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…
Thanks for the provocative question.
You entertain the idea that you are erecting a straw man, but stick to your guns. I’m not particularly familiar with the geek movement, however, while I recognize that you have identified popular targets of criticism, I don’t recognize all the reasons you identify, or associate those arguments with geeks.
Replying directly to your points:
1. Expert knowledge vs. democratic knowledge. It’s important to see these arguments in context. It isn’t anti-intellectual to argue that expert knowledge should be subject to interrogation. (As to your argument, if one believes knowledge flourishes in open discussions between people equally empowered to question and to think, then one is not against knowledge in all its manifestations.)
2. I haven’t seen the critique of the book married to the critique of the author in quite that way, though I don’t doubt you have. I have a sentimental attachment to authors, but I’m willing to put it up for discussion. There are systems of knowledge that put less value on individual authors (see the Upanishads or the Diamond Sutra, for example). To establish the anti-intellectual bona fides of a critic of authorial privilege, you would need to probe their views of schools, circles or anonymous traditions of thought.
3. The classics. Any canon of literature should always be open to debate. Personally I’ve never enjoyed reading Tolstoy, so I’ve never finished War and Peace. I’ve enjoyed Dostoyevsky, so I’ve read lots of his books. I much prefer Chekhov to Turgenev, and I have a modest appreciation of Gogol. It doesn’t follow from the criticism of one particular author or novel as boring and irrelevant that the critic disdains all novels, or is attacking the work from a position of total ignorance. If anybody ever forced me to read War and Peace on the grounds that it belonged to a canon, I might come out forcefully against its canonization–but of course I reserve the right to actually read it someday and make up my mind then. Also, there are intelligent criticisms to be made of canonization itself, not all of which can be reduced to a position against canonization in general.
4. Of course we all recognize the argument here from Phaedrus, and Derrida’s critique springs immediately to mind.
5. If somebody explicitly values brightness and creativity, that’s not a strong indicator of an anti-intellectual attitude. It’s unfortunate that for many college is not associated with brightness and creativity. If we are honest, though, we should recognize that many students take a utilitarian view of college, and many colleges aim to meet the needs of those students. As a result, many bright, creative people are ill-served by college, not because they disdain knowledge for its own sake, but because they value it.
In summation, there is something of a tradition of anti-intellectualism in American life, which, being more attuned to rugged individualism than foreign anti-intellectualisms, is neither wholly negative nor positive. It sometimes gets on my nerves, but so does the veneration of intellectuals, so it often feels like a necessary corrective to excesses which are, when boiled down to their essence, stupid.
This is definitely tl, dnr if attntn spn is shrt.
As someone who went to college, has read the classics, has no memory, and is a software engineer who has a writer, I have this to say:
The classics per se (per se, per se) have less bearing on modern culture than they did in their own time. The self-righteousness of the technorati is disappointing, but no more or less than the self-righteousness or every other up and coming generation learning in a new way. I and most of my kind could not make a living at our ludicrously overpaid occupations without standing on the underpaid shoulders of everyone who came before us, and knowing that probably creates some defensiveness over how we learned our trade and how we continue to profit by it, but the fact remains that it is now possible to do an insanely difficult job with google and the occasional handbook. In my interviews and my work, I find myself becoming defensive when people ask me obscure computer theory questions because I think they should just love me because I can get the job done, which many people who do know the names of a thousand algorithms and design patterns can’t, so why should I have to know the name of what I can do?
On the other hand, I learned how to get the job done through a combination of college and waiting tables.
So I think you and your detractors are both wrong. Memory is nice, but not knowledge. The ability to find a fact is more important than knowing it, says my boy Einstein. That finding a fact (or at least, hopefully, given the state of most online discourse) is so easy you don’t need an education or access to anything more than a computer has given the pseudo-intellectuals a run for their money, but this in no way endangers people actually capable of putting facts together in a meaningful way.
College is pointless for some. I treasure the insane amount of drugs, sex, and booze I encountered in college: it was an education par excellence, as I would not have had the breadth of experience that let me put together facts and figures in the sensible and lucrative way I do now.
Memorization is not a particularly useful talent. It’s also shooting yourself in the nose to not expose yourself to things you don’t think you’re interested in. The knowledge that can be gained in a lifetime of study pales in comparison to the knowledge available on a wireless connection, and it’s easier to summon at a moment’s notice; the ability to put that knowledge to use comes from a desire to have and use knowledge, and that is the potential of higher education. Sadly, that potential has been squandered throughout history, but it’s always accessible to people willing to fight for it.
The anti-intellectualism you illustrate is more a reaction to the failure of the institution of education to incite some kind of love of learning, combined with the best tools humans have ever known for stimulating the autodidactic. I prefer my own age group (ancient at 30) of autodidacts because we remember having to fight for it back in the day, but I understand why the whippersnappers of the last couple of decades get snippy about anything relating to the old ways. They lose by not looking into the past, checking their sources, and crossing their T’s, but they have a right to be angry about an educational system that consistently failed a dozen generations.
To be sure I don’t take any observable side, they absolutely make asses of themselves by attacking experts or people devoted to study, because the particular facts searchable through google wouldn’t be available without them.
Also, I’m crazy drunk, excuse the language.
[…] Anti-intellectualism? Yes! But only among poser geeks… TweetIf you haven’t read it already, you need to take a quick side step over to Larry Sanger’s blog and read Geek Anti-intellectualism. […]
I want to see those anti-intellectuals trying crowd wisdom
for a real disease, instead of a qualified, university
trained medical doctor.
And I also want to see someone who never had any formal
education in an engineering school, technology institute
or university, designing, building and/or managing a power
generation facility, electric power system, communication
infrastructure, oil refinery, etc.
This looks like a classical populist attitude.
….. one great computer scientist I ever met, didn’t finished College, but he is invited to many important computer labs around the world.
brevity is the soul of wit
in·tel·lec·tu·al
1. a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3. a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
anti-intellectual
anti-intellectual – a person who is uninterested in intellectual pursuits lowbrow, philistine
pleb, plebeian – one of the common people
anti-intellectualanti-intellectual – smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values
philistine
I agree that there is a tendency to anti-intellectualism that is prevalent in our society. I also agree that this has spread to so-called “geek culture”. While I agree with most of your basic assumptions, and many of your conclusions, I have some issues with many of the specifics in your article.
First, your post equates intellectualism with university education. You conflate dislike, distrust, and/or contempt for traditional educational systems with anti-intellectualism. It is entirely possible to admire intellectual thought, strive for intellectual rigor, and apply a curious and analytical nature to the world at large without attending university. Particularly in America, where universities have become commercial institutions, bound tightly to our corporate masters and elite power structures, it easy to imagine losing interest a formal education. As a noteworthy example, I encourage you to read Noam Chomsky’s thoughts on his educational experience (see for example “Chomsky for Beginners” if you want a lightweight, easy overview). Chomsky, widely considered the “worlds leading intellectual”, professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT, himself felt disgust and a lack of interest with formal education, and only landed in his academic career by having the good fortune to make the acquaintance of a professor who recognized his intellect, provided him a way around the traditional academic path, and provided him with the intellectual stimulation he was craving.
Secondly, memorizing facts is not a measure of intellectual achievement. Certainly a certain store of knowledge is required to make useful connections, but being able to process and analyze information analytically and sceptically is a far better measure of intellectual achievement than the ability to recall reams of facts. I consider this point to be self evident, but if you disagree, please contact me and I will go to some effort to argue the point.
Thirdly, a certain contempt for “experts” in a field does not constitute anti-intellectualism. Human progress (and not just scientific) requires us to question assumptions and accepted beliefs, even if these are those held by “experts”. One of the statement Galileo made that most upset the Catholic church, was his opinion that the opinions of all of the experts of the world had not the worth of one man’s reason and observation. Let me ask you, who do you consider more of an intellectual: Galilleo Gallilee, or the most advanced and esteemed experts of his age, those who had risen to the highest ranks of the Academe of the time?
There is something to be said about trusting the opinion of an expert when you don’t have the capacity, time, energy or information to investigate a subject yourself. Knowing ones own limitations is both intellectually and emotionally challenging. But beyond this element of self-knowledge, trusting an expert is not the same as exercising your intellect.
While I fault the intellectual rigor of your observations, I agree the basic conclusion. I consider it small wonder however. “Geekdom” seems to be a kind of tribalism, with loosely defined membership criteria which seems to consist of an enjoyment of science-fiction and/or fantasy, being better than average with computers, and having an inflated estimation of one’s own intelligence. I think back in the seventies, before Corporations and their marketing departments started twisting the culture of the programming world, there was a certain amount of intellectualism prevalent in the computing world. Now however, the computing world is dominated by business. They require people who can program and develop software, which requires a certain amount of intellect and skill. They are however, fundamentally, destructive hierarchical social structures which weight obeisance over intellect. So our jobs, and the corporate owned media (entertainment and news) teach us cultural values of anti-intellectualism. We are encouraged not to make connections.
Of course, confusing intellect with memorizing the opinions and claims of academic experts doesn’t help either.
It seems your article repeatedly conflates intellectualism with academia and education with formal education.
Most people shouldn’t go to college, this is because they are not motivated enough to really stick with it and further themselves. A lot of people fail or get mediocre results leaving them confused and lost. College and intelligence is changing to support these unfortunate-as-it-is-to-say , but, halfwits. However, it must be said that much of what contributes to individual intellectualism and intelligence is out of the control of the person. Too much games consoles and TV kills more braincells and alcohol and dope!
Thank you for writing this article.
Obviously, the problem is of the new attitude which disregards the possibility that a person who has spent considerable time on a subject can know more about it than ten people who have barely spent any time at all.
I will share my personal story here. After a good 8 – 10 years of staying away from books and spending all my life on the internet, i came to realize something: that while a lot of learning IS possible on the internet, personality and character building is not. I found that internet blurs your focus and drags your focus towards stuff which you may not be interested in at all.
We – the geeks – make decisions with much less deliberation and are prone to more mistakes.
Leave a Reply