I see the point, but I don’t think intellectual elitism is the same as anti-anti-intellectualism. I think intellectual elitism creates a sense of alienation from science that in fact leads to anti-intellectualism. “I have more specialized knowledge than you” is not the same as “I’m better than you,” and acknowledging that is the solution
completely tangential, but this is actually an interesting grammatical point. I’m guessing you’re German by your username; “stop to listen to idiots” would mean “aufhören, um Idioten zuzuhören.” “aufhören Idioten zuzuhören” would be “stop listening to idiots.” it’s interesting because “to [verb]” and “[verb]ing” are often interchangeable, but in this case they actually mean the opposite
I understood absolutely zero of the German, but for other non native English speakers who didn’t pick up on the issue here:
The usual phrase here would be “stop listening to idiots”. The sentence that was used, “stop to listen to idiots” means the contrary, that you’ll stop what you’re doing so that you can listen to what the idiot has to say.
For the non-Germans who want to know the source of the confusion: It’s basically the same sentence structure in German meaning something different than in English.
to has distinct meanings in “I want to listen to them” and “you should stop to listen to them”. In the first sentence, it’s effectively an article for the activity “listen to them”. In the second sentence, it implies an intent, which could be made explicit like “stop in order to listen to me”.
English uses the progressive (“stop listening”) to disambiguate with words like stop. German instead uses an additional preposition “um” for the intent meaning of to.
(In this case, the meaning difference between “interrupting something” and “stop for good” also has different words, “anhalten” and “aufhören”).
Word for word, “Aufhören zuzuhören” would mean “stop to listen”, but actually means “stop listening” while “stop to listen” would be correctly translated as “anhalten, um zuzuhören”.
The issue is that anti-intellectualists think that the very concept of knowing more than them about any given topic is elitism.
My conspiracy theorist mom would go on and on about how her spending an afternoon googling something put her ideas at a higher level than someone who got a degree studying it, and if I agreed with the person with the degree, then I was an idiot for not following her. She thought that right up until she died trying to treat her cancer with quack therapies.
Regardless of whether we frame it as “I’m better than you because I know more than you,” the anti-intellectualists will still be framing it as “I’m better than you because my ‘gut feeling’ knows more than you.” It’s a competition to them, not because someone told them they were lesser, but because they already believed they were greater.
Right, but people will call nearly anything elitism these days. The reason schools don’t offer accelerated learning programs for students who aren’t challenged by the average coursework is because people were calling that type of thing elitist.
Instead, now we put the upper quartile in the same classes as the lower quartile so that nobody receives the particular level and kind of attention that they need, and everyone is held to “average” whether they’re predisposed to be above that expectation or below it.
If someone is talented at a sport, people shower them with praise and give them full rides to college. If someone is talented at math or writing, people tell them to be a team player and stop surpassing their peers by so far. Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
Except these programs are literally known to be abused by the elite for their benefit. It’s not elitist to want evidenced-based support for low income high achieving kids, and for that support not to be diverted to upper-middle class kids who don’t need it.
Merit based and sports scholarships are well-known to be specifically designed to attract upper middle class kids because of the benefit they have of tutors, coaches, and extensive personalized guidance through their entire schooling. Actually this is the exact reason top universities prefer need-based financial aid; they don’t need the extra money merit-based scholarships are known to bring. Low income kids tend to struggle navigating admissions systems and financial aid on their own in general, and these particular programs, especially the sports scholarships, don’t make themselves very accessible to prospective applicants.
I haven’t seen whatever studies have been done on accelerated learning programs, so I don’t know if they help/hurt anyone conclusively, but I will say from personal experience being both included and excluded from them, I absolutely hated them from both angles. If you test into them, you’re doing extra work and being segregated (with a target on your back for bullies) from your classmates. If you don’t test into them, but you learn at a faster pace than the average, you’re literally gatekept from the advanced material even if you want to learn it. I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
They want this same elitism. They want to have their own special secret knowledge only they (and a small handful of internet people “in the know”) have access to. This makes them feel
special and superior.
I see the point, but I don’t think intellectual elitism is the same as anti-anti-intellectualism. I think intellectual elitism creates a sense of alienation from science that in fact leads to anti-intellectualism. “I have more specialized knowledge than you” is not the same as “I’m better than you,” and acknowledging that is the solution
I think they’re joking about the elitism part. People just need to stop to listen to idiots
completely tangential, but this is actually an interesting grammatical point. I’m guessing you’re German by your username; “stop to listen to idiots” would mean “aufhören, um Idioten zuzuhören.” “aufhören Idioten zuzuhören” would be “stop listening to idiots.” it’s interesting because “to [verb]” and “[verb]ing” are often interchangeable, but in this case they actually mean the opposite
Richtig, danke.
I understood absolutely zero of the German, but for other non native English speakers who didn’t pick up on the issue here:
The usual phrase here would be “stop listening to idiots”. The sentence that was used, “stop to listen to idiots” means the contrary, that you’ll stop what you’re doing so that you can listen to what the idiot has to say.
Which is a valid option, but an ill advised one.
For the non-Germans who want to know the source of the confusion: It’s basically the same sentence structure in German meaning something different than in English.
to has distinct meanings in “I want to listen to them” and “you should stop to listen to them”. In the first sentence, it’s effectively an article for the activity “listen to them”. In the second sentence, it implies an intent, which could be made explicit like “stop in order to listen to me”.
English uses the progressive (“stop listening”) to disambiguate with words like stop. German instead uses an additional preposition “um” for the intent meaning of to.
(In this case, the meaning difference between “interrupting something” and “stop for good” also has different words, “anhalten” and “aufhören”).
Word for word, “Aufhören zuzuhören” would mean “stop to listen”, but actually means “stop listening” while “stop to listen” would be correctly translated as “anhalten, um zuzuhören”.
The issue is that anti-intellectualists think that the very concept of knowing more than them about any given topic is elitism.
My conspiracy theorist mom would go on and on about how her spending an afternoon googling something put her ideas at a higher level than someone who got a degree studying it, and if I agreed with the person with the degree, then I was an idiot for not following her. She thought that right up until she died trying to treat her cancer with quack therapies.
Regardless of whether we frame it as “I’m better than you because I know more than you,” the anti-intellectualists will still be framing it as “I’m better than you because my ‘gut feeling’ knows more than you.” It’s a competition to them, not because someone told them they were lesser, but because they already believed they were greater.
Well at least your anti vaccine mom is dead
There are way too many people like her who exist
They are better than them, at that thing, and if you don’t defer, then they have every right to scoff at the stupidity before them.
Right, but people will call nearly anything elitism these days. The reason schools don’t offer accelerated learning programs for students who aren’t challenged by the average coursework is because people were calling that type of thing elitist.
Instead, now we put the upper quartile in the same classes as the lower quartile so that nobody receives the particular level and kind of attention that they need, and everyone is held to “average” whether they’re predisposed to be above that expectation or below it.
If someone is talented at a sport, people shower them with praise and give them full rides to college. If someone is talented at math or writing, people tell them to be a team player and stop surpassing their peers by so far. Merit-based scholarships are rare nowadays too, so good luck going to a top university just because you excel at your subjects…
Except these programs are literally known to be abused by the elite for their benefit. It’s not elitist to want evidenced-based support for low income high achieving kids, and for that support not to be diverted to upper-middle class kids who don’t need it.
Merit based and sports scholarships are well-known to be specifically designed to attract upper middle class kids because of the benefit they have of tutors, coaches, and extensive personalized guidance through their entire schooling. Actually this is the exact reason top universities prefer need-based financial aid; they don’t need the extra money merit-based scholarships are known to bring. Low income kids tend to struggle navigating admissions systems and financial aid on their own in general, and these particular programs, especially the sports scholarships, don’t make themselves very accessible to prospective applicants.
I haven’t seen whatever studies have been done on accelerated learning programs, so I don’t know if they help/hurt anyone conclusively, but I will say from personal experience being both included and excluded from them, I absolutely hated them from both angles. If you test into them, you’re doing extra work and being segregated (with a target on your back for bullies) from your classmates. If you don’t test into them, but you learn at a faster pace than the average, you’re literally gatekept from the advanced material even if you want to learn it. I think what would do worlds of difference is bringing respect back to teaching by hiring more teachers and paying them more which would allow for more individualized learning, so each child gets their educational needs met without unnecessary segregation.
If you want to do further reading, there’s a lot of very passionate people who have dedicated themselves to this topic for decades. This is a slightly outdated, but seemingly comprehensive report I just found online, section 5 is specifically on systemic admissions hurdles for low income kids: https://www.jkcf.org/research/true-merit-ensuring-our-brightest-students-have-access-to-our-best-colleges-and-universities/
They want this same elitism. They want to have their own special secret knowledge only they (and a small handful of internet people “in the know”) have access to. This makes them feel special and superior.
Humans feeling a need to impose a hierarchy where they sit at the very top is why we can’t have nice things
Well then they should just join a mystery cult or practice alchemy