Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

Anti-intellectualism inhibits learning

A large percentage (studies suggest over 90%) of the meaning we derive from communication, we derive from the non-verbal cues that the other person gives.

How does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world? In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.

Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.

People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.

How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?

Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.

People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).

One solution is places like this, where discussion of intellectual matters is encouraged because this forum caters to a specialized audience. Of course, this forum isn't limited to people in the United States (and that's a good thing).

A slightly different point is that "lecturing" people runs a considerable risk of turning them off, no matter how valid the material, or well-intended the speaker. People accept lecturing in school because they must do so to achieve a goal they are highly motivated to get (an education, or at least a degree). Also, the school setting is well-established in our mental habits as a place where lecturing is tolerable, even if not usually sought out eagerly. Outside that highly structured setting, it is difficult to get people to listen to lectures (verbally or in print), particularly lengthy ones. It does happen, but not often.

In a forum like this one, it helps communication (in my opinion) if you can make people feel "talked with" rather than "lectured to". As you say, this is difficult to do without all the cues that are filtered out by the internet.

I prefer written communication to verbal communication, for learning purposes. Most intellectuals are happy to communicate through written language. Coberst, where specifically are you encountering problems? Most studies show that communicating at an elevated level to children is beneficial for them. Most teaching is directed at the 'middle' of the class (I think it has to be this way.)

When I talk about my work with non-academics, they turn off - but I think they are intimidated rather than anti-intellectual. I don't know how to get around that, and in fairness some of them are very inquisitive even though they know nothing about the topic.

(incidentally, I recognise your screen name from somewhere - have you posted on the protocol-online site? perhaps one of the BBC forums?)

free radical

I have over the years probably posted on more than 50 different boards. I do not recognize the ones you mention, do you have a more specific name for them?

My problems are primarily that at least 50% of the responders display a very negative attitude toward learning. This takes the form of anti-intellectualism, just wanting to be cool, and just plain negativity toward everything said. If I say X is true the reply X is false. I suspect much of this results from the responder wanting to say something and if you know nothing about the subject matter just saying X is false is an easy response.

Mike

I am a self-learner and am constantly studying something that interests me. I write as part of my learning process. I write to comprehend.

I also am convinced that if our ctizens were more inclined to be self-learners we might live in a better world. So I write to understand and I post what I write and I post because I want to awaken the readers interest and curiosity and as an example of what self-learning might mean to them.

Thats cool

"My problems are primarily that at least 50% of the responders display a very negative attitude toward learning."

That's better than public high schools, where it is more at around 98%.

Yes Tim. I was thinking he's lucky if it's just 50%.

A few odds and ends:

1. There is a tendency towards anti-intellectualism in society. (my opinion)

2. Many people don't seem to understand the difference between different types of 'thinking' - or even in fact to recognize any difference at all. (addressed by Dewey)

3. A confounding problem is that many teachers are teaching beyond what they know, or what they barely 'understand', or what they are convinced they understand, but do not. (My opinion)

4. a. There is a cottage industry of 'education research' that produces suspect analyses, results, and conclusions that are based more on politics than science; however, these same conclusions are often couched in such vague terminology that no one could argue with them without being charged with some intellectual crime. (Example: the NCTM's "Principles and Standards" document which is more of a socio-political manifesto.)

b. Ed and psych (pseudo-)intellectuals have produce a huge pile of crap masquerading as research which everyone buys into. (opinion) This includes, but is not limited to, certain types of mathematics education research, self-esteem 'research', among others.

5. While there are clearly dedicated, excellent, and even brilliant teachers, there are a very good many whose only function in the classroom is to raise the temperature of the room by a certain fraction of a degree.

6. Most parents will say that they "value education," but unfortunately, very many of them (perhaps most of them) "value education" in the same way that a couch-potato values a million dollars. (opinion based on numerous interactions with kids and parents)

7. Dilemma - most people do not differentiate between 'schooling' and 'education'. I don't like to gratuitously use terminology that is different from common, lay usage. (fact) However, it is impossible to solve the actual problems of education without making that distinction. (deduction from this fact and others)
Schooling is what happens to you, education is what you get for yourself. Schooling happens in a school, but education only occurs in one place - between the ears of every individual student.

8. We have completely absolved individual students from responsibility for their own educations and put it on the shoulders of bureaucratic box-checkers. Any attempt to tell students or parents that they're screwing up is either racist, ethnocentric, "playing the blame game."

I think that our society does not sufficiently value learning. We value education because education is a certificate that is given and determines what kind of a job we can get.

I don't think we value education. What we value is 'schooling', completely oblivious to the fact that it is only a gross proxy for education.

Learning is more general. One can learn in school or on one's own; through repetition or reflection; about facts or methods. But education is a different beast. It can certainly involve schooling, repetition, and facts. But it doesn't end with those things.

TFF wrote:

"Schooling happens in a school, but education only occurs in one place - between the ears of every individual student."

Now that's a good one. And I agree totally with your point 8.

And on another note:

You don't have to be 'smart' or 'intelligent' to pass by these schools. Even the class president or the valevictorian is not necesarrily the genius, but rather more dedicated and actually do their homework. Albert Einstein was horrible in school but ended up one of the most brilliant minds in Earth's history.

In essence, school just trains people to aquire new skills to thrive in the business and economic world. Most people could care less about what the main theme is in Hugo's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or what the spark was leading to the French and Indian War.

We have strayed fom education to just schooling sadly.

Although it's firmly entrenched now as an institution of our society, I think public school education derives from two societal ideas: 1) Keep kids out of the workforce and competition with adults for jobs; and 2) prevent the exploitation of kids on the factory lines, due to the growth of the psychology movement.

I don't think learning has really been the goal.