This essay can be read in my 2020 book, Essays on Free Knowledge. Perhaps ironically, it is no longer free.
UPDATE: I’ve posted a very long set of replies.
UPDATE 2: I’ve decided to reply below as well–very belatedly…
This essay can be read in my 2020 book, Essays on Free Knowledge. Perhaps ironically, it is no longer free.
UPDATE: I’ve posted a very long set of replies.
UPDATE 2: I’ve decided to reply below as well–very belatedly…
Damn Kid! GET OFF MY LAWN!
I find that every argument I’ve ever heard about people complaining about anti-intellectualism usually boils down to “people don’t respect the things that I think are important”. I think it’s dangerous to believe that the conditions that made certain knowledge important even 5 years ago are still relevant today.
There are certain foundational things that are essential, but what’s interesting is that much of the behavior that can be seen as anti-intellectual is often just behavior that is fighting against established beliefs, something that is seen with *every* *new* *generation*.
If you study science history, a common theme that happens over, and over again, is that certain scientific progress doesn’t happen until the old guard dies off, and the ideas of the younger scientists can actually gain traction.
What makes a classic a classic is that it continues to speak to people throughout the ages. I find it telling that you mention War and Peace. Russian novels were written by/for people who had to live through soul crushing winters. To expect the same novel to be relevant at all to modern societies who can banish darkness with the flick of a switch.
Ugh. Please die off or get out of the way. Despite all our supposed “anti-intellectualism,” technology and progress are accelerating at unprecedented speeds. English profs in tweed jackets spouting Chaucer are not to be thanked for that. Sorry, I need to get back to creating a new prosthetic heart for you. Take it easy on the scotch.
It’s funny seeing some of the comments matching up with the description of the very type of person you’re worried about (michael!) The author speaks in a verbose style in order to be precise about what he means; I’ve found that it is necessary to use a style like this in many cases, to avoid misunderstanding or to explain subtle points. Basically, this is how smart people talk. Get used to it.
Unfortunately, this style does indeed alienate the mainstream. When I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”, is was very interesting and fun to read, in part because it was very conversational, imprecise, and probably inaccurate. I suspect some loss of precision and even accuracy is needed in order to achieve that fun, conversational style that keeps the average reader engaged.
I think this geek anti-intellectualism you speak of is of some concern, particularly the idea that “Experts do not deserve any special role in declaring what is known. Knowledge is now democratically determined” — isn’t that more of an American thing than a geek thing? It seems like some people are choosing their own facts, and then uniting with others of like belief: birthers, people that believed in Iraq WMDs years after the war started, extreme libertarians, people that stand behind everything Obama does, people that stood behind everything Bush did, etc. It’s not even really democratic, since any minority can form a group, within which certain beliefs (that are “factually incorrect” according to mainstream society) are protected.
It’s a very dangerous trend and geeks are not immune to it, I mean, why should they be? Geeks have knowledge in a particular area: computer geeks, automotive geeks, etc. But outside their area of expertise aren’t they pretty much like everybody else who does not identify as a geek?
I think it comes down to whether you want to be educated or merely trained. Maybe programming is or never was a truly intellectual pursuit in the first place, so all the programmers can now go to some computer training school instead of college. When I studied computers in college, including programming them, I also studied cognitive science, psychology, and engineering – all of which helped me be a better problem solver and designer of robust systems.
I suppose if you only ever build web apps (“startups!”) that never hit the big time anyway, a similar education would not be required. I’m not saying an education is required for truly exceptional (and if we’re honest, somewhat socio-economically positioned) individuals to start things like Facebook. However, this new attitude reminds me of the early to mid 20th century mode of thinking that created the hordes of uneducated, unemployed and unemployable factory workers that are struggling in this post-NAFTA and post-outsourced economy.
[…] Read the full article here! […]
Let me, firstly, echo Mark Twain in saying, “I’ve never let my school interfere with my education.” Just because one is anti-college does not necessarily make one anti-intellectual. On the contrary, the geeks who make up this ‘anti-intellectual’ vanguard care so much about their education that they are unwilling to leave it in the hands of decrepit bureaucratic institutions. Why should we have to amass a debt that will take half our productive lives to pay back in order to subject ourselves to antiquated systems of learning?
No, we do not want to eliminate higher education, we want to free it from its medieval stupor. Current models of radical innovation (ie Clayton Christensen) show us that such changes rarely, if ever, occur from within. The only recourse left is to bypass the system of higher-education entirely in order to build a newer, better, system.
“Nell,” the Constable continued, indicating through his tone of voice that the lesson was concluding, “the difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
[…] Is there a new geek anti-intellectualism? […]
What you are calling “anti-intellectualism” is more accurately described as antiestablishmentarianism. Simply because some intellectuals reject the notions that establishment institutions are not the only (or best?) bastion of intelligence. Referring to geeks who shrug off the need for a college degree as “anti-intellectual” is like referring to a non-union worker as “anti-labor”.
[…] My essay on “geek anti-intellectualism” hit a nerve. […]
Leave a Reply