Blue Anti-Intellectualism brings to light some intriguing points. The first point touches on observations of anti-intellectualism in the student body. Later, I intend to read Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University. Jones (Blue A-I) writes, "More importantly, it is the cause of the crushingly stupid policy proposals developed in such places, in effect dumbing down all of society since they are operationally anti-intellectual whatever their intention or pretentions."
He goes on:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy. We would be improved by better balance."
He raises a good point, but misses another. During the last two presidential elections, there was talk in the policy wonk circles about the Conservative movement's investment made decades ago. I'd stop reading after the first section, as Sally Covington begins to wander off the ranch. The history is noted, though.
Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking. True, two different people make those points. However, I'm sure I could get both people to nod their heads in agreement to each statement individually if they were asked two weeks apart. An intellectual society (think tank) advocating anti-intellectual policies (reduced oversight). America, I love you.
Get back to an earlier point. Is student anti-intellectualism a sign of diminished curiousity or is it a reflection of academia's inability to communicate outside the echo chambers?
1 comment:
"Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking."
Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges.
There is a useful comparison between the libertarian or conservative think tanks and leftist think tanks. There are also foundations, NGOs and media that roughly align with one side or another.
There are a few educational institutions that align with the conservatives, but not enough to have a national impact. They are a very small minority.
A more useful question is why are leftist think tanks so much less productive and effective? They have overwhelming numbers, the full support of educational institutions and the main stream media, but still seem inept.
I think that the failures of educational institutions, the group think and anti-intellectualism, is a major reason for the ineffectiveness of these civil institutions. Conversely, libertarian and conservative think tanks are staffed by the minority that had the strength to maintain their independence of mind even though they had the same indoctrination in educational institutions. They are, in effect, far better educated and experienced, have intimate knowledge of the opponents views and blind spots. The group thinkers on the other hand have no clue what others think and are ill prepared to face them in real life conflict.
So, to repeat:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy."
Post a Comment