Encountering anti-intellectualism
- Thread starter Nocta-Aeterna
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've been lucky in that regard, for the most part. While I haven't been outright lambasted for using 'big words', I have gotten a few odd looks. Especially in my grade school years.
Oh man, my mom and my family friend. You have NO idea. Like, not even just uni, they were against MIDDLE SCHOOL, for god's sake. Apparently, I was a disappointment for wanting to stay in school past the age of 10. It's bloody ridiculous. They kept pressuring me to follow the family friend in his line of work. Finally, I caved and just did what they said.
I wound up defeating the Elite Four, though, so I guess it didn't turn out too badly.
I wound up defeating the Elite Four, though, so I guess it didn't turn out too badly.
I very much doubt that most people who take longer than the allotted time do so because they are so very interested in the subject that they are studying it too much. Maybe some do, but I don't think it's "most". But even if this were true I think you have to ask yourself two things:Xaryn Mar said:
1) Why does this extra learning need to be during your college years? Even if you take a couple of extra years, you are not going to learn everything. This means that if you are really interested in the subject, you will have to continue learning about it after you have gotten a job anyway. And if all your extra learning is affecting your actual education negatively (by causing you to take longer than you should), maybe you should wait with that until you have graduated.
2) Should the government/tax payer have to pay for this extra learning? You see, the 3000 euro is not so much a fine as it is a "we are going to stop subsidizing you". We have all agreed that the government will sponsor your education, but that doesn't mean they should also sponsor all the extra stuff you want to do.
Now, like I said: I don't think that most students who are taking "too long" do so just because they are learning all kinds of extra stuff. Instead, I think a lot (if not most) students consider their college years as "party time". I think this is one of the leading causes of prolonged education duration and I think it will be effectively combated by this new measure.
Having said that, it's not like I think this new rule is 100% okay. It is crazy that they will already be enforcing it starting this summer. Also, I would like to see some exceptions being made for people who get sick, and perhaps people who have not chosen the correct major on their first try. However, I don't really like the argument that "because of this some students can't do extra stuff X anymore" (e.g. sit on the board of some association). It's like this: if you are good enough at your study, you can do extra stuff, and otherwise, you also can, but you have to pay for it yourself.
I actually think that a far, far worse new measure is that colleges will be fined for these slow students as well. This has not nearly received the same amount of attention, but that measure actually does what you are saying here. But this is a separate issue. The other measure alone (the one for the students) wouldn't really encourage universities to rush students through their program, because how much money students have doesn't really affect them.Xaryn Mar said:
I very much doubt that that will be a big problem. First of all, there are really good government loan plans that will loan you the money if you can't pay right now. You will be indebted, but it is really nothing compared to some other countries. And it is also nothing that you can't pay off once you get a job. You will have (at the very least I think) 10,000 euro extra disposable income a year, so if you continue to live under the same circumstances that you did as a student for one more year, you can pay off over 3 years of "fines".Xaryn Mar said:
What I think will happen is that people will fear these fines nonetheless, and that will have the effect of less slacking, doing less extra stuff and being reluctant to switch out of a major that may not have been exactly right for you once you started it. The first effect is positive, but the other ones are only positive if you think that the government shouldn't have to pay for that.
I think, if the guy wasn't drunk, he must have been trollin'.
I, personally, have no problem with people who don't want to go through the trouble of getting that master's degree education. It is hard work, and some people would rather take the route that's easier to get into, so that they can start their security earlier on. But militant stuff isn't cool there. Luckily, I haven't come across any of that. People can do whatever they want, as long as they don't try to make their business my business.
I, personally, have no problem with people who don't want to go through the trouble of getting that master's degree education. It is hard work, and some people would rather take the route that's easier to get into, so that they can start their security earlier on. But militant stuff isn't cool there. Luckily, I haven't come across any of that. People can do whatever they want, as long as they don't try to make their business my business.
When I was in 5th grade, one of my classmates me $5 to essentially not be smart for a day. He didn't think I could do it, and he called me a chicken when I refused. That's basically pre-high school social interaction in a nutshell for me. "You're too smart. You're making us look bad. Stop it."
It is true that high schools and often parents program children to believe that secondary education is their only option if they want to succeed in life, when there are many other legitimate options open to them (the trades for example).
However I don't think you should really worry too much about cultural values based on the opinion of a drunk man on a bus.
However I don't think you should really worry too much about cultural values based on the opinion of a drunk man on a bus.
I believe interacting with the general population is anti-intellectual.
"OMG YOU READ FOR FUN?" "YOU LIKE LEARNING?"
blech.
"OMG YOU READ FOR FUN?" "YOU LIKE LEARNING?"
blech.
This is a topic that really sets me off. I submit the following and welcome any feedback.
The Wikipedia definition of intellectual is thus: Intellectual? can denote three types of persons:
1. A person involved in, and with, abstract, erudite ideas and theories.
2. A person whose profession (science, medicine, literature) solely involves the production and dissemination of ideas.[1]
3. A person of notable cultural and artistic expertise whose knowledge grants him or her intellectual authority in public discourse.
I am aware of the flaws of Wikipedia but I think this will do for the following.
1) People must exert mental effort in order to think intellectually.
Thinking can be hard work. With the absence of adequate mental stimulation in today?s society, many are unfit to do with much real thought. Considering any difficult issue in detail and clarity can be a massive undertaking, which may not be finished quickly enough for the likes of our ?Everyman/Everywoman? In short, many people may be too lazy to really do much thinking, and attempting to force that on them may result in active resistance rather than the result your looking for.
2) Intellectual thought can be frustrating, and uncomfortable.
Intelligence can lead to the consideration of difficult, frustrating, and or uncomfortable ideas and subject matter. People can be easily discouraged when the going gets tough. Think of this as the rough equivalent of an obese person just getting started with exercise. They know the desired outcome (improved health), and the path to get there (Diet, and Exercise), but the path can be daunting. Many will lose hope that their conditions will improve, and are intimidated by those who are further along than they are. I?ve seen this type of thing lead not only to persons giving up, but then actively resisting the input of others. (In our case the input would be better theories, or even just considering new input.)
3) A toxic environment bears no fruit.
This has a number of branches. The anti-intellectual environment we assume exists is having a number of effects on the populace. Intelligence is being driven underground. Plenty of smart people will be told that there is no room for intellectual discourse. If the people are predominately anti-intellectual then we can expect intellectuals to be bullied for expressing their opinions, and some to simply remain silent when obvious idiocy is commonplace. Good theories and ideas can be easily quashed in such an environment.
I had more to say on this issue, but instead I would like to reference Ken Robinson who?s excellent Hammer Lecture can be found for free on Google video. See the section about the plant life growing in Death Valley. It?s an excellent allegory for this.
I had to type this twice as I accidentally erased the first one. I?m open to any feedback, so let me know what you think. Obviously there is a ton more to say about this issue but I have limited time. In the words of Pink Floyd, ?Don?t help them to bury the light.? In my own words: Part of being intellectual is recognizing that there is always more to be learned. Be as open to the efforts of those struggling with intelligence as you are with your hero?s. A burgeoning intellect is easily crushed, and an enemy easily created when you take no notice that some effort has been put forth in understanding. Don?t reject the person, but the ideas on their merits alone. I?m no Einstein, but I?m trying.
The Wikipedia definition of intellectual is thus: Intellectual? can denote three types of persons:
1. A person involved in, and with, abstract, erudite ideas and theories.
2. A person whose profession (science, medicine, literature) solely involves the production and dissemination of ideas.[1]
3. A person of notable cultural and artistic expertise whose knowledge grants him or her intellectual authority in public discourse.
I am aware of the flaws of Wikipedia but I think this will do for the following.
1) People must exert mental effort in order to think intellectually.
Thinking can be hard work. With the absence of adequate mental stimulation in today?s society, many are unfit to do with much real thought. Considering any difficult issue in detail and clarity can be a massive undertaking, which may not be finished quickly enough for the likes of our ?Everyman/Everywoman? In short, many people may be too lazy to really do much thinking, and attempting to force that on them may result in active resistance rather than the result your looking for.
2) Intellectual thought can be frustrating, and uncomfortable.
Intelligence can lead to the consideration of difficult, frustrating, and or uncomfortable ideas and subject matter. People can be easily discouraged when the going gets tough. Think of this as the rough equivalent of an obese person just getting started with exercise. They know the desired outcome (improved health), and the path to get there (Diet, and Exercise), but the path can be daunting. Many will lose hope that their conditions will improve, and are intimidated by those who are further along than they are. I?ve seen this type of thing lead not only to persons giving up, but then actively resisting the input of others. (In our case the input would be better theories, or even just considering new input.)
3) A toxic environment bears no fruit.
This has a number of branches. The anti-intellectual environment we assume exists is having a number of effects on the populace. Intelligence is being driven underground. Plenty of smart people will be told that there is no room for intellectual discourse. If the people are predominately anti-intellectual then we can expect intellectuals to be bullied for expressing their opinions, and some to simply remain silent when obvious idiocy is commonplace. Good theories and ideas can be easily quashed in such an environment.
I had more to say on this issue, but instead I would like to reference Ken Robinson who?s excellent Hammer Lecture can be found for free on Google video. See the section about the plant life growing in Death Valley. It?s an excellent allegory for this.
I had to type this twice as I accidentally erased the first one. I?m open to any feedback, so let me know what you think. Obviously there is a ton more to say about this issue but I have limited time. In the words of Pink Floyd, ?Don?t help them to bury the light.? In my own words: Part of being intellectual is recognizing that there is always more to be learned. Be as open to the efforts of those struggling with intelligence as you are with your hero?s. A burgeoning intellect is easily crushed, and an enemy easily created when you take no notice that some effort has been put forth in understanding. Don?t reject the person, but the ideas on their merits alone. I?m no Einstein, but I?m trying.
you tease! your making me want to read that now (and then have no one to discuss it with)Verlander said:This is very similar to a book I co-wrote a few years ago (still not published-argh!) about empire mindset, and how all nationals of countries that have recently had an Empire or similar (like America, Britain, Germany and Japan), have different, very negative attitudes towards education, globalisation, and politics. The best example is if you go to "holiday hotspots", such as the Spanish islands in Europe (for British and German tourists), major cities in Europe/Asia (for Japanese/American tourists) and central Africa (for American tourists). They are demanding, attempt to convert these places into little clones of their own homes, and create communes of their own people. They rarely attempt language, or fitting in at all. They have an arrogance and overwhelming anti-intellectualism.
The book is far longer than that summary, and explains any flaws in the theory that crop up from this paragraph, (also highlights the difference with Japan and the others, as well as the difference with the communist "Empires" of the USSR and China), but is a great read. There's a collective mentality, and if you compare how recently the "Empire" was lost you see a clear difference in attitudes of society. For example, as you pointed out, British and German societies are closer matched than British and American societies, as the Americans have yet to loose their claim on the world. There is a mathematical formula for it, but buggered if I can reel it off of the top of my head
OT: My brother is sometimes the opposite, he takes physics at university and he looks down on ALOT of people (especially people that take any of the expressive arts or english) but i do find people that just really cant stand higher education and claim "its just a waste of time". Its a pity really
Not particularly. Most people are jealous of my good grades, to be honest. Sure, they say I "suck", but that's not what they really mean.