The Pitters' Place

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... ng-america" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

It says the primary reason for America's social dysfunction is anti-intellectualism and an abandonment of reason, using the Charleston shooting as a hook. It's really really popular. It's getting passed around a lot.

Personally I think it's silly and shallow, which is ironic. It's somewhat obvious the motivations of most of the people sharing it - they're using it to point the finger at other people whom they consider part of the problem, not using it to introspect themselves. It's a piece of ammunition to use against whatever out-group they have. I doubt even a small percentage of the people who like it so much - the vast majority of which are probably liberals - are thinking they might be a part of the problem it's talking about. And the article helps reinforce that, as its primary targets are racists, creationists, climate change-deniers, gun proponents, religious fundamentalists, patriots and nationalists, and "corporate interests". All of which are considered the enemies to your average liberal. What a coincidence. All the Good People are completely off the hook, it's those Other People that are the problem.

It also in my view misdiagnoses the problem. It claims that "people are abandoning reason" as the first cause of all our problems, as if everyone simultaneously, by pure coincidence, made the personal choice to do so. It never implies what I think is an obvious cause of this problem, the fact that people are bombarded with propaganda constantly and socialized into these ideologies from birth on top of all of the other symptoms of living in a system which alienates ordinary people from themselves and each other. It's putting most of the blame on the system's victims when most of the blame should go to the system itself. It refuses to look at systemic institutional rot as the possible cause and instead lays the problem squarely on individual choices - which is probably another reason liberals like it so much, as that's what they do best. It gets close to the right problem near the end, but it never catches on.

Just as an example, he claims that "ignorance is at the root cause of racism". Uh, no it's not. It's part of a cause, but it's nowhere near the primary cause. Material conditions, systemic purposeful oppression, conscious exploitation, and a psychological need to feel superior to others are all closer to the primary causes of racism than mere "ignorance". I can't believe an article decrying anti-intellectualism could have such a basic misunderstanding of something so fundamental.

So I didn't like all that much. But I could be wrong.

I didn't get that from the article at all.

'Personally I think it's silly and shallow, which is ironic.

Its shallow to a degree, I mean, any article that attempts to describe what's wrong with an entire cultural system that's one page long is by necessity, going to be shallow. But I don't think its silly and I don't think its meant to be exhaustive.

using it to point the finger at other people whom they consider part of the problem, not using it to introspect themselves

It doesn't label groups, it labels behaviour and whether or not you identify with the behaviours is largely up to how introspective the individual reading it is rather than the fault of the article itself. I think its also trying to identify what's peculiar to the united states rather than act as a comprehensive "this is everything wrong with every system" type of analysis. America shares a lot in common with every other system in the world and it has its own almost unique attitude especially when it comes to being a first world nation. There is a celebration of anti -intellectualism in the states that while present in other countries, isn't nearly as celebrated. I don't know any other first world country where pulpit politics takes as centre a stage and there are no other first world countries where anti- intellectual arguments like Creationism or the anti-global warming debate is argued with the same level of passion and given the same level of religious support.

And the article helps reinforce that, as its primary targets are racists, creationists, climate change-deniers, gun proponents, religious fundamentalists, patriots and nationalists, and "corporate interests". All of which are considered the enemies to your average liberal. What a coincidence

Well - these things are issues and these thing cause problems and the author believes that these things are primary concerns that are given a greater sounding board in the states than other first world nations .. I'm not seeing any value in labelling them "Liberal " ideals or otherwise given each can be argued on its own lack of merit .. and more importantly, he lists a lack of critical thinking as the primary reason behind these ideals and within the culture specifically which addresses your point directly. Its possible that a great many people who identify as liberals aren't all that great at "Critical thinking" and so, would read this article and not see themselves in it - a critical thinker would do away with your tribalist claims and reflect on the actual issues and their part in them.

Some will point out, correctly, that even educated people can still be racists, but this shouldn't remove the spotlight from anti-intellectualism. Yes, even intelligent and educated individuals, often due to cultural and institutional influences, can sometimes carry racist biases. But critically thinking individuals recognize racism as wrong and undesirable, even if they aren't yet able to eliminate every morsel of bias from their own psyches or from social institutions. An anti-intellectual society, however, will have large swaths of people who are motivated by fear, susceptible to tribalism and simplistic explanations, incapable of emotional maturity, and prone to violent solutions

and with this he acknowledges that the system itself perpetuates these areas of societal dysfunction and can influence and drive behaviours even in otherwise rational people - a person who is a critical thinker isn't excluded from the problem but, by definition should at least realise that they are a part of the problem and should think and act past this.

It also in my view misdiagnoses the problem. It claims that "people are abandoning reason" as the first cause of all our problems, as if everyone simultaneously, by pure coincidence, made the personal choice to do so. It never implies what I think is an obvious cause of this problem, the fact that people are bombarded with propaganda constantly and socialized into these ideologies from birth on top of all of the other symptoms of living in a system which alienates ordinary people from themselves and each other

I read this the exact opposite way, people abandoning reason is a symptom of the problem, the problem is that these anti-intellectual groups are given huge support in the states and a lack of critical thinking by the populace (for any given variety of reasons whether than be out right propaganda, unreasonable patriotism, religious influence, poor education - or any given number of systemic issues) is what is driving this .. He never claimed that anyone - by pure coincidence made the personal decision to abandon critical thinking or reason .. he saying America enjoys a greater level of credibility to these anti intellectual forces than other first world nations.

It's certainly not comprehensive. There are any given number of factors that influence the worst aspects of American culture that he hasn't addressed but they all seem to be captured under the moniker of a lack of critical thinking.
You can look at the appalling social security infrastructure, a lack of a cohesive medical system, the enormous disparity of wealth or how rampantly your lobbyists influence government policy and then you look to what the solutions to these issues are and the reasons why they are rejected in the states when they are largely adopted in other nations and the answer is almost always because the population doesn't seem to be able to think critically. Why was there so much angst against getting a reasonable medical coverage for everyone in the states when this model has been adopted by almost every other first world nation for the past 30 years? .. the argument against were almost to a man, argued on emotional rhetoric and fear mongering and implied the system was impossible to implement or too costly or un-American - almost all of which ignored the fact that its been ton hundreds of times before.

So - not feeling your critique of this

I posted my opinion on the RFS board.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/nes ... #245411799

I tend to agree. This belief that mere "ignorance" is the source of racism is so aggravating. It's liberal feel-good nonsense. And actually classist too.

This is simplistic, but there are at least two aspects and/or kind of sources of racism that cannot merely be outsmarted by being super intellectual: 1) Racism is a complex social and psychological disease that transcends the intellect. It's an exploitation of human psychological weaknesses. 2) People in power push a lot of propaganda to exploit and reinforce this psychological weakness...to protect their interests. And create populations INVESTED in protecting the interests of the powerful.

I've seen too many so-called "intellectuals" *cough* Sam Harris *cough* justify and rationalize away their own racism to take such nonsense about anti-intellectualism seriously. It's like how it's said that smart people with addictions and other psychological weaknesses are the worst because their minds can rationalize/justify their own irrationality and make their poor decisions appear reasonable. The disease hijacks their intellect and uses it to justify itself. Racism does the same thing.

Education is not completely useless...but you cannot merely outsmart power, and you cannot outsmart psychological weakness.

What Cassius said.

And a lot of these "anti-intellectual" values come from the powerful shaping society for their own interests....as the powerful have always done (using religion and what not).

It's more of a symptom/tool than a source.

I agree with Cassius agreeing with me.

The other day I watched a video of a cop shooting a black guy after a traffic stop (the guy thankfully wasn't killed).

The cop had asked him to fetch his license and what not, and as the man started to reach into his car to grab his wallet and documentation, the cop yelled "he's got a gun!" and started shooting at him...I think hitting him a couple times. What was particularly disturbing for me about the incident was that the man was eagerly trying to be co-operative and he was shot for it. It really drives home the point that there really isn't anything I can do to completely avoid the possibility of being randomly killed by a racist, trigger-happy pig. And the cop won't have to be explicitly racist or be running around looking to kill a black guy...all they need is to unconsciously feel that my life is less valuable (less valuable than theirs)...which leads to taking unnecessary drastic measures.

A cop doesn't have to even need to believe that blacks are generally more dangerous in order to self-justify shooting in that situation...all he/she needs to believe is that black lives are not as important. That cop was nervous about what the guy was reaching for and made an unconscious racist calculation about the respective values of his life and the black guy's life and decided it was worth it to start shooting....and ask questions later. If he was dealing with a white person, and he was nervous about what they were reaching for, he would be less likely to decide to just start shooting....based on the racist calculations being made under duress. Just like how we know that the cops would have probably made different decisions if Tamir Rice had been a white child...based on the perceived value of a white kid's life compared to a black kid's. This means that every damn cop with unexamined racist attitudes regarding the value of black life (which is probably all cops) is potentially a racist killer when under some duress and/or have to make a split second decision. Based on the relative perceived value of black life to white life, a cop is more likely to choose lethal force as a solution in potentially dangerous situations when dealing with a black person compared to a white person.

I mention this as an example of how the problem of racism goes way deeper than ignorance....deeper than irrational fear and stereotypes. Our beliefs about the relative values of lives of various members of society are not "false" beliefs in a strict sense. People aren't racist because they hold ignorant/false beliefs. We are racist because we have a fucked up value system. And there are numerous aspects that make up a value system that have nothing to do with facts/truths. The actual false beliefs and stereotypes are merely justifications and excuses for maintaining this value system.