Are Americans hostile to knowledge?

[Connemara]

This is a neat article/book review that appeared in the NYT. Susan Jacoby wrote a book called "The Age of American Unreason" that explores the cultural phenomenon of anti-intellectualism in the U.S. Is this truly a big problem? Anecdotally speaking, I think it is. If you chose 100 American universities and asked students from each to write a paragraph on a priori v. a posteriori knowledge, identify the capital of Iraq and name 10 U.S. Presidents, less than 50% would be able to do so. I imagine there are studies that have examined such a phenomenon with similar results. Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/bo...&ex=1203483600

 

[James Bond]

Uh, there have always been stupid people.

 

[Pedantic Turkey]

I don't know if "hostile to knowledge" is how I'd put it.

A lot of Americans really don't like self-styled "intellectuals." Probably for good reason.

 

[lee_44106]

what's the point of all that book learning when people are losing jobs everywhere?

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by Connemara

This is a neat article/book review that appeared in the NYT. Susan Jacoby wrote a book called "The Age of American Unreason" that explores the cultural phenomenon of anti-intellectualism in the U.S.

You really think anti-intellctualism is confined to the US? Don't 1/4 of English youth believe Churchill was a fictional character? Anti-intellectualism is widespread in Europe and the Middle East. Other countries only know more about us than the average Yank knows about them because our media dominates the world.

As Mr. Bond said, people have been wringing their hands over this for generations.

 

[Fuuma]

The USA has a strong anti-intellectualism bent that has arisen, in part, as a shift from the old "poor/rich" dichotomy to an "average joe/damn intellectual living in the clouds" one that is easily seen in how politicians market themselves; "see folks I'm just like you, I eat ketchup with my chicken and stay away from those damn books, sure I'm a few billions richer but hey, I'm a simple guy like you". I do believe a string of books came out in the nineties to comment how pervasive the phenomenon was in the 80s and how politicians of both stripes acted on it to secure popular votes. On the plus side you guys are saved the ignominy of having to act like Bernard-Henry Levy and his vapid ilk are to be respected and invited to as many cultural elites back-slapping tv shows as possible.

As counter-intuitive as it may seen I am not sure to which degree American anti-intellectualism possibly leads to a lack of familiarity with simple, basic facts concerning the main pillars of a school curriculum as much as it creates a context in which intellectuals and the in-depth discussions they can bring regarding societal issues are systematically excluded from the public arena, helping to keep debates at the abysmal levels they currently occupy.

 

[Go Surface]

I don't know if we're hostile towards knowledge or just content living in ignorance. It's more apathy/laziness than active disdain towards acquiring knowledge.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by GoSurface

I don't know if we're hostile towards knowledge or just content living in ignorance. It's more apathy/laziness than active disdain towards acquiring knowledge.
well said. in the 1800s, presidential debates would take all day. the candidates would debate for several hours, take a break to eat, then come back and debate for several more hours on the same question. this is the way it should still be done, but people are too mentally lazy/apathetic to sit through that, and too lazy/apathetic to complain about the dumbed down process.

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

As counter-intuitive as it may seen I am not sure to which degree American anti-intellectualism possibly leads to a lack of familiarity with simple, basic facts concerning the main pillars of a school curriculum as much as it creates a context in which intellectuals and the in-depth discussions they can bring regarding societal issues are systematically excluded from the public arena, helping to keep debates at the abysmal levels they currently occupy.

The only safer bet than American stupidity is French elitism. Didn't Sakozy win using a predominately "anti-intellectual" campaign? Who are some of the current great scientists and intellectuals in France?

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by FLMountainMan

The only safer bet than American stupidity is French elitism. Didn't Sakozy win using a predominately "anti-intellectual" campaign? Who are some of the current great scientists and intellectuals in France?

why change the subject? someone brings up a legitimate concern about his country/countrymen, and you respond by attacking the french.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

well said. in the 1800s, presidential debates would take all day. the candidates would debate for several hours, take a break to eat, then come back and debate for several more hours on the same question. this is the way it should still be done, but people are too mentally lazy/apathetic to sit through that, and too lazy/apathetic too complain about the dumbed down process.

Well, not that I'm supporting the dumbed-down process, but back then the information on candidates was not readily available like it is now. More or less, the only way people knew anything the candidates stood for was through these debates, so part of the reason that the debates lasted so long was because it was the only exposure the population had to the candidates and the only way a candidate to get his ideas to the people.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by FLMountainMan

The only safer bet than American stupidity is French elitism. Didn't Sakozy win using a predominately "anti-intellectual" campaign? Who are some of the current great scientists and intellectuals in France?

Are you ******* kidding me, in France intellectuals are like rats; you throw an empty can at a trashbin and 5 get out and start scurrying about.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Well, not that I'm supporting the dumbed-down process, but back then the information on candidates was not readily available like it is now. More or less, the only way people knew anything the candidates stood for was through these debates, so part of the reason that the debates lasted so long was because it was the only exposure the population had to the candidates and the only way a candidate to get his ideas to the people.

maybe, but i hardly think they would debate all day in order to sway the votes of the 200 people who were actually present. they did have newspapers back then.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Not everyone is privy to higher learning like you Conne.

 

[FLMountainMan]

What do you guys think about the role of the internet in all this? It seems that kids today really don't read nearly as much as they used to and instead rely about the factoid-style information found on-line. Do you think that the modern Western attention span is too short for in-depth research anymore?

I encounter a lot of college students and some of the things they think are just amazing. It's as if most of them have never read independently, so all they do is lap up whatever their professors and teachers serve up, usually with a healthy dose of whatever political bent the instructor wishes to impart.

Are you ******* kidding me, in France intellectuals are like rats; you throw an empty can at a trashbin and 5 get out and start scurrying about.

I phrased that poorly, I meant intellectuals of renown, someone known outside of the local bistro, like a Cornel West or Noam Chomsky.