Talk:Anti-intellectualism/Archive 2

Beacon DF
This section is not Asian related or Anti-intellectualism related and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.172.159 (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A note on objectivity
It's worth noting here that the goal of these articles is objective examination. However, objectivity is a phenomenon of the intellect; in other words, how can one write an encyclopedia article on something that is anti-writing-an-encyclopedia-article in a way that is not critical?

Bias is a misunderstood word. We want to avoid non-substantiated bias. Bias towards fact is the definition of scholarship. In other words, while it might be biased for me to say "creationism is fiction," or "education tends to make people more liberal," they still have a place in an encyclopedia article, because those things are true. They are fact.

Reader Comments: No proof is given here on that creationism and education making people liberal can't be fact. Concrete proof needs to be given to criticizing ANYTHING as non-factual, even a flying spaghetti monster. Things are hard to prove with personal opinions such as that none of the things stated are true at all. For instance, one person may think it's a fact that all religion gets in the way of intellectual thought, whereas another person would disagree simply because of the fact that many intellectuals were part of a religion of some sort. It is best to keep hot-button topics NEUTRAL until there is a universal agreement.

Encyclopedias side with fact. It has nothing to do with how many people disagree with a fact, if they have no factual reason for disagreeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley28 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Most facts are presupposed by certain values. For example, many articles on individual persons fail to mention whether or not the person has two eyes. The inclusion of a person's hometown versus how many eyes he has cannot be defended by fact. Additionally, the inclusion of facts, or relations of facts, does not entail an article that is NPOV. Your statement that, "education tends to make people more liberal" could be written, with more facts, as "some studies conducted in liberal democracies in the 20th and 21st centuries have observed that there is a correlation between educational attainment and a person becoming more 'liberal' in his political views." Upon the inclusion of more information in the latter statement, the former statement becomes dubious, and this is exemplifies my main point. 71.231.120.183 (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Populism
I removed the references to narodnikis, peronism, etc. because this movements were not "anti-intellectual--79.169.173.22 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope to improve this page soon
The entire article reads like a mediocre senior thesis at a mediocre university. I pulled it up because I am now working on a book that includes anti-intellectualism among its topics. My extensive college notes on this subject are in storage, and I figured I would punt to Wikipedia as a shortcut. Well, I guess I instead identified an area where I might be able to contribute.

I think that once I find my notes, or do additional research for my own project, I will be able to fix some of the problems with this article. I will put it on my watchlist, I guess - I have not done much other than sporadic corrections. But I hope to adopt this article and make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raresilk (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

lede change
rm'ed "As a political adjective, 'anti-intellectual' variously describes an education system emphasising minimal academic accomplishment, and a government who formulate public policy without the advice of academics and their scholarship." for spelling, POV, lack of support, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki or consevapedia?
The section on Grammar School is just weird. Some conservative parents have an opinion towards public education, therefore Vonnegut. Seems like an attempt at a slippery slope fallacy that falls short.

Then the part about how right-wing pundits feel towards universities? Some conspiracy theory about the CPUSA and 1930s American academia. Two Canadian professors write off all of feminism as anti-intellectual. also as another user mentioned before, the part about the Peace movement is off-puting, McNamara wore glasses therefore was hated because he was an intellectual? Ignoring the fact that the peace movement was based on college campuses and pioneered by their professors (Zinn, Chomsky...), if the animosity towards McNamara had any deeper ideological basis then it was anti-technocrat.

I don't know what the article was like previously, but it looks like someone with an ideological axe to grind came in and had their way. Another user on this talk page said the article was akin to a senior thesis, I'd agree, a senior citizen's thesis. (Lenerd (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC))


 * This Seems to be the case. The article has changed a lot - but not for the better, i'm ashamed to say.

original research; narrow context; "anti-intellectualism in Mormonism"
In the 20th and 21st centuries section there is a critique of anti-intellectualism in Mormonism whose "source" is 18 selected quotes from sermons given by church leaders. The source is actually the material being critiqued, not a source that supports the critique itself. The Book of Mormon quote at the end may also be original research for similar reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.49.29 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the 20th and 21st centuries section in the critique of anti-intellectua:lism in Mormonism, there was a section saying that Anti-Intellectualism is ingrained in the Book of Mormon. This section then cited a verse from the Book of Mormon but ignored an earlier verse which tempers this statement.  In the interest of neutrality I have added the previous verse as well and made appropriate adjustments to try and make the section feel more neutral.  My changes may, or may not, need a bit more work to make them fit Wikipedia's standards, but the section felt more like an attempt to prove a bias than to report objectively.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x783czar (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

lightning rod
OMG this article is a lightning rod for every academic who has a gripe to bear. The repeated name- and picture- dropping of dictators alone is a blaring attempt at guilt of so-called anti-intellectuals by association, and as horrific an association as possible. If intellectuals have written this article, where is the balance? Where is the response to criticism right here on the talk page? But my guess is that intellectuals didn't write the article - academics did, with their usual emotional-political overtones, need for power, and obsession with sounding right even as they cloak themselves in the banner of post-modernism.216.232.242.7 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to my point about dictator-photo-dropping, what if we added the photo on the right? If would be about as neutral as stacking the article with photos of Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest we do?? Oldag07 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we purge - no pun intended ;) - a great deal of the material, especially in the latter part of the article. Most of it is completely unsourced, and presented in this "every schoolboy knows..." fashion that is, in itself, decidedly anti-intellectual and screams of OR. I'll start grinding the axes... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not for you personally, but for the writers of the article, I suggest: Have a beer, meditate on the connection among your personal thoughts, feelings, and actions, forget all about the article and look inward instead. And, to be honest, I need to do so as well. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Photo dropping++ -- Why is Joseph McCarthy's picture in this article at all??? He is not even referenced by the article, directly or indirectly.167.176.16.8 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should be written without any examples. I could re-write this article using nothing but liberal/communist examples and it would work even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.138 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation overload
Do we actually need twenty cites after "speakers have rejected the idea that one can think intellectually about a religious matter since religion is of the heart and not the mind, and that one can't explain dealings of the heart". That string of blue superscript really does break the flow quite brutally. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources quoted
Just a note, is there a reason that the quotes come from predominantly conservative sources? It would perhaps provide a more balanced picture if liberal critics of intellectualism could be quoted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgiesler (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be because the right/conservatives is/are overrepresented in anti-intellectualism. While there have been prominent left-wing anti-intellectuals, their numbers pale in comparison to those coming from the right. There is a natural correlation between conservatism and anti-intellectualism, because challenges to the status quo are likely to come from intellectuals, making them natural enemies to the conservative aim of maintaining said status quo. 62.238.249.71 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Boko Haram
Can be considered anti-intellectual in a militant way. Usually targets (western) education and knowledge. -- 213.240.90.164 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

China - please clarify "Qin Empire kept every one copy of these books" | (Oct. 2014)
Could someone please clarify what does this mean... "However, upon further inspection of Chinese historical annals like Shi Ji and Han Shu, this was not the case. The Qin Empire kept every one copy of these books in the Imperial Library; ordered that the books should be banned in public. Thus, everyone who was stashing these works were given an appointed time to submit the books to be burned; anyone who violated this command were executed."

Thanks.98.236.50.229 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Main Article Image
Can anyone verify that the main image was actually done by Thomas Nast. I cannot and I would like to see the citation. 67.244.42.35 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Street-smart vs. book-smart, and sciences vs. "arts"
Some material should be added relating to the popular American attitude of street-smart vs. book-smart, usually in a disparaging tone towards the latter, insinuating that you can't learn anything useful from books or make good use of any obscure "book-smart" fields (the whole issue of what's a actually "good use" to begin with would also be a pretty fruitful question when analyzing anti-intellectualism). Plus there's also the fact that the Anglo-American educational system makes a difference between "hard" sciences (mainly the natural sciences) and the "soft" sciences (especially the humanities), often even denying the latter the name of a science and only allowing them to call themselves "arts". If you can't objectively measure it, discretely quantify it as on-off or ones and zeroes, build weapons with it, or generally make a lot of money with it by only applying mind-numbingly mechanical rules taken from the natural sciences, it's called but an "art".

The social sciences, for example, only lately managed to evade that denigrating label of a bundle of "soft" sciences by adopting the essentialist and positivist methods of the natural sciences and/or even effectively submitting at least in parts directly to purely biologically-determinated and bio-chemical views on society and psychology, where genes, hormones, and neurology now take the place of what once where "blood" (in the meaning of familial and ethnic descent, where character traits were considered congenital and hereditary) and skull size and shape, in phrenology and eugenics. --2003:56:6D1B:C655:3418:D2A4:37E9:FDA9 (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Arab World
Shouldn't the article include Al Ghazali and how his reform of Islam affected the scientific progress in Islamic world> Wasn't the Arab world kind of anti-intellectual and anti-science after him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.83.206 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Anti-intellectualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514124954/http://www.elortiba.org:80/blargos.html to http://www.elortiba.org/blargos.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003056/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4771/1/238 to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4771/1/238

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Future sources for editing; bibliography potential; Outsider Articles to Cite - for United States (sub)section in particular
Williams, Ray. "Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America." Psychology Today. Psychology Today, 07 July 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. Niose, David. "Anti-Intellectualism Is Killing America." Psychology Today. Psychology Today, 23 June 2015. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. Berezow, Alex. "Anti-Intellectualism Is Biggest Threat to Modern Society." American Council on Science and Health. American Council on Science and Health, 26 June 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. Barry, Glenn, Dr. "Anti-Intellectual Voters in America's Heartland Ensure Abrupt Climate Collapse." EcoInternet. EcoInternet, 14 Dec. 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. Paigepietras (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Shogan, Colleen J. “Anti-Intellectualism in the Modern Presidency: A Republican Populism.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 5, no. 2, 2007, pp. 295–303. www.jstor.org/stable/20446425.
 * CLAUSSEN, DANE S. “A Brief History of Anti-Intellectualism in American Media.” Academe, vol. 97, no. 3, 2011, pp. 8–13. www.jstor.org/stable/23024646.
 * Giroux, Susan Searls. “The Age of Unreason: Race and the Drama of American Anti-Intellectualism.” JAC, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 2009, pp. 295–352. www.jstor.org/stable/20866903. Jennyaranda24 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed in the section about the United states and how anti-intellectualism has affected the growth of the nation they only have paragraphs on the seventeenth and nineteenth century. In articles such as Anti-intellectualism is Killing America (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america) they discuss the affects of today. In general I believe more citations to specific articles could be made to prove the growths and affects of anti-intellectualism in westernized civilizations. Katiasasha4 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Katia Davila


 * Above only relevant for the US (sub)section (or separate article). Acwilson9 (talk)

Ignorance is Bliss
In this edit, you added Ignorance is Bliss to the See also list. However, it's not clear which item you are referring to. Is it s movie, book, documentary, essay, etc.? Is it in that list? I'm try to help figure it out at this discussion:  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy --David Tornheim (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism..."
In the lede sentence: "...mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism..." and never bothers to define those, but are left as 100% lazy links, zero attempt at complete thoughts, at good writing. Do we need the difference between anti-intellectual and anti-intellectualism?

I think we also need a loose theory of demarcation between "normal" and anti-intellectualism. For example is so-and-so saying such-and-such; anti-intellectual? What about such-and-such law, policy or budget cut? We need a useful defining tool, not just a pleasant meandering stroll, mind candy.

After the lede paragraph, it jumps directly into a history book and seems to never come out. We all love examples, but OTOH, a list of truisms is not an explanation. And a random list of history factoids quickly grows boring. This list also seems to have no order or thrust.

Also the example list seems like it skews towards (despotic) anti-intellectuals (anti-people-ism), rather than anti-intellectualism the mindset/personality type/cultural way, —that is, also being against a type of thought, —against intellectual thought/thinking (like thought crimes, whatever).

I never noticed any anti-intellectual customs, anti-intellectual religious texts or popular sayings/songs/TV shows/ads. ...like uhm....the #1 TV show with the dysfunctional geniuses...the smarter; the more despicable?? —What a Hollywood cliché!

I plan to attempt some of that. Thoughts? Suggestions? —Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Nonsense
Please, somebody tell me wtf this is supposed to mean:

"The 1960s–70s anti-war movement protesting the ten-year US–Vietnam War (1963–1973), not revealed in The Pentagon Papers (1971), manifested its pro-intellectualism against US defense secretary Robert McNamara, whose business school intellectualism manifested itself in that war’s published body counts, a feature of attrition warfare, a military strategy applied when conquest is infeasible." DigitalHoodoo (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it means an anti-Vietnam-war anti-intellectual believes "pro-intellectualism" was responsible for the war, and was attempting to sound intellectualish. Like a squad of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea. It's kinda cute, like a toddler putting Dad's shoes on, then giving orders to Big Sister. There's no nice way to convince them they only look silly. So I read section; "Distrust of intellectuals," and say WTF? ...way too many words to say: some people don't like intellectuals. I seriously think at least two of the cited individuals are capable of making a good argument. But they cite sit-com stereotypes and whine intellectualishly. WTF! Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:9806:EA0D:35A8:2FA3 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)—Doug Bashford

The Greatest Hoax & Conspiracy Theory
The greatest hoax in the USA exploded onto the scene around 1988, and rapidly continues growing as a meme today. It is perhaps the main root cause and nutrition of a growing and intensifying anti-intellectualism in the USA today. The perpetrators (or megaphone) of this meme grew from one person or a small group into a well organized, well funded movement. The basic hoax/meme is that all former respected institutions and sources of truth and knowledge, (including universities and academia, television news, newspapers, magazines, science, even Encyclopedia Britannica,) are not just to be mistrusted, —but are intentionally destructive,— they are all the enemy. They intentionally lie.  Less obvious but perhaps just as important is Part Two; factual relativism: There is no Truth, but if there there were, we couldn't find it. Everything is just a matter of (political) opinion. (Implied: so why not choose the easy, simple, and entertaining versions of the world?) In the mix; is derision of the educated & polite people as effeminate PC elitists and nincompoops, while openly offensive rudeness is for us cool and manly producers, us hard working Americans, grunt. Side stories included new criteria for evidence, ozone hole denial, and the birth of environment-as-partisan, & the birth of open popular anti-environmentalism.

This hoax grew in acceptance largely unnoticed by the general population because all the above disseminators of knowledge consider the source of the hoax more invisible than being shunned, worse than inconsequential, they consider it foolish, laughable, only worthy of the butt of a joke, of derision and a jaded sardonic smile. That source is talk radio. If the above meme was not invented by Rush Limbaugh, he was the first to popularize it, making it highly amusing by using Rock n Roll, humor, sportscaster and cartoon voices, nationalistic populism, derision and attacks on minorities, gays, and women, the environment, and so forth.

This hoax also grew in acceptance largely unnoticed by the general population because TV avoids mentioning Radio for business as well as elitist cultural reasons. "If it's not on TV it doesn't exist."

Limbaugh explains the dirty reason why all formerly respected institutions of truth and knowledge are so evil. It's because these powerful, gullible elitists are all either victims of, or in on The Great Liberal Conspiracy to ruin America. Everything wrong with America springs from those evil-doers. Conservatives (and America) are their perpetually suffering victims. This is Limbaugh's main Teaching, his #1, and is possibly the greatest, most believed conspiracy theory in the world.

Mikhail Gorbachev had moved to end the Cold War which signaled the fall of the Soviet Union. This demoralized the Republican Party because they no longer had anybody to hate/fear, which was one of their organizing principles from before McCarthyism. So Limbaugh had an unusual hatred of the popular Gorbachev who was helping with that fall. But Limbaugh did solve that emptiness. Right out of Orwell's novel; 1984, Limbaugh transformed the frightened Republican; "an evil Commie under every bush!!!!" into; "an evil Liberal/Democrat under every bush!!!!"  ("...yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.")  If we can no longer fear Russians, we'll fear Americans! Lib-Dems want to steal or ruin what we have; our home, job, freedom, etc. ("Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia!")  This has changed the tenor of American politics to this day.

Limbaugh's formula was so popular it quickly changed the nature of talk radio via imitators and saved AM radio. Within two or three years talk radio had been fully transformed, unrecognizable. The November 1, 1993 TIME cover carried Limbaugh and Howard Stern blowing fire over the masses with the headline: "Voice of America?". From there the formula spread to politicians such as Newt Gingrich and his famous 1996 GOPAC  "hate word list" to be used against the "pathetic," Democratic "traitors,"   and that same year, we saw the birth of Fox News with it's superior flashy graphics and the above feels-good memes of hatred and propaganda. From the Republican firebrands it finally became Republican mainstream. Today it is swallowed by perhaps 40% of the U.S.A., and it has brought us the current U.S. President/Entertainer with his motto; It's Fake News.

What has remained constant through all this can be discovered by turning on the radio or TV. Consistent Limbaugh, and the painfully repetitive Sean Hannity Show may be the most pure in this regard, (of the "respectable" talk shows). At times it seems like their main mission is to destroy all former respected institutions of truth and knowledge —and that promoting this new Republicanism is secondary.

In my mind, Limbaugh is unquestionably the King of American Anti-intellectualism. By far his greatest crime is FoxLimbaugh&Co's organized 40-year attack on truth seeking, education, and clear thinking. It seems unforgivable that Wikipedia has downplayed this story. But the stereotype of talk-radio as silly therefore trivial, remains. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * For a change of pace, I found a humorous confirmation of my claims on YouTube: Excerpts of Limbaugh himself attacking lying NASA data regarding their discovery of water on Mars. "They make it all up anyway!" (It's all part of the Great Liberal Agenda!) It's a slow 13 minute video, but the clips start around minute 4:30 and mostly conclude at 7:50. Is this pure anti-intellectualism? (This is the first time I've heard him claim he knows science, usually he admits the opposite.)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug_h3P6CQYg title: "Rush Limbaugh: Big Time Science Guy"   "Water on Mars! Or if you're Rush Limbaugh, more tiring evidence of NASA's left-wing agenda of lies that goes against everything he learned in the esteemed "Science 101" course that's guided his life as a Science Expert.  This clip is from the Majority Report,"   Cheers!   --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * I think you're drawing a long bow when you suggest "that Wikipedia has downplayed this story". I see no evidence of that. I do note that Limbaugh isn't mentioned in the article, and it might be nice if he was. However, that would require an editor accessing and citing reliable sources that tell the story. These are generally written sources. Observing and writing about what Limbaugh says on a YouTube video would not be acceptable. Surely someone respected (apart from yourself of course) has written on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. While I've often said I know Limbaugh and his dittoheads better than they know themselves, I have not followed any of the tons of written material. A quick search found little beyond the predictable. What respectable academic would write about talk radio or its clowns? I wonder if so-called "partisan" sites (who isn't?) like "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), progressive media watchdog group that monitors the U.S. news media for inaccuracy, bias, and censorship and advocates for greater diversity of perspectives in news reporting," could withstand the "reliable" challenge?


 * But I'm almost certain there isn't anything specifically on anti-intellectualism since even I didn't notice that connection until I stumbled onto this site. I'm not sure anti-intellectualism is the best name for what they are doing, but it's the best fit I've seen beyond "conspiracy kooks" (Who are being normalized via radio's Alex Jones etc).  I wonder if it even has a name yet? Does anybody know of "someone respected?"  I truly believe this conspiracy/meme war on finding truth etc is a crime against civilization. Open to suggestions.


 * Slightly connected weird thought: Many historians say the Dark Ages were triggered in 529 CE, by the emperor Justinian, and they lasted around 1,000 years, —stink, institutional torture, and lice,— until the Renascence, or rebirth when we started relearning all we had lost. I hope we never call them the First Dark Ages. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Please remeber that this page is not a forum for general discussion. It is a page for improving the article.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  23:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Church
I expected to find a section about the "dark ages" in Europe before the enlightenment period. Much of the knowledge gained by the Greeks and Romans was lost during this period and further intellectual study was actively discouraged by the Catholic Church. European contact with the Arab world is generally regarded as having reintroduced much of this "lost" knowledge. People seeking new knowledge or asking difficult questions in the Middle Ages may well have risked being labeled as heretics. Some may even argue that the Catholic Church continues to promote anti-intellectual ideas, in particular in the way it promotes itself in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And the reason why is because your claims are false. 128.187.97.20 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They called themselves Christians, not Catholics, Catholics weren't invented until the Protestants started calling Christians that. (Was Peter a Catholic?) It's taboo to say Christianity (partially) caused and maintained the Dark Ages. In 529 Roman Emperor St. Justinian banned the Athenian Academy, continuing home of Greek science, and philosophy including the philosophy of neoplatonism, a monistic belief system, perhaps a quasi-religion —banned as paganism!  Some historians call 529 the start of the Dark Ages. Me too.


 * Christianity totally banned free thought for the masses for centuries. That's a main reason we were stepping in shit & picking lice, getting sick and torturing people for 900 years. A good example of that extreme anti-intellectualism is; —as the Dark Ages were ending William Tyndale was hunted down by three Christian nations and burned at the stake as a "heretic."  His crime?   He translated the Bible into English and smuggled them into England. WHAT!!??  He translated the Bible into English and smuggled them into England.  The Bible was like the Encyclopedia Britannica in those days: knowledge & brain food. Thinking was illegal for common folks. Ever read the King James Bible? He translated about 80% of that. You never knew that?   It went into the Christian memory hole.  (All the historians were Christians, as are most today, trying to block the term "Dark Ages," too.) Did I mention taboo?


 * Yes, I also think it should be in the article. Can you think of anything more extremely anti-intellectual? Me neither. Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:9806:EA0D:35A8:2FA3 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)—Doug Bashford

Needs more history?
I can't say that I know much about this subject, but shouldn't this article contain more about the history of anti-intellectualism? This is probably the most disorganized, and hard to follow Wikipedia article I've ever read. Shouldn't there be something in here about Galileo (besides the picture). I see that there's also a picture of McCarthy here, and the communist "witch-hunt" might be regarded as anti-intellectualism. Also, I think there should be more about current anti-intellectualism. E.g. the public's mistrust of science in regards to climate change, evolution, etc. If there's someone with a lot knowledge on this subject, please contribute, and restructure this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.194.35 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, but am not knowledgeable enough to address this myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Jumbles Mess
This article is unorganized and worthless as a source of information on the subject. Other than an entire rewriting, I do not know any solution to the problem. It is a divisive subject, but that is not an excuse for an encyclopedic article to seem so all over the place, biased one way and then the other, attacking one thing here and asserting the same thing as absolute there, really, I have never been so shocked. The talk page is likewise lacking any notion of cohesion, but is a list of sweet nothings dedicated to oblivion. Perhaps the concept that good faith is assumed is not possible given the subject. I would even go so far as to suggest that the entire article be deleted if it cannot be fixed. JanetWand (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article is (still) a hot mess, but am not knowledgeable enough to address this myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What, no Anti-Intellectualism in USA since 19th century?
Hi folks - this is a major oversight. Anti-intellectualism is alive and well under climate change denialism in the USA right now! John D. Croft (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cite the facts not your "feels". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B70:B380:C14:7F77:1E0D:E349 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with BOTH of the above, but am not knowledgeable enough to address this myself. Perhaps US anti-intellectualism should be a whole separate article. (I also notice the diverging attitudes represented by the late 19th century Chatauqua and Know Nothing movements in US.) Acwilson9 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think that this article could use more sources to allow more clarity for the reader and just to be able to have some more background about the subject as a whole. I think overall this page is well done and will be improved by the student editors. Elcheney1997 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Emma Cheney


 * Well written overall, however there are some small issues. The most predominant being the diction utilized. I found that a lot of the writing utilized incredibly vague words, occasionally even creating hyperlink on the word leading to a page that gives it definition. This implies that the author was a aware of the lack of common understanding of the words chosen, and perhaps this could be simplified for clarify. Besides that very good. Cameronjbird (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "In the rural U.S., anti-intellectualism is an essential feature of the religious culture of Christian fundamentalism." That seems unnecessarily harsh and frankly anti-christian.68.198.106.46 (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, the article seems very incomplete and spotty, but I am not knowledgeable enough to improve it myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Music?
The early punk movement comes to mind immediately as anti-intellectualism in musical form, and I'm sure there are other examples in some of the more anarchally-minded metal bands, and there's certainly an anti-intellectual rapper or three out there. A great deal of pop music is also intentionally unintelligent so as to appeal to the masses, though that may be entering WP:OR terrirory. Point is, anti-intellectualism certainly exists in music, yet there's no mention of it here. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, but quickly an intellectual punk thread also emerged. For example, The Mekons in 1977. Perhaps this would be a separate article. Acwilson9 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup
Based on the tag, I reviewed the article and found it generally in extremely bad shape. It reads like a polemic, with lots of tangential and unrelated rabbit holes being explored, often without sources, dubious sources, or sources which do not represent the content in the article. I've gone ahead and pruned some of the most egregious content. If there is any section which someone feels should be restored, and improved upon, please feel free to restore it and open a discussion about that section on the talk page. aprock (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good (and brave!) edits. When I originally read parts of this article, I wondered if I was really reading what I was reading, seemingly implying that anti-intellectuals were all uneducated dunces who listen to right-wing AM radio jocks and shoot people wearing eyeglasses, but I didn't feel brave enough, or qualified enough to prune it myself.  I'm flattered that my own edits seem to have survived largely intact.  However, I've decided to prune some of them too as they seem a bit out on a limb, not really supporting the article.  They needed either expanding (as I tagged at the time), or removing, and I've decided to do the latter.  I removed the section on George Orwell, which was dubious because George Orwell was not anti-intellectual per se, and this article deals, or should deal, with anti-intellectualism as a concept, or ideology.  It could find use on the criticism section on the Intellectual article, however.  I also removed the part on "Youth Culture" as that seems to be based almost entirely on supposition. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(Another Issue:) A citation does not contain anything supporting the sentence in the text. Wiki's "Political polarization in the U.S. has long favored the use of anti-intellectualism by each political party (Republican and Democratic) to undermine the credibility of the other party with the middle class." cites source ""7 Things to Know about Polarization in America". Pew Research Center. 2014-06-12. Retrieved 2017-03-01.", which contains no such assertions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.131.150 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed Confirmation Bias Section (OR) - Needs reworded and resourced before being restored
Removed confirmation bias section (pasted below) due to sourcing issues, appears to be an element of OR. The source provided alludes to anti-intellectualism but does not explicitly mention it. Removed rather than reworded as original author showed lack of knowledge: the final part "thus, confirmation bias is a symptom of anti-intellectualism" is incorrect, confirmation bias is a mechanism by which anti-intellectualism occurs, not the other way round (not to mention this is clearly OR). Likewise, beliefs that people have not been exposed to is also incorrect; people reduce their exposure to alternative beliefs as a result of it, meaning there must have been exposure in the first place. Further, the source does not reference "emotional hostility".

Confirmation bias does play a role in anti-intellectualism and is worthy of inclusion, however as it stands this section is not fit for publishing. It needs more sources and a more comprehensive explanation of the underlying mechanism. Request someone with the time and knowledge has another go at this!

Confirmation bias In the field of psychology, confirmation bias is the mental phenomenon that confirms the validity of a person's self-accepted beliefs, ideals, and values, to create emotional hostility (anti-intellectualism) towards and mistrust of other beliefs, ideals, and value systems to which the anti-intellectual person has not been exposed; thus, confirmation bias is a symptom of anti-intellectualism.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

Editor/123 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennyaranda24, TenTonKodiak. Peer reviewers: Dreacasillas, Katiasasha4, TenTonKodiak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is the page about prejudice against the unintelligent?
Prejudice and negative attitudes about dumb people (especially, but not exclusively, those with disabilities) are a much more present issue in society than anti-intellectualism. Since I am not an experienced editor, I would like some help with finding more sources about this and making a page for it. ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure exactly what you’re getting at. Prejudice against intellectually disabled people is ableism which is a completely different topic than just “prejudice against non-smart people” which I’m not sure is really a “thing” in the sense that there’s a name for it, scholarly research etc. Cheerio, Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are definitely negative attitudes, at the very least, against non-smart people, if not outright discrimination through, say, extremely competitive school systems in certain countries. I found a few opinion pieces about this, but I’m stuck on scholarly articles because I don’t know the name for it, like lookism or ageism.ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Meritocracy? Elitism?
 * One can argue that it would be a good thing if intellectually challenged people were less likely to get into positions of power than they are now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, but I think OP might be referring to gratuitous prejudice against people for not being “smart enough”. Dronebogus (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)