/bs/ - backstory

My Great Friend, wat do you think about anti-intellectualism?

Well, firstly, anti-intellectualism is a movement or a fashion which main characteristic is the focus on the self as the authority for truth. For example, imagine an professor of history, I dunno, of Egypt, and a guy. And this professor says that Ancient Egypt was an African society. But the guy discards this thought out of hand because it is not the intuitive, and asserts that its not true and in fact Egyptians were something like Semitic. The guy wont argue for own point, he will just say that professor is wrong

So, most important aspects of anti-intellectualism are: devaluation of (intellectual)authority, intuition having higher precedence, truth as unquestionable and obvious. In short, an anti-intellectual is more disposed to question something that is integral to own cosmic order. For example, there are people who question efficiency of the vaccines. There can be reasonable argument about it. Like a rabies vaccine, there might be trials and statistics that show for example one vaccine type is more effective than the other. But an anti-intellectual critique would be not finding the most effective vaccine per say but to focus that the vaccine has a certain percent of working on a own person and then questioning this percent. A researcher might claim that a certain vaccine has 80% efficiency. An anti-intellectual might counter claim that efficiency as such cannot be proven on his own person. So, an anti-intellectual would question validity of the research, out of concerns for his own self in this twisted way that he cannot be sure that the vaccine is actually does wat it supposed to

Secondly, anti-intellectualism is a certain aesthetic. Most important part of this aesthetic is the struggle for own truth. For example, imagine a televised debate. On one hand is a some kind of authority on a topic and on the other is a questioner. The authority makes a provable claim about the topic, the questioner counter claims but not by disproving the claim but by assertion that truth is obvious and what the authority says is obviously not true. For example, a nutrition researcher makes a claim that apples are good for health because they have vitamin in them, but the questioner, due centrality of his thought system of the matter at hand, might say that it is unproven that apple truly is good to his own person. Another example is this, a historian who is recognized by own peers makes a claim that historically cars increased pollution in a city, and then the questioner, because his beliefs are very intensely related to own person, dismisses this out of hand by using examples such as newer technologies which limit car emissions, that it is not true that gas is bad for environment, that cars were always driven in his city and no one had any problem(according to the questioner). Main point I try to convey here, is that here is always a certain chic to it. We see the authority as authority in part because of the clothes, manners, speech, we recognize the type or a character. In this way, an authority is obvious and recognized as such because he behaves like one. And an anti-intellectual is someone who is more impatient in his presentation, unrefined, behaves unlike an authority would. Prone to raising voice and rash claims, mostly believes that an argument can only be won or lost

Lastly, anti-intellectuals tend to be paranoid. Here, paranoia means severe fear of an unability of control. For example, a paranoiac can question own family if they are really loyal to him, he might suspect then of poisoning him. At the core of this lies desire and fear of control, and inability of control makes a paranoiac really uncomfortable. So, here, it is important to draw a line before someone who is not knowledgeable and someone who is anti-intellectual: Someone who is not knowledgeable might argue for something, but even if he is refusing to concede when clearly in the wrong, he mostly cares not to look stupid, or rather feel. An anti-intellectual might argue for something and he might not concede on the own central point and in fact assert own truth as the truth that won. For example, someone who is not knowledgeable might be asked if they know where Macau is and then not to look or feel dumb at least try to guess where it might be. An anti-intellectual might believe that Macau is just China and persist in this belief by pointing to China. Other example is this, a not knowledgeable person might be asked about a political opinion about a certain policy he has little knowledge, feeling that he has to reply, he will try to say basic stuff and not argument much. An anti-intellectual will argue for his own truth if it is really central to his belief system, and he will want for the questioner to agree with him

How is an anti-intellectual usually more paranoid? They want to be in control of their own truth, and many times cross boundaries of self and expect of others to agree with them. They might get gravely upset if you disagree with their core belief, they might use force to make you believe, and they prefer to live among people who share their belief. In this way, anti-intellectualism is contagious because of this, so, their paranoic quality is very important to note

Wat do you think about anti-intellectuals? Do you think they get portrayed justly, do you think dat we should listen to them? You might think, why do I ask this? Well, you know how people began saying that dumbest characters in movies, films, and other media, were secretly the smartest all along? Ron Wesley, one example. So, why do you think it might be? I think its the devaluation of intellectual authority, but wat do you think?