You Otta Be an Intellectual!

[coberst]

You Otta Be an Intellectual!

If one half of one percent of the population acquires the hobby that I call the ‘intellectual life’ such a group could be the foundation for a new “Age of Enlightenment”.

The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century. “The men [in the 18th century the enlightened were still only half enlightened] of the Enlightenment united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom, above all, freedom in its many forms—freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one’s talents, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom, in a word, of moral man to make his own way in the world.”

It appears to me that following the completion of our schooling the normal inclination is to pack up our yearbook and our intellect into a large trunk and store it in the attic. Occasionally one might go up to the attic and reminisce about the old days.

What I propose is that following the end of our school days we begin a gradual process of self-actualizing self-learning.

This period of our life is generally filled with our duties to family and career so that not a great deal of time is available for extraneous matters. However, time is always available for important things and the important thing is to ‘keep curiosity alive’.

I suspect that if one does not engage in non job related intellectual efforts for the twenty years between the end of schooling and mid-life that the curiosity with which we started life will have dried up and blown away.

What are non job related intellectual activities? Such activities are what I consider to be intellectualism. Intellectualism is active engagement with ‘disinterested knowledge’.

There is in industry the concept of ‘applied research’, which is research looking for a good way to build a new mouse trap; there is also a concept called ‘pure research’, which is a search for truth that may or may not lead to an enhancement of the ‘bottom line’.

Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.


The goal of intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."

I think it is possible for a significant portion of the population of every nation to become intellectuals. What do you think?

Quotes from “The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism” by Peter Gay

[Meffy]

*shrug* I think JREF members, among a great many other engaged and wide-awake minds, are already doing this and need little or no further encouragement. To imagine that self-actualization, the acme of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, is universally disregarded would be... well, self-deception IMO.

[Tricky]

Yew mispeled intellekshul.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Meffy

*shrug* I think JREF members, among a great many other engaged and wide-awake minds, are already doing this and need little or no further encouragement. To imagine that self-actualization, the acme of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, is universally disregarded would be... well, self-deception IMO.

One problem with the Internet forum is that one cannot easily determine if a reply is meant to be satire or is just foolish or that there is a misunderstanding. I will assume that you have misunderstood my post.

[Meffy]

You may assume whatever you please, coberst, if it makes you feel better. But remember, when you make an assumption, you're making an ass of u and mption.

[edit] To clarify somewhat: You're preaching to the choir.

[edit edit] Then again, perhaps you could clarify. First, exactly which parts of your posts were the quotations? The bolded parts only? That's my impression. It'd be better if you use the mechanism provided by the forum for quoting, so there could be no doubt on this point. Second, you appear to be claiming that intellectuals do not constitute a significant portion of the population of every nation. Can you back this up? Or clarify that this is not what you intended to say?

[Meffy]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Yew mispeled intellekshul.

And otter.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by coberst

Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.

This is only an issue of pursuits for money are also, coincidentally, worthless intellectual pursuits. There could be a great deal of overlap.

Indeed, we want that. The primary argument against socialized medicine, for example, is that by removing the profit motive, you slow down technological development. In the long run, this costs lives and increases pain as technology lags further and further behind where it otherwise would have been, even as the population pats themselves on the back with a 98% approval rating.

You'd have a tough time arguing that medical pursuits were null and void because they have a profit motive. Indeed, we want that there to maximize the rate of development (and have gubmint dumping tons into it as well. The more the merrier. Anything the government can do, the government and profit motive* can do better. See last century for hundreds of "economic experiments"...)

* By profit motive, I mean profit motive and the legal freedom to pursue solutions independently, which is the key point to why it works.

[brooklyn44]

Coberst,
Meffy took the words right outta my mouth (only I said "WTF is this?") I believe that those of us who think of Mr. Randi as a model of intellectual honesty and avid inquiry are not "drying up."
We keep questioning, we keep reading, we keep writing, we keep paying attention. We keep keeping on.
Renee

[coberst]

Meffy

I use quote signs for quotations and bold type to accentuate important statements. One can just follow the bold type and gain some comprehension of the post. I have discovered that often people never get past the title so I have tried to make it all as painless as possible.

[coberst]

Beerina

I get the impression that you have not yet absorbed the meaning of disinterested knowledge.

[coberst]

Renee

Great, keep on keepin on.

[Meffy]

@coberst: You haven't answered my questions. Please do. They're not trick questions, you know.

[edit]

Originally Posted by coberst

I use quote signs for quotations

But you didn't, did you?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Meffy

@coberst: You haven't answered my questions. Please do. They're not trick questions, you know.

[edit]

But you didn't, did you?

I am sorry if I have not answered a serious question. Let us start over and please ask the question again. I do get dismissive sometimes because many replies are just silly banter from someone who is just passing time at work.

[Meffy]

Post #5, under "Please clarify."

[Admiral]

I suspect your views of the age of enlightenment are somewhat warped.

Most views of history forget about the "masses" and focus on the brightest or most revolutionary thinkers- which makes complete sense, since that's the interesting part. However, it makes people think that the time period was characterized by these viewpoints, which it was almost certainly not- I'm willing to bet that most of the French and British population didn't know who Locke, or Hobbes, or Rousseau, were.

There's a fascinating book on a sorta similar topic- "Everything Bad for You is Good for You," about how today's popular culture is far smarter than anyone gives it credit for.

[l0rca]

Quote:

There's a fascinating book on a sorta similar topic- "Everything Bad for You is Good for You," about how today's popular culture is far smarter than anyone gives it credit for.

The heart of Johnson's argument is something called the Sleeper Curve--a universe of popular entertainment that trends, intellectually speaking, ever upward, so that today's pop-culture consumer has to do more "cognitive work"--making snap decisions and coming up with long-term strategies in role-playing video games, for example, or mastering new virtual environments on the Internet-- than ever before. Johnson makes a compelling case that even today's least nutritional TV junk food–the Joe Millionaires and Survivors so commonly derided as evidence of America's cultural decline--is more complex and stimulating, in terms of plot complexity and the amount of external information viewers need to understand them, than the Love Boats and I Love Lucys that preceded it. When it comes to television, even (perhaps especially) crappy television, Johnson argues, "the content is less interesting than the cognitive work the show elicits from your mind."
Johnson's work has been controversial, as befits a writer willing to challenge wisdom so conventional it has ossified into accepted truth. But even the most skeptical readers should be captivated by the intriguing questions Johnson raises, whether or not they choose to accept his answers. --Erica C. Barnett

I don't know. I still seems second best to books.

I agree that the masses of today in 1st world countries are smarter, and popular culture has to do with that. But I think there are a number of different mechanics at work in pop culture making this happen. Some of it is from the geeks, some from true intellectuals, and other parts from nasty corporate people (and of course, combinations of these qualities, and other miscellanious ones).

I think if I read the entire book I would agree and disagree, maybe arriving at a stance semi-for it. Maybe he tries to compensate for weaker parts of pop-culture stimulation? I think reality tv could be an example of that.

EDIT: A little more reading, via wikipedia:

Quote:

Johnson's argument has little to do with the subject matter of popular culture. Rather, he argues that the beneficial elements of videogames and TV arise from their format. Probing the interface of a game, one must not only deduce the control system, but figure out the point of the game itself and find the edges of the simulation. One learns to rapidly build and adjust mental models. Johnson refers to this action as "Probing."

Is it just me, or is the lack of psychological vernacular, and him making his own terms up, offputting to the man's own intellectuality? Instead of probing, why doesn't he just say lateral thinking? Inventing new terms in disgragard to the same ideas disconnects good discussion and argument from smart people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyth...s_Good_For_You

[Forty-Two]

Originally Posted by mercuryturrent

Instead of probing, why doesn't he just say lateral thinking?

They're not quite the same concept. From the Wikipedia article you linked: "Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic." Examples can be found in countless lateral thinking puzzles (For example: Amy and Beth are sisters who share a birthday and a set of biological parents, yet they are not twins. How? Possible answer: They are two of a set of triplets.)

By probing, Johnson refers to the process by which one figures out how to solve puzzles, which is itself part of the puzzle. The best example I can think of is Myst. You're given no instructions on the objective of the game, where the puzzles are, or even how to move or interact with your environment. Even before you start solving the individual puzzles, you have to first figure out how to even find them. Probing involves a lot of trial and error ("What if I click this thing? Hm, that doesn't do anything. What if I move this? Hey, something happened! Now, was that of any use to me?"), which mimics real life. After all, you weren't given a list of instructions upon birth; you had to make a lot of wobbly lurches before you could walk and several gurgly nonsense sounds before you could form words.

[l0rca]

So, is probing carrying out your actions, or imagining scenarios of their outcome, and acting from there?

I think the latter is similar enough to lateral thinking for probing to be a faculty of it.

EDIT: Nevermind. I see what you mean now, if that's what Johnson means.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by mercuryturrent

I don't know. I still seems second best to books.

One of the things that Johnson stresses- repeatedly- is that he's NOT trying to rank them- he's not saying "television and video games are better than books." His argument is very simple- they're not the mind-rotting curses that they're almost always portrayed as. Consider how cinema appeared when it was a new medium- most people surely considered it a distraction from serious artistic pursuits. No one today could reasonably deny that films with incredible artistic merit have been made- nor would anyone say that this proves that movies are "better than books."

But what Johnson focuses on isn't even artistic merit. He focuses on the cognitive exercise that very complex TV shows require. If you've ever watched a season of "The West Wing," "The Sopranos," "24"- or, hell, even "Desperate Housewives"- you'd realize just how complex the medium has become, and how involved the view actually is.

Quote:

I think if I read the entire book I would agree and disagree, maybe arriving at a stance semi-for it. Maybe he tries to compensate for weaker parts of pop-culture stimulation? I think reality tv could be an example of that.

He has a few pages on reality TV. It's far, far more mentally stimulating than you'd think.

Ever realize the levels of strategy and complexity that are at work in Survivor or the Apprentice? The rules of the show's "universe" are mysterious and complex- they lead to incredibly complicated social networks forming. Maybe one day it's an advantage for Joe to befriend Sam and Eric, but they have to make sure Bob doesn't know they're allying together, or he'll team up with Susan. Maybe I should betray Steve, but then Jessica might not trust me. Should we eliminate the strong opponents to get rid of the competition, or try and get them on our side so that they can carry us to the top rounds? Should I tell lies to gain an advantage, or try to build up a reputation for honesty?

It's true that all these decisions are being made by other people- but take one look at the "water-cooler conversation" surrounding these shows and it becomes clear that viewers are strategizing and hypothesizing along with these viewers. It's not passive entertainment by any standard.

So what, you ask? So, this particular problem-solving skill is used CONSTANTLY in workplaces, politics, military strategy, social life... the ability to keep track of a complex social network and develop strategies for manipulating it is an incredibly important skill.

Johnson doesn't have to make excuses for reality TV, and he's not shying away from it.

Seriously- read the book. You might really be surprises- he probably isn't making the arguments you think he's making.

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Indeed, we want that. The primary argument against socialized medicine, for example, is that by removing the profit motive, you slow down technological development. In the long run, this costs lives and increases pain as technology lags further and further behind where it otherwise would have been, even as the population pats themselves on the back with a 98% approval rating.

Really? My impression has always been that scientists are not motivated by profit, but rather that they are just geeky people who are inherently interested in the stuff. Being a research scientist pays decently, but if you ask people why they're scientists, they'll generally say the interest of learning about how the world works. Medical companies are motivated by profit, but they're just the enablers of the geeks. But maybe I'm getting too rosy a picture because people rarely actually say "yes, I'm doing this for the money, screw science."

So yeah, it seems like disinterested knowledge to me.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Meffy

Post #5, under "Please clarify."

Answer post #9

[coberst]

Admiral says--"I'm willing to bet that most of the French and British population didn't know who Locke, or Hobbes, or Rousseau, were."

I suspect you are correct. I suspect you can say the same thing about today.

[coberst]

Admiral and Mercury

I think that today's pop-culture does require more decision making than past cultures but these decisions are matters of trivial pursuit and are very short term.

This pop-culture is a culture of 'instant gratification' without substance or a sense of responsibility.

[Meffy]

Originally Posted by coberst

Answer post #9

Post #9 contains no questions. It consists entirely of assertions. If you want answers, ask questions.

Now please answer my questions in post #5, which as you can tell by the numbering came before your post #9.

[edited because I'm still not sure exactly what you're on about]

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by coberst

This pop-culture is a culture of 'instant gratification' without substance or a sense of responsibility.

Read the book. I'm serious. He addresses the myth of "instant gratification." Try and find me examples of instant gratification in actual popular culture, not in sound bites from "experts," and you'll have a hard time.

Think about video games. Ever played them seriously? Do you have any idea how much patience they require and how frustrating they can be? The content might be stupid, but the actual structure of the game is one of the patient search for distant goals.

Imagine SimCity, for example, an EXTREMELY popular computer game. If it were true that this were a culture of instant gratification, you'd expect that at the start of the game you'd be an omnipotent mayor whose people always paid their taxes. Not a chance. You build up the city over a very long time, growing the population very slowly, and as you progress through the game you are permitted more and more options of buildings to construct (you can't build a stadium until you have 50,000 people, you can't build a space station, or whatever, until you have 200,000 people...) The Sims, in a similar way, requires the user to work his way up the corporate ladder very, very slowly, and with all sorts of challenges along the way. The simple promise of future success manages to keep users glued to the screen for days. Hardly instant gratification.

You might say that SimCity and the Sims, although they are two extremely popular games, are an exception. Not a chance. Strategy games like Age of Empires and Civilization require individuals to spend a long time strategizing on the best ways to farm and build up gold and other resources, spending hours to build up an army that has only three minutes of gratification when you finally attack with this huge army and wipe out your opponent.

What about first person games, you ask? Surely they're just mindless killing sprees? Nope- look at games like World of Warcraft and Diablo II. Players spend weeks, or even months, building up their level by training and seeking out objectives, all just so that sometime in the distant future, they can be that high level that they're dreaming of and wear the famed Battlecloak of Elvenwood or whatever.

Even first person violent games like Grand Theft Auto involve long term strategy. The player has to complete a series of puzzles to reach new areas of the city, and they're happy to do this for hours. Sure, the puzzles involve stealing cars and picking up prostitutes- but he's not focusing on the subject matter, he's focusing on what the brain does. The brain forced to wait a very, very long time for its reward. If this video game were about instant gratification, it would allow the user free reign over the entire city immediately, since according to you today's generation is all about getting things quickly and easily.

I'd like you to name a few hobbies of yours that are less instantly gratifying than the games I just listed. And it doesn't stop at games- the book goes into television and cinema as well, in extremely convincing detail.

Read it- you'd be surprised. Today's buzzwords like "instant gratification" are really kinda meaningless and unsupported.

[Imaginative]

I think more emphasis should be put on teaching phlosophy in schools, the earlier we can get kids interested in the big questions, the greater chance we will have of producing the next generation of thinkers.

I just wish they had taught Philosophy when I was at school, it not only teaches you to question things but also how to form strong arguments.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Meffy

Post #9 contains no questions. It consists entirely of assertions. If you want answers, ask questions.

Now please answer my questions in post #5, which as you can tell by the numbering came before your post #9.

[edited because I'm still not sure exactly what you're on about]

The answer to #4 is contained in #9.

[coberst]

Admiral

It is conincidental that I was watching C-Span interviewing a group of high school teachers and two of them commented that instant gratification was their major complaint with today's youth. I must admit that everything I know about the clture verifies that. I will have to read your book.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Imaginative

I think more emphasis should be put on teaching phlosophy in schools, the earlier we can get kids interested in the big questions, the greater chance we will have of producing the next generation of thinkers.

I just wish they had taught Philosophy when I was at school, it not only teaches you to question things but also how to form strong arguments.

The schools are in fact doing that on a scale that I am not sure of. The schools have begun teaching Critical Thinking that I consider to be 'philosophy light'.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by coberst

Admiral says--"I'm willing to bet that most of the French and British population didn't know who Locke, or Hobbes, or Rousseau, were."

I suspect you are correct. I suspect you can say the same thing about today.

Some of them seem to be finding out.

http://ctvbb.insinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Imaginative

I just wish they had taught Philosophy when I was at school, it not only teaches you to question things but also how to form strong arguments.

That very much depends on the philosophical content and how it's taught. Coberst's comment about "Critical Thinking" being "Philosophy-light" is somewhat relevant here; the ability to think critically and to form coherent arguments are only a part of philosophical tradition, and in some fields, something of a disfavored redheaded stepchild at that.

Much of "Postmodernism" and "Theory" that was recently popular, for example, taught stduents to question things, but not how to obtain or interpret answers -- it's essentially reflexive nihilism disguised behind word games. I've also seen courses on "Christian Philosophy" that were essentially warmed-over fundamentalist apologetics, where the strength of an argument was related to how many biblical ideas you could sneak in without actually citing chapter and verse.

Furthermore, teaching "Philosophy" in schools will of necessity require relaxing the requirements to take other courses. One of the key failures in much philosophical education today, up to and well past the Ph.D. level is that "philosophers" manage only to achieve a sort of stately ignorance about the fields that they are supposed to be questioning (witness the "social constructionists" who deny the role of empirical evidence in evaluating scientific hypotheses). I would really, really, hate to have my children taught "philosophy" by someone who hearkens back to a golden "Age of Enlightenment" that never existed in the form that he imagines it....

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Some of them seem to be finding out.

http://ctvbb.insinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21

Incidentally, you can see my avatar at the top of that screen. I stole it from one of those Lost sites...

Anyway, that is something that is great about Lost- just by naming a few characters after famous philosophers, it convinces thousands of people to look them up and discuss them on websites. It reminds me of how Fonzie got a library card one episode of Happy Days, and library membership in the country went up 500%.

And, incidentally, Coberst, the appeal of the show Lost shows that "instant gratification" is bogus- the show intentionally creates dozens of mysteries that constantly frustrate viewers, but keep them coming back.

The only real "instant gratification" in our current culture is microwavable food and fast internet connections. When it comes to most of our popular culture, we like things that challenge and confound us. Those teachers grew up during the era of "Happy Days"- do you think Happy Days was a tenth as complicated as even the relatively simple shows out there?

I could go on for a while, but the book does a much better job. Check it out!

[l0rca]

Admiral, about that statement I made on books, it was out of context. I see what you mean.

The book sounds like it's interesting, but it doesn't sound like you have to read it to glean the same information from free resources, such as yourself. I tend only to read books I feel I can't easily understand any other way (such as physics, programming languages, dictionaries, and grammar), or because of the power of the writer (literature).

But you've pretty much sold me on the thrust of the book's argument.

[Admiral]

Originally Posted by mercuryturrent

Admiral, about that statement I made on books, it was out of context. I see what you mean.

The book sounds like it's interesting, but it doesn't sound like you have to read it to glean the same information from free resources, such as yourself. I tend only to read books I feel I can't easily understand any other way (such as physics, programming languages, dictionaries, and grammar), or because of the power of the writer (literature).

But you've pretty much sold me on the thrust of the book's argument.

Hahaha, I follow. I generally read to pass the forty minute train ride on my way to and from work. But I sometimes read books that turn out to be fascinating and change some deep-held beliefs, and I'm obligated to recommend them to others.

Anyway, I'll let the real thread go on.

[I less than three logic]

Why would you want to do that? The real thread seems quite boring.

From the OP I got the impression coberst was saying we should value learning for the sake of learning. In which case, I agree with Meffy, in that he's preaching to the choir.

[l0rca]

Originally Posted by I less than three logic

Why would you want to do that? The real thread seems quite boring.

From the OP I got the impression coberst was saying we should value learning for the sake of learning. In which case, I agree with Meffy, in that he's preaching to the choir.

Yeah.

The idea back then, the Renaissance man, is just not applicable today. Back then it was possible to be an apt intellectual in all fields of studies. You could have the math, the philosophy, artistic taste, be able to sail and fire a gun, and ride a horse. Nowadays you can't learn everything we know. It's smarter these days to pursue that which you love, and learn about the rest.

There's a interconnection to many of our studies and pursuits, but there is much we lack between us to call ourselves apt in each other's fields. We have too much to learn. Hell, I'll give mad props to anyone who can run quantum calculations, write elegantly, and then fix your car, and fly in a plane. But can that same person be as skilled in politics? Psychology? Know how to perform surgery? Tell you which archeologically uncovered bones represent what species?

[Meffy]

Originally Posted by coberst

The answer to #4 is contained in #9.

I am not asking for an answer to post #4, which was made not by me but by you. I am asking for an answer to post #5.

So you won't have to scroll back, here's the part you have not addressed.

Originally Posted by Meffy

you appear to be claiming that intellectuals do not constitute a significant portion of the population of every nation. Can you back this up? Or clarify that this is not what you intended to say?

As Claus is so fond of saying, "Evidence?"

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by coberst

The answer to #4 is contained in #9.

You have not answered the part of #5 (Meffy) that ended it (concerning your belief re: current intellectuals). Not in # 4, not in #9 and not.in anything beteen #9 and the number I got the quote from.

Your choice to answer it or not, of course, but you definitely have not done so yet.

[fuelair]

I don't watch lost for the reason that the so-called puzzles on the show annoy and bore me. Primarily because my response to that situation would involve killing things until I am killed or released (that's also my response to the equivalent: having a family member or equivalent person of value disappear and being told they never existed - each person who tells me that when I know they know the person and are therefore lying will end that way until...). I do not like games like that - even as fiction.

Edit: remove s, add l

[Meffy]

To be sure, I would very much like to see more intellectuals in the world. I just don't believe that a) there's so profound a lack of them as all that, or b) as others have already pointed out, that video games and other "light entertainment" are necessarily devoid of intellectual stimulation.

F'rex, I challenge anyone to play Civilization IV without engaging both gray matter and fun-receptors. It's not a history lesson -- you have to write your own history, military, religious, scientific, and technological.