One of the most aggravating things to me in this world has to be the absolutely rampant anti-intellectualism that dominates so many conversations and debates, and its influence just seems to be expanding. Do you think there will ever actually be a time when this ends? I'd hope so once people become more educated and cultural changes eventually happen, but as of now it honestly infuriates me like few things ever have.
Only when people stop giving credence to the argument that you don't actually need to read or learn math or science to get a job and pay your bills.
The lack of knowledge (especially true knowledge) and lesser ability to understand complex ideas are major aspects of that perspective.
Can you prove this?
“In 1976, a professor of economic history at the University of California, Berkeley published an essay outlining the fundamental laws of a force he perceived as humanity’s greatest existential threat: Stupidity.
Stupid people, Carlo M. Cipolla explained, share several identifying traits: they are abundant, they are irrational, and they cause problems for others without apparent benefit to themselves, thereby lowering society’s total well-being. There are no defenses against stupidity, argued the Italian-born professor, who died in 2000. The only way a society can avoid being crushed by the burden of its idiots is if the non-stupid work even harder to offset the losses of their stupid brethren.”
https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity
I try my best to keep in check my stupidity thus offloading some of the work of the smart people. Unfortunately, I fail most of the time
The Marching Morons
Thanks a lot for that link. I am a hardcore science fiction nerd, yet I had never crossed paths with that one. Indeed relevant in this debate, too.
Which gives you billionaires who have the power to make decisions uninterrupted by commoners.
And then the billionaires themselves have idiots among them.
, who will lose their money quickly.
This is why I am 100% in favor of normalizing regularly having things like computer/internet literacy tests msybe every half decade to ensure you are actually smart enough to use the internet in a responsible manner. Don't pass? No internet access for you outside of things educational material, cooking recipes, or sending messages to people. No access to your social media or conspiracy theory groups or anything else that'll harm your brain.
It'll either encourage people to get better at cheating, give up on using the internet entirely, or they might actually try to learn something and better their lives.
Some will definitely complain that they're having their rights violated (USA), but if it keeps the Internet safe from stupidity even by a small margin, I'll gladly take it.
I am so sick of reading proposals like this from probably-white non-US Westerners who have probably never actually had to engage with the idea that racism exists. This might get some fascist groups off the internet, sure, but it would also likely push oppressed minority groups who do not necessarily have access to quality education out. That's the history of minimum IQ requirements for voting, mind you.
Put this proposal in front of a Proud Boy and they'll likely be in favor of it, because they believe whites are the only people smart enough to pass it. They'll stop being in favor once it goes into effect and they're included along with groups they hate in the "not allowed online" crowd, but the groups they hate, some of whom's situations may be made direly worse by the lack of unrestricted internet access, will most likely be pushed out too.
Here we have a person who has never considered the important question: Who among us is intelligent enough to decide where the line lies between good enough and not good enough?
When do we consider someone too stupid to use the Internet? Bottom 50%? Bottom 10%? If bottom 10%, what do we do about the people who score exactly with 10.1%? They're nearly indistinguishable from the bottom 10% in terms of performance, yet they still get to go online?
Who decides which sites and services are ok? The government? The ISP? The site creators? You? What happens when your approved messaging service adds short form videos? Adds group chats?
The ultimate problem: There are no good answers to any of these questions, and if you think you have one, you are almost certain to have missed something significant in your evaluation of the options.
You're basically proposing a "social IQ" test that would effectively make people social pariahs (good luck making your taxes, finding a job, etc, without the internet, nowadays) over not being educated enough.
Do you realize there's literally one step between this and advocating for eugenics? Do you measure the potential for abuse? Who gets to decide what's "smart" enough for the internet?
By eliminating critical thinking, and polarizing everyone, those in power can do whatever they want, and the rest of us won't be sufficiently organized to stop it.
I'm seeing positive signs though, labor unions getting successful settlements, and more awareness. So maybe?
It's just absurd that so many people fall into the shitter so incredibly easily without second consideration. But those who don't also need to get out of the mentality of 'I can't do anything' because even a single individual can have a massive impact in other people's lives and the world without major ambitions. Every time somebody says that, it just feels so pathetic, like they have given up attempting any responsibility and relinquished the last of their power even though so much more could have been accomplished. We collectively need to have a much stronger resistance to injustice in the world, and we are making progress, but it's so slow it's eclipsed by the amount of atrocious shit that happens almost every single day. I find it saddening how quick people are to resign themselves from doing something just because the odds are against them.
Yes, you're absolutely right. There's a lot of hopelessness and apathy, and it's only helping those who commit the atrocities.
But before you judge, I'll state that I've been a member of an activist group, progressivecoders dot org, for the last 5 years. I've worked on various projects, but overall watched the world situation get worse anyway. Even before that, I've done my best to be an activist and ally.
I've also been in the software industry for 30 years. I've watched it go from a genuinely useful and interesting information processing and delivery system, to a completely shittified ad delivery and surveillance tool. I've had to participate in it myself, I was actually part of the team that delivered the first animated GIF that made advertising that much more annoying. I worked for several of the big internet monopolies, and realized that it wasn't an accomplishment, they just crack the whip that much harder, and I have CPTSD in exchange for free lunches and massages.
So yeah, I'm starting to give up. But it's not for lack of trying.
“Just absurd” is the language of someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on.
I assure you that (which you already know but aren’t processing for some reason) people are not setting out to live their lives in an absurd way.
It just means you’re tossing your hands up at the complexity of understanding something. Not a very disciplined approach to understanding for the 1% Intellectual in the room.
Anti-intellectualism comes alongside alienation from others. It has to. Being an intellectual is essentially saying "I trust the findings of academics and will adopt their consensus." Nobody can learn about the whole span of the world, it's too much information. But when you are convinced that collaboration is weakness and compromise is failure, you have to keep the world in your head, and the only way to do that is to maintain a really simplified internal diorama from which your "truth" is derived.
This is such a great take. I've never considered it like this
Thanks, I'm already thinking of ways I am off the mark though, like how things like race science and eugenics have been the "academic" position in the past.
I think properly working the academic consensus into your mind involves also understanding that it's the product of people. It's not that different from having some trust in institutions outside of academia too. There were people in the sciences fighting bitterly against those trends, and in the long run their position became standard.
I think there's a point to be made here about trust vs faith
Yeah probably. I don't like the idea of having faith in science of course, considering that science is done by people, and people aren't infallible. But it's the best tool we have for preserving and interacting with past ideas and breakthroughs. I suppose the thing I'd have to have faith in is humanity's drive to understand a "truth" that holds up to scrutiny, instead of the characterization some have of human beings as creatures that wish only to satisfy existential terror incuriously.
Thanks, I'm already thinking of ways I am off the mark though, like how things like race science and eugenics have been the "academic" position in the past.
That was very useful to people. It's not like a majority, even those disliking academia, will trust no scientific study or something, they just don't trust the ones they disagree with politically
This is an uncomfortable reality but the more recent examples of the sciences and humanities being considered progressive overall gives me hope.
I don't think there was ever really race science, I could be wrong here but to my knowledge it was basically all pseudo science. Maybe this is a flawed take but I don't remember any creditable research from it but lots of old white dudes telling everyone how they're better because they say so.
the difference between pseudo-science and science can be slight, and always better understood in hindsight. IQ was a big part of race science in the early 1900s, and it looks like science. It's objectively measured, systemic data. You've gotta take a step back to realise it's bullshit and too subjectively defined to be useful for anything. A big part of science is trying to think objective, and it's only been somewhat recently there's been a movement to remind people that they aren't actually objective, ever.
I get where you're going and I don't really disagree but people thought lots of things were objective while having no conclusive data.
thought, think, will think. But I kind of did say that already.
Being an intellectual is essentially saying “I trust…
That doesn't make sense. Intellect is a personal attribute that can't be outsourced, not even to academics. If someone claims to be an intellectual but the information from academics isn't subject to the same level of scrutiny as all other sources, their claim is incorrect. People tend to start from academic sources because they have a better chance of already being held to scrutiny than other sources, but if they stop there just because smart-guy-said-so, they're no intellectual. Or they're just pressed for time.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think anti-intellectualism refers to people being against people who happen to have "intellect." And also, this claim about being a true intellectual seems like an impossible standard. It's possible to rigorously scrutinize an assumption drawn from smart types, sure, but nobody has the time to do that for everything that makes up their understanding of reality.
I could tell you right now that sidewinder rattlesnakes don't use their heat-sensitive facial pits to select thermally ideal ambush sites, they just use their eyes to pick a site that looks good. You could not deduce this without experimentation. (I was part of a study that tested it.)
Now, you could trust that I'm telling you the closest thing to the truth that is known in the world of rattlesnakes, but let's say you want to be intellectual by your definition and go know it without just taking my (admittedly qualified) word for it. You could go get a herpetology degree, go convince a grad student that it would be worth challenging our conclusion, and spend another three months like we did out in the desert catching snakes and running experiments with thermal cameras.
You probably don't want to do that, because you probably don't have the highly specific interest in snakes that we had, and so it would feel like a waste of your time. In the end, I think you'll probably admit that I know more about this snake topic than you, you'll accept my conclusion, and go around understanding it without having personally studied or observed it, and that's a good thing because it will free you up to go figure something out that fits into your interests and you can share your findings with me in turn.
Being an intellectual is essentially saying “I trust the findings of academics and will adopt their consensus.”
It's the exact opposite of that. An intellectual is someone with a lot of curiosity and typically rejects the status quo. Anti-intellectualism is the acceptance of what others say based on "stuff" (emotions, group affiliation). Intellectuals have been oppressed because they offer intelligent ideas to challenge a political party, religion, or the "adopted consensus".
I just responded to a pretty similar position below.
It is silly to conflate opposition to the status quo with intellectualism. Those visionaries whose ideas led to paradigm shifts were still building upon previous consensus. Sometimes being correct puts you at odds with the group, but so does being COMPLETELY WRONG.
Sometimes
I have decided that it is safe to assume that everyone is an idiot, including me, and behave accordingly: act deliberately with an open mind, making no assumptions, and remain curious.
Frank Herbert's Bene Gesserits had a tenet in which they remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves, ostensibly to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.
Coming back around to my point: I think we'd all get along a lot better if we'd all agree we're all stupid, but we can get better.
remained mindful of the naivety of all people, including themselves,… to prevent allowing hubris to allow poor decisions.
Not to spoil a 60 year old book, but didn't they have a plan to genetically engineer a literal savior to mankind with hundreds of years of selective breeding? A little like the pot telling the kettle it's too sure of itself.
These are good points and good techniques IMO, and to add on–
Humans have always been drowning in the unknown, hence our chronic set of coping mechanisms, but on top of that, in this high-tech information civilisation we currently live in, now we're drowning in information, as well. Which leads to some big problems, of course.
As in-- it takes considerable effort, honesty and openness to form a decent perspective on most subjects these days, particularly significant ones, and because of that hurdle, I fear that most people (you, I, everyone) are inclined to 'settle' for flawed understandings of topics, even with best intentions. Or at worst, some of us form whatever ludicrous opinions simply because it makes us feel better / at peace / self-righteous.
Point is-- it seems like the world just has way too much information for people to handle these days, effectively worsening our collective mental health and communal behavior, one might say.
Everyone has gaps in their knowledge and errors in their thinking. A true master is an eternal student, or something like that. We can always learn. The problem here is too many people have their own ego impeding any progress.
"the world" is not anti-intellectual, you just hang out with the wrong people
Some folks can't much help who they hang out with. Any American is literally surrounded by thousands of miles of other Americans, and anti-intellectualism is rampant in the country. It's not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that "I'm a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants."
It’s not like Sweden is going to let Americans immigrate with the justification that “I’m a sad intellectual surrounded by boorish peasants.”
It's not? Assuming you could get yourself there, I mean.
No country will just let in any rando. They have to want you there. There's humanitarian programs, but largely you need to have something they want.
That's typically special skills (MD, PhD, athletics, etc.). Or money. Money will get you anywhere.
Perhaps not the whole world, but I'm many/most countries, the larger structures, like government and business, absolutely are anti-intellectual. Nice to have an academic friend group, but that doesn't change the fact that capitalism makes education less accessible in order to rely on an undereducated workforce, and then politicians push it even further for the sake of easy control.
I'm very specific about my friends, I promise you that isn't the problem. It's more of an observational thing, and it is clearly present in western society at the very least. Even with my friends, we are still an insignificant minority compared to the larger population.
Any thought or idea that begins with “people are…” is doomed.
There is no such thing as “people;" there is I only you, this person here, that person there, and so on.
Funnily enough, if as an intellectual you let go of the idea that others are dummies and start examining what they do and why and start brainstorming about what might motivate them, you might get a better idea of all the dynamics that go on when it comes to an individual's choice or motivation. Including, yes, why people are "anti-intellectual". And perhaps how to "solve" it.
I'm a bit snarky here, because I get irritated by other supposedly "smart" people looking at things through a tiny, biased and prejudged pinhole.
You're smart? Ok. Get out there, observe things, learn them, then come back and form a hypothesis that aligns with what you've observed.
I'm not sure that your statement has anything to do with stopping thinking of others as dummies. I think it's telling you to think of them that way, and you're just trying to push that under the rug to try to be nice.
You're saying to understand anti intellectualism you need to understand things from their perspective.
The lack of knowledge (especially true knowledge) and lesser ability to understand complex ideas are major aspects of that perspective.
No matter how we define or measure intelligence, we're mathematically guaranteed that it's distributed approximately on a bell curve with a small number of intelligent people at the top.
I'll never not see anti-intellectual people as stupid, even if they have their reasons. I used to be an idiot who actively did things they thought were wrong. But eventually I stopped because I realised it's completely hypocritical and morally and logically wrong. I came to that conclusion without need of others judging me through my own self-reflection, and I'll admit it was hard. Even so, I wished somebody would have called me out, but I guess animal consumption is so engrained in society people don't even question it. I had my reasons to do so, but they were by no means a justification. I still try to understand things in different ways, but eventually it becomes redundant taking each case and doing so. The reality is that anti-intellectualism is incredibly prevalent and people need to change their ways of thinking. Sometimes they are just blatantly wrong and need to stop letting their emotions do their thinking. Sometimes there is nothing to understand. I don't know why people are so bent on seeing every individual separately, it's impossible to do so. Even if we do, they are still liable for their actions. Such as choosing not to self-reflect.
The reality is that … people need to change their thinking
Sounds like your grasp of what “reality” refers to is flawed. What kind of instrument would one use to measure whether people need to change their thinking? What units does that instrument use?
Maybe instead of bemoaning how little effort others are putting into understanding things, you should forge ahead with your own work.
Having tried this, no, it does not. People are anti-intellectual because they willfully choose to be ignorant. They're like that for several different reasons, but their choices are the same.
What actually matters is not allowing people like you to shame the rest of us who do value knowledge into submitting to the will of people like that out of a misguided notion that judging them for their stupidity is wrong or bad. It's not. It's called holding people accountable for their actions and choices, and it's a thing we have been doing far too little of in society.
Hold people accountable for not knowing basic shit and refusing to learn it. Grown adults have no excuse, barring some learning disability, for not having decent reading comprehension, or not being able to do basic math, or not having critical thinking skills. We're trying to run a democracy here and that requires having an educated public. And that means the public has to be willing to educate themselves.
For fuck's sake. I don't know everything either but if there's something I don't know, I learn it. I at least try.
You're part of the problem defending them by shaming us. You're part of the reason why anti-intellectualism is such a problem: you enable irresponsibility, indolence, and selfishness by protecting people who refuse to learn from consequences.
I don't think everyone is an idiot. It's a big assumption to say so. People have their reasons and motivations. Many people weren't given a fair chance in life, many lacked an education, many were raised to think a certain way or in a certain culture.
I'd wager I have tried arguing with the people I would categorise as 'anti-intellectual' more than 99% of people to ever have lived trying to understand them, and I did develop a level of empathy and understanding. But still it remains that just because people have reasons, they aren't necessarily valid and eventually people are responsible for their own self-reflection and decisions. 'Solving' this issue with people who already have engrained beliefs is incredibly difficult because they need to be responsible themselves. It isn't something I can actualise solely. It's far easier to start from a fresh generation, because changing is hard when you are used to something for so long. You see this in religious people especially and in people who eat meat. I know why they are/do what they do, but still it doesn't give justification. Many of them may even doubt their beliefs, but still cling to them. I know they do because I used to as well. I even still proceeded to do things I know were wrong. I don't claim to be flawless. Furthermore, I also know there is no reason to come in blaming these people ruthlessly because it will not progress anywhere and serve no purpose, what is done is done. But I cannot deny how annoying it is to see people still refuse to even attempt to learn.
The 'solution' is very complex if you want people to change because it will be an incredibly difficult task and something that would require an entire cultural shift to how people think. No doubt long term and I don't have the answer to how, and even if somebody did, it still relies on others to make a decision themselves. You can only make your own judgement of individuals for so long, soon enough you can recognise patterns and arguing every case is not possible with what time you have. I do my best.
I think you're mixing up intellectualism and morality. There are many reasons people choose not to eat meat, and some of those reasons are emotional or moral rather than intellectual. Some people only eat a vegan diet because their doctor told them they had to. Are those people somehow more intellectual than someone who researched the science and came to the conclusion that humans are omnivores?
You have already judged the outcomes of people's decisions as being objectively correct or incorrect. To you, eating meat is incorrect regardless of the reasons for doing so. That is not an intellectual stance, it is a moral one. You are ultimately judging people for having different values than you. Maybe they don't care about the environment, maybe they don't care about the safety of animals or other people. Like it or not, to care about those things is emotion. You can argue they're wrong as much as you like, but you can't prove that any human behavior is objectively "the right thing to do," meaning you are not as objectively correct as you think you are. There isn't a one-fits-all solution for how to live. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stop judging others for not being like you.
Intellectualism is a moral issue, and a serious one in our society.
The only way democracy works is if the population is intellectual, and when it stops being such, it falls apart. We can't afford for people to reject learning and education the way they have. It's the reason why we get dipshit wannabe dictators like Donald Trump in office and why corporations and companies have been allowed to run roughshod over everything this country claims to stand for. It's why climate collapse has been allowed to go on unabated. It's literally the root of all of our problems.
Don't stand here and try to tell us it's not a moral issue. It is. And people who refuse to learn anything are doing something wrong.
people who refuse to learn anything are doing something wrong
Well at least we agree on one thing. It is a moral imperative to learn about the world, to make oneself capable of solving problems.
Don't stand here and try to tell us it's not a moral issue. It is. And people who refuse to learn anything are doing something wrong.
I literally said it is a moral issue. And I get the importance of people changing. But you have to accept that you can't control this. You can lead by example or you can try to educate people. If you really want to control people, become a dictator. Judging people doesn't make the world a better place. OP said they don't like religion, but this is exactly what religion does: it declares there's one right way to live and judges anyone who dares to not live that way.
Especially when you look at folks anti-intellectual sentiments through the lense of their Material Conditions.
Agreed. I'd also like to add that intelligence != wisdom != experience, and you need all three to achieve real understanding.
Also, as an intellectual, I’d advise that understanding anti-intellectualism requires understanding what alternatives exist to intellectualism and why people might see them as more valuable (or less problematic) than intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is a strategy employed by some rich people that control some mass media outlets to keep people away from being class conscious.
You're absolutely fooling yourself if you think anti-intellectualism is a "rich people" thing. If rich people disappeared, anti-intellectualism would still exist
That's not what my statement posits.
What does your sTaTeMeNt PoSiT exactly?
Is your first language English? I can help explain but need to know if you didn't understand because of a language barrier or you read it too quickly.
I dislike this take. It assumes a conspiracy among a shadowy elite, which is the same tactic often employed by the anti-intellectual crowd. If we simply write off the problem with a hand-wavy solution based on a hunch, we’re no better than those we are discussing.
I know some hate this term, but class reductionism is a very apt descriptor for their take.
I dislike that term. In this context I suppose the intent was to give a simple response to a simple question.
Some professors have actually done the methodical research to find out this is, in fact, true. There's no shadowy elite there's just an elite that has a policy towards this: https://www.amazon.com/Gatekeeper-Years-Economics-According-Times/dp/1594516820
Can we start with anti-I-Need-My-Dopamine-Hit-Every-10-Minutes?
Between people's ever depleting attention span and our desire for acceptance on social media, I just don't see how you can even begin to tackle "anti-intellectualism".
Most people use these platforms to comment on a headline and never read the article. Perhaps we could all decide to use these platforms properly and use the downvote button to bury comments that, while funny or otherwise emotionally engaging, are clearly not accurate or providing value to the topic of discussion.
By upvoting funny comments and rewarding hive-mind mentality, we're partly to blame for the lack of intellectualism.
Lemmy is far better than Reddit regarding the use of downvotes, but many people still use it as an emotional disagreement button rather than something used to hide useless/irrelevant content. I only downvote when somebody says something completely fucked or starts trolling.
I don't think upvoting funny comments is necessarily wrong, but there is a lack of meaningful engagement a lot of the time.
Lemmy is far better than Reddit regarding the use of downvotes, but many people still use it as an emotional disagreement button rather than something used to hide useless/irrelevant content
I don't know if I'd agree at all with the idea that Lemmy is any better, in my experience, people still use the downvote button as an "I Disagree" button 99% of the time. There's less people here, so it's less pronounced (you'll get -9 instead of -300 for expressing an against-the-grain opinion), but the pattern is still just as present
I've only found people who say really stupid shit get completely downvoted to the floor on Lemmy and there are almost always extensive responses. Anecdotes aren't the best evidence, I guess my experience was very different.
However, at least you can actually see if people upvoted or downvoted and not just the total, so people are less inclined to just hop the train straight away. Depends largely on the instance though. I'm pretty sure Hexbears can't even downvote.
I believe there is an evolutionary purpose to human stupidity though, and it's the reason we've come so far as a species. Without writing a novel here, look up the concept of simulated annealing, which is conceptually related to natural selection. The short version is, when searching for a better solution to problem in a sea of functionally infinite possible solutions, if you only ever try solutions you can see that are categorically better than the solution you currently have, you will (with statistical certainty) end up in a local maxima. That is to say, without stupid people, no one would have ever looked at a cow udder and thought, "yeah, I wanna get in on that", and as a result many humans throughout history would have gone without nutrients necessary for their survival.
I have no idea who first drank cow's milk, that's not the point, don't @ me. The point is, stupid people try stupid stuff, many times it is just as stupid as it looked, but sometimes that stupid thing turns out to have previously undiscovered potential benefits which smart people notice, research, and help integrate into our society, resulting in others' lives being better.
So to further simplify, stupid people are unwitting test subjects that the rest of humanity sometimes benefit from because they do dumb shit no one else would have thought to try.
I’m reminded of an episode from Stargate when one of the Asgardians, Thor I believe, was able to stop replicators from attacking his home world with the help of one of the main Earth characters, Sam. Thor needed someone of a less evolved/“stupider” species to help with the problem after none of the Asgard scientists could find a way. He said with compliment, “It was your stupid idea,” and Sam smiled back.
Yeah pretty much.
I'm only using the word "stupid" here because the thread is about intelligence and anti-intelligence. But more generally, I think there is a reason that it's easy to plot political ideologies (even outside the two-party system of the US) somewhere on a progressive/conservative spectrum. I believe Progressiveism and Conservativism form the same dichotomy as Mutation and Rote Replication in the context of DNA. In the stock market and economy it's referred to as Greed and Fear. In philosophy and game theory it's called Exploration and Exploitation. These are all the same phenomenon to me, one takes a step forward the other takes a step back, sometimes you need a bit more of one to survive, other times you need a bit more of the other.
You know, the only thing that keeps smart people from trying stuff is cultural boundaries and social fitness, which in itself is something evolutionary grown and includes small progress to a local maxima? You know, that the only thing that keeps us from trying unconventional stuff is often the lack of money, which inherently comes from the state. The politics decide about money and they also cater to stupid voters or to business interests. This in itself is stupidity. The answer of stupid is evolutionary benefitting is just fine on the surface, but if you look at the complexity of issues, it is not as clear. And then there is my opinion that i would rather accept some local maxima while some scientists try unconventional stuff than have stupid people always thinking theyre right DKing all the time, because it is exhausting! I know it is not a choice, but if one thinks being and staying stupid is fine, which might be the consequence of "stupidity is evolutionary advantageous", then I would rather fight the premise, because that would not be acceptable to me.
Oh for sure, please, nobody tell the stupid people about my theory. They're smarter than they look…
the world would be a much more terrifying place if stupid people doing 'evil' (never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity) stuff were instead evil and highly intelligent. I like this version better. we like to think that intelligence brings with itself high morals and every intelligent person is an agent of good. some people might just want to watch the world burn, but that's a discussion for another thread, I think.
imagine a highly intelligent musk or spez. ugh
You know that much more intelligent people are still doing evil stuff right now and more often than not, because other people do either not act intelligent or consequential. I have a few examples: grandchildren-trick in germany, which relies inherently on grandparents being naive or ignorant about technology or that they might be betrayed. They never thought about that, in that regard you might count being ignorant or naive also as stupid. Another example: some people get into magazine subscriptions and never stop them, even though they do not like it, just because unsubscribing is too inconvenient or saying no to the sales man is too hard. Another one: People go to financial advise and do not know most things about personal finances and investments. So they literally have to trust the advisor, who sometimes only works to get the most out of his customer into his own pocket, that could only be avoided through knowledge and experience, which are traits, that are also associated with smartness. Although not all those people maliciously choose to exploit those naive or lazy or ignorant people, they rely heavily on them to earn their money. If those people would not let themself get exploited, there would literally be less evil, because it could not be commercialized in that way. Hell, even corporate and governmental employees are sometimes as stupid as they could not even send a simple e-mail (there are examples), and would not even learn it, if shown.
I do not accept any answer like "those people that exploit others will find ways", as you do not know if it would be that way.
I also do not accept anything defending the exploited people, who in my opinion are not inherently stupid from the mentioned circumstence and I do not mean any harm to them. But the things that happened are literally stupid things, that could easily be avoided, so they have done something stupid, as does anyone in this world, so no evil feelings there, just improving the debate focus.
And to answer anything, that would say that some people might have a disability or illness and therefore might be easier to exploit, which could be the case. Those could also be exploited, even if everyone becomes smarter, but: there is a solution to that and that is societal support and care work. If you have a right to health care and to be supported by society to make up for your disabilities, then a judge or judgementally assigned professional might decide for you, so that you do not have any disadvantages due to those circumstances.
Oh my god. Stupidity is what people pushes us out of steady, slow, incremental progress towards a local maxima. I'm stunned. You might have something there.
Reading the comments, it seems that the take on this in a lot of highly voted comments is the highly simplistic "some people are stupid, others are not".
Let me make one thing clear: Intelligence is NOT Wisdom, and whilst the former might make it easier the get the latter, to begin down the path of growing the latter requires an ability to recognize one's lack of it and such ability is dependent on things like self-confidence, self-criticism, ability to practice introspection and possibly a reasonably varied life-experience, most of which barelly correlate with intelligence (and in some cases the correlation is actually negative).
Yes, it's emotionally satisfying for people who see themselves as intelligent (yet can't even recognize the limits of intelligence) to think their greatest quality (worse, one they're born with rather than acquired) makes them immune to that problem, which they thing is because "most people are stupid".
(Funnily enough, more intelligent people are apparently more likely to fall for scams, which would make sense if one they tended to overestimates the power of mere intelligence)
However emotionally satisfying doesn't mean right and a wise person would suspect such self-serving "I'm great because I have this characteristic and it's those who don't have it who are the problem" 'conclusions'.
Personally I think a lot of the manipulation going on nowadays is at an emotional level (just go learn about modern marketing and start playing attention at how branding in TV is mostly creating associations between the brand and certain emotional urges and impulses, for example perfumes with sex and cars with freedom) and an "indoctrinated" subconscious definitelly bypasses intelligence no mater how extraordinary (Hollywood's typical portrayal of exceptional genious is an almst superhumanly wise person - or alternativelly, nutty professor - all very unrealistic).
Also I've known some highly intelligent people who were so unable to accept that even they were non-omiscient humans who made mistakes, that they migt as well be morons (these people are rare though).
Anybody who thinks themselves above making mistakes is delusional. It's really concerning how people will live such self-centred lives without greater consideration or introspection. So many people lack self-awareness and the ability to properly process emotions without just giving in to them. Cultural conditioning and manipulation definitely plays a part in this. It took me so long to realise how wrong the consumption of animal products was because until I got around the age of 12 I thought much more highly of people and didn't believe so many people would partake, willing or ignorantly, in the abuse of animals so carelessly. Realising how selfish and narrow-minded many people are is really saddening. It's very rare for someone to break free from social conditioning, even more so by their own decisions alone.
I also have to agree the comments saying shit like 'some people are stupid, others are not' are just redundant. Similarly, the people who say 'not everyone is an idiot, you have to see it from their perspective' are also incredibly annoying. Even if people have reasons, they don't provide adequate justifications. I can understand why they may have an idea or perspective, but it doesn't make it valid. I have gone through understanding people more than most people to ever have existed will have tried, but I can't fight every single case. Too many people think their opinion matters equally to another's who has invested magnitudes more time into formulating it. I think people really need a humbling to be able to appreciate things and learn more.
Others have said it already, but anti-intellectualism at its core is alienation. It's a lack of trust in academic or professional authorities and substituting that trust for either ones own experiences or complete hallucinations. People will find alternative communities to trust, especially if they can find something that verifies their existing biases.
If you sense something's wrong with the world, but lack an ability to pinpoint it, you'll go to whoever seems most immediately relatable to you. Reactionaries like Qanon people ended up in that situation. They no longer trust authorities on information outside of cranks on Facebook.
So the question is how do you get more people to adopt a consensus of reality that's based on expertise, professional research, investigation, etc? You have to convince more people they're part of that process and that experts share their interests. America has had that before, but usually in times of conflict against a foreign enemy. The average American used to be really into space travel tech for instance.
There was also a period around the 1890s where the average American was really into electricity as a hobby, like making little circuits or trinkets. It was considered pretty normal back then to have an understanding of how simple circuits like a doorbell worked.
It's a lack of trust in academic or professional authorities and substituting that trust for either ones own experiences or complete hallucinations.
Often, it's trust in cult of personality figures that are saying what the alienated person already wants to believe. 
If I was in college still there's a part of me that would have wanted to make it my life's work to reach the same level of "legitimacy" as PeePee Jordanson so that I could spend all my time sabotaging his reputation as publicly as possible
How do you distinguish between those two, especially if you are not intellectual.
It is tricky to get someone to recognise that they aren't knowlegable enough. Even if you say it as gently as possible, some will still hear "you're dumb" and no one likes that.
Also it's a great tool to manipulate people : "I don't need a scientist trying to explain me life from the depths of their lab !! I have commonsense !!"I think the best way to be diplomatic about a matter like that is to emphasize that people have different fields of experience and expertise, and you just want to share information on one of the topics where you are more familiar.
Of course, if you treat them as know-nothings who should be grateful that a Knower has condescended to instructing them and they respond as though you are insulting them, it is because you are.
My favorite quip about common sense is "common sense isn't"
Drinking game: click on a random username in the comments section and take a shot every time they start talking out of their ass
My account doesn't count (although I am flattered, weirdo)
That's a good way to end up with alcohol poisoning
Add in surface level observations of 'if you are so smart you would realise not everyone is an idiot' or 'you have to understand their perspective better' and maybe 1/2 comments you are slamming a shot. I guess people don't read comments anymore. (Probably never did.)
