Why do a lot of NTs seem to hate intellectuals?

Post Reply New Topic

That's very interesting. Sounds plausible.

That makes sense, since most PEOPLE are not Autistic....

Before you guys get to page 4 you should probably define 'intellectual'. Intellectual is not the same thing as intelligent.

We make their heads hurt because they're not used to critical thinking, and their intellectual muscle-power is embarrassingly feeble. Nobody likes to stand next to a person who out-classes them. It's like Bones versus Spock.

On the other hand,

"allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an appeal to authority or an appeal to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her arguments"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

They can't mean us, can they?

People don't hate intellectualism as much as they hate an off-putting personality. I'd go f*****g nuts if I ever ended up dating someone like Zoey from The Dictator. And no, it's not because I'd feel threatened by her intellect.

If anything, it's fanaticism that I find threatening. Some people are so fanatical about religion and politics that the ketchup they dip their goddamn fries in reminds them of the dying women and children in Afghanistan . They just CAN'T change the subject no matter what the time and place is.

You know you're a pseudo-intellectual when you challenge everyone's intellect but your own. Why should it be any surprise that people hate arrogance?

Now, we all know anti-intellectualism is prevalent in society. But let's not give pseudo-intellectualism a free pass just because of its lofty ideals.

If I were Amish, I would feel oppressed because Yoda Stolzfus would give me a spanking unless I finished all my farm chores. I would rather spend my time having intellectual discussions but that seems to be forbidden.

It's not "holier than thou" at all to request that someone uses quotes, but your response was certainly somewhat aggressive.
The reason why that was suggested is for the simple expedient of making clear what it is your post is responding to, when it's not immediately below it.
With no indication that you're quoting someone else your post would simply give the impression of repeating what was already said.

I suggest you spend a little time experimenting with the quote and /quote tag pairs - one quick way of seeing how they're used is to examine posts containing quotes.

If you were Amish you wouldn't be posting on WP about what an oppressed intellectual you are and without fully understanding the concept behind your own question. It's one thing to be an intellectual who plots the french revolution or the rise of communism, and quite another thing to torture people with incessant rambling about abstract topics they don't care about and/or don't agree with. I'd say your rambling about the Amish would put you in the latter category. Maybe people aren't put off by your intellect as much as your bigotry.

NTs love people who are intellectual with celebrities, fashion, certain sports, alcohol, money, certain TV programmes, current events, olympic events, and all those other common social topics. And a lot don't mind people talking about books, like novels (romance, horror, et cetera). I read somewhere in a magazine that a high percentage of adults read a book in bed before they go to sleep, not always necessarily a magazine, (I hate it when Aspies believe that NTs never read any books). And I do know some NTs who collect fact books like guinness book of world records books, or even encyclopedias that they have just got over the years (you don't know when one will come in handy). Even NTs can be interested in scientific facts. I remember when I was 10 the teacher was telling the whole class about the universe and beyond, and everybody in the whole class sat really still, listening as though they were really interested, nobody fidgited or whispered, or even knew what the time was until the bell rang at home time. That was the first time the whole class had stayed quiet for 2 hours straight.

But I know what you mean. NTs may be interested in intellectual things to a degree, but seem to hate people who have extremely high IQ and know all about scientific knowledge. I suppose you can get more socially accepted if you know a lot about scientific or math facts AND all the social knowledge stuff like celebrities and all of that stuff, but if you don't know anything about anything I listed in the first sentence of this post, but know a lot about facts like maths, science, and all of that, then you don't get socially accepted. I will never know why. It's a sad world really.

Intellectual with alcohol?

Absolutely! (especially if you like Absolut). You should hear oenophiles go on about wine. And it's not just wine. I have a friend who brews his own beer and he is deep into the craft, science and history of it. Literally anything can be the focus of intellectual curiosity.

I see intellectualism as more the approach rather than the specific things analyzed.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ("Intellectual"):

1a : of or relating to the intellect or its use
1b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational
1c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>

2a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
2b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>

In other words, a intelligent and reasonable person.

That's a good start. Do you think NTs hate intelligent and reasonable people? Can an engineer be intellectual? A doctor? A pastor? Best selling author? Society categorizes intellectuals into groups to be loved or hated. How society defines intellectuals goes far beyond a generic dictionary definition. When people say intellectual the word can be used to describe a person's behavior but they also use it to describe a person's class.

Just because somebody uses their intellect doesn't mean they are intelligent. Can an unintelligent person be an intellectual?

Alls I know is they make damn good bread. And cookies!

of course not





They can, though it's not a job requirement. Anybody can be an intellectual since "study, reflection and speculation " (per the definition) can be done even if you aren't specifically paid for it. And likewise a person can do their job with little of those things too.




So true. It seems that the colloquial use of intellectual goes beyond that dictionary definition and means people who manipulate ideas as their profession: college professors, people in think tanks, policy wonks (insofar as they don't have to live with the results of the policies they think up) and certain authors.



Yes. I think Forrest Gump is a fiction example. It seems to be more a style of thinking (still going by the dictionary definition) than something dictated absolutely by IQ.

A society can be anti-intellectual. But not all societies are (France seems to be an example of an intellectual society) so of course it is silly to claim that NTs can't form intellectual societies. If the OP hadn't made such horrid insults against the Amish it would be easier to objectively examine his claim that they are an anti-intellectual subculture. But we got caught up in the emotion of defending them. I was angered by the claim that they contribute nothing to the culture. But they contribute being curators of agrarian knowledge which is fast disappearing. This is valuable and I am greatful that they do it even though I wouldn't want to live with them (no ipod). They seem like an example of very intelligent anti-intellectual people and therefore an example of how it doesn't correlate with intelligence. It looks like they are trying to keep out all ideas that conflict with a communitarian agrarian way of life. And that's a lot of ideas. I wish the OP had said something like that instead of insults.

Why do a lot of Americans distrust intellectuals? I think much of it is a fear that people who juggle ideas without much mediating experience will come up with ideas that make their (the anti-intellectuals) life worse. It's a fear of having their lives ruined by people who come up with ideas that looked good on paper but create havoc in practice. Politicians are well aware of this fear and use it to their advantage.

Does Aspergers Syndrome push people towards the intellectual style? It clearly does. If conscious analysis is required to negotiate every social interaction, then conscious analysis becomes the default. But that doesn't make it a requirement for being an intellectual.

See - told you it's a sad world.
I've often been asked if I know what [word I never heard of is], and I say no, and they're like, ''pfft! You don't know what that is?! It's a type of alcohol!''