Intellectualism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049895
Potemkin wrote:Americans like to think that they are all equal to each other, and that even the dumbest hick has the right to have his bigoted, retarded opinions given equal weight to the considered views of professors or Nobel Prize winners.

Incorrect.

The opposite is true. Many Americans seem to have more respect for upper class people who have useless university degrees, and who are very wealthy. Many famous American presidents, since their Civil War, came from wealthier, elitist, educated backgrounds. Even a lot of providence state governors there are wealthier and have useless university degrees. Americans seem to support more upper university level education.
Ironically, it tends to be the most right-wing Americans who are most in favour of this intellectual and academic dumbing-down.

There are Many famous national leaders and political figures that have existed around the whole World in various time eras, who do not need useless university degrees like many famous American leaders and presidents, or did not come from upper class economic elitist backgrounds. Here are some examples:

Josef Stalin, The Soviet Union - His father was a poor shoe maker. Stalin was not educated like how Trotsky was, yet he lead the Soviet Union for decades, unlike Trotsky.

Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela - Born into a leftist working class family, he never graduated secondary grade school, and was a bus driver.

Josip Broz Tito, Yugoslavia - Born into a farming family, he failed the second grade in school and graduated uselessly in 1905. He had spelling problems his whole life, worked at a restaurant, repaired bicycles, was a factory worker, and was a test car driver for Austro-Daimler until World War One. After the First World War, he was a restaurant waiter, lost his job for Communist support, and then was a mill mechanic.

Enver Hoxha, Albania - Born in a shared multi family home to a poor, traveling cloth merchant by the name of Halil Hoxha who traveled and merchandised in Britain, France, and the United States.

Margot Feist, DDR - Her father was a shoemaker, and her mother who died in 1940 when Margot was 13 years of age was a factory worker. Both of her parents were KPD members. In 1945 at the age of 18 years when the war ended, she joined socialist political parties that helped her get government representative positions.

Erich Honecker, DDR - Born into a working class family, his father was a coal miner. Erich's first occupation was a farmer, then a roofer. He lived "undercover" until the Second World War ended.

Adolf Hitler - He had parents who were not educated. He was an untalented artist, struggled economically and was homeless at one point. He was a World War One veteran for the German Confederate Empire.

Walter Ulbricht, DDR - His father was an impoverished tailor. Walter's occupation prior to World War One was a Joiner. He was a World War One veteran for the German Confederate Empire.

Ernst Thälmann - Born into a farming family, he dropped out of school at the age of 14 years. In 1902, he left his family's home, lived in an emergency shelter, then in a basement apartment. He was a fireman, then a laundry worker until the First World War started. He was a World War One veteran for the German Confederate Empire. After the war, he was a relief worker who helped civilians and their lives with the infrastructures that were damaged by the war.

Benito Mussolini, Italy -Born into a poor family, his father was a socialist. Benito at one point was unemployed, and lived with another family in an apartment with his young child and girlfriend.

Władysław Gomułka, Poland - Born to parents who emigrated to the United States for employment purposes, they migrated back to Poland due to not finding useful employment. At the age of 13 years, he left school, and started an apprenticeship in a metalwork shop. Władysław Gomułka did not need "formal education" to lead Poland for over a decade.

Edward Gierek, Poland - Started to work in a coal mine at the age of 13 years.

Nikita Khrushchev, The Soviet Union - He was a herds person. He was schooled for four years in a poor village, and his teacher was Lydia Shevchenko, a freethinker who did not attend local church, and that made the local residents upset. Later, He was a metal worker until the Russian Revolution. He later attended the Industrial Academy in Moscow, and the Industrial Academy provided knowledge that taught how to coordinate productivity and agriculture.

Wilhelm Pieck, DDR - He completed a four-year carpentry apprenticeship. He was then a timber worker.

Winston Churchill, British Empire - He Went to Harrow School, a public school for young boys. Then, he attended the Royal Military College, for military training purposes.

Jacob Zuma, South Africa - He does not need an useless, university degree, to lead politics in South Africa.

Omar al-Bashir, Sudan - He graduated from the Egyptian Military Academy in 1966.

Nicolae Ceaușescu, Romania - He became an apprentice shoe maker.

Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam - He did various occupations like dish washing, custodial, baking, and factory work.

Chivu Stoica, Romania - He started working as an apprentice at Căile Ferate Române, the state railway corporation. Then, he was a boilermaker.

Georgi Dimitrov, Bulgaria - He was a typesetter.
Enforcing equality by dumbing everybody down to the same intellectual level.

Just because someone does not maintain an useless, university degree does not mean that they lack high intelligence. There are some very intelligent people who do not obtain university degrees. There are some people who have university degrees that are not very intelligent.

There are different types of intelligence. There are different variations. Everyone has their own abilities. Some people have more abilities than others. University degrees do not have to show that.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15049897
Just because someone does not maintain an useless, university degree does not mean that they lack high intelligence. There are some very intelligent people who do not obtain university degrees. There are some people who have university degrees that are not very intelligent.

There are different types of intelligence. There are different variations. Everyone has their own abilities. Some people have more abilities than others. University degrees do not have to show that.

Actually, I agree with this. But the point I was addressing was the tradition of anti-intellectualism in American society, and the damage this has caused to the economy and to the political discourse in that country. As Chairman Mao, who was from a poor background himself, once said: "No knowledge, no right to speak." What he meant by that was that not all people's opinions should carry equal weight. If you want to build a bridge, who do you ask how to do it? An engineer who has graduated from a university, or a bus driver who dropped out of elementary school? You're probably not going to ask the bus driver. Is this discrimination? Yes, it is. But this discrimination is absolutely necessary, because knowledge is absolutely necessary. Americans, it seems to me, don't seem to value knowledge or expertise in the way that other societies do, and this creates problems for them, not least of which is that they have to import their intellectual class as well as their labouring class.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15049901
Potemkin wrote:Americans, it seems to me, don't seem to value knowledge or expertise in the way that other societies do


These are the Americans that voted for Trump, so roughly half.

HEEEEEEEEEEEEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049903
Potemkin wrote:Actually, I agree with this. But the point I was addressing was the tradition of anti-intellectualism in American society, and the damage this has caused to the economy and to the political discourse in that country.

I do not know too much about the anti-intellectualism in American culture.
As Chairman Mao, who was from a poor background himself, once said: "No knowledge, no right to speak." What he meant by that was that not all people's opinions should carry equal weight.

I agree with this. If one does not know, they should not coordinate, since it could potentially be self destructive.
If you want to build a bridge, who do you ask how to do it? An engineer who has graduated from a university, or a bus driver who dropped out of elementary school?

I would prefer to have them collaborate, and bring their ideas together. A civilization needs both an uneducated bricklayer, and an educated engineer.
You're probably not going to ask the bus driver. Is this discrimination? Yes, it is. But this discrimination is absolutely necessary, because knowledge is absolutely necessary.

Sometimes people use "anti discrimination" politics to get their power over those who are more knowledgeable. But they sometimes do not know that their opponent is more knowledgeable, out of ignorance.
Americans, it seems to me, don't seem to value knowledge or expertise in the way that other societies do, and this creates problems for them, not least of which is that they have to import their intellectual class as well as their labouring class.

Americans tend to have very high, technical tastes. They have the most technological diversity, which makes working there more difficult since there are more products to know. An Audi A4 is much more similar to an Audi A6 than a Cadillac CTS is to a Cadillac CT6 for example.

The United States gets advanced products from all nations around the world. Most nationalities tend to stay with certain products. Americans tend to go everywhere. And that is a problem because if everyone has to know everything, no one will have enough energy to specialize in one particular thing or role.

Here is an example: Group A is not American. Group B is American. The exampled project is building a factory. Each group has 20 people. Some involved tasks for the exampled project is plumbing, heating and air conditioning, electric work, roofing, painting, flooring, bricklayer, and architectural designing.

Group A will have each of the 20 people assigned to each certain task. If one person is assigned only one task, they will only need to know one thing. If they only know one thing, they have a lot more energy remaining then if they have to know multiple things. Since they have much more energy remaining, they can use that energy into knowing much more about that one thing. If everyone in this example knew so much about their one things, they together would produce a very high quality product - In this example, a high quality factory.

Group B will require all of the 20 people to know the skills and talents of all of the required tasks. If everyone has to know everything, they will all individually not have as much energy into specializing in one specific role or task as the people in Group A.

Group A collaborates efficiently. Each person does their task in the maximum quality as to their ability as possible. The factory will have a very advanced result. Group B will not have maximum quality effort put into its construction since no one has the energy to specialize since everyone has to know all of the tasks.

It appears to me that many Americans try to specialize in all major tasks in the survival of humanity. There are Americans that have a combination of university degrees, housing talents such as plumbing or roofing, automobile mechanical talents, and multi national cooking (Chinese Food, Kosher Food, Mexican Food, Italian Food, Indian Food, etc.).

I personally find this to be a waste. Even if it produces more material wealth, it does not ensure psychological stability (over work can lead to mental illness caused by stress), nor true happiness. True happiness is not defined by the quantity of wealth. In my opinion, quality is more important than quantity.
#15049905
Potemkin wrote:Actually, I agree with this. But the point I was addressing was the tradition of anti-intellectualism in American society, and the damage this has caused to the economy and to the political discourse in that country. As Chairman Mao, who was from a poor background himself, once said: "No knowledge, no right to speak." What he meant by that was that not all people's opinions should carry equal weight. If you want to build a bridge, who do you ask how to do it? An engineer who has graduated from a university, or a bus driver who dropped out of elementary school? You're probably not going to ask the bus driver. Is this discrimination? Yes, it is. But this discrimination is absolutely necessary, because knowledge is absolutely necessary. Americans, it seems to me, don't seem to value knowledge or expertise in the way that other societies do, and this creates problems for them, not least of which is that they have to import their intellectual class as well as their labouring class.


I've noticed that a lot of experts in the social sciences and humanities, despite being well educated and qualified often display tremendous ignorance and make sweeping assumptions.

And unfortunately I've encountered some level of ignorance among a number of them. And why for example do academic methodologies need research paradigms such as constructivism? And why is Foucault considered an authority when you're constructing your methodology?
User avatar
By SSDR
#15049911
Political Interest wrote:I've noticed that a lot of experts in the social sciences and humanities, despite being well educated and qualified often display tremendous ignorance and make sweeping assumptions.

An university degree does not have unlimited knowledge. There are also people in capitalist economies who Purchase their useless university degrees by bribery.
And unfortunately I've encountered some level of ignorance among a number of them. And why for example do academic methodologies need research paradigms such as constructivism? And why is Foucault considered an authority when you're constructing your methodology?

Most university degrees do not actually teach the talents needed in the professions that attending students will have.

In capitalist nations, most people go to university for money. Many of them do not care for the useless material that those degrees have.

Nadler himself lectured that a partisan impeach[…]

1) 2020 is shaping up to be even crazier and mo[…]

An EU for the whole damn planet

John, tell me what choice the British people were[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Barr is the Senate confirmed US Attorney General […]