4 ms·
It seems like when people say "anti-intellectual," they're not classifying engineers, chemists, doctors, architects, and people studied in management in that gr
by lionhearted 16y ago
It seems like when people say "anti-intellectual," they're not classifying engineers, chemists, doctors, architects, and people studied in management in that group.
Lawyers are the most heavily represented profession in all three branches of government. Personally I'd like to see more people that have to deal with real world constraints like the hard sciences, engineering, and market constraints taking government leadership positions, and less positions going to people who've spent their whole life doing purely theoretical work. But I don't think that's an anti-intellectual position to take.
- lotharbot 16y agoStated another way, when people refer to "intellectuals" in this context, what they mean is "people who are completely detached from reality and critical feedback". They're referring to people who live in a world of pure theory, where advancement comes from impressing others who live in that same world of pure theory. There is some backlash and resentment against those who make a lot of money (often taxpayer money) without producing anything the public considers worthwhile. I don't know any "anti-intellectuals" who resent engineers, doctors, architects, or capable businesspeople. There is a little resentment for scientists, but it's typically reserved for those in highly theoretical/abstract parts of science, especially those who make public policy recommendations based on theoretical work. And there is a lot of resentment for lawyers and politicians.