ever had to make real plans for the future knows that you generally encounter important divergences in the first week of implementation, or that battle plans never survive contact with the enemy, etc. I also do not endorse economics in general; it is true that "the gold standard" is not good, but economic's track record of telling us what is good is bad. Intellectual pursuits can be a very powerful and noble thing, but when it fails to correctly ground itself in reality it can become a very powerful and evil thing. I have great respect for intellectuals who admit error and craft new theories or ideas in response to failure and great, great contempt for the majority of those who fancy themselves intellectuals who instead cling to words and theory far, far beyond what is justified when evidence of error confronts them. (Yes, one can't drop a theory the instant one slight deviation is seen, but there are theories still alive today in the intellectual world that should have died decades, and in some particularly sad cases, centuries ago.)
- sillyarg 10y ago
  It's impossible to take you seriously when you use Stalin's Five Year Plans as evidence that "Intellectuals" are negative. That's a flawed argument on so many levels: 1) It's ridiculous to conflate modern science and Stalin. It's worse than ridiculous. 2) Even if you can somehow convince yourself that it's reasonable to treat Stalin and modern scientists as a homogenous pool, Stalin's actions worked out quite well for Stalin. Which was pretty obviously his goal. 3) Your core argument is 'some systematic approaches to understanding have failed; so we should give up'. That's defeatist nonsense. 4) Your secondary argument is the intellectuals are actually good (and you pretend to respect them), but some aren't, therefore intellectuals are bad. That's not even an argument. Please down vote me if you are an extremist ideologue.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Take a breath.
    - sillyarg 10y ago
      It just sucks that the HN mods think it's fine for dishonest ideological warriors like Jerf to casually conflate modern academia and Stalin, just because he did so without using profanity. It's such an intense and personal attack; and it's so wildly dishonest... It completely eliminates all possibility of a useful conversation in a single sentence. It's poo.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        I think you're taking something personally that isn't at all intended that way, and I think that's making it difficult for you to appreciate the nuance in the statement to which you've responded. I understand why and I don't blame you for it, but I hope you're able to take a step back from the passion of the moment and reconsider; on the one hand, I think there's useful insight here, and on the other, I know it's not pleasant to feel yourself put so thoroughly on the defensive that you have to respond this aggressively, and I'm sorry to see anyone go through that, especially when it may not actually be necessary. 'jerf didn't say that academia is evil because Stalin, but rather that intellectualism which becomes too far divorced from reality can be an extremely dangerous force; he cited Soviet central economic planning as an extreme example of the sort of danger to which he refers. I don't think it is controversial to say that Soviet economic policies were derived primarily from a political theory which was developed by people whom it's accurate to describe as "intellectuals", in the demonymic usage we seem to be taking as conventional in this thread. I also don't think it's controversial to say that these policies produced widespread, severe privation among the population on whom they were tried. And I don't think it is accurate, or fair, to say that 'jerf meant this example as a general indictment of modern academia. Nothing in his comment seems to me to suggest anything of the sort. But I can see how, if I were myself an academic and an "intellectual", I might take some of what he did say as a very direct attack on my identity and sense of self-worth, and respond to that rather than to the arguments actually being made. I hope I'm not coming across as patronizing here. I'm really not trying to be. It's just that, as a tradesman, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and as someone who's worked among academics in the past, I've had the opportunity to develop some insight into some patterns of thought which people who work in that paradigm might share. Among those, I think, is a general feeling of being constantly under attack by a populace which is both ignorant of what science and academia actually do, on the one hand, and on the other deliberately misinformed by a variety of demagogues for their own political benefit. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone, who is accustomed to what I'd almost call this siege mentality, to react aggressively to anything which looked even a little like a critical analysis of the value of academia or intellectualism as a whole. It's very natural to respond in such fashion to an attack on one's livelihood. But I don't think what is going on here really is such an attack, and maybe the conversation we could all have about what 'jerf is saying would be more interesting and mutually satisfactory than the one we currently seem to be having. Either that, or I'm completely wrong about what's going on and I've totally misread the entire situation. I don't think that's the case, but how can I be sure?
zeveb 10y ago
> So... intellectuals were right about the issues that they were focused on, but somehow populists are right that they are out of touch? Those seem contradictory to me One can be factually correct yet emotionally incorrect (indeed, in my experience that's been at the root of some nasty interpersonal unpleasantness).
antognini 10y ago
>For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals. I was a little confused by this statement. I thought that the populists of yore like William Jennings Bryant were opposed to the gold standard, and the modern consensus is that the gold standard is a bad thing. So weren't the populists right about it?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

No, populists were wrong about the issues that they were focused on. That doesn't mean that intellectuals were right, about anything. Intellectuals can be wrong on any given issue (especially since, for any issue, you can find an intellectual on both sides). But more to the point, intellectuals can be wrong (or at least completely out of touch) in the choice of questions that they think are important.

jerf 10y ago

Those were two cherry-picked examples of things intelligentsia got right. It was not a claim that they get everything or almost everything right. I generally share the author's opinions about intellectuals as a category, and the gold standard was, in my opinion, a particularly good choice of an example that intellectuals get right where the common man is often quite wrong. The same concrete connection to the real world that so often leads the common man to be more correct about some very simple things that the intelligentsia misleads them here, because money is not a very concrete thing. It can seem like it is, because you've got this "cash" and this "gold" and it all seems very concrete, but the true driver of the economy, how people subjectively measure value, is very abstract. But intellectuals can also say some blitheringly idiotic things, like promoting the glorious Five Year Plans when anybody who has ever had to make real plans for the future knows that you generally encounter important divergences in the first week of implementation, or that battle plans never survive contact with the enemy, etc. I also do not endorse economics in general; it is true that "the gold standard" is not good, but economic's track record of telling us what is good is bad. Intellectual pursuits can be a very powerful and noble thing, but when it fails to correctly ground itself in reality it can become a very powerful and evil thing. I have great respect for intellectuals who admit error and craft new theories or ideas in response to failure and great, great contempt for the majority of those who fancy themselves intellectuals who instead cling to words and theory far, far beyond what is justified when evidence of error confronts them. (Yes, one can't drop a theory the instant one slight deviation is seen, but there are theories still alive today in the intellectual world that should have died decades, and in some particularly sad cases, centuries ago.)

sillyarg 10y ago
It's impossible to take you seriously when you use Stalin's Five Year Plans as evidence that "Intellectuals" are negative. That's a flawed argument on so many levels: 1) It's ridiculous to conflate modern science and Stalin. It's worse than ridiculous. 2) Even if you can somehow convince yourself that it's reasonable to treat Stalin and modern scientists as a homogenous pool, Stalin's actions worked out quite well for Stalin. Which was pretty obviously his goal. 3) Your core argument is 'some systematic approaches to understanding have failed; so we should give up'. That's defeatist nonsense. 4) Your secondary argument is the intellectuals are actually good (and you pretend to respect them), but some aren't, therefore intellectuals are bad. That's not even an argument. Please down vote me if you are an extremist ideologue.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Take a breath.
  - sillyarg 10y ago
    It just sucks that the HN mods think it's fine for dishonest ideological warriors like Jerf to casually conflate modern academia and Stalin, just because he did so without using profanity. It's such an intense and personal attack; and it's so wildly dishonest... It completely eliminates all possibility of a useful conversation in a single sentence. It's poo.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      I think you're taking something personally that isn't at all intended that way, and I think that's making it difficult for you to appreciate the nuance in the statement to which you've responded. I understand why and I don't blame you for it, but I hope you're able to take a step back from the passion of the moment and reconsider; on the one hand, I think there's useful insight here, and on the other, I know it's not pleasant to feel yourself put so thoroughly on the defensive that you have to respond this aggressively, and I'm sorry to see anyone go through that, especially when it may not actually be necessary. 'jerf didn't say that academia is evil because Stalin, but rather that intellectualism which becomes too far divorced from reality can be an extremely dangerous force; he cited Soviet central economic planning as an extreme example of the sort of danger to which he refers. I don't think it is controversial to say that Soviet economic policies were derived primarily from a political theory which was developed by people whom it's accurate to describe as "intellectuals", in the demonymic usage we seem to be taking as conventional in this thread. I also don't think it's controversial to say that these policies produced widespread, severe privation among the population on whom they were tried. And I don't think it is accurate, or fair, to say that 'jerf meant this example as a general indictment of modern academia. Nothing in his comment seems to me to suggest anything of the sort. But I can see how, if I were myself an academic and an "intellectual", I might take some of what he did say as a very direct attack on my identity and sense of self-worth, and respond to that rather than to the arguments actually being made. I hope I'm not coming across as patronizing here. I'm really not trying to be. It's just that, as a tradesman, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and as someone who's worked among academics in the past, I've had the opportunity to develop some insight into some patterns of thought which people who work in that paradigm might share. Among those, I think, is a general feeling of being constantly under attack by a populace which is both ignorant of what science and academia actually do, on the one hand, and on the other deliberately misinformed by a variety of demagogues for their own political benefit. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone, who is accustomed to what I'd almost call this siege mentality, to react aggressively to anything which looked even a little like a critical analysis of the value of academia or intellectualism as a whole. It's very natural to respond in such fashion to an attack on one's livelihood. But I don't think what is going on here really is such an attack, and maybe the conversation we could all have about what 'jerf is saying would be more interesting and mutually satisfactory than the one we currently seem to be having. Either that, or I'm completely wrong about what's going on and I've totally misread the entire situation. I don't think that's the case, but how can I be sure?

zeveb 10y ago

> So... intellectuals were right about the issues that they were focused on, but somehow populists are right that they are out of touch? Those seem contradictory to me One can be factually correct yet emotionally incorrect (indeed, in my experience that's been at the root of some nasty interpersonal unpleasantness).

antognini 10y ago

>For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals. I was a little confused by this statement. I thought that the populists of yore like William Jennings Bryant were opposed to the gold standard, and the modern consensus is that the gold standard is a bad thing. So weren't the populists right about it?