I try not to attack other people's intellect in discussions, but I do imply they might not genuinely beinterested in the discussion and are only there to antagonize people if that's an image they push accross consistently; I also attack their lack of willingness to lead by example if I feel they're being hypocritical.
I'm not above agreeing to disagree, but the split has been 50/50 in that regard, half the time the other person keeps it civil and we leave the table both having maybe learned a thing or two, but the other half are people who just have to have the final say in it and instead go for that last strawman/ad hominem after I've noted I have nothing more to say. I have learned to ignore that (depending on how it gets across, ignoring the person as well) and to stand by stepping ut of the discussion.
PS: I'm not above hypocrisy either, but I do try to call myself out on it whenever I feel like I'm throwing rocks inside glass houses.
PPS: I also have the habit of editing my posts if I feel I didn't clarify my points well enough...that sometimes aggravates people. (case in point - I just did that)
Kinda relates to something I heard on the radio the other day; admittedly I might have been trying to shoehorn what this person said into not quite what she meant, because I like to disagree loudly with the radio sometimes, but it went thus. The quote was something along the lines of, "Brightness will actually get you further in life than academic experience."
Now, to me, that sounded like she was saying, "Innate ability is more important than effort." Which I'm sure you'll agree isn't a fantastic idea to put across. Of course it's completely nebulous what she might have meant by 'brightness', it wasn't discussed in much detail, far as I remember.
To be fair I was probably trying a bit too hard to disagree with what she was saying, I think it was a radio interview promoting some BBC audience participation show (Britain's Brightest? or something along those lines.)
I completely agree, though, especially on being doubtful of the concept of 'overall intelligence'.
On topic, I just find condescension (in particular, to broadly define what goes on in intellectual snobbery) is a form of intellectual bullying that seems to occur a lot on the internet; and I don't understand how supposedly intelligent people reason that that's somehow something in their interest to do, but maybe I'm overanalysing...
I was very elitist, but recently I have totally changed my mind.
Many of my high school grad friends are far more intelligent and competent than the super elites I work with.
When I watched the documentary film "waiting for superman, i was surprised to see that it was easy for kids to get As when they were younger, but more difficult they grow older, making it discouraging for kids and they drop out of school.
I think it is impossible to come up with a system that can save every kid from failing, but I think we need a broader scale to look at kids and people in general.
Hang on a second, I recently accussed of intellectual snobbery and being arrogant because I had the audacity to point out that someone was "wrong" (i.e. incorrect, mistaken, and quite possibly ... wrong) on an entirely factual matter.
Having cited several reputable sources (no, not wikipedia), the person persisted in not arguing the point, and instead engaged in personal attacks and restating their initial, incorrect, position. At which point I called them an idiot and refused to respond to any more of their trolling.
Thus I would, most humbly, suggest that you may be lumping together the actions of a troll and an entirely reasonable response to idiocy into one category. Both people engage in ad hominem attacks, but for the troll it is, to paraphrase and old saying, their only way of dragging you down to their level and then beating you with experience. However for the reasonable man it may well be an ad hominem attack, but it is also an entirely correct response to someone who's being, for lack of a better word, an idiot.
Trolling is indefensible. However if someone persists in acting like an idiot then isn't it fair to call it like you see it?
I guess it's just part of who we are. If we're better at someone else at something, whether it be intellectual or athletic, we have a tendency to look down on people who are not as good. On the internet, it's very easy to get the idea in your head that the person you're conversing with must be an idiot or mentally challenged.
If you get a high score, you must be smart. That's an attribute internal to you that can't change. If you get a bad score, that means you were never smart to begin with, and that makes the bad score a shameful secret that must be hidden from others lest they find out you aren't as good as they think you are.
But it might be important to also make sure you ARE praising hard work.
I have always been good at math. In other subjects too, but especially math. Especially as a kid. I never had to work for it at all. But, as I was a girl, and it was 'common knowledge' that girls aren't 'naturally' good at math, if a girl gets good grades it's because they work hard, so that what I was always told, when in fact I didn't work hard, and in fact got massively bored in school, and saw no point in doing math problems that were way too easy.
And because other kids knew it, they assumed I must cheat, and would gossip about me, and tell me I should go and kill myself when I got 'only' a 9 (on a scale of 4 to 10) on a test... Which has led to me getting panic attacks if I have to do math in a public place, although I still enjoy it if I can do it alone, and do well in university courses where I can do the assignments at home.
Different people learn differently, and different children are more naturally inclined towards different topics. I don't think there's shame in admitting that.
I was told all my childhood I got good grades because I worked hard to please the teachers, because I was quiet and an easy child.
So I never did learn to work hard, before university, anyway, because I never had to study.
What Pink said. People can pretend they don't look down on people that are less intelligent than themselves but we all do it. The Escapist has a higher percentage of academics and is likely curved to the right on the IQ scale. As a result, there is more intellectual snobbery. This doesn't mean intellectuals think others are less than they are(not always) they simply feel intellectually(which is often only academic) superior.
The primary problem that intellectuals have is that they generally believe that because they are 'smarter' their beliefs hold more weight. What they have in knowledge they often lack in experience, thus the phrase ivory tower elitists. These attitudes are particularly prevalent in liberal arts colleges. Yet despite these attitudes, in my experience, these people are the most out of touch with reality.
If you are thinking of people as "they are against me" rather than "this is a person with something to say," you're not going to make much headway in an argument.
Edit. I don't think it's "intellectual snobbery" as much as it's "I don't know you and the reason we are likely talking is due to an argument."
Without knowing what they meant and what the context was, I can't really say much. But I have mixed feelings about the line you put in quotes. On one hand, yes, effort is absolutely critical to success, and I would say is more important than overall intelligence (in fact, from what I've studied I am skeptical that such a thing as overall intelligence even exists.) On the flip side, academic experience is not a very good measure of learning, effort, or intelligence. I know people with fancy degrees who struggle to grasp really basic stuff, sometimes even within their field. I know people with only BAs whose working experience has made them as good at their job as people with post-graduate degrees in the field. So education can help someone, but I don't believe a diploma proves much at all.
Well the majority of the scientific community in psychology, neurology and educational science agrees on the existence of general intelligence. Furthermore educational success in form of final grade certificates is correlated with high general intelligence. Of course adaptation to the education system and social background have a strong influence on who is able to successfully participate in those educational opportunities.
Concerning the point with the degrees, it is always dependent on the corresponding country. For example in USA a bachelor says nothing on itself because it is the standard degree. So it depends on the university/college you're graduating (could be another example of social selection as well though).And to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially regarding international comparability, you have to get at least a graduate or professional school education (to make my point clear with an example, the general education you learn in a non research orientated american college, excluding the specalisation of the majors, is part of the normal! curriculum I have to teach at an academic highschool in Germany). The same goes with alot of degrees out of southern europe, africa and south east asia. So the educational worth of the degree is always linked to the country of origin, the college you graduated, and even sometimes like here in Germany it is solely linked to the corresponding faculties of the universities (because most unis are not that seperated in terms of general quality of university teaching, but some unis have very prestigous faculties; like Aachen for engineering, Heidelberg for medicine etc.)
That leaves the point of the OP over arguing or insulting someone because of their education and intellgence on the internet. Which is rather pointless, because the internet proves nothing. It isn't formalized in any way. Sure you can quickly tell if someone is (or plays) a total retard, but that's about it.
A good face to face conversation let's you gain so much more insight about your conversation partner and additionally in such a situation degrees don't tell that much either. (which on the other hand in a conversation over the internet, they can give you at least a quick estimate about the other)
While I can't deny that it is certainly easy on the internet to make assumptions about the intelligence or motives of most people I tend to try and make an effort not to resort to condescension or overly dismissive remarks when posting
Looking at it another way however I am certain alot of the time that the way I present myself in alot of my posts does make me look alot stupider or at least clueless than I actually consider myself to be. I often find myself editing my posts numerous times after reading them as I often find when I'm trying to form my thoughts and opinions into words I end up often misinterpreting my own opinions.
The lesson is of course just to think before you post. whether it be in giving your own opinion on a given topic or debate or replying to someone you think is misinformed.
I do agree that there is some snobbery out there, but I also think that people often confuse snobbery with people who genuinely know more about a certain subject, and don't like feeling that it might be the case.
This happens in the general as well as the specific, for example I worked with books for a number of years and had a passion for reading, I would try to read anything and everything. This lead to me liking some pretty obscure books and authors, and it was the same with my colleagues, yet we were constantly told by management that we were not meant to really talk about these books to customers as it may come across as if we were trying to be obscure and niche, or hipster even, but it wasn't the case we just wanted to tell people about the awesome books they may not have heard of, we were not trying to make them feel stupid. This kind of "protection" from the idea that someone knows more than you in a certain field is pathetic and actually aims to decrease peoples ideas and knowledge rather than broaden them.
However I do feel that trying to put people down or in turn raise your self above people by using any form of snobbery whether it intellectual, wealth etc is wrong, because it involves you believing you are a better human being for it.
I have a friend that can tell you the exact chemical processes that happen within a combustion engine, and I have one that can take one apart fix it and put it back together in no time at all, and in my opinion neither of them should have intellectual snobbery to the other one.
I find intellectual snobbery extremely comical in the arena of public forums because its often vicious and unnecessary. I also think that what gets held up as intellectual snobbery is often quite off base. Being right is not intellectual snobbery. Having a large vocabulary is not intellectual snobbery. The term becomes a crutch for those who are insecure. Some of the people you are going to meet on a forum are going to be smarter or more educated than you, learn to deal with it. On the other hand, putting someone down because their knowledge of some obscure arena of popular culture is not as deep as yours is ludicrous. It does not mean you're smarter than them and gives you no right to insult someone's intelligence.
Erm... I wouldn't disagree with you if you said "many", but I'm going to need a citation to accept your claim of "the majority". In my post-graduate research in Individual Difference and Testing, the sense I've gotten has been that general intelligence is quite controversial, though no doubt there is still an old guard who hold onto the notion simply because it's what they grew up with. As for why it's controversial, see your next sentence.
Because i'm currently not involved in academic research on the very recent issues on intelligence, i can only outline the current consensus in the extended postgraduate training in developmental and cognitive psychology for teachers in higher schools here in Germany, so the following might appear maybe a little conservative and german/austrian-centric.
Most of the educational instructions and standardized tests in accordance with the current intelligence theories are based on hierarchical structure models. On a further note, standardized tests have no real history in german education but after OECD studies they became a kind of big deal. The most recognized model besides the "Erlanger Schule" (Eysenk, et al) here is the "Berliner Intelligenzstrukturmodell" (based on Jäger 1984 and the expansion of this model) which is a factorial theory that tries to combine competing models.
It is multimodal and incorporates contents (like capacity, processing speed, creativity and memory retention) and operational modalities (figural-pictorial, verbal and numerical). But all of those components are part of a general intelligence, which is not closed in itself but open for other operational and contentual units.
Critique on intelligence theories and concepts are numerous, but those with the most recognition in the public here are from philosophers and/or sociologists (Adorno for example), not so much those of the psychological or neurological communities.
Agreed. The question is, what else does it correlate with? What things (that don't also correlate with scholastic achievement) correlate with an IQ test?
General Intelligence as measured here in intelligence tests has a correlation from about r=.50 up to r=.70 with educational sucess (Süß, 1996) I think those numbers are in accordance with those determined in the USA. Furthermore general intelligence is viewed as a similar good predicator for sucess in your job career as is job experience. (i've taken the numbers out of the handouts for teachers i had at home at the moment, but i can look for more recent ones at work)
It's entirely possible that there is no such thing as general intelligence, and that the construct people call general intelligence is nothing more than "the ability to do well in school", which as you pointed out is a lot more than simply being intelligent- it includes a lot of adaptability to a rather specific set of social circumstances that don't really exist anywhere else in the world. I know of no counter-evidence to the proposal that "general intelligence" is nothing more than high working memory and a willingness to follow a set of behaviors that teachers associate with being a "good student". OTOH, given how complex cognition is and how vastly different the sorts of thinking that goes into different subjects are, I find Multiple Intelligences theory to be quite plausible. Why would we assume that the brain has a single attribute that reflects on one's ability to learn differential calculus and pick up Spanish to an equal degree? I'm well aware that MI theory has its own issues, but it seems so much more reasonable than putting all your eggs in one basket.
The MI theory is a viable alternative but as i see it the main issue with for example Gardners MI theory is that some of those abilities do not correspondend with what is measurable in an adequate way as well as what has greater value for the majority of students regarding their employability and further education. (i know that this is a real dilemma especially because i teach the arts and social sciences, and it would be a disgrace to humanity, if intelligence and education would only come down to what is measurable and from greater value in the society, but this is how it is today...)
For example take intrapersonal, interpersonal or musical ability and show me one viable model to measure those or furthermore to grade those in a fair way. Or regarding the social value take athletic(kinesthetic) ability and try to shape a modern society where most people can make a living out of such an ability. As it stands now, those abilities that are closely linked to general intelligence (and especially the testing of it), logical-mathematical and linguistic ability, are those that our education system and most advanced jobs are focused on.
I'm curious about what your definition of intellectual snobbery is. If you think it is when a person tries to pretend they're better than others because they know more or are able to figure things out faster, then yes it's disgusting.
If you think it's when someone corrects somebody who's saying something demonstrably wrong, then I would strongly disagree.
So I'm wondering what your definition is and if you might provide some examples.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
