2 ms·

> Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? They definitely have a better understanding of

> Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? They definitely have a better understanding of that slice of the world that they experience while the professor doesn't. The whole point of the article is aptly summed up by the "let them eat cake" anecdote, by the way.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
And the professor has a better understanding of that slice of the world the professor lives in. This is a facile argument, because the implication is that the outlook - which includes the interests - of ordinary people is morally more significant than the outlook of a minority of clever people. It's effectively saying that intellectuals are worthless because sometimes they're wrong and/or out of touch. In reality, if you round up all the intellectuals and kill them - something last tried by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot - you don't generally get an improvement in the quality of life of ordinary people. Is that extreme? Then how about simply ignoring all experts and professionals? Many experts and professionals are clever, and some surely count as intellectual. Will ignoring them make life better for everyone else? The author seems to be implying so. Personally, I'm not convinced - precisely because this kind of anti-intellectualism is a reliable cheap shot used by demagogues and authoritarians to direct attention away from other groups that are more likely to be causing deep problems.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > It's effectively saying that intellectuals are worthless because sometimes they're wrong and/or out of touch. Oh, hell no. I've seen that side of the story, too, and it's completely wrong. We agree on that. > In reality, if you round up all the intellectuals and kill them - something last tried by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot - you don't generally get an improvement in the quality of life of ordinary people. I lived under communist dictatorship for 20 years, and I have first hand experience with the results of those policies. Had to work my way through those mentalities, at times. To say you're not telling me anything new would be an understatement. I've also participated to the 1989 anti-communist revolutions, and I've seen anti-intellectualism rearing its ugly head again - thankfully without dire consequences. So the extremes are bad, as they always are. But I don't think the article implies that intellectuals are worthless. The way I read it, perhaps biased by my own life track, is that intelligence and scholarly education are greatly enhanced by a broad range of experience. No matter how smart or polished you are, you'll judge the simple folk in a different way if you walk in their shoes for a while.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

And the professor has a better understanding of that slice of the world the professor lives in. This is a facile argument, because the implication is that the outlook - which includes the interests - of ordinary people is morally more significant than the outlook of a minority of clever people. It's effectively saying that intellectuals are worthless because sometimes they're wrong and/or out of touch. In reality, if you round up all the intellectuals and kill them - something last tried by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot - you don't generally get an improvement in the quality of life of ordinary people. Is that extreme? Then how about simply ignoring all experts and professionals? Many experts and professionals are clever, and some surely count as intellectual. Will ignoring them make life better for everyone else? The author seems to be implying so. Personally, I'm not convinced - precisely because this kind of anti-intellectualism is a reliable cheap shot used by demagogues and authoritarians to direct attention away from other groups that are more likely to be causing deep problems.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> It's effectively saying that intellectuals are worthless because sometimes they're wrong and/or out of touch. Oh, hell no. I've seen that side of the story, too, and it's completely wrong. We agree on that. > In reality, if you round up all the intellectuals and kill them - something last tried by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot - you don't generally get an improvement in the quality of life of ordinary people. I lived under communist dictatorship for 20 years, and I have first hand experience with the results of those policies. Had to work my way through those mentalities, at times. To say you're not telling me anything new would be an understatement. I've also participated to the 1989 anti-communist revolutions, and I've seen anti-intellectualism rearing its ugly head again - thankfully without dire consequences. So the extremes are bad, as they always are. But I don't think the article implies that intellectuals are worthless. The way I read it, perhaps biased by my own life track, is that intelligence and scholarly education are greatly enhanced by a broad range of experience. No matter how smart or polished you are, you'll judge the simple folk in a different way if you walk in their shoes for a while.