Fearing the Intellectuals

[David Wong]

There is a blond woman on Fox News' morning show named Gretchen Carlson, and she comes off as kind of an airhead, a beauty queen who was stuck on TV to be a pretty face. And for instance on the air she made a big show of having to look up on Google what the word "ignoramus" meant, as well as "czar" and "double dip recession" all words that you can easily have picked up on TV or magazines even with zero education.

But Gretchen doesn't have zero education. She was valedictorian of her high school. She went to Stanford and graduated with honors. She's a classical violinist. It is physically impossible for her to have lived the life she has, and worked in the industry she works in, and missed those words.

She was faking.

Why? Why does pretending to not know those words increase her credibility with her audience, rather than ruin it?

I didn't come up with this, the Daily Show did:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

It has to be a conscious decision. But why? Has it always been like this in America?

[tyr_13]

Yes. Being smart is bad. How bad? The majority of women will actually not sleep with you if they believe you are smart*.

You think I'm joking. Let me go find that study I just read...

But yes, for a large part of America, traditionally conservative strongholds but also inner cities, being smart is bad.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to make that read, "the majority of men/women," because smart women tend to have the same problem. Still looking because I can't remember where I read the survey/study, which might not be a good one anyway. I was just told recently by four different people about the article because they each separately thought it could help me.

[Ziggurat]

It is physically impossible for her to have lived the life she has, and worked in the industry she works in, and missed those words.

Sadly, I don't think it is impossible. I think it is entirely possible to skate through an elite education while learning almost nothing. Oh, she may have heard those words and terms, but that's not enough to learn what they meant. You have to pay attention, and nothing about going to Stanford makes one pay attention.

[Denver]

I watched the clip, and I don't think 'dumbing down' quite nails what she was up to.

I came away feeling that the reason she was referencing the dictionary in those cases was to pull out one of the meanings of the words that she (or her writers) could best use to make some kind of point, and to drive home a specific meaning into the minds of the audience.

To just say, "You know, ONE of the meanings of that word could be X.", it is better for spin to say "Well, I looked up the word and I saw it meant X!".

And to set a non-confrontational, "Fair and Balanced" reason for looking up the word, she was vague on knowing its meaning, rather than just saying "So Fox decided to look up all those words they used, and for some of them, here's what we found".

[Dogdoctor]

Yes. Being smart is bad. How bad? The majority of women will actually not sleep with you if they believe you are smart.

You think I'm joking. Let me go find that study I just read...

But yes, for a large part of America, traditionally conservative strongholds but also inner cities, being smart is bad.

That would seem a little disigenious so I would really love to see that research.

[ServiceSoon]

There is a blond woman on Fox News' morning show named Gretchen Carlson, and she comes off as kind of an airhead, a beauty queen who was stuck on TV to be a pretty face. And for instance on the air she made a big show of having to look up on Google what the word "ignoramus" meant, as well as "czar" and "double dip recession" all words that you can easily have picked up on TV or magazines even with zero education.

But Gretchen doesn't have zero education. She was valedictorian of her high school. She went to Stanford and graduated with honors. She's a classical violinist. It is physically impossible for her to have lived the life she has, and worked in the industry she works in, and missed those words.

She was faking.

Why? Why does pretending to not know those words increase her credibility with her audience, rather than ruin it?

I didn't come up with this, the Daily Show did:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

It has to be a conscious decision. But why? Has it always been like this in America?
Did she do it to connect with her audience?

[Eyeron]

To most people if you look like a blond then you'll be an airhead, no matter what. You're expected to be a blond and if you're not a blond then you'll be crucified and socially ostracized. There's a place for everything and everything must be put in its place. Education don't matter much, it's looks that are important.

[David Wong]

Sadly, I don't think it is impossible. I think it is entirely possible to skate through an elite education while learning almost nothing. Oh, she may have heard those words and terms, but that's not enough to learn what they meant. You have to pay attention, and nothing about going to Stanford makes one pay attention.

I was hoping one of our conservatives would chime in. This "elite education" comment is exactly what I mean. Using "elite" as a slur. Fascinating.

We saw it in the climategate threads, the inherent distrust of experts because they are experts. It's not that they distrust the science despite the fact that it comes from top scientists, but because it comes from top scientists. They're not to be trusted. They're not common folk. They're "elite", and their "knowledge" is therefore worthless. Their books have blank pages.

She graduated with honors. She was Valedictorian of her high school, and the conservative says you can do both of those things without absorbing any information or knowledge.

That's just a fantastic example, right here in the thread.

When did this start? When did we, or when did conservatives at least, star admiring ignorance as a positive personality trait, declaring it to be a sign of trustworthiness?

[Madalch]

Sorry, I forgot to make that read, "the majority of men/women," because smart women tend to have the same problem. Still looking because I can't remember where I read the survey/study, which might not be a good one anyway. I was just told recently by four different people about the article because they each separately thought it could help me.

I was chatting with a woman a while ago, and when she learned that I taught math, she regaled me with the tale of how she used to be good at math, until she realized that the boys in her school would avoid her because she was always answering the teacher's questions in class. So she started answering them wrong, deliberately, and the boys started liking her.

Then she found she lost the ability to get them right when she tried.

That's why George W. Bush keeps saying "nuke-you-lar." He knows it's wrong, but he knew it would endear him to the average voter if he appeared dumber than he was.

[dudalb]

I was hoping one of our conservatives would chime in. This "elite education" comment is exactly what I mean. Using "elite" as a slur. Fascinating.

We saw it in the climategate threads, the inherent distrust of experts because they are experts. It's not that they distrust the science despite the fact that it comes from top scientists, but because it comes from top scientists. They're not to be trusted. They're not common folk. They're "elite", and their "knowledge" is therefore worthless. Their books have blank pages.

She graduated with honors. She was Valedictorian of her high school, and the conservative says you can do both of those things without absorbing any information or knowledge.

That's just a fantastic example, right here in the thread.

When did this start? When did we, or when did conservatives at least, star admiring ignorance as a positive personality trait, declaring it to be a sign of trustworthiness?

Sorry, but I have known a number of people who graduated from top flight universities who I would not trust to walk my dog around the block.
Sneering at college and education is wrong, but thinking that having a college degree makes you superior to someone who does not automatically is also wrong.
You have two extremes the glorification of ignorance on the one hand and a belief that a small group of intellectuals should rule on the other.

[shadron]

Illustrative autobiography here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0304/03.html

[fuelair]

I was chatting with a woman a while ago, and when she learned that I taught math, she regaled me with the tale of how she used to be good at math, until she realized that the boys in her school would avoid her because she was always answering the teacher's questions in class. So she started answering them wrong, deliberately, and the boys started liking her.

Then she found she lost the ability to get them right when she tried.

That's why George W. Bush keeps saying "nuke-you-lar." He knows it's wrong, but he knew it would endear him to the average voter if he appeared dumber than he was.
I still respectfully suggest that he was dumber than most voters thought he was. And more evil.

[Praktik]

Illustrative autobiography here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0304/03.html

Oh ya that was a great piece I was gonna "skip ahead" through it but ended up finding the segment pretty compelling!

[Fnord]

To most people if you look like a blond then you'll be an airhead, no matter what. You're expected to be a blond and if you're not a blond then you'll be crucified and socially ostracized. There's a place for everything and everything must be put in its place. Education don't matter much, it's looks that are important.
.
A pretty face may catch the eye, but it is the person inside that captures the heart.

I've had my share of dimbos over the years, and while they were a fun for a while, what drove me off is having to explain to them the simple things that those of us who rely on our brains for a living take for granted...

Why do batteries have to go in a certain way?

Why doesn't flicking the light switch back and forth fix a burnt-out light bulb?

Why change the oil? Isn't it also black when it comes out of the ground?

Why do I have less money in my checking account after I've bought something at "50 Percent Off"?

Why do I gain 5 pounds from eating a 2-ounce chocolate bar?

Rotate the tires? Aren't they already rotating when the car moves?

... and on and on ...

[theprestige]

There is a blond woman on Fox News' morning show named Gretchen Carlson, and she comes off as kind of an airhead, a beauty queen who was stuck on TV to be a pretty face. And for instance on the air she made a big show of having to look up on Google what the word "ignoramus" meant, as well as "czar" and "double dip recession" all words that you can easily have picked up on TV or magazines even with zero education.

But Gretchen doesn't have zero education. She was valedictorian of her high school. She went to Stanford and graduated with honors. She's a classical violinist. It is physically impossible for her to have lived the life she has, and worked in the industry she works in, and missed those words.

She was faking.

Why? Why does pretending to not know those words increase her credibility with her audience, rather than ruin it?

I didn't come up with this, the Daily Show did:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

It has to be a conscious decision. But why? Has it always been like this in America?
Wow. Somebody uses the "walkthrough" didactic method to explain a concept to their audience, and suddently they're some sort of charlatan?

Better tell that to all the schoolteachers of the world! Instead of demonstrating to students the procedure by which a particular piece of information might be found, teachers should simply be honest about how smart and educated they really are!

[ponderingturtle]

I was chatting with a woman a while ago, and when she learned that I taught math, she regaled me with the tale of how she used to be good at math, until she realized that the boys in her school would avoid her because she was always answering the teacher's questions in class. So she started answering them wrong, deliberately, and the boys started liking her.


My girlfriends mother had her taken out of honors math class in highschool, so she wouldn't get a reputation as a geek.

Of course now she teaches statistics in a college. Not sure how well she got caught up on non statistic math though.

[geni]

Why? Why does pretending to not know those words increase her credibility with her audience, rather than ruin it?

I didn't come up with this, the Daily Show did:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

It has to be a conscious decision. But why? Has it always been like this in America?

Credibility isn't quite what is being aimed for. The objective is to appear ah sociable. To be the kind of person people wouldn't mind haveing a few beers with.

Overly smart fails on two accounts. First it can appear threatening. Anyone who's recived a letter full of legal jargon will know this. Secondly smart is associated with subject obsessives who are not always the easiest group to hold converstions with. Not everyone wants to go drinking with a bunch of wikipedians for example.

[shadron]

Wow. Somebody uses the "walkthrough" didactic method to explain a concept to their audience, and suddently they're some sort of charlatan?

Better tell that to all the schoolteachers of the world! Instead of demonstrating to students the procedure by which a particular piece of information might be found, teachers should simply be honest about how smart and educated they really are!

A hate the laughing dog, but this rationalization really, really needs it!!!

She needn't have interrupted what she was saying in order to explain what a czar meant in any case; same for the others.

[patrick767]

What do you expect? She's on Fox. They are catering to their audience, a segment of US conservatives that for years have been fed stories about how experts can't be trusted because they're not like us. They're over-educated people out east or on the west coast (ie. they're not from around here). They're "liberal elitists" who lack good old fashioned common sense. Fear The Other!

Going beyond political divides, anti-intellectualism is rampant in general. It's sad. I don't understand it, but it's there. Distrust of experts or educated people is the equivalent of grade school kids not liking the smart kid. You'd think people would grow out of such immature attitudes, but many don't.

Wow. Somebody uses the "walkthrough" didactic method to explain a concept to their audience, and suddently they're some sort of charlatan?

Better tell that to all the schoolteachers of the world! Instead of demonstrating to students the procedure by which a particular piece of information might be found, teachers should simply be honest about how smart and educated they really are!

Carlson comes off as extremely ignorant on a regular basis, whether looking common words up in the dictionary or not. I was surprised to hear of her strong academic pedigree.

[shuize]

Sorry, but I have known a number of people who graduated from top flight universities who I would not trust to walk my dog around the block.
Sneering at college and education is wrong, but thinking that having a college degree makes you superior to someone who does not automatically is also wrong.
You have two extremes the glorification of ignorance on the one hand and a belief that a small group of intellectuals should rule on the other.


I agree.

There are more than a few ex-pat English "teachers" in Japan who've let the "sensei" title go to their heads that I still wouldn't trust with a sharp pencil.

[Donal]

My girlfriends mother had her taken out of honors math class in highschool, so she wouldn't get a reputation as a geek.

Of course now she teaches statistics in a college. Not sure how well she got caught up on non statistic math though.

Hey, I Googled FOX News target audience, and I found out it wasn't school children. Then I went and researched if talking to adults like a bunch of 10 year olds was the most effective way to convey news stories to them and it turns out that it isn't.

[Brainster]

Am I the only person to notice that Carlson got the current meaning of the word "ignoramus" wrong even though she got its derivation right? An ignoramus no longer means an ignorant lawyer, even if that is where the word originated. So much for her brilliance as demonstrated by a Stanford education.

I've never encountered her before on TV (don't watch Fox & Friends), but she doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means. I suppose it could be an act, and it could be that she's dumbing it down a bit too much (I doubt any adult needs to have the word "czar" explained to them). A double-dip recession is a little different; unless you read a lot of Paul Krugman columns I suspect that's a formulation that's not all that commonly encountered, although of course it's also not something that's hard to figure out.

I know one thing for sure; if a guest on a radio show were to mention a "double-dip recession", most hosts would ask the guest to explain what that means.

[Donal]

When I first heard the term "double dip recession", I thought it meant the porn industry was crashing.

But seriously, you would think that when she looked up the word czar, she would have also found that in that context, it means "journalists are too lazy to use this person's proper job title".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sadly, I don't think it is impossible. I think it is entirely possible to skate through an elite education while learning almost nothing. Oh, she may have heard those words and terms, but that's not enough to learn what they meant. You have to pay attention, and nothing about going to Stanford makes one pay attention.I dunno, the clip Stewart showed really did seem like Carlson had to be dumbing down on purpose given she even went to college.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the problem right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Carlson): One of her childhood nannies was Michele Bachmann:selol:

[quarky]

I would have six beers with her.

Totally.

[Captain.Sassy]

Hey, I Googled FOX News target audience, and I found out it wasn't school children. Then I went and researched if talking to adults like a bunch of 10 year olds was the most effective way to convey news stories to them and it turns out that it isn't.

*clap clap clap*:D

[Donal]

How was the OP plagiarized? David summed up pretty well what Stewart's point was and linked the clip. He didn't represent it as his own.

[Cavemonster]

Wow. Somebody uses the "walkthrough" didactic method to explain a concept to their audience, and suddently they're some sort of charlatan?

Better tell that to all the schoolteachers of the world! Instead of demonstrating to students the procedure by which a particular piece of information might be found, teachers should simply be honest about how smart and educated they really are!

You're totally right. The points she makes by imposing out-of-context meanings on the words are intellectually dishonest, but her method of "let's look these up together" doesn't bother me. I don't think it's very appropriate for an adult audience, and it is grounded in anti-intellectualism, but she's welcome to it.

[Denver]

Am I the only person to notice that Carlson got the current meaning of the word "ignoramus" wrong even though she got its derivation right? An ignoramus no longer means an ignorant lawyer, even if that is where the word originated. So much for her brilliance as demonstrated by a Stanford education...

Same with Czar. She did not get them wrong. Her writers looked the words up, and chose the specific meanings that helped them make some kind of point to their audience. This all had nothing to do with her playing dumb.

[Ziggurat]

I was hoping one of our conservatives would chime in. This "elite education" comment is exactly what I mean. Using "elite" as a slur. Fascinating.

Um... no. I am the product of an elite education. I benefited from it immensely, and I am proud of it. But as a product of an elite education, I'm also aware, from first hand experience, that people can still come out of it as dumb as bricks. And while incoming students at an elite school are on average smarter than incoming students at non-elite schools, the admissions process is never infallible, and idiots do get admitted. An elite education doesn't make you stupid, but it can't cure stupidity either.

And even at an elite school, not all departments are created equal. What do you think Carlson majored in? And what do you think graduating with honors actually means, anyways? It means less than you probably imagine.

We saw it in the climategate threads, the inherent distrust of experts because they are experts.

Nope. That doesn't resemble anything I ever said. And it's off topic too.

When did this start? When did we, or when did conservatives at least, star admiring ignorance as a positive personality trait, declaring it to be a sign of trustworthiness?

Who said anything about it being positive? I certainly didn't. Take a look at the first word in my previous post again.

You have badly misunderstood my position.

[Ziggurat]

I dunno, the clip Stewart showed really did seem like Carlson had to be dumbing down on purpose given she even went to college.

Stewart will do what works for comedy purposes, and for comedy purposes, Stewart played it well. Just calling her an idiot isn't really very funny, even if it's true. It's certainly quite possible he's right, and it doesn't really matter if he's not (Carlson being genuinely ignorant isn't really a better option, and it's comedy). I'm just pointing out that it's possible that he's wrong.

[Jungle Jim]

And even at an elite school, not all departments are created equal. What do you think Carlson majored in? And what do you think graduating with honors actually means, anyways? It means less than you probably imagine.



According to Wiki: Carlson graduated with Honors from Stanford University, in 1990, with a self-designed degree in the field of organizational behavior. This would seem to make Ziggurat's point. Still, pretending not to know (or cherry picking) the meaning of some relatively common words is bad form.

[Whiplash]

This thread is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure how some people could be any more cynical.

Seeing conspiracies and mind games being perpetuated everywhere they look. Apparently by the same people who are often held up as complete simpletons for even being on the right side of the isle to begin with. We even get the classic debate as to whether Bush was really a moron, or just someone who was trying to appeal to morons.

Seriously folks, some of you should probably consider getting help with the paranoid delusions you have about the right and what they are actively doing or persuing. You think you have all the answers, but you don't have a clue. I think it's pathological. It's about 1 degree of seperation from being a truther.

[GreNME]

This thread is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure how some people could be any more cynical.

Seeing conspiracies and mind games being perpetuated everywhere they look. Apparently by the same people who are often held up as complete simpletons for even being on the right side of the isle to begin with. We even get the classic debate as to whether Bush was really a moron, or just someone who was trying to appeal to morons.

Seriously folks, some of you should probably consider getting help with the paranoid delusions you have about the right and what they are actively doing or persuing. You think you have all the answers, but you don't have a clue. I think it's pathological. It's about 1 degree of seperation from being a truther.

And I think there are a few books you should read examining how much we human beings are capable of compartmentalizing and sandboxing our dissonant methods of thinking to the point where it does come off as disingenuous as best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. The first book I would recommend is Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), which can be found in a simple Amazon search or is likely at your local bookstore. It's about the lightest reading on the phenomenon, but will give you a decent macro indication of what's being discussed.

But beyond that (and if you don't want to take my reading suggestion), just look at many of the discussions that take place on this very forum. There's manipulative language and blatantly leading lines of logic being used in arguments in practically every subforum here, from all sides of many arguments. Call anyone on their use of such reasoning while mentioning that this is a forum comprised heavily of critical thinkers (and this sort of comment is made regularly, and in almost every case is more accurate than the person saying it means), and the most likely response you'll get is sarcasm and derision (unless it's totally ignored).

Plain and simple: people's arguments, even the most rational of thinkers, are colored heavily by their ideologies. This is, in fact, a core facet of rhetoric and logic to begin with. This is why argument and critical examination is necessary to our thought processes because it promotes growth and development, it often forces us to consider unintended or alternate consequences. Partisan politics aside, the distinct lack of argument and critical examination from the inside is one of the main things that was wrong with the last presidential administration, which I hope has been corrected in the current one.

[supercorgi]

Sadly, I don't think it is impossible. I think it is entirely possible to skate through an elite education while learning almost nothing. Oh, she may have heard those words and terms, but that's not enough to learn what they meant. You have to pay attention, and nothing about going to Stanford makes one pay attention.

See my post on Ivy League universities on this threat http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5395948&postcount=152

You g what you pay for and what you apply.

[supercorgi]

This thread brings up two very different issues:

1) Educational elites - the last election tried to paint East Coast and West Coast people as educated "elites" and as therefore different from the "rest of us." This point is patently untrue. Although the East and the West coast have many fine institutions of higher education, that doesn't mean that the Midwest the South don't. The "elite shools" - Ivory League schools may have more resources, but that doesn't mean that other schools can't attract top level educators or students.

2) Women as dumber. Personally, I find this one most insulting. In many levels of our society, there seems to be a presumption that women are less mentally acute or at least less discerning. This stereotype has been around for a LONG TIME and needs to be dismissed. Maybe this woman, Gretchen Carlson, is dumbing herself down to be on prime time TV - if so, she's doing a great disservice and just reinforcing a stereotype. This is so not true. Who can discount Grace Hopper's contribution to early computing?

If the religious right is trying to reinforce this stereotype (hey all you know Eve was fooled by the serpent right?), than that is truly dispicable. I sincerely hope that most women don't buy into that and pursue their capabilities and their gifts to the furthest extent that they're able.

So in conclusion, if an educated and gifted woman is dumbing down herself on national TV, I find that very sad. And if she's isn't intentionally doing that, then I sincerely doubt her qualifications for reporting national news and would hope she find some other employment such as raking lawns.

[SezMe]

This thread is completely ridiculous.
Did that soapbox just happen to be there or did you bring it with you?

[GreNME]

Although the East and the West coast have many fine institutions of higher education, that doesn't mean that the Midwest the South don't. The "elite shools" - Ivory League schools may have more resources, but that doesn't mean that other schools can't attract top level educators or students.

Do you understand how funny that is? Was it intentional?

[DavidJames]

I was hoping one of our conservatives would chime in. This "elite education" comment is exactly what I mean. Using "elite" as a slur. Fascinating.Not really, nor is it recent. I was first becoming politically aware in the 60's when one Spiro Agnew was alliterating about the elite and intellectuals. It struck me as odd he would be critical of intelligence, not actual thoughts, policies or ideas, but intelligence itself.

The Republican disdain for the elite and intellectuals has continued. Palin and McCain both tried to use Obama's education as a negative against him.

Why take this approach? One answer might be they are trying to counter the Democratic claim they are the party of big money, powerful businesses and bankers by trying to "bond" with the less educated and those suspicious of those that have an education. Palin is the poster child for such a tactic.

The fact they do it is not nearly as fascinating as those who are swayed by it or even more so, those that deny it's done.

[The Nimble Pianist]

I think this thread is much ado about nothing, at least with respect to the direct object. Have you ever seen a science documentary in which Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains some fairly basic scientific concept in extremely simple terminology? Would you say that he's pretending to be stupid or merely adjusting his speech to his (likely) uneducated audience?

As far as real disdain for intellectuals, I'd recommend The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. She chronicles the cycles of American anti-intellectualism since our founding to the present day quite well, though she doesn't quite satisfactorily explain why this is.

[Travis]

Yes. Being smart is bad. How bad? The majority of women will actually not sleep with you if they believe you are smart*.

You think I'm joking. Let me go find that study I just read...

But yes, for a large part of America, traditionally conservative strongholds but also inner cities, being smart is bad.

Isn't it wonderful how our supposedly "designed" species thinks "dumb" is sexy and "smart" is a turnoff?*

Sometimes I wonder how we ever got out of the caves in the first place.


*I sometimes feel like a real outcast being one of the very few who finds smartness sexy itself and an attractive woman who is also smart a Goddess!

[fishbob]

This thread is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure how some people could be any more cynical.

Seeing conspiracies and mind games being perpetuated everywhere they look. Apparently by the same people who are often held up as complete simpletons for even being on the right side of the isle to begin with. We even get the classic debate as to whether Bush was really a moron, or just someone who was trying to appeal to morons.


Pay attention now - -
Some people are seeing simpletons. Different people are seeing mind games.
That is what the discussion is about.

ETA: I suspect Travis is not such an outcast in this forum.

[ponderingturtle]

When I first heard the term "double dip recession", I thought it meant the porn industry was crashing.

But seriously, you would think that when she looked up the word czar, she would have also found that in that context, it means "journalists are too lazy to use this person's proper job title".

The thing is there is explaining to clearify, that isn't what this was. When that happens on the shows I listen to the host doesn't pretent to not know the definitions of common words, but asks the expert to clarify a statement.

[ponderingturtle]

This thread is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure how some people could be any more cynical.


No the problem here is clearly it is not cynical enough. People are demanding some sort of intellectual integrity or honesty from news personnel. That is clearly totally ridiculous and just plain silly. We have to expect them to lie all the time to serve the political agenda, it is what makes a good newsman after all.

[ponderingturtle]

I think this thread is much ado about nothing, at least with respect to the direct object. Have you ever seen a science documentary in which Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains some fairly basic scientific concept in extremely simple terminology? Would you say that he's pretending to be stupid or merely adjusting his speech to his (likely) uneducated audience?

He didn't pretend he just looked it up now did he? When he makes a point that he consulted google for these explanations you might have a point.

[timhau]

Am I the only person to notice that Carlson got the current meaning of the word "ignoramus" wrong even though she got its derivation right? An ignoramus no longer means an ignorant lawyer, even if that is where the word originated.

Yeah, and the most common meaning for the word czar -- apart from the way US Media uses it to designate certain positions in the administration -- is not really 'king' but 'emperor', and more specifically 'the Emperor of Imperial Russia' (and yeah, the monarchs of Bulgaria and Serbia used the title at certain points in history, but who cares about Bulgaria or Serbia?). So, the proper question is not "Why are we having so many kings in America now?", but more alarmingly "Why are we having so many Russian Emperors in America now?"

[Cavemonster]

Yeah, and the most common meaning for the word czar -- apart from the way US Media uses it to designate certain positions in the administration -- is not really 'king' but 'emperor', and more specifically 'the Emperor of Imperial Russia' (and yeah, the monarchs of Bulgaria and Serbia used the title at certain points in history, but who cares about Bulgaria or Serbia?). So, the proper question is not "Why are we having so many kings in America now?", but more alarmingly "Why are we having so many Russian Emperors in America now?"

And basically, it's hardy to scar people saying "Why does Obama have so many advisors and experts around him... in America?"

The actually meaning of the title isn't scary enough. And in fact, it isn't a real title, but always, always, a shorthand for a longer title like undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

And forget the fact that the first Czar was appointed under Nixon, the first Drug Czar under Bush the first and 46 more under Bush Jr.

I would like any conservative to come forward and defend this Fox segment as intellectually honest in any way. Really, step right up.

[ponderingturtle]

And basically, it's hardy to scar people saying "Why does Obama have so many advisors and experts around him... in America?"

The actually meaning of the title isn't scary enough. And in fact, it isn't a real title, but always, always, a shorthand for a longer title like undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

And forget the fact that the first Czar was appointed under Nixon, the first Drug Czar under Bush the first and 46 more under Bush Jr.

I would like any conservative to come forward and defend this Fox segment as intellectually honest in any way. Really, step right up.

Well its not like Bush II listened to his Czars...

[Cuddles]

Isn't it wonderful how our supposedly "designed" species thinks "dumb" is sexy and "smart" is a turnoff?*

Sometimes I wonder how we ever got out of the caves in the first place.

If you're too stupid, you can't outwit deer and go hungry. Intelligent enough and you bring home plenty of food and get all the women. Get too intelligent and you end up sitting around in your cave thinking about theoretical physics and never quite get around to bringing home the pork products.

It doesn't seem too implausible that intelligence, like most other attributes, is not always better to have more of, and that evolution will tend to balance it out in the long term. If people tend to prefer partners of a particular intelligence level, then when the average tips towards too intelligent, it will be seen as preferring stupider people.

Of course, given that the social factors are probably far more important than genetic ones that's really a complete load of bollocks. But it at least sounds plausible enough as an explanation why we could get out of the caves, but not get much further. Well, apart from the whole space thing. That's quite a bit further really.

[INRM]

She's basically doing what Bush did. Play dumb. Neither were/are dumb, but played it for convenience.

Bush actually claimed his greatest skill is that people underestimated him. He said that prior to his election, and that is one of the first things that had me worried about him

[Beerina]

My girlfriends mother had her taken out of honors math class in highschool, so she wouldn't get a reputation as a geek.

Of course now she teaches statistics in a college. Not sure how well she got caught up on non statistic math though.

When my female cousin was pondering what to study in college in a few years, my aunt just waved dismissively, "Oh, just be a beautician!"

And that wasn't her commenting on her daughter's brain, but rather on the pointlessness of it, probably from her own viewpoint as she didn't even go to college.

[Richard Masters]

There is a blond woman on Fox News' morning show named Gretchen Carlson, and she comes off as kind of an airhead, a beauty queen who was stuck on TV to be a pretty face. And for instance on the air she made a big show of having to look up on Google what the word "ignoramus" meant, as well as "czar" and "double dip recession" all words that you can easily have picked up on TV or magazines even with zero education.

But Gretchen doesn't have zero education. She was valedictorian of her high school. She went to Stanford and graduated with honors. She's a classical violinist. It is physically impossible for her to have lived the life she has, and worked in the industry she works in, and missed those words.

She was faking.

Why? Why does pretending to not know those words increase her credibility with her audience, rather than ruin it?

I didn't come up with this, the Daily Show did:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down

It has to be a conscious decision. But why? Has it always been like this in America?

I'm not sure. Sometimes I use simpler words to be understood. Sometimes I pretend not to know certain things (that the other people I'm with don't know) so as to establish rapport.

The issue here might be that the conservative right defines its in-group by making "intellectuals" and "elitists" the enemy. There's a popular belief that the majority of college professors are leftist elitists who are pushing their views upon innocent college students. So any way to distance oneself from such elitists and intellectuals gains points with an audience who strongly believes this.

The implication is that the "elitists" are manipulating the rest of us with obscure words.

[shadron]

Yeah, and the most common meaning for the word czar -- apart from the way US Media uses it to designate certain positions in the administration -- is not really 'king' but 'emperor', and more specifically 'the Emperor of Imperial Russia' (and yeah, the monarchs of Bulgaria and Serbia used the title at certain points in history, but who cares about Bulgaria or Serbia?). So, the proper question is not "Why are we having so many kings in America now?", but more alarmingly "Why are we having so many Russian Emperors in America now?"

I'd have thought that it was pretty well known that Czar and Tsar (thanks to alphabetical transliteration from the Cyrillic) where rendered from the Roman Caesar. That title was adopted from the Western Empire by the Holy Roman Empire and wormed it's way right into the Orthodox church vernacular. I think it is more properly translated as "leader", which is what Julius (Caesar was his cognomen, because one of his ancestors was born by Caesarian section, according to Pliny) considered himself as he closed out the old republic.

[Beerina]

Yeah, and the most common meaning for the word czar -- apart from the way US Media uses it to designate certain positions in the administration -- is not really 'king' but 'emperor', and more specifically 'the Emperor of Imperial Russia' (and yeah, the monarchs of Bulgaria and Serbia used the title at certain points in history, but who cares about Bulgaria or Serbia?). So, the proper question is not "Why are we having so many kings in America now?", but more alarmingly "Why are we having so many Russian Emperors in America now?"

It derives from Caesar, which was used as Emperor would have been in the Roman Empire. "Tsar" is in the same boat.


Wow, just looked up the details. The origin of the name "Caesar" is not certain, but it's not because he or a familiar ancestor was born that way (it was only performed on dead women back then, and his mom lived a long life) and, in any case, his family had been using the name for centuries already. And the reverse is also not true, that the procedure was named after him for much the same reason, his mom was alive.

"Caesarian section" is thought to originate from a Latin word meaning "to cut", and "Caesar" as the emperor name is thought to have altered the procedure's spelling by confusion.

In any case, "Caesar"-as-Emperor comes originally from Julius, although it was apparently used as a synonym for Emperor (did they even have such a word before this?) for people following Augustus Caesar, who was Julius' adopted son.

[shadron]

"Caesar" is the third name of Gaius Julius, known as the cognomen, or common name - presumably that is what his friends called him. He is of the gens Julia, so that's his extended family name. Gaius Octavius Augustus was adopted by Julius, and took on his family name and the Caesar went along for the ride, and from then on it just stuck as a royal title.

[bpesta22]

This thread brings up two very different issues:

1) Educational elites - the last election tried to paint East Coast and West Coast people as educated "elites" and as therefore different from the "rest of us." This point is patently untrue. Although the East and the West coast have many fine institutions of higher education, that doesn't mean that the Midwest the South don't. The "elite shools" - Ivory League schools may have more resources, but that doesn't mean that other schools can't attract top level educators or students.

2) Women as dumber. Personally, I find this one most insulting. In many levels of our society, there seems to be a presumption that women are less mentally acute or at least less discerning. This stereotype has been around for a LONG TIME and needs to be dismissed. Maybe this woman, Gretchen Carlson, is dumbing herself down to be on prime time TV - if so, she's doing a great disservice and just reinforcing a stereotype. This is so not true. Who can discount Grace Hopper's contribution to early computing?

If the religious right is trying to reinforce this stereotype (hey all you know Eve was fooled by the serpent right?), than that is truly dispicable. I sincerely hope that most women don't buy into that and pursue their capabilities and their gifts to the furthest extent that they're able.

So in conclusion, if an educated and gifted woman is dumbing down herself on national TV, I find that very sad. And if she's isn't intentionally doing that, then I sincerely doubt her qualifications for reporting national news and would hope she find some other employment such as raking lawns.

It's likely there's about a 3 point IQ difference between the sexes. Dumb's too strong a word; on the other hand, stereotype implies no validity.

[Ausmerican]

Wow. Somebody uses the "walkthrough" didactic method to explain a concept to their audience, and suddently they're some sort of charlatan?

Better tell that to all the schoolteachers of the world! Instead of demonstrating to students the procedure by which a particular piece of information might be found, teachers should simply be honest about how smart and educated they really are!

So she is not an idiot, she just thinks her audience is and/or treats them like they are?

[Meadmaker]

Very sad.

[Cain]

Saw the Daily Show clip the other day, and I do not think it's an act -- at least not any more than anything else on TV is an act. Ugh, what I'm saying is... Gretchen Carlson is not Dustin Hoffman.

ETA: Frankly, I'm surprised she's a beauty queen. Maybe if she was born in the 20s.

ETA: By the 20s I mean the 1520s.

[tyr_13]

Yes. Being smart is bad. How bad? The majority of women will actually not sleep with you if they believe you are smart*.

You think I'm joking. Let me go find that study I just read...

But yes, for a large part of America, traditionally conservative strongholds but also inner cities, being smart is bad.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to make that read, "the majority of men/women," because smart women tend to have the same problem. Still looking because I can't remember where I read the survey/study, which might not be a good one anyway. I was just told recently by four different people about the article because they each separately thought it could help me.

Sorry, it wasn't a study, but a survey related to an article in Men's Health. Also, it was about being a know-it-all around friends and appearing intelligent (because that makes women feel dumb supposedly). At any rate, is has no scientific validity what so ever.

See ladies! I'm dumb!

[Donal]

I've read surveys that find women with higher education degrees, good jobs (especially where they are the boss) and own property do better at attracting men. I do think this was for older women (35+), but it still says something positive about the value of an education and accomplishment.

[quadraginta]

Not really, nor is it recent. I was first becoming politically aware in the 60's when one Spiro Agnew was alliterating about the elite and intellectuals. It struck me as odd he would be critical of intelligence, not actual thoughts, policies or ideas, but intelligence itself.

The Republican disdain for the elite and intellectuals has continued. Palin and McCain both tried to use Obama's education as a negative against him.

Why take this approach? One answer might be they are trying to counter the Democratic claim they are the party of big money, powerful businesses and bankers by trying to "bond" with the less educated and those suspicious of those that have an education. Palin is the poster child for such a tactic.

The fact they do it is not nearly as fascinating as those who are swayed by it or even more so, those that deny it's done.

I think this thread is much ado about nothing, at least with respect to the direct object. Have you ever seen a science documentary in which Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains some fairly basic scientific concept in extremely simple terminology? Would you say that he's pretending to be stupid or merely adjusting his speech to his (likely) uneducated audience?

As far as real disdain for intellectuals, I'd recommend The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. She chronicles the cycles of American anti-intellectualism since our founding to the present day quite well, though she doesn't quite satisfactorily explain why this is.

I'm not sure. Sometimes I use simpler words to be understood. Sometimes I pretend not to know certain things (that the other people I'm with don't know) so as to establish rapport.

The issue here might be that the conservative right defines its in-group by making "intellectuals" and "elitists" the enemy. There's a popular belief that the majority of college professors are leftist elitists who are pushing their views upon innocent college students. So any way to distance oneself from such elitists and intellectuals gains points with an audience who strongly believes this.

The implication is that the "elitists" are manipulating the rest of us with obscure words.


I don't think that there's anything really recent (at least in an historical sense) about the political demonization of intellect.

It's reflected in every culture's archetypes. The Magician, The Wise Woman (read witch), The Adviser (counselor, vizier, etc.), even the Pan/Coyote types.

There is an element of respect, but there is also always the undercurrent of fear and distrust. It is as often used as a warning of folly, of the danger of difference, or the paths to evil.

There's nothing new here but dressing it up in the latest fashions.

[tyr_13]

'If they're smart, they're smart enough to trick you.'

Remember, knowledge is power, and power corrupts, so smart people are therefor corrupt. What? Platitudes aren't reality?

[luchog]

When did this start? When did we, or when did conservatives at least, star admiring ignorance as a positive personality trait, declaring it to be a sign of trustworthiness?

Anti-intellectualism has always been an aspect of American culture; although hardly unique to us. British culture has had a certain amount of anti-intellectual sentiment as well; but it's always been on a stratified, class-based level. The lower-class attitude that all that schoolin' is good for for toffs, but nothing a workin' man need concern hisself with; combined with a noblesse oblige among the upper classes.

In the US, a combination of egalitarianism and religious extremism removed the stratification while fostering a much wider anti-intellectual bias. Post-Modern pluralism has created a sort of secondary anti-intellectualism among intellectuals themselves, most notably among the arts and "soft" sciences.

[sigmund]

Lots of different types of intelligence to contend with. I'd go for someone with a lower IQ and higher empathy than a brain with no idea how to talk to me like a human being any day of the week.

She's in the news entertainment industry, and is behaving accordingly.

[Delvo]

It derives from Caesar, which was used as Emperor would have been in the Roman Empire. "Tsar" is in the same boat."Derived" still means there were changes, so it's not the same word anymore; "czar" itself was not used by the Romans.

In any case, "Caesar"-as-Emperor comes originally from Julius, although it was apparently used as a synonym for Emperor (did they even have such a word before this?)"Imperator", the nouned form of the verb for "command/order/dictate", which makes it the same grammatical thing as the English words "dictator" and "commander" for one who dictates/commands. The same Latin verb also gives us the English word "imperative", and the noun also has a feminine form, "imperatrix", as in "Fortuna, imperatrix mundi" ("fate/luck/Fortuna, empress of the world").

[Skeptic Ginger]

How was the OP plagiarized? David summed up pretty well what Stewart's point was and linked the clip. He didn't represent it as his own.Sorry, that was my bad. I fixed the post in question. I didn't see the citation of the Daily Show at first skim.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stewart will do what works for comedy purposes, and for comedy purposes, Stewart played it well. Just calling her an idiot isn't really very funny, even if it's true. It's certainly quite possible he's right, and it doesn't really matter if he's not (Carlson being genuinely ignorant isn't really a better option, and it's comedy). I'm just pointing out that it's possible that he's wrong.Possible maybe, plausible, not likely.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure how some people could be any more cynical.

Seeing conspiracies and mind games being perpetuated everywhere they look. Apparently by the same people who are often held up as complete simpletons for even being on the right side of the isle to begin with. We even get the classic debate as to whether Bush was really a moron, or just someone who was trying to appeal to morons.

Seriously folks, some of you should probably consider getting help with the paranoid delusions you have about the right and what they are actively doing or persuing. You think you have all the answers, but you don't have a clue. I think it's pathological. It's about 1 degree of seperation from being a truther.So a valedictorian, college educated woman acting like a blond bimbo on purpose is not likely in your book?

I think it is a relevant discussion given the role model young girls are seeing in the media these days.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this thread is much ado about nothing, at least with respect to the direct object. Have you ever seen a science documentary in which Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains some fairly basic scientific concept in extremely simple terminology? Would you say that he's pretending to be stupid or merely adjusting his speech to his (likely) uneducated audience?Not a good comparison. Analogy FAIL.

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's basically doing what Bush did. Play dumb. Neither were/are dumb, but played it for convenience.

Bush actually claimed his greatest skill is that people underestimated him. He said that prior to his election, and that is one of the first things that had me worried about himTotal side track so I'll just make one comment. If you need more then I'll follow you to a new thread. Bush's ignorance was reflected in the mess he made of the country. Cheney and Bush both may well have had certain skills, but for overall intelligence they get Fs.

[The Nimble Pianist]

He didn't pretend he just looked it up now did he? When he makes a point that he consulted google for these explanations you might have a point.

Ah. Point taken. It probably didn't serve me well comparing a field expert in a documentary to an anchor who's expected to guide her audience. I'm just not seeing any substantive evidence that she's actually dumbing herself down due to some cultural fear of intellectuals (not to say that such a fear doesn't exist).

Not a good comparison. Analogy FAIL.

How old are you?

[babbits]

That's why George W. Bush keeps saying "nuke-you-lar." He knows it's wrong, but he knew it would endear him to the average voter if he appeared dumber than he was.
Naaah. He's not smart enough to make himself seem dumber than he is. He really is as dumb as he seems. Maybe even dumber.