"Intellectuals"
21 Oct 2012, 10:41 pm
Berlin wrote:
blackelk wrote:
Why do you keep using "usefulness" as a key criteria?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
I agree. There is no degree or level of intelligence cutoff that makes one ipso-facto an intellectual.
I mean if we add anybody with a degree in science and engineering, plus all holders of master's degree or higher in other subjects, plus physicians, dentists, lawyers etc. - we're talking a group than what is normally referred to as intellectuals.
(BTW apparently engineers are quite prominent in the intelligent design movement! It's a qualification that's ultimately irrelevant on the question of evolution by natural selection but much of the public thinks that engineers are "scientists" and the opinion of one "scientist" is as good as another.)
I think it was the Astronomer Royale of England who said, "Your average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than your average auto mechanic."
You know where else engineers play a prominent role? As "terrorists". Bin Laden has a background in engineering, the leader of the hijackers, Mohammad Atta has an engineering degree. As does the true mastermind of 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Al Qaeda's now #1, and #2 under Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri is a physician. That's Al Qaeda's starting lineup right there. All educated in the sciences. Don't forget that Ahmadinejad is an engineer is as well.
Which brings up an interesting question. Is Bin Laden an intellectual? He seems pretty intelligent, philosophical and has interest in many subjects and world affairs. I would actually consider him more of an intellectual than most science/engineering majors.
More on engineers:
Quote:
Each month, Gambetta and Hertog’s database grows. Last December, Abdulmutallab’s attempt over Detroit. In February, Joseph Andrew Stack, a software engineer, crashed his plane into I.R.S. offices in Austin, Tex. In March, John Patrick Bedell, an engineering grad student, opened fire at an entrance to the Pentagon. In early May, Faisal Shahzad (bachelor of science in computer science and engineering) was arrested at Kennedy Airport for a failed attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square. Also in May, Faiz Mohammad, a civil engineer, was caught at Karachi’s airport with batteries and an electrical circuit hidden in his shoes. And going back, of the 9/11 conspirators who had been educated beyond high school, eight studied engineering. As this list suggests, the phenomenon isn’t confined to Muslims or Middle Easterners.
Quote:
For their recent study, the two men collected records on 404 men who belonged to violent Islamist groups active over the past few decades (some in jail, some not). Had those groups reflected the working-age populations of their countries, engineers would have made up about 3.5 percent of the membership. Instead, nearly 20 percent of the militants had engineering degrees. When Gambetta and Hertog looked at only the militants whose education was known for certain to have gone beyond high school, close to half (44 percent) had trained in engineering. Among those with advanced degrees in the militants’ homelands, only 18 percent are engineers.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magaz ... .html?_r=0
_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?
22 Oct 2012, 9:48 am
Quote:
Definition of INTELLECTUAL
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
I'm seeing a pattern here. It appears most right-tards prefer definition 1 while left-tards like me prefer definition 2. The "Big Five" personality correlation studies come to mind.
22 Oct 2012, 10:31 am
blackelk wrote:
Berlin wrote:
blackelk wrote:
Why do you keep using "usefulness" as a key criteria?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
I agree. There is no degree or level of intelligence cutoff that makes one ipso-facto an intellectual.
I mean if we add anybody with a degree in science and engineering, plus all holders of master's degree or higher in other subjects, plus physicians, dentists, lawyers etc. - we're talking a group than what is normally referred to as intellectuals.
(BTW apparently engineers are quite prominent in the intelligent design movement! It's a qualification that's ultimately irrelevant on the question of evolution by natural selection but much of the public thinks that engineers are "scientists" and the opinion of one "scientist" is as good as another.)
I think it was the Astronomer Royale of England who said, "Your average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than your average auto mechanic."
You know where else engineers play a prominent role? As "terrorists". Bin Laden has a background in engineering, the leader of the hijackers, Mohammad Atta has an engineering degree. As does the true mastermind of 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Al Qaeda's now #1, and #2 under Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri is a physician. That's Al Qaeda's starting lineup right there. All educated in the sciences. Don't forget that Ahmadinejad is an engineer is as well.
Which brings up an interesting question. Is Bin Laden an intellectual? He seems pretty intelligent, philosophical and has interest in many subjects and world affairs. I would actually consider him more of an intellectual than most science/engineering majors.
More on engineers:
Quote:
Each month, Gambetta and Hertog’s database grows. Last December, Abdulmutallab’s attempt over Detroit. In February, Joseph Andrew Stack, a software engineer, crashed his plane into I.R.S. offices in Austin, Tex. In March, John Patrick Bedell, an engineering grad student, opened fire at an entrance to the Pentagon. In early May, Faisal Shahzad (bachelor of science in computer science and engineering) was arrested at Kennedy Airport for a failed attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square. Also in May, Faiz Mohammad, a civil engineer, was caught at Karachi’s airport with batteries and an electrical circuit hidden in his shoes. And going back, of the 9/11 conspirators who had been educated beyond high school, eight studied engineering. As this list suggests, the phenomenon isn’t confined to Muslims or Middle Easterners.
Quote:
For their recent study, the two men collected records on 404 men who belonged to violent Islamist groups active over the past few decades (some in jail, some not). Had those groups reflected the working-age populations of their countries, engineers would have made up about 3.5 percent of the membership. Instead, nearly 20 percent of the militants had engineering degrees. When Gambetta and Hertog looked at only the militants whose education was known for certain to have gone beyond high school, close to half (44 percent) had trained in engineering. Among those with advanced degrees in the militants’ homelands, only 18 percent are engineers.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magaz ... .html?_r=0
That's interesting. It's strange though as I am left-leaning in my sentiments but at the same time I always struggled with "humanities" courses. If I have to take a test I prefer to answer questions that have a well-defined answer that can objectively determined to be either correct or incorrect. I never liked getting papers back with red ink telling me my interpretation of some literature was "wrong" when the supposedly correct interpretation was rather loose and subjective in my mind. I also always had a horrible case of writers block when forced into writing some essay on a topic I could care less about. I ended up getting a B or C in some humanities classes because I just couldn't get myself to finish certain assignments I detested. So I consider myself more of a "science" person than a "humanities" person. On the other hand in classes I was always more in the "why" aspect of a topic and detested being told to commit certain facts to memory or offered a lousy explanation because "you'll have to wait till graduate school to get the full story". I found most engineering students were not particularly curious or interested in rigorous mathematical reasoning. They are more interested in being able to apply certain physical and/or mathematical rules than in knowing where the rules came from in the first place.
22 Oct 2012, 4:05 pm
marshall wrote:
Quote:
Definition of INTELLECTUAL
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
I'm seeing a pattern here. It appears most right-tards prefer definition 1 while left-tards like me prefer definition 2. The "Big Five" personality correlation studies come to mind.
It is interesting. I think it's because both sides would agree that "core" intellectuals (i.e. academics, writers, etc.) lean more left than right. But since the right has no interest in conceding that the left is thus more "intellectual" than the right, the right tries to shift the definition of intellectuals to mean "smart people."
Interestingly there's a significant political difference between scientists and engineers - with scientists being much more left-wing. They're closer to those in the humanities and social scientists than they are to engineers in fact.
.
22 Oct 2012, 4:19 pm
marshall wrote:
blackelk wrote:
Berlin wrote:
blackelk wrote:
Why do you keep using "usefulness" as a key criteria?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
Monkey see monkey do. Learning and applying knowledge does not make one an intellectual. Even the lowliest professions learn and apply knowledge in their jobs.
The guy I'm referring to is about as deep as a puddle, that's why he is not an intellectual, and that's also why he supports Palin. Do you consider Palin an intellectual?
I agree. There is no degree or level of intelligence cutoff that makes one ipso-facto an intellectual.
I mean if we add anybody with a degree in science and engineering, plus all holders of master's degree or higher in other subjects, plus physicians, dentists, lawyers etc. - we're talking a group than what is normally referred to as intellectuals.
(BTW apparently engineers are quite prominent in the intelligent design movement! It's a qualification that's ultimately irrelevant on the question of evolution by natural selection but much of the public thinks that engineers are "scientists" and the opinion of one "scientist" is as good as another.)
I think it was the Astronomer Royale of England who said, "Your average quantum mechanic is no more philosophical than your average auto mechanic."
You know where else engineers play a prominent role? As "terrorists". Bin Laden has a background in engineering, the leader of the hijackers, Mohammad Atta has an engineering degree. As does the true mastermind of 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Al Qaeda's now #1, and #2 under Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri is a physician. That's Al Qaeda's starting lineup right there. All educated in the sciences. Don't forget that Ahmadinejad is an engineer is as well.
Which brings up an interesting question. Is Bin Laden an intellectual? He seems pretty intelligent, philosophical and has interest in many subjects and world affairs. I would actually consider him more of an intellectual than most science/engineering majors.
More on engineers:
Quote:
Each month, Gambetta and Hertog’s database grows. Last December, Abdulmutallab’s attempt over Detroit. In February, Joseph Andrew Stack, a software engineer, crashed his plane into I.R.S. offices in Austin, Tex. In March, John Patrick Bedell, an engineering grad student, opened fire at an entrance to the Pentagon. In early May, Faisal Shahzad (bachelor of science in computer science and engineering) was arrested at Kennedy Airport for a failed attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square. Also in May, Faiz Mohammad, a civil engineer, was caught at Karachi’s airport with batteries and an electrical circuit hidden in his shoes. And going back, of the 9/11 conspirators who had been educated beyond high school, eight studied engineering. As this list suggests, the phenomenon isn’t confined to Muslims or Middle Easterners.
Quote:
For their recent study, the two men collected records on 404 men who belonged to violent Islamist groups active over the past few decades (some in jail, some not). Had those groups reflected the working-age populations of their countries, engineers would have made up about 3.5 percent of the membership. Instead, nearly 20 percent of the militants had engineering degrees. When Gambetta and Hertog looked at only the militants whose education was known for certain to have gone beyond high school, close to half (44 percent) had trained in engineering. Among those with advanced degrees in the militants’ homelands, only 18 percent are engineers.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
Among Communists, anarchists and other groups whose shining ideal lies in the future, the researchers found almost no engineers. Yet these organizations mastered the same technical skills as the right-wingers. Between 1970 and 1978, for instance, the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany staged kidnappings, assassinations, bank robberies and bombings. Seventeen of its members had college or graduate degrees, mostly in law or the humanities. Not one studied engineering.
The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions — “the combination of a sharp mind with a loyal acceptance of authority.” Do people become engineers because they are this way? Or does engineering work shape them? It’s probably a feedback loop of both, Gambetta says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magaz ... .html?_r=0
That's interesting. It's strange though as I am left-leaning in my sentiments but at the same time I always struggled with "humanities" courses. If I have to take a test I prefer to answer questions that have a well-defined answer that can objectively determined to be either correct or incorrect. I never liked getting papers back with red ink telling me my interpretation of some literature was "wrong" when the supposedly correct interpretation was rather loose and subjective in my mind. I also always had a horrible case of writers block when forced into writing some essay on a topic I could care less about. I ended up getting a B or C in some humanities classes because I just couldn't get myself to finish certain assignments I detested. So I consider myself more of a "science" person than a "humanities" person. On the other hand in classes I was always more in the "why" aspect of a topic and detested being told to commit certain facts to memory or offered a lousy explanation because "you'll have to wait till graduate school to get the full story". I found most engineering students were not particularly curious or interested in rigorous mathematical reasoning. They are more interested in being able to apply certain physical and/or mathematical rules than in knowing where the rules came from in the first place.
Yes, exactly. They simply see the knowledge as a means to and, as useful. They don't love it or are fascinated by it. or are curious about it beyond that. I think curiosity is a major ingredient of being an intellectual.
I agree with the 2A definition for sure. Intellectualism is not just technical mastery.
_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?
22 Oct 2012, 6:51 pm
Berlin wrote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
Definition of INTELLECTUAL
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
I'm seeing a pattern here. It appears most right-tards prefer definition 1 while left-tards like me prefer definition 2. The "Big Five" personality correlation studies come to mind.
It is interesting. I think it's because both sides would agree that "core" intellectuals (i.e. academics, writers, etc.) lean more left than right. But since the right has no interest in conceding that the left is thus more "intellectual" than the right, the right tries to shift the definition of intellectuals to mean "smart people."
Interestingly there's a significant political difference between scientists and engineers - with scientists being much more left-wing. They're closer to those in the humanities and social scientists than they are to engineers in fact.
.
In my experience most physical scientists don't talk much about politics, though I'd say most are center-left. Most are solid pragmatists, not radicals. The social sciences tend to have some more far out leftists. The exception is economics where there are a lot of pretty hardcore right-libertarians as well as liberals.
22 Oct 2012, 7:40 pm
JNathanK wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Feelings are nice, but they do not solve problems.
I disagree, Intuition can play a role in problem solving other than just strict logical and reasoning faculties.Intellect, emotion, intuition, and action are four distinctly separate states. While they may overlap, they each serve a different purpose.
Ultimately, it is action that solves problems in the physical world, not thought, not emotion, and not intuition.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
22 Oct 2012, 9:58 pm
Yes, Berlin, I agree. They get cranky when their untapped brilliance sits idly unused and/or unasked for, and source most of their meaning/existence from politics or political movements, it seems, often taking time out of a class for statistics or ethics to explain Gender Roles, trickle down economics, or our unethical food culture.
Someone who revals in the study of 17th century german literature isn't necessarily an intellectual... but if they marry it to the current zeitgeist, and connect it to something potentially political, then yes, they are an intellectual. Women studies faculty members and english departments usually are intellectuals, the business schools and engineering tend not to be, but then again, it is the positions and observance of those positions that make you one, as well as the acknowledgment of it amongst the ranks of the faithful...
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
23 Oct 2012, 3:21 am
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Someone who revals in the study of 17th century german literature isn't
necessarily an intellectual...
necessarily an intellectual...
I would think they usually are.
Quote:
Women studies faculty members and english departments usually are intellectuals, the business schools and engineering tend not to be, but then again, it is the positions and observance of those positions that make you one, as well as the acknowledgment of it amongst the ranks of the faithful...
I would consider engineering *professors* to be so, but what percentage of engineers hold Ph.D.'s and/or teach in universities? A much, much smaller proportion than natural scientists.
23 Oct 2012, 11:49 am
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Anyway. This debate is pointless. It is a battle of definitions.
Every debate on WP.net is. I could post a thread entitled "Liberals are a**holes" and half the posts in the thread would be about how I define, "Liberal", "are" and "a**holes".
How about, "opinionated people who don't agree with me are a**holes". That's what it really comes down to. The only way to not appear an a**hole to someone else in the world is to keep quit and mind your own business. But even that isn't completely fool proof, you can be an a**hole to someone without saying a word just by owning certain things, dressing yourself a certain way, or having a certain posture or tone of voice.
How about not derailing a point for once?
I wouldn't bother "derailing" your point if you had a half-way interesting point in the first place.
It's quite narcissistic of you to put yourself in the position of only judge on what is interesting and not. I do find it funny that the two people who have called me a narcissist on this board, are the two most ego-driven people I've encountered on it.
Quote:
Marshall wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier if this was a typical un-moderated NT forum. Then instead of arguing over the definitions of "Liberal", "are", and "a**holes", you'd have a thread that's 100% cheap point scoring, smart-ass remarks, and personal attacks, with the occasional talk of wanting to meet someone in a dark alley so you can pound them unconscious or spit on them as you watch them die.
I'd be happier if people used words the way they are defined in a dictionary, not in the way they've defined them in their heads, at that specific moment, for a specific argument in order to not appear completely illogical.
I'm not being paid to make you happier. I don't sell narcissistic supply for free.
Quote:
Secondly, like most of the threads here on WP doesn't break down to cheap point scoring and smart-ass remarks.
It's hard to resist after a while with people like you.[/quote]
Is it really narcissistic (which does seem to be the fall fashion to replace fascist, racist or misogynist as a label for people you disagree with) to insist upon that if an alternate definition hasn't been agreed upon, or at the very least stated, words as taken to mean what they actually mean according to a dictionary?
I'm tempted to make smart ass remarks, correct spelling and grammar, sentence structure, lack of rationality, lack of intelligence or countless other things, but for the most part I let it don't. Mostly because I realize that over time an attitude such as yours will lead to people who disagree with the leftist mafia leaving the board, which will leave PPR discussions along the lines of;
"Which of the 40 strains of feminism rocks the most"
"Social democracy or Socialism?"
Which will fuel further smart ass remarks that drive the community even more apart, until a little core that agree on everything are left in their group-think of what little special snowflakes each one of them is.
23 Oct 2012, 12:11 pm
Fnord wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Feelings are nice, but they do not solve problems.
I disagree, Intuition can play a role in problem solving other than just strict logical and reasoning faculties.Intellect, emotion, intuition, and action are four distinctly separate states. While they may overlap, they each serve a different purpose.
Ultimately, it is action that solves problems in the physical world, not thought, not emotion, and not intuition.
I partly agree with the first. However, intuition and intellect are closely related. Intuition is really nothing more than subconscious intellect. I don't think intuition is truly a "feeling". We say "feel in our gut" when we can't fill in all the logical steps but have a subconscious hunch. This may or may not have anything to do with an emotional bias.
I'd also say that action is more closely tied to emotion than intellect. There are very few things in life where we can have certain knowledge of where a path will lead. Life is inherently difficult to predict and to take a risk requires emotion. Without emotion people would be in a state of constant decision paralysis.
I do think that most people have trouble differentiating between descriptive and prescriptive modes of thought or argument and this can lead to undetected emotional bias. The problem is even people who claim to be arguing based purely on reason or fact are deluded when they are throwing up prescriptive values as if they were descriptive (i.e. claiming that "moral truths" must come from some higher authority or from "nature").
23 Oct 2012, 12:52 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Yes, Berlin, I agree. They get cranky when their untapped brilliance sits idly unused and/or unasked for, and source most of their meaning/existence from politics or political movements, it seems, often taking time out of a class for statistics or ethics to explain Gender Roles, trickle down economics, or our unethical food culture.
Someone who revals in the study of 17th century german literature isn't necessarily an intellectual... but if they marry it to the current zeitgeist, and connect it to something potentially political, then yes, they are an intellectual. Women studies faculty members and english departments usually are intellectuals, the business schools and engineering tend not to be, but then again, it is the positions and observance of those positions that make you one, as well as the acknowledgment of it amongst the ranks of the faithful...
Someone who revals in the study of 17th century german literature isn't necessarily an intellectual... but if they marry it to the current zeitgeist, and connect it to something potentially political, then yes, they are an intellectual. Women studies faculty members and english departments usually are intellectuals, the business schools and engineering tend not to be, but then again, it is the positions and observance of those positions that make you one, as well as the acknowledgment of it amongst the ranks of the faithful...
What this really comes down to is intelligent right-leaning people feel lonely and butt-hurt because the majority of academia is left-leaning. If you're right-leaning I don't see what the point is in getting a useless degree in the humanities or social sciences. You'll most likely just end up flipping burgers anyways. Get a degree in one of the hard sciences instead. You'll get plenty of intellectual stimulation without any unasked for political opinions being forced down your throat. Also, move out of Portland. It's a place people go to live to get away from mainstream conservative American culture. I think maybe this country should just be split in half and everyone can go move to live with like-minded people so that there's no more whining.
23 Oct 2012, 1:16 pm
Berlin wrote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
Definition of INTELLECTUAL
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
1
a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>
2
a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>
I'm seeing a pattern here. It appears most right-tards prefer definition 1 while left-tards like me prefer definition 2. The "Big Five" personality correlation studies come to mind.
It is interesting. I think it's because both sides would agree that "core" intellectuals (i.e. academics, writers, etc.) lean more left than right. But since the right has no interest in conceding that the left is thus more "intellectual" than the right, the right tries to shift the definition of intellectuals to mean "smart people."
Interestingly there's a significant political difference between scientists and engineers - with scientists being much more left-wing. They're closer to those in the humanities and social scientists than they are to engineers in fact.
.
If we include speculation and creative use of the intellect, the right clearly wins due to having all the intelligent design people and Christians.
I have noticed however, that the longer a person has spent at an academic institution (and thus sheltered away from real life) the higher the odds are of them being leftist. It's somewhat demonstrated in the divide amongst academic economists and "real world" economists in how to deal with the financial crisis.
We would be able to notice this more in society, but as I told a guy this morning, "I don't care of Russell's critique of Hegel was largely superfluous given the criticisms of Hegel by Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, get me my coffee please". (This is a joke, I adore philosophy, even with it's lack of practical application and limited earnings potential)
23 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Anyway. This debate is pointless. It is a battle of definitions.
Every debate on WP.net is. I could post a thread entitled "Liberals are a**holes" and half the posts in the thread would be about how I define, "Liberal", "are" and "a**holes".
How about, "opinionated people who don't agree with me are a**holes". That's what it really comes down to. The only way to not appear an a**hole to someone else in the world is to keep quit and mind your own business. But even that isn't completely fool proof, you can be an a**hole to someone without saying a word just by owning certain things, dressing yourself a certain way, or having a certain posture or tone of voice.
How about not derailing a point for once?
I wouldn't bother "derailing" your point if you had a half-way interesting point in the first place.
It's quite narcissistic of you to put yourself in the position of only judge on what is interesting and not. I do find it funny that the two people who have called me a narcissist on this board, are the two most ego-driven people I've encountered on it.
You started it. You basically dissed this whole topic, remember? You also frequently accuse people who have subjective political opinions contrary to yours as being "illogical", "irrational", or "dumb".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Marshall wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier if this was a typical un-moderated NT forum. Then instead of arguing over the definitions of "Liberal", "are", and "a**holes", you'd have a thread that's 100% cheap point scoring, smart-ass remarks, and personal attacks, with the occasional talk of wanting to meet someone in a dark alley so you can pound them unconscious or spit on them as you watch them die.
I'd be happier if people used words the way they are defined in a dictionary, not in the way they've defined them in their heads, at that specific moment, for a specific argument in order to not appear completely illogical.
I'm not being paid to make you happier. I don't sell narcissistic supply for free.
Quote:
Secondly, like most of the threads here on WP doesn't break down to cheap point scoring and smart-ass remarks.
It's hard to resist after a while with people like you.
Is it really narcissistic (which does seem to be the fall fashion to replace fascist, racist or misogynist as a label for people you disagree with) to insist upon that if an alternate definition hasn't been agreed upon, or at the very least stated, words as taken to mean what they actually mean according to a dictionary?
I already posted one dictionary definition. Here's another for the noun version of the word...
noun
6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.
What? There are multiple definitions? How can that be? Definitions in the real world don't conform to my rigid black-and-white worldview that places everything in rigid compartments?
Quote:
I'm tempted to make smart ass remarks, correct spelling and grammar, sentence structure, lack of rationality, lack of intelligence or countless other things, but for the most part I let it don't. Mostly because I realize that over time an attitude such as yours will lead to people who disagree with the leftist mafia leaving the board, which will leave PPR discussions along the lines of;
"Which of the 40 strains of feminism rocks the most"
"Social democracy or Socialism?"
"Which of the 40 strains of feminism rocks the most"
"Social democracy or Socialism?"
What's stopping you from leaving? The right is so persecuted and under-represented, as an illogical fruity liberal with no common sense my heart must bleed for you.
Quote:
Which will fuel further smart ass remarks that drive the community even more apart, until a little core that agree on everything are left in their group-think of what little special snowflakes each one of them is.
People can't ever come to the same values without being accused of group-think by someone who disagrees. Screw it.
Last edited by marshall on 23 Oct 2012, 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 Oct 2012, 2:01 pm
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Anyway. This debate is pointless. It is a battle of definitions.
Every debate on WP.net is. I could post a thread entitled "Liberals are a**holes" and half the posts in the thread would be about how I define, "Liberal", "are" and "a**holes".
How about, "opinionated people who don't agree with me are a**holes". That's what it really comes down to. The only way to not appear an a**hole to someone else in the world is to keep quit and mind your own business. But even that isn't completely fool proof, you can be an a**hole to someone without saying a word just by owning certain things, dressing yourself a certain way, or having a certain posture or tone of voice.
How about not derailing a point for once?
I wouldn't bother "derailing" your point if you had a half-way interesting point in the first place.
It's quite narcissistic of you to put yourself in the position of only judge on what is interesting and not. I do find it funny that the two people who have called me a narcissist on this board, are the two most ego-driven people I've encountered on it.
You started it. You basically dissed this whole topic, remember? You also frequently accuse people who have subjective political opinions contrary to yours as being "illogical", "irrational", or "dumb".
Now now, I only do that once they've clearly demonstrated that their political opinions cannot be logically argued in favor for, remain based in their emotions not in reason (thus irrational), or that they lack the knowledge to adequately back them up (dumb).
marshall wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Marshall wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier if this was a typical un-moderated NT forum. Then instead of arguing over the definitions of "Liberal", "are", and "a**holes", you'd have a thread that's 100% cheap point scoring, smart-ass remarks, and personal attacks, with the occasional talk of wanting to meet someone in a dark alley so you can pound them unconscious or spit on them as you watch them die.
I'd be happier if people used words the way they are defined in a dictionary, not in the way they've defined them in their heads, at that specific moment, for a specific argument in order to not appear completely illogical.
I'm not being paid to make you happier. I don't sell narcissistic supply for free.
Quote:
Secondly, like most of the threads here on WP doesn't break down to cheap point scoring and smart-ass remarks.
It's hard to resist after a while with people like you.
Is it really narcissistic (which does seem to be the fall fashion to replace fascist, racist or misogynist as a label for people you disagree with) to insist upon that if an alternate definition hasn't been agreed upon, or at the very least stated, words as taken to mean what they actually mean according to a dictionary?
I already posted one dictionary definition. Here's another for the noun version of the word...
noun
6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.
What? There are multiple definitions? How can that be? Definitions in the real world don't conform to my rigid black-and-white worldview that places everything in rigid compartments?
I didn't really argue against your definition did I? Multiple dictionary definitions are fine, as long as it's clear which one is being used at a given time and when the usage ceases or changes.
However, alternating definitions without it being clear and redefining words is not.
marshall wrote:
Quote:
I'm tempted to make smart ass remarks, correct spelling and grammar, sentence structure, lack of rationality, lack of intelligence or countless other things, but for the most part I let it don't. Mostly because I realize that over time an attitude such as yours will lead to people who disagree with the leftist mafia leaving the board, which will leave PPR discussions along the lines of;
"Which of the 40 strains of feminism rocks the most"
"Social democracy or Socialism?"
"Which of the 40 strains of feminism rocks the most"
"Social democracy or Socialism?"
What's stopping you from leaving? The right is so persecuted and under-represented, as illogical fruity liberal with no common sense my heart must bleed for you.
Nice way of not getting the point, which was that if people who disagree with you are having their posts and threads trolled by you, they will stop coming on the forum, thus making it a less "fun" place to discuss things. Just in the last 6 months I've noticed that the posters that post substance, that carefully construct their posts and who favor argument over assertion are greatly diminished.
marshall wrote:
Quote:
Which will fuel further smart ass remarks that drive the community even more apart, until a little core that agree on everything are left in their group-think of what little special snowflakes each one of them is.
People can't ever come to the same values without being accused of group-think by someone who disagrees. Screw it.
I wouldn't be accusing you of group think if it wasn't for the fact that some of you are becoming so similar that most of the time I have no idea who I'm having a discussion with. There is a reason why I tend to get you guys and ladies confused. It's because you stand out, like a grain of sand in the Sahara.
