alt Hacker NewsI think the anti-intellectualism crisis gets mischaracterized. Common rejection of experts, academia, and empirical findings is certainly a part of it, but I tend to see more of an issue with targeted, self-serving ignorance, particularly among the elite.
You have extremely intelligent and influential people balking at, say, the undeniable net benefits of universal healthcare, renewable energy investment, and cash payment UBI.
Worse, they use their intelligence to attack interventions that run against their preconceived notions. Milton Friedman was not an idiot, and yet he and his acolytes did (and do) untold damage in anti-intellectual perpetuation of their outmoded ideas.
The common thread between that and skipping conversation for Netflix is disengagement with cognitive load that doesn't immediately benefit you. They both suck, but I think that one hurts more, and hurts more.
Replies
I'm sorry but just because I disagree with cash payment UBI doesn't mean I'm not anti-intellectual.
Surely that much ought to be clear if you give it a little more thought, no pun intended.
[dead]
This second thing (either slightly different from anti-intellectualism or maybe a different form of it$l) is quite odd. I wonder where it comes from. Sometimes it feels like we have a strong bias toward surprising effects, to the point where we’ll start treating the first “possible, counter intuitive hypothesis” as if it ought to be the default assumption. I wonder to what extent that’s a natural thing, or to what extent it is the result of consuming pop-sci content that has to start with “Rebel scientist overturns conventional wisdom…”