8 ms·

Not sure if always but probably there's a rise of anti-intellectualism in general since I'd say the 2000s. I remember being amazed by how intelligent adults wer

Not sure if always but probably there's a rise of anti-intellectualism in general since I'd say the 2000s. I remember being amazed by how intelligent adults were when I was little. Always doing cross-words, sudoku, reading books, discussing the classics, etc. But now those same adults don't read anything anymore, and just spend their time watching netflix on bed. The same adults that used to correct my vocabulary, grammar and ortography, somehow forgot the meaning of slightly obscure words and don't remember if a certain word was written with an "s" or "c" for example.

underlipton 9d ago
I think the anti-intellectualism crisis gets mischaracterized. Common rejection of experts, academia, and empirical findings is certainly a part of it, but I tend to see more of an issue with targeted, self-serving ignorance, particularly among the elite. You have extremely intelligent and influential people balking at, say, the undeniable net benefits of universal healthcare, renewable energy investment, and cash payment UBI. Worse, they use their intelligence to attack interventions that run against their preconceived notions. Milton Friedman was not an idiot, and yet he and his acolytes did (and do) untold damage in anti-intellectual perpetuation of their outmoded ideas. The common thread between that and skipping conversation for Netflix is disengagement with cognitive load that doesn't immediately benefit you. They both suck, but I think that one hurts more, and hurts more.
- airstrike 9d ago
  I'm sorry but just because I disagree with cash payment UBI doesn't mean I'm not anti-intellectual. Surely that much ought to be clear if you give it a little more thought, no pun intended.
  - underlipton 9d ago
    This is the anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. You're disagreeing based on vibes and not facts. Disagreement shouldn't even come into the conversation; falsify the net positive effects. The research is clear that most of the negative effects that most expect cash payment UBI to have don't ever actually appear. Employment goes up (except where recipients use the flexibility to return to school), productivity goes up; the money doesn't get "wasted" on drugs, and it doesn't pump landlord pockets. Giving people the money necessary to participate in the economy increases participation in the economy.
    - airstrike 9d ago
      No, I'm not disagreeing based on vibes. I'm disagreeing based on my deep understanding of business and economics. You're assuming you already know what my objections are and defending against them, when I haven't even said anything specific. Now _that_ is anti-intellectual. The research isn't clear. It's near impossible to model the effect of UBI on the population at large by running a study with N people who know they're going back to normal at the end of the study. Many have attempted to "give people money" before. It has invariably failed and resulted in inflation.
      - underlipton 9d ago
        I know what the common objections are, and I actually addressed the one you mention: in actual UBI pilot programs, there was no resultant inflation. If you have objections that weren't among the ones stated earlier, you can state them now. If you think that there are better examples of the results likely to be produced by a non-pilot UBI program, you should detail their circumstances and how they're more applicable than the pilot programs, instead of waving vaguely at instances where "many have attempted to 'give people money' before", as if that's a panacea. Because it's not; it's precisely the vibes-based anti-intellectualism I spoke of. The issue is that you probably can't, because UBI's efficacious nature has been proven rigorously. It would be nice if we could just get on with implementing it.
      - IAmBroom 8d ago
        Oh, you didn't mention you have a deep understanding of business and economics. The rest of us dolts are grateful for your attention to this matter. Now can you focus some expert thinking on world peace?
- bee_rider 9d ago
  This second thing (either slightly different from anti-intellectualism or maybe a different form of it$l) is quite odd. I wonder where it comes from. Sometimes it feels like we have a strong bias toward surprising effects, to the point where we’ll start treating the first “possible, counter intuitive hypothesis” as if it ought to be the default assumption. I wonder to what extent that’s a natural thing, or to what extent it is the result of consuming pop-sci content that has to start with “Rebel scientist overturns conventional wisdom…”
- cindyllm 9d ago
  [dead]

underlipton 9d ago

I think the anti-intellectualism crisis gets mischaracterized. Common rejection of experts, academia, and empirical findings is certainly a part of it, but I tend to see more of an issue with targeted, self-serving ignorance, particularly among the elite. You have extremely intelligent and influential people balking at, say, the undeniable net benefits of universal healthcare, renewable energy investment, and cash payment UBI. Worse, they use their intelligence to attack interventions that run against their preconceived notions. Milton Friedman was not an idiot, and yet he and his acolytes did (and do) untold damage in anti-intellectual perpetuation of their outmoded ideas. The common thread between that and skipping conversation for Netflix is disengagement with cognitive load that doesn't immediately benefit you. They both suck, but I think that one hurts more, and hurts more.

airstrike 9d ago
I'm sorry but just because I disagree with cash payment UBI doesn't mean I'm not anti-intellectual. Surely that much ought to be clear if you give it a little more thought, no pun intended.
- underlipton 9d ago
  This is the anti-intellectualism I'm talking about. You're disagreeing based on vibes and not facts. Disagreement shouldn't even come into the conversation; falsify the net positive effects. The research is clear that most of the negative effects that most expect cash payment UBI to have don't ever actually appear. Employment goes up (except where recipients use the flexibility to return to school), productivity goes up; the money doesn't get "wasted" on drugs, and it doesn't pump landlord pockets. Giving people the money necessary to participate in the economy increases participation in the economy.
  - airstrike 9d ago
    No, I'm not disagreeing based on vibes. I'm disagreeing based on my deep understanding of business and economics. You're assuming you already know what my objections are and defending against them, when I haven't even said anything specific. Now _that_ is anti-intellectual. The research isn't clear. It's near impossible to model the effect of UBI on the population at large by running a study with N people who know they're going back to normal at the end of the study. Many have attempted to "give people money" before. It has invariably failed and resulted in inflation.
    - underlipton 9d ago
      I know what the common objections are, and I actually addressed the one you mention: in actual UBI pilot programs, there was no resultant inflation. If you have objections that weren't among the ones stated earlier, you can state them now. If you think that there are better examples of the results likely to be produced by a non-pilot UBI program, you should detail their circumstances and how they're more applicable than the pilot programs, instead of waving vaguely at instances where "many have attempted to 'give people money' before", as if that's a panacea. Because it's not; it's precisely the vibes-based anti-intellectualism I spoke of. The issue is that you probably can't, because UBI's efficacious nature has been proven rigorously. It would be nice if we could just get on with implementing it.
    - IAmBroom 8d ago
      Oh, you didn't mention you have a deep understanding of business and economics. The rest of us dolts are grateful for your attention to this matter. Now can you focus some expert thinking on world peace?
bee_rider 9d ago
This second thing (either slightly different from anti-intellectualism or maybe a different form of it$l) is quite odd. I wonder where it comes from. Sometimes it feels like we have a strong bias toward surprising effects, to the point where we’ll start treating the first “possible, counter intuitive hypothesis” as if it ought to be the default assumption. I wonder to what extent that’s a natural thing, or to what extent it is the result of consuming pop-sci content that has to start with “Rebel scientist overturns conventional wisdom…”
cindyllm 9d ago
[dead]