Geek anti-intellectualism: replies

My essay on “geek anti-intellectualism” hit a nerve.  I get the sense that a lot of geeks are acting–quite unusually for them–defensively, because I’ve presented them with a sobering truth about themselves that they hadn’t realized.  Consequently they’ve been unusually thoughtful and polite.  This is quite new and startling to me–I mean, there’s something about this discussion that I can’t remember ever seeing before.  Anyway, it must have seemed relevant, because it was posted live on Slashdot within minutes of my submitting it–something I’d never seen before–and proceeded to rack up 916 comments, as of this writing, which is quite a few for Slashdot.  It was also well discussed on Metafilter, on Twitter, and here on this blog (where I’ve had over 160 comments so far).  What struck me about these discussions was the unusually earnest attempts, in most cases, to come to grips with some of the issues I raised.  Of course, there has been some of the usual slagging from the haters, and a fair number of not-very-bright responses, but an unusually high proportion of signal, some of it quite insightful.  Reminds me of some old college seminars, maybe.

First, let me concede that I left a lot unsaid.  Of course, what I left unsaid ended up being said, sometimes ad nauseam, in the comments, and a few points I found to be quite enlightening.  On the other hand, I find a lot of geeks thinking that they understand aspects of higher education that they really don’t.  I’m not sure I can set them right, but I’ll try to make a few points anyway.

I am going to do what I’ve always done, since the 1990s, when something I’ve written elicited a much greater response than I could possibly deal with: make a numbered laundry list of replies.

1. How dare you accuse all geeks of being anti-intellectual? I didn’t; RTFA.  I know there are lots of very intellectual geeks and that geekdom is diverse in various ways.  I’m talking about social trends, which are always a little messy; but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to discuss.

2. There’s a difference between being anti-intellectual and being anti-academic. Maybe the most common response was that geeks don’t dislike knowledge or the intellect, they dislike intellectuals with their academic institutions and practices.  First, let me state my geek credentials.  I’ve spent a lot of time online since the mid-90s.  I started many websites, actually learned some programming, and managed a few software projects.  You’ll notice that I’m not in academe now.  I have repeatedly (four times) left academe and later returned.

I agree that academia has become way too politicized.  Too many academics think it’s OK to preach their ideology to their students, and their tendency to organize conferences and journals around tendentious ideological themes is not just annoying, it is indeed unscholarly.  Moreover, speaking as a skeptically-inclined philosopher, I think that some academics have an annoying tendency to promote their views with unwarranted confidence, and also to pretend to speak authoritatively on subjects outside of their training.  Also, in many fields, the economics of academic advancement and publishing has created a tendency to focus on relatively unimportant minutiae, to the detriment of broader insight and scholarly wisdom.  Also, I completely agree that college work has been watered down (but more on that in the next point).

Having admitted all that, I’m still not backing down; I knew all that when I was writing my essay.  Please review the five points I made.  None of them is at odds with this critique of academe.  Just because some experts can be annoyingly overconfident, it doesn’t follow that they do not deserve various roles in society articulating what is known about their areas of expertise.  If you deny that, then you are devaluing the knowledge they actually have; that’s an anti-intellectual attitude.  If you want to know what the state of the research is in a field, you ask a researcher.  So even if your dislike of academics is justified in part, it does not follow that their word on their expertise is worth the same as everyone else’s.  Besides, most of my points had little to do with academics per se: I also had points about books in general, classics in particular, and memorization and learning.

3. Just because you think college is now a bad deal, economically speaking, it doesn’t follow that you’re anti-intellectual. Well, duh.  I didn’t really take up the question whether the present cost of college justifies not going, and I’m not going to get into that, because I don’t really think it’s relevant.  Let’s suppose you’re right, and that for some people, the long-term cost of college loans, combined with the fact that they won’t get much benefit from their college education, means that they’re justified not going.  My complaint is not about people who don’t go to college, my complaint is about people who say that college is “a waste of time” if you do go and are committed.  Maybe, for people who don’t study much and who don’t let themselves benefit, it is a waste of time.  But that’s their fault, not the fault of college.  I taught at Ohio State, which is not nearly as demanding as the college I attended myself (Reed), and I saw many students drifting through, not doing the reading, not coming to class, rarely practicing their writing skills.  I also saw people who always did the reading, always came to class, participated regularly, and were obviously benefiting from their encounter with great writing and great ideas.  Moreover, how college affects you isn’t “the luck of the draw.”  It depends on your commitment and curiosity.  This is why some partiers drop out and come back to college after five or ten years, and then they do great and finally enjoy themselves in class.

Finally, may I say again (I said it first in the 1990s, and also a few days ago), it is possible to get a degree by examination from programs like Excelsior College?  This way, you bypass the expense of college and pick all your instructors for a fraction of the cost.  This entails that you can get intellectually trained, as well as earn a real college degree, without going into debt.  This would be my advice to the clever ex-homeschoolers who claim that it is college that is, somehow, anti-intellectual.  Put up or shut up, home scholars: if you really are committed to the life of the mind, as you say, and you’ve already got experience directing your own studies, why not get a degree through independent study with academic tutors, and then take tests (and portfolio evaluations) to prove your knowledge and get the credential?

4. The people you’re describing are not true geeks; they are the digerati, or “hipsters,” or leftist academics who were already anti-intellectual and then started doing geek stuff. Uh, no.  I mean, you’re probably right that some anti-intellectual thinkers who weren’t geeks have started talking about the Internet a lot, and they have a big web presence, so now they might appear to be part of geekdom.  But they aren’t really, by any reasonably stringent definition of “geek.”  Besides, if you look at my article, you’ll see that that’s what I said (such people fall into the category of “digerati”).  My point is that claims (1)-(5) started circulating online among geeks, and they are, each of them, commonly spouted by lots of geeks.  Take them in turn.  (1) Anti-expert animus is a well-known feature of the geek thought-world.  Wikipedia became somewhat anti-expert because of the dominance of geeks in the project.  (2) Of course, the geeks at Project Gutenberg love books, but all too often I see comments online that books went out in the 20th century, and good riddance.  One of the leading idols of the geeks, Clay Shirky, essentially declared books to be a dying medium, to be replaced with something more collaborative.  (3) It is obvious just from the comments here on this blog, and elsewhere, that some geeks find the classics (that means philosophy, history, novels, epics, poetry, drama, religious texts, etc.)  to be a waste of time.  They don’t have the first clue about what they’re talking about.  (4) The first time I saw the idea discussed much that Internet resources mean we no longer have to memorize (and hence learn) as many facts was among Wikipedians in 2002 or so (when it was totally dominated by geeks, even more than it is now).  (5) The whole college-is-a-waste-of-time thing is a not uncommon geek conceit.  It’s not surprising in the least that a founder of Paypal.com would spout it.  It’s easy for computer geeks to say, because they can get well-paying jobs without degrees.  In many other fields, that’s (still) not true.

5. But I’m an intellectual, and I know that learning facts is indeed passe.  The things to be learned are “relationships” or “analysis” or “critical thinking.” Oh?  Then I claim that you are espousing an anti-intellectual sentiment, whether you know it or not.  I’m not saying you’re opposed to all things intellectual, I’m saying that that opinion is, to be perfectly accurate, a key feature of anti-intellectualism.  Look, this is very simple.  If you have learned something, then you can, at the very least, recall it.  In other words, you must have memorized it, somehow.  This doesn’t necessarily mean you must have used flashcards to jam it into your recalcitrant brain by force, so to speak.  Memorization doesn’t have to be by rote.  But even if you do a project, if you haven’t come to remember some fact as a result, then you don’t know it.  Thus I say that to be opposed to the memorization of facts is to be opposed to the learning, and knowing, of those facts.  To advocate against all memorization is to advocate for ignorance.  For more on this, please see my EDUCAUSE Review essay “Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age.”

I know that this is an old and common sentiment among education theorists–which is a shame.  Indeed, the educationists who say that it is not necessary to memorize the multiplication table are implying that it is OK for kids to be ignorant of those math facts.  (No, it’s not OK.  They should know them.)  Anyway, it might have started with misguided educators, but it is becoming far too common among geeks too.

6. The Internet is changing, that’s all.  Most people are anti-intellectual, and they’re getting online. No doubt about it, the Internet has changed greatly in the last five to ten years.  And it might well be the case that the average netizen is more anti-intellectual than in the past, in the very weak sense that more stupid people and uneducated people are getting online.  This might have been clever to say, if my point had been, “Folks online seem to be getting anti-intellectual.”  But that isn’t at all what I said or meant.  If you will review the evidence I marshalled, you’ll see that the people I’m talking about are not the great unwashed masses.  I’m talking about geeks and the digerati who presume to speak about geeky things.  And their influence, as I said, has been growing.

7. Americans are anti-intellectual.  Geek anti-intellectualism is just a reflection of that. Think about what you’re saying here; it doesn’t make much sense.  I claim that geeks are increasingly anti-intellectual, or increasingly giving voice to anti-intellectual sentiments.  This is a trend, which many people are discussing now because they recognize it as well.  American anti-intellectualism, a well-known phenomenon, goes back to colonial days, and was rooted in our distance from the erstwhile European sources of intellectual life as well as the physical difficulty of frontier life.  The pattern of anti-intellectualism I discern is a relatively recent phenomenon, which has grown up especially with the rise of the Internet.

8. Conservatives never were the anti-intellectuals; it was always the liberal lefties! Glenn Reynolds linked my post, and so some conservatives grumbled about my line, “Once upon a time, anti-intellectualism was said to be the mark of knuckle-dragging conservatives, and especially American Protestants.  Remarkably, that seems to be changing.”  Well, I hate to wade into politics here.  I used the passive voice deliberately, because I did not want to endorse the claim that anti-intellectualism is the mark of “knuckle-dragging conservatives” (I don’t endorse this phrase, either).  All I meant to say is that this is one of liberals’ favorite things to say about American fundamentalists.  I was about to, but did not, go on to say that actually, among the home schooling crowd, liberals and libertarians tend to go in for “unschooling,” which is relatively (and not necessarily) hostile to traditional academics, and it is conservatives who go in for  uber-academic Latin-and-logic “classical education.”  I didn’t say that, because I knew it would be distracting to my point.  So I’m kind of sorry I made the remark about conservatives, because it too was distracting to my point.  Suffice it to say that there are plenty of knuckle-draggers, so to speak, everywhere.

9. Are you crazy?  Geeks are smart, and you’re calling geeks stupid by calling them anti-intellectual. You didn’t know that “anti-intellectual” does not mean “stupid,” apparently.  There are plenty of anti-intellectual geeks who are crazy smart.  They aren’t stupid in the least.  You also must distinguish between having anti-intellectual attitudes or views, which is what I was talking about, and having anti-intellectual practices. There are plenty of intellectuals in academia who are anti-intellectual.  (There are Jewish anti-Semites, too.)  Just think of any progressive education professor who inveighs against most academic work in K-12 schools, describes academic work that involves a little memorization and practice as “drill and kill,” wants the world to institute unschooling and the project method en masse, has nothing but the purest P.C. contempt for the Western canon, advocates for vocational education for all but those who are truly, personally enthusiastic about academics, wants academic education to be as collaborative as possible rather than requiring students to read books, which are “irrelevant” to the fast-changing daily lives of students, and channeling Foucault rails against the hegemony of scientists and other experts.  Well, such a person I would describe as an anti-intellectual intellectual.  The person might well write perfectly-crafted articles with scholarly apparatus, read classics in her field, and so forth.  It’s just that her opinions are unfortunately hostile to students getting knowledge (in my opinion).

10. But the liberal arts are a waste of time.  Studying Chaucer?  Philosophy?  History?  The vague opinionizing is pointless and facts can be looked up. If you believe this way, then I have to point out that virtually any really educated person will disagree with you.  Once you have received a liberal education, your mind expands.  You might not understand how, or why it’s important, but it does.  That’s why people devote their lives to this stuff, even when it doesn’t pay much, as it usually doesn’t.  If you haven’t studied philosophy, you can’t begin to understand the universe and our place in it–I don’t care how much theoretical physics you’ve studied.  There are aspects of reality that can be grasped only by critically examining the content of our concepts.  Similarly, if you haven’t read much literature and especially if you are young, then you are very probably a complete babe in the woods when it comes to the understanding of human nature and the human condition; that’s why people read literature, not so that they can sniff disdainfully at others over their lattes.

11. What you call “anti-intellectual” is really “anti-authority.”  You’re merely defending the prerogatives of snooty intellectuals whose authority is on the wane. This is one of the most common and often snarkiest replies I’ve run across.  But it’s also a very interesting point.  Still, on analysis, I’m going to call it flimsy at best.  I’m going to spend quite a bit of space on this one.  Feel free to skip to down to the end (“In Sum” before “Conclusion”).

Let’s distinguish between being opposed to knowledge in its various forms, on the one hand, and being opposed to the prerogatives of intellectuals, on the other.  I claim that the path many geeks are headed down really has them opposed to theoretical and factual knowledge per se. I think the evidence I offered supported this reasonably well, but let me try to make it a little more explicit.

Consider point (1), about experts.  (“Experts do not deserve any special role in declaring what is known.”)  That certainly looks like it is about the prerogatives of experts.  If for example on Wikipedia I encountered people saying, for example, “Experts need to prove this to us, not just assert their authoritah,” that would be fair enough.  That’s not anti-intellectual at all.  But going farther to say, “You merely have access to resources, you don’t understand this any better than I do” and “You’re not welcome here” is to fail to admit that through their study and experience, the experts have something more to contribute than the average Joe.  If you can’t bring yourself to admit that–and I submit that the stripe of geek I’m describing can’t–then your attitude is anti-intellectual.  (Some people are refreshingly honest about just this.)  Then what you’re saying is that specialized study and experience do not lead to anything valuable, and are a waste of time.  But they lead to knowledge, which is valuable, and not a waste of time.

Point (2) (that books per se are outmoded) also, admittedly, has a little to do with intellectual authority–but only a little.  One of the reasons that some geeks, and others, are welcoming the demise of books is that they resent a single person set up as an authority by a publisher.  They say that publishing can and should be more like a conversation, and in a conversation, there shouldn’t be one “authority,” but rather a meeting of equal minds.  So perhaps those who are pleased to attack the medium of books couch their views as an attack on authority.  Perhaps.  But when I defend books, I really don’t care about authority so much.  Of course, when thinking adults read books, they don’t read them it in order to receive the truth from on high.  They are interested (in argumentative books, to take just one kind) in a viewpoint being fully and intelligently canvassed.  As some of the geeks commenting do not realize, and as some people don’t realize until they get to graduate school, it frequently requires a book–or several books–to fully articulate a case for some relatively narrow question.  Scholars should be praised, not faulted, for being so committed to the truth that they are willing to write, and read, discussions that are that long.  The fact that publishers have to pick authors who are capable of mounting excellent arguments at such length doesn’t mean that their readers are supposed simply to accept whatever they are told.  At bottom, then, to oppose books as such is to be opposed to the only way extended verbal arguments (and narratives and exposition) can be propagated.  An indeterminately large collaboration can’t develop a huge, integrated, complex theory, write a great novel, or develop a unified, compelling narrative about some element of our experience.  If you want to call yourself intellectual, you’ve got to support the creation of such works by individual people.

Point (3), about the classics, has almost nothing to do with the prerogatives of authority.  The shape of the Western Canon, if you will, does not rest on anybody’s authority, but instead on the habits of educators (school and university) as an entire class.  You’re not rebelling against anybody’s authority when you rebel against classics; you are, if anything, rebelling against the ideas the classics contain, or against the labor of reading something that is demanding to read.  In any case, anybody who comes down squarely against reading the classics is, to that extent, decidedly anti-intellectual.  Face it.

Point (4), which has us memorizing as little as possible and using the Internet as a memory prosthesis as much as possible, has absolutely nothing to do with authority.  If you’re opposed to memorizing something, you’re opposed to learning and knowing it.  That’s quite anti-intellectual.

Point (5) concerns college, and on this many people said, in effect, “I oppose the stupidity of an overpriced, mediocre, unnecessary product that rests on the alleged authority of college professors.”  Then it looks like you’re criticizing the authority of professors, and so you think I’m defending that.  Well, to be sure, if college professors had no significant knowledge, which (as I think) gives their views some intellectual authority, then there would be no point in paying money to study with them.  But I can defend the advisability of systematic college-level study (I choose these words carefully) without making any controversial claims about the authority of college professors.  I do not, for example, have to assume that college professors must always be believed, that they are infallible, that we should not be skeptical of most of what they say (especially in the humanities and social sciences).  After all, most professors expect their students to be skeptical and not to take what they say uncritically; and only a very dull student will do that, anyway.  If you didn’t know that, it’s probably because you haven’t been to college.  So, no.  I am not merely defending the authority of college professors.  I am personally quite critical of most scholarship I encounter.

In sum, I know that libertarian geeks (I’d count myself as one, actually) love to rail against the prerogatives of authority.  You’d like to justify your anti-intellectual attitudes (and sometimes, behavior) as fighting against The Man.  Maybe that is why you have your attitudes, maybe not.  In any case, that doesn’t stop said attitudes from being anti-intellectual, and your issues don’t mean that I am especially concerned to defend the prerogatives of authority.  I am not.

Conclusion

I think I’ve hit most of the high points.

One thing I didn’t discuss in my original essay was why geeks have become so anti-intellectual, especially with the rise of the Internet.  Here is my take on that.  Most geeks are very smart, predominantly male, and capable of making an excellent livelihood from the sweat of their minds.  Consequently, as a class, they’re more arrogant than most, and they naturally have a strong independent streak.  Moreover, geeks pride themselves on finding the most efficient (“laziest”) way to solve any problem, even if it is a little sloppy.  When it comes to getting qualified for work, many will naturally dismiss the necessity of college if they feel they can, because they hate feeling put-upon by educators who can’t even write two lines of code.  And the whole idea of memorizing stuff, well, it seems more and more unnecessarily effortful when web searching often uncovers answers just as well (they very misguidedly think).  What about books, and classics in particular?  Well, geek anti-intellectual attitudes here are easily explained as a combination of laziness and arrogance.  The Iliad takes a lot of effort, and the payoff is quite abstract; instead, they could read a manual or write code or engineer some project, and do a lot more of what they recognize as “learning.”  The advent of new social media and the decline of the popularity of books are developments that only confirm their attitude.  It doesn’t hurt that geek is suddenly chic, which surely only inflates geek arrogance.  If they admit to themselves that there is something to philosophy, history, or anything else that takes time, hard study, and reflection to learn, but which does not produce code or gadgetry, then they would feel a little deflated.  This doesn’t sit well with their pride, of course.  They’re smart, they think, and so how could they be opposed to any worthwhile knowledge?

So it shouldn’t be surprising that some (only some) geeks turn out to be anti-intellectual.  This is no doubt why many people said, in response to my essay, “This is just what I’ve been thinking.”


by

Posted

in

, ,

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

52 responses to “Geek anti-intellectualism: replies”

  1. Phil

    I think devaluing specialists is a defensive trait of some generalists (competent in many, but specialist of none) arising from insecurities about one’s worth in society. This has probably been fuelled by arrogant specialists (aka Elitists) who devalue the role of generalists. The reality is the world needs both specialists and generalists and everyone in between.

    Intellect however is another scale. Some specialists are more intellectual than others, similarly with generalists. Again I would suggest that anti-intellectualism is a defensive trait arising from insecurities about one’s worth in society. Again, I would say this has been fuelled by those more intellectually capable not appreciating the role of those less-intellectual. There is a tonne of non-intellectual work that is very important to society that intellectuals would struggle to perform day in and day out.

    Diversity is where the true power of ‘wisdom of the crowds’ originates from. To get that diversity you need specialists, generalists and the gamut in between… and the more the merrier.

  2. Anonymous

    We are indeed anti-intellectual. We are pragmatists in the traditional Jamesian sense, even though most of us don’t speak philosophy well enough to identify ourselves as such. I’ll present no counter-arguments to that. I’ll instead attack your contention (at least in the original article) that this is a problem.

    It’s not. We’ve just become more strategic about the way we accumulate knowledge. Because of our unnatural overexposure to so much information at a very early age, we grew up developing techniques to decide what’s worth knowing. This is an issue that no other generation had to deal with growing up, at least not in such a large scale. The most diplomatic of us will admit that there is indeed value in the fields you say we don’t appreciate, but you always have to ask the question: is there *enough* value? Even if there is, how can we know? We never learned how to align our goals with our search for knowledge. We were taught techniques for finding credible sources, but not how to find useful sources, or even how to transform seemingly arcane sources into relevant material for our development. We need to make trade-offs if we are to use our limited time on this planet efficiently. Not appearing to be intellectual enough for you is a small cost to pay.

  3. Let me first note that I firmly believe that reading classics, listening to experts, and intellectualism as a whole are very important. I decry the simple fact that it has become more important to know how to find something than to actually know something. However, I like that the internet allows me to gain knowledge far more easily. The difference between me and others is that I make it a point to commit those things to memory–to actually learn. I don’t allow Google to be my brain.

    That said, I agree on some level with the anti-intellectuals about college. The institution is absolutely necessary but it’s not necessary for EVERYONE to go. The recent–since the 80s at least–mantra that everyone should go to college is simply wrong. And giving scholarship money to kids that don’t want to do it, is a waste. Give money to those who would actually enjoy going.

    College SHOULDN’T be for everyone. Not everyone wants or needs to go to college. Most students aren’t going for themselves. They are going to appease others–family, society, their peers, etc. The United States should adopt a more European view on how education should run. Europe is far more focused on figuring out who would excel in college and who would excel in trade programs.

    This would raise the overall quality of higher education. Students would be there because they actually want to be there. Students that don’t really want to be there lower the education for those who want to be there. In my experience, at least half of the people at my university did not belong there and didn’t want to be there. They slept in, missed class, interrupted the class by arriving late, asked questions that had been addressed, and just didn’t pay attention or express a desire to LEARN–which is the raison d’être for higher education.

    Realize I’m not being elitist. I wish that everyone who WANTED to go to college could. The thing is, those people usually find a way. The problem is when people who don’t want to go, and who would benefit and excel in a trade school program, go into college and perform poorly. Some people are brilliant theoretical physicists, and some people are automotive geniuses, the latter won’t excel in college but they’ll kill it in a trade school. Do what YOU like. If you can get there without college, do it. You’ll save time, money, and ultimately you’ll be happier doing and succeeding at what you love.

    As far as time for books and reading goes, that is solely a problem with capitalism. Computers were supposed to make our lives easier, and give us more leisure time. Instead they allow us to increase productivity within the same time frame. As a result, we are expected to do more than we used to in the same amount of time. Obviously the economy also plays a role in the amount of time people must dedicate to work rather than learning.

  4. It’s quite true that anti-intellectualism is on the rise; as a non-classically-educated person I feel it increasingly. It is a healthy and indeed necessary direction for our society to take.

    The reason is: the intellectuals are In Charge, and are making a muck-up of it. Wherever you go these days, the people running things are overwhelmingly those who have a deep and sometimes broad education in one or more fields related to the classics, but have never in their lives done anything that would increase the nutrition available to any child anywhere by so much as one Calorie except by taking it away from someone else, and if you showed ’em a shovel they’d call it an implement and sneer at the slope-browed dumbbunny holding it. It doesn’t help that most of it is at least vaguely Marxist, but that simply amplifies the trend rather than causing it.

    The result is your making a thinly-disguised version of the argument offered by oligarchs and nobilities the world ’round and since time immemorial: We’re in charge because we’re simply better, and the rest of you should get busy hewing wood and drawing water, tugging your forelocks when we pass in respect for our Enlightenment and near-divine guidance.

    Anti-intellectualism arises out of the conflation of authority with power. The word “authority” is derived from education and research — the one you should listen to is the one who “wrote the book” on the subject. When you have a whole class of people who assert their ability to run things on the basis of education and research, but who continually make cock-ups on a scale that would be unimaginable if it were not before our eyes, that class has no authority whatever. Power it has, and that in abundance, but people who continually make a hash of things have no authority.

    Whatever society succeeds ours in the Darwinian selection process, be it a true successor of ours or some replacement, will very likely regard the appointment of a University professor or philosophy-trained individual to a position of power with the same high regard we now give to placing an acknowledged sociopath in charge of a police force.

    Regards,
    Ric

    1. So, you look forward to a society in which empowering philosophers is regarded as on a par with making sociopaths police officers. You know, the Killing Fields were filled up by monsters who were animated by thoughts uncomfortably similar to yours.

      Perhaps you could stand to be trained to make crucial distinctions rather better–like the distinction between the ideologies of intellectuals, on the one hand, and intellectuals, on the other. Or like the distinction between intellectuals (the people) and the pursuit of knowledge (the activity).

      As William F. Buckley used to say, he’d rather be governed by the first fifty names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. I’m sure both you and I would agree with him on that. But, unlike you and like me, Buckley was an intellectual, and would be appalled at your glib response.

      1. I’m being glib, even arch, yes. Given the respective track records the comparison isn’t terribly inapt, and the sociopath doesn’t have elaborate and apparently sane justifications for his depredations, supported by his colleagues.

        As the “natural” bits of what was once Natural Philosophy peeled off one by one into their own free-standing fields, Philosophy was left to stand alone as the only known pursuit that announces itself able to reach absolute conclusions based on no input data whatever. Since that is patently impossible it becomes a matter of not acknowledging the input data, which is the underlying behavior-set of the hunter-gatherer-scavenger tribe, the way human society involved. Individuals vary enormously, but the resultant vector can only point Left, and the set of rules derived derived from it can only reduce the society to preindustrialism, at least until it is taken over by the stronger-minded.

        The military defines a difference between “line” (able to make decisions regarding operations) and “staff” (advisors to the line, without significant decision-making capacity). Philosophy can be and often is an enormously valuable staff function. Putting it in the chain of command can only result in disaster.

        Regards,
        Ric

        1. As I often told my intro philosophy students, philosophy does not depend on experiments, but it does depend on observation of the broad features of reality and human experience. Philosophers have believed some mighty weird things. Others, like Thomas Reid, G.E. Moore, me, and a lot of analytical philosophers, want philosophy to be squared with “common sense.” But even the philosophers with uncommonsensical views are capable of clarifying ideas and arguments as few others are able.

          Putting philosophers without further training or experience on the line would be a mistake, generally speaking. I’d grant you that.

  5. i posted this same comment on the main article, but in the shameless hopes Larry Sanger might see my thoughts on this, I’ll post this comment here, too.

    i wrote a full critique of Sanger’s essay here: http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/07/01/larry-sanger-on-geek-anti-intellectualism-a-kind-of-critique/

    i mostly agree with Sanger, but feel that taking another look at Hofstadter’s book (which he does cite) would improve the conceptualization. Sanger is convincing on the populist/anti-intellectual stuff, but misses the full scope of what anti-intellectualism means.

    further, Hofstadter makes an essential distinction between intelligence and intellect, and Sanger conflates the two. Sanger’s critique of the geeks on memorization shows them to be anti-intelligence, not anti-intellectual.

    that’s just a summary, see the link above for the full argument.

  6. Gregor Samsa

    Very powerful trolling. We troll apprentices have a lot to learn from this series of topics.

  7. David L

    An excellent rebuttal! Although I agree with your overall premise that the overriding geek culture is anti-intellectual, I disagree with some of the nuances of the argument.

    For example, there is the warrant that intellectualism is measured by knowledge. While I agree that raw knowledge is an important facet of intellectualism, the ability to analyze this knowledge and deduct new ideas from it is perhaps more important. Consider the intellectuals of ancient times – Poltegras (who was originally a porter!) or Socrates. Although we can safely say they had a pretty expansive store of knowledge in their minds, they are more known for their impressive logical deductive abilities and their philosophical discourse. In fact, every intellectual in history is remembered not by his or her ability to recall facts but rather their _contributions_ to the wealth of human knowledge and ideas.

    I can already see the angry geek now – “Just look at the internet! There’s a TON of new content on the web everyday!” The problem is a) it is generally not thought provoking and b) it generally isn’t actually new, but rather a product of meme-based hive-mind. To everyone disagreeing with this, I provide the following citations: http://www.4chan.org and http://www.reddit.com. In fact, it’s often a complaint on these boards that there is no longer any “OC”, or original content. Sounds like a confession to me.

    Anyway, you do bring up some fantastic points and it’s a great article overall! It does provide perfect segway to an assessment on what an intellectual is in a modern context… care to share some thoughts?

  8. sassycheekz;)

    It is undeniable that you are correct when talking about reliance on computer technology. We use technology as our reserve memory. A perfect microcosm of this problem is seen with cell phones. Instead of remembering the numbers; we have them stored onto our phones. The problem arises when our phones either die or are brake (and anyone can vouch that this happens more often than it should). We lose all of those numbers and often rely further (New phone; need your numbers). Now what would happen to the human race if this happened on a larger scale with, say, ALL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY! We would lose a great deal of progress in most all fields by using technology as our memory. And as we start to rely more and more on technology; the loss becomes greater.
    That being said, I am not sure if putting this idea out there by attacking the geeks is the best way to get your point across. You seem no nullify your claims by stating that geeks would contradict claims 1-5 “regularly”. If that is true, than what is the battle for? Most geeks love technology, so I can see why you target them amongst all the other factions of internet users. But the reason that you distain technology ultimately seems to revolve around that “What if?” Question. We use the internet regularly (and we can thank you partially for that Mr. Wikipedia), and it does not seem like that is likely to change anytime soon. So why cannot the internet live in harmony with books? The “easy way” of getting something done is always around in life; yet the proper way to do something is always there as well. Are you afraid no one is going to have an interest in books? I don’t think that will be an issue seeing how long books have been around for.
    You also seem to believe that Intellectualism is academic knowledge alone. Therefore, an intellectual in your eyes can only become so by being classically trained. If that is the case, then only areas that allow for formal study can foster the hopes for your intellectuals. Inversely, there can be no intellectuals in non-study areas. Do you believe that for example, the Beatles, not being classically trained, are not influential and intellectuals in their field? I appears that there may be exceptions to your rule.

  9. Sally B.

    Who would have thought geeks were anti-intellectuals? Out of all the different groups of people, I did not expect geeks and intellectuals to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. However, by reading your article and this rebuttal, I could understand the rise of the new anti-intellectualism and agree with you for the most part.
    It is very clear that anti-intellectuals greatly espouse the application of the knowledge or the method of learning by experience, and disregard the importance of books, the classics, and the actual gaining of the knowledge, especially because of the convenience of the Internet and search engines such as Google. As you stated in your article, we lack “conceptual understanding” and yet we apply the knowledge without retaining the knowledge in our head. Moreover, it is startling to see how we became so dependent on the advance of technology that we have come to ignore the value of acquiring the knowledge, and thus, the anti-intellectualism arises.
    I could not agree with you more when you defended the role of college and its significance. Because anti-intellectuals are obsessed with saving their precious time, they do not see the purpose of attending such institution. However, I ask to them, how would they know if they probably have not been to college and experienced the college life? Just as you remarked in this rebuttal, college is a place where we can challenge and develop ourselves and expand our knowledge, not where we waste our money and time to pursue “unnecessary product” or to concede to the authorities who, according to the anti-intellectuals, do not teach practical knowledge or skills, which are apparently the only components that matter to become successful.
    Although I support your idea of increasing visibility of anti-intellectualism within the geek culture, I disagree with few of your assumptions because they seem to limit the scope of the issue. For example, it seems to me that your main definition of intellectualism is academic knowledge and that memorization plays a huge role in learning. Nevertheless, more and more people nowadays, promote creativity and going beyond the facts. Therefore, “critical thinking” and “analysis” must not be disregarded and labeled as “anti-intellectualism” since they have become essential factors for our development of minds.
    Lastly, I would like to mention how you did not identify all geeks as anti-intellectuals since after all, there are only few of them.

  10. Anton P

    A great read indeed! I have never given this issue much though – mainly due to a lack of belief in the existence of people who would actually promote the abolition of books.
    Assuming that the world really is on its way to denouncing books and memorization I must say you hit the nail on the head.
    The simplicity of the process by which people now gain access to information leads many to believe that they now have no need for memorization. When they need to find out something, anything really, they always have the option of quickly looking it up. What most fail to see is that knowledge, as you said, entails reading and memorizing something for later use.
    The folly of overlooking this small fact will only become apparent when those who so vigorously proclaimed the redundancy of books realize they cannot hold a decent conversation on anything they have no immediate knowledge of. When it comes time to talk you won’t be able to pull out your iPhone and start googling for supporting arguments and definitions. The other party will not only grow bored but also dissatisfied with any makeshift, sloppy thoughts you managed to present in the time you had to meditate on what you’ve just absorbed from the net.
    There is a vast qualitative difference between knowledge obtained twelve seconds ago and knowledge which you’ve spent years analyzing and improving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *