Asimov on Anti-Intellectualism

“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.'”
― Isaac Asimov

            I read this quote a short while ago and it struck a chord with me. I have personally encountered this mentality before and have found it to be wholly frustrating. But beyond my personal interactions this also exists on a broader scale, as demonstrated by young-earth creationists, climate-change deniers, homeopathy patients.

            It cannot be overstated how important the freedom of thought and speech we hold is. It is truly the hallmark of an enlightened society in that it allows all ideas to be shared openly. This freedom does not mean, however, that all ideas are equal, and this is a very important point to make note of. I would think it should be obvious but for many it is not. Thinking it to be true does not make it so and opinions can be wrong; it just means you are entitled to be wrong. Another important point is that freedom of speech also allows all ideas to be openly critiqued. This may be a pain for those in the ‘anti-intellectual’ camp, as they seem to get grouchy when their ideas are torn apart. Some may even view it as a personal attack.

            What’s interesting about those who hold this freedom to mean that their ideas born of ignorance are valuable is that it undermines one of the major values of the freedom in the first place. The sharing of ideas is valuable, on a large scale, because it allows a selection process to take place wherein the best ideas are kept and the rest discarded. A society that keeps stronger ideas (by which I mean ones that promote positive circumstances and represent reality well) will be better off in the long run. By holding on to ignorance the guilty individuals slow this selection process and impede societal progress. It also creates a political climate in which rhetoric is more valuable than fact.

            In short: it’s not a personal attack when your ideas are critiqued, it’s a good thing.

UFO Sighting in St. John's!

            For those who haven’t heard, last week there was a strange sighting in the sky above Signal Hill here in St. John’s. A girl, named Kayla, called into an open line radio show to report that she had seen three lights flying in a fashion that no plane could emulate and then suddenly disappeared. The call soon elicited a response; another man called in and spoke of strange lights above his cabin near Bonavista Bay that he claims could not have been a plane. Story was then picked up by VOCM (who, irritatingly, seem not to have a story archive) and was discussed on a popular radio station.
            I find this story fascinating, but not for the reason you may expect on the surface. You see I know Kayla personally, though she does not go by that name, and her call was a hoax. So what was interesting? Well the response of course. The purpose was to elicit the exact response it got; namely, it was to get people to call in and support it without it ever being true.
            This story demonstrates a terrible flaw in the media, and should highlight the need for scepticism. A news organization picked up the story without any investigation into the legitimacy of Kayla’s claims. It should be noted that while the news does not make any false claims, as it merely reports Kayla’s call, it nonetheless spreads the lie rather efficiently. The media, as a group of businesses, are motivated by a profit. While a desire to keep a reputation as a valuable source acts to keep these companies honest, a desire for profit leads them to feed on the passions, legitimate or not, of the public.

Many believers out there love to see media report on such issues. It lends a sense of legitimacy to their shaky claims. While I proudly wear the badge of scepticism today, I used to be a steadfast believer. I would read every book of sightings I could get my hands on and reports like this would really excite me. Ever hoping for that evidence that could shed light on the phenomena, I went deeper into the rabbit hole. This is highlighted by one of the comments left on the VOCM article by a user named ‘Believer’. It ran:

“Given the current social and economic climates, the sighting makes total sense. When are people going to start being so ignorant and start believing in this phenomenon? We have never been alone!”

 First of all I’d like to ask the rhetorical question: What does this even mean?

What do social and economic situations have to with flying saucers? Regardless, it is clear that this individual was very excited about this and, despite it not being grounded in truth, it will lead to an even deeper held belief.

Sexism in Frats

It is really disappointing that this day and age misogyny is still so prevalent. I wish I could claim I was only referring to the more subtle aspect of sexism, such as the double shift or the glass ceiling, which is bad enough. Unfortunately I am referring to blatant, in your face, efforts to treat women like shit.

            This is an article in the Huffington Post about a website called UniLad. This is supposedly a website and magazine that acts as a guide to ‘getting laid’ for university boys (I refuse to use any term that may suggest maturity here). Recently the website post an article called “Sexual Mathematics” in which it is stated: "85% of rape cases go unreported…. That seems to be fairly good odds.” When I read this I was at a loss for words. How disgusting could these children be? Surely they wouldn’t condone rape? Well, as the HuffPost piece says, the article ended with: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."
            And this is not the only instance of this I have seen recently. Not too long ago I was linked to this blog, which posts an email that was circulating around a university fraternity. In the email the author requests a “weekly gullet report” which seems to be a “who slept with who” gossip report to figure out which girls ‘put-out’. He then goes on to suggest a ‘creed’ that he and his brothers should live by which is prefaced with: “Note: I will refer to females as “targets”. They aren’t actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless.” The rest of the email goes on to list some slang terms and some rules for those that would follow this disgusting mentality. Some other gems from the email (to further highlight the point) include: “Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it” and “Don’t fuck middle-eastern targets. Exhibit some patriotism and have some pride. You want your cock smelling like falafel? Filth.”
            One point I’d like to make about both of these is that they seem to be masquerading as humour, at least within their target subculture. While I need not state that there is nothing funny about these to an ethical audience, there are select audiences out there who will find this funny. There are two major issues with this portrayed as humour: 1) humour is less likely to come under critical analysis by the audience and thus is largely overlooked rather than attacked, and 2) humour can be a powerful tool for persuasion.
            Another interesting thing to note about this is the source from which they both came, namely, universities. A university, in an ideal world, should be a place for progressive and positive ideas. I guess in a real world they come with some social garbage too. Part of this may be due to the age of the boys. A peak in the sex drive paired with a new found independence can lead to a desire to sleep with multiple partners. I suspect, however, that a lot of it has to do with the nature of fraternities. Cramming a bunch of people into rather tight living quarters and you will see them bond to some degree. This is exaggerated when you consider that the individuals in question are young, many just leaving their parents homes, and then they are thrust into new surroundings. But what do they bond over?  Well the one thing they have in common of course: being male.
            Our societies’ idea of masculinity has some largely negative aspects associated with it. The emphasis on action may belittle the need for rational thought for example. The biggest example is the need for men to legitimize themselves by having sex with women. We’ll call it the ‘stud mentality’. This can quickly become exaggerated due to the aforementioned sexual peak.

So what do you get when you cram a bunch of sexually active boys together with nothing in common other than their societies’ ‘stud mentality’? Well I think we have seen the result.

*Important note: action is being taken in both cases. The world is not hopeless.