Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
— Issac Asimov
I noticed this myself as a teenager, with of all things, the popularity of Jeff Foxworthy and his whole "redneck" shtick. He glorified idiocracy and people reveled in being uneducated and just ignorant of everything. They would proudly wear shirts (or other merch) proclaiming it.
And I know it's not the thing that turned the US towards anti-intellectualism, but it's a time that sticks out to me still as something I can look back at as a visible manifestation of that shift.
And then four redneck comedians came together to form that Blue Collar Comedy Tour and it just went downhill from there.
Larry The Cable Guy was the even weirder part. It's a character he plays with a fake accent, making fun of rednecks. Yet the rednecks were the people who loved it.
IDK it's like if the biggest fans of The Jazz Singer were black, or if the biggest fans of Borat were native Kazakhs. Groups are rarely happy with being depicted as a caricature played by a foreigner.
Is that who said it? It's at the start of a song I listen to and I never bothered to look it up.
Note this isn't entirely people's fault anymore, algorithms pick the influencer before the person does.
They could absolutely be trained to pick the intellectual instead, but... why would they do that? It would cost them short term engagement, e.g., profit.
OK, but it's mostly the peoples' fault.
can we blame people for human nature? this is all taking advantage of our brain chemistry in a way that isn't going to be fixed by yelling at people.
we can blame a person for making a bad decision. even if that decision is the norm. people on the other hand are inherently going to do what's common. that's how common is defined. it's what people are likely to do. so when we have unfathomable amounts of data on what people are likely to do it's easy to guide people towards their habits. getting mad at society for walking down the lanes that were set before them isn't going to accomplish anything. we're better off acknowledging the shortcomings of people as a collective and that the only ones that can really change this kind of thing are the ones guiding this behavior. advertisers, media conglomerates, tech companies, governments, etc...
people are people. they will do as people do. the only things that can be changed are individuals and systems. but you can't change what people are.
True, but also, people who are very good at research often aren't charismatic or lack the communication skills to explain their results to laymen. That's why, when Neil Degrasse Tyson gets interviewed, he'll talk about everything from climate change to evolution; he's not an interdisciplinary genius, but he's charming and able to explain complex topics in simple terms.
Yeah, this is the reason even if 'researchers don't respect so and so because he's a joke in the field' is said about a person, I think they are connecting the ordinary people with science so it's fine. Their job is not to innovate new frontiers of science, let them be the middleman so the ordinary folks aren't left out. Just look at now, we have a lot of "researchers" high on their horse, while ordinary people are taken in by pseudoscience and even harmful theories.
Parasocial relationships make you believe the bullshitter is more reliable