Comments on: Why Intellectuals Prize the Intellect

By: Tierney

Tierney — Sat, 02 Apr 2005 02:27:19 +0000

“Oh, and another point: The smartest of college professors — those in the most rigorous fields, such as engineering and physical sciences — tend to be the least liberal.”
The quote that you cited does not support such an interpretation, unless you believe that the applied sciences are more rigorous than the pure sciences. Not to mention the example of business, which, if we’re going by your ludicrous linear scale of “smartness”, would probably be below any of the sciences.

By: Roy W. Wright

Roy W. Wright — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:05:13 +0000

So Klein’s assertion that professors are liberals because they’re smarter is wrong and unfair.

Oh, and another point: The smartest of college professors — those in the most rigorous fields, such as engineering and physical sciences — tend to be the least liberal.

“Within American higher education there are disciplines whose members are predominantly leftist and liberal in orientation, some whose members are generally middle-of-the-road politically, and some where conservative tendencies dominate… The social sciences are the most liberal, followed by the humanities, law, and the fine arts. Several areas occupy a middle ground: physical sciences, biological sciences, education, and medicine. Business, engineering, and ‘other applied fields’ are generally conservative.” — From the journal Social Forces, March 1993, article titled “The Politics of the Professors: Self-Identifications.”

By: Roy W. Wright

Roy W. Wright — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:54:57 +0000

Which skill is actually more highly valued? Market says: knowing Kant. It may be inefficient, but the "market" tells us quite strongly which skill is more highly regarded.

The system of higher education in America is hardly subject to market behavior. I imagine if it were, those "intellectuals" who spend a great deal of time on things like Kant's work would find it vastly more difficult to find employment.

By: Joust The Facts

Joust The Facts — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:44:27 +0000

Profs Gone Wild, From Iowahawk

Iowahawk has done it again.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:08:12 +0000

Nash, your statement, “identifying with the Democratic Party means that people assume you agree with Michael Moore” is not the case. Michael Moore is equivalent to, maybe, Ann Coulter. We’re not talking about some media whore here when we say that identifying with Republicans is intellectually embarrassing. Paul mentioned Randall Terry, but Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and President Bush are equally guilty in pushing incoherent ignorance on economics, science and medicine, to name a few things. These are the official public leaders and policymakers of the party we’re talking about.

By: Gregory Travis

Gregory Travis — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:26:45 +0000

Posner is only the most distinguished commenter to point out that academia is full of social misfits.
Well to be expected. Social “misfitness” is highly correlated with intelligence.
More to the point, professors are rewarded less for results and more for arcane matters.
Insertion of personal bias as to what does and what does not constitute “results” and the inherent virtue of “results” irrespective of what those “results” consist.
A gas station manager may not know Kant, but he does know how to meet payroll
Anyone who knows how to pay a bill “knows how to meet payroll.” Payroll is an expense, like a mortgage, a gas bill, or a credit card statement. There’s nothing special about being able to “meet payroll” anymore than being able to “meet your mortgage” is special.
greg

By: erico

erico — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:21:25 +0000

The world is "multivalent", complex, shaded in grays. The intellect tries to remain open to the world's complexities and at the same time to account for what is substantial and what is not. 'Intellectuals' by this definition try to give better and better accounts of the world as more information is available, as medical advances develop. However, in our actions the world is binary. Either you may pull the feeding tube, or you may not. Either you support the decision to pull, or you do not. I suggest that political activists can both take a strong position on a binary choice and still recognize the complexity of the world. People who wind up on opposing sides of the binary choice tend to villainize the other side, with varying degrees of fairness. This give rise to the possibility that some may be right for the wrong reasons, and some may be wrong for the right reasons. One even may have to hold one's nose, as it were, and agree with a pro-life advocate, in the specific case of Terri Schiavo. That is to say, to not be swept up in the rhetoric, the passions, the tendency to scapegoat, and to support the feeding of Terri.

By: eb

eb — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:22:27 +0000

Brad, I think Paul is speaking of his own experience as a conservative intellectual here. If he were to bail, where would he go?

Since when do you have to be a member of, or even affiliated with, any political party? Independents – and independent moderates, who are not necessarily the same – do exist (along with people with only weak party affiliations), though they tend to be ignored in debates over intellectuals and politics.
I’m not on the left, not on the right, not a libertarian of any kind, not sure I’d ever want to be a Democrat, pretty sure I don’t want to be a Republican if that party remains as it is today. Would I like to join a party? – Of course. But, especially since I am not an activist, I can’t see a reason to join any of the ones now in existence.

By: jp

jp — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:52:57 +0000

Hang on – I’m provisionally taking my comment back until I can think it through. Blast my typing before thinking!

By: jp

jp — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:47:06 +0000

Klein simply says informed & thoughtful. It’s several steps too far to claim that this entails a “vantage-point epistemology”. In fact, I could just as easily be an epistemological nihilist and still recognize that some people are more thoughtful or well-informed (which I read as “educated”) than others. Accordingly, I think your counter-argument largely misses the mark.