/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10292874]

Why is anti-intellectualism prevalent throughout the world?

[Anonymous No.10292880]

The fact that the average human is borderline retarded.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/stupid-people/
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/our-dumb-world/

[Anonymous No.10292884]

[Anonymous No.10292885]

>>10292874
Fear of the superiority of science

[Anonymous No.10292888]

>>10292874
>rational wiki

Kill yourself, leldditer

[Anonymous No.10292894]

Because "intellectuals" aren't your friends and wearing a lab coat does not automatically means you are above pursuing your own interests. "Anti-intellectualism" (a better term would be "intellectual realism") is merely a recognition of that fact. Also
>Rational Wiki
Kys yourself

[Anonymous No.10292905]

>>10292880
>An Alternative Media Selection
>A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

seems like a legit source

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10292912]

>>10292874
Because Republicans (and every right wing politicians in the world) need retarded people or they will never ever be elected again.

[Anonymous No.10292917]

>>10292912
>Because politicians (whether left-wing or right-wing) need retarded people or they will never ever be elected again.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10292928]

>>10292874

In order to corrupt and control a people, you should infiltrate their institutions.
It's then natural for the people to distrust those institutions.

[Anonymous No.10292936]

>>10292874

[Anonymous No.10292947]

>>10292874
- Dumb people are easier to control.
- Dumb people prefer to hang around other dumb people so as not to trigger an inferiority complex.

[Anonymous No.10292951]

>>10292936

That maybe true, but literally nobody thinks in such extremes.

Who serves as the current US President?
Can you really say that you don't know?
There are things that we know about the world.

Sure, you could imagine that we live in a matrix and can't even trust our senses or anything we imagine to know. Alright. How does this help? What do you do with that assumption?

When you get hungry or thirsty, do you ignore it, because "fuck it, it's not real"?

[Anonymous No.10292972]

>>10292874
>''wiki'' that pushes liberal ideology without evidence
>not anti-intellectual

[Anonymous No.10292973]

>>10292874
it's a madeup word so that socially-retarded autists can make themselves feel better by tellling themselves "they hate us cus they ain't us xddd". No one actually identifies as an anti-intellectual. Ultimately it's a manifestation of a lack of trust that the "intellectual class" has the best interests of the nonintellectual class at heart. A better alternative than name-calling is for members of the "intellectual class" to reflect on whether their colleagues could have done anything to cause this lack of trust.

[Anonymous No.10292976]

>>10292951
I suppose this quote from Socrates is not really geared towards basic perception like bodily needs but more towards abstract concepts like in the retarded theist vs atheist "debates".

[Anonymous No.10292977]

>>10292951
I'm not an expert in Socrates's philosophy but I think that he wasn't talking about what you are saying that we can't know reality because our senses are limited. This guy used to go around the city trolling people saying that he didn't know anything and hearing what the supposedly wise men knew. I think like when a kid doesn't stop asking: why?, but why?, yeah but why?

I think that with that phrase he tried to say that if you think you know everything you can't learn nothing new. That you have to unlearn to learn.

Something like that.

[Anonymous No.10292978]

>>10292874
Fucking Nerd!
*kicks sand in your books*

[Anonymous No.10293013]

>>10292977
>that if you think you know everything you can't learn nothing new. That you have to unlearn to learn.

And then what? Then you know something for real?

I'm pretty sure he meant it literally how he said it. You never know anything. Which is true on a level. You can't be sure that your senses don't fool you.

But that's just a useless theory. You can't live based on that assumption.

Sure, it's important to cut through bullshit, but it's also important to accknowledge that not literally everything is bullshit.

If you jump out of the window you fall down. Sure, we don't really know 100% what will happen when you actually do it - you might for some reason stay suspended in the air or float away, but in all observable cases so far, people seemed to fall down.

That's enough to "know".

The problem is that knowledge is often implied for a fuckton of things where we are far away from actually "knowing" stuff in this sense.


>we know who is responsible for 9/11
>we know that the iraq has weapons of mass destruction
>we know that the genders are equal (which is actually outright false, but is still propagated)

[Anonymous No.10293014]

>>10292874
intellectualism is cancer

[Anonymous No.10293017]

>>10292973
>no one identifies as an intellectual
Silly white devil

[Anonymous No.10293033]

>>10293013
>>we know that the genders are equal (which is actually outright false, but is still propagated)

Nobody says Woman = Man. We say Women's Rights = Men's Right = Human's Right

[Anonymous No.10293035]

>>10292894
>dismisses intellectualism
>Kys yourself

[Anonymous No.10293037]

>>10293033
>Nobody says Woman = Man. We say Women's Rights = Men's Right = Human's Right

Never heard about "a woman can do anything a man can"?

[Anonymous No.10293043]

>>10292874
It's easy as write RationalWiki articles.

[Anonymous No.10293045]

>>10292874
Because science works for profit, instead of for the majority of people.

Read J.D. Bernal or Cornforth for more context/explanation.

[Anonymous No.10293046]

>>10292874
anti-intellectualism isn't on the rise, pseuds calling everybody who disagrees with them anti-intellectuals are on the rise

[Anonymous No.10293048]

Because "intellectuals" are sociopathic brainlets pretending to be smart.

[Anonymous No.10293280]

>>10292905
The bell-curve distribution of IQ among a populace is a well established scientific fact.

[Anonymous No.10293421]

>>10292874

[Anonymous No.10293453]

>>10292880
What was it about the environment of East-Asia that caused such a selection-pressure for intelligence?

[Anonymous No.10293495]

>>10293280
But the exact details of its cause are largely unknown

[Anonymous No.10293525]

>>10292874
>""""""rational""""" wiki
cringe

[Anonymous No.10293634]

>>10292880
Posting a map that's not based on actual IQ tests, but on random estimates actually puts you in the "borderline retarded" camp, though.

[Anonymous No.10293649]

>>10292880
retarded is a relative term

[Anonymous No.10293760]

>>10293525
Look at this anti-skeptic who questions dogma.

[Anonymous No.10293983]

>>10292874
>>10292874
>>10292874
Do philosophy-related topics belong on /sci/ or on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.10294874]

>>10293634
Post something that disproves it. Of course we can't do iq tests in every African shithole or the testing team might get their heads chopped off

[Anonymous No.10294880]

>>10292880
>Using Lynn.
Lmao, you're clearly one of those retards.

[Anonymous No.10294885]

>>10293983
French obscurantism is for /lit/ - everything else could probably live happily on both.

[Anonymous No.10294886]

>>10292874
Letfies

[Anonymous No.10294890]

>>10292880

[Anonymous No.10294903]

>>10294874

Not him but the problem is people have been posting sources to disprove it and like blind drones you keep posting it then requesting to ""disprove"" it once again. The entire argument is cyclical and nothing but perpetual bait to fuel shit threads. Truthfully I wish anyone with half a brain would ignore such posts and let you people rot with your old copypasta like the pieces of trash you really are.

[Anonymous No.10295002]

>>10292880
We need twin studies where one twin is raised in the native land and the other is raised in a western country...only then can you say it’s genetic

[Anonymous No.10295060]

>>10293453
the environment is a society with a massive inferiority complex
>Han claim 5000 years of Chinese history
>reality han have ruled for a few hundred years at best Chinese history has been a constant flux of disjointed culture and rule by foreign powers
>even worse the Chinese for hundreds of years now have engaged in creative reinterpretation of their own history
>this stems from their contact with the west through the mongols in the 13th century and later by direct contact in the 15th century
>Chinese alarmed that they had fallen so far behind began to creatively reinterpret or outright fabricate their primary sources in order to create the claim that whatever the west had done they had done early but had magically lost such knowledge

>Chinese are smart
>the vast majority of Chinese are either industrial peasants or agricultural peasants living in the middle lands or the southern swamps respectively

>the Chinese are advanced
>greater than half of Chinese primarily rely on Chinese traditional medicine
>Chinese medicine is based off of the equivalent of western humeral theory
>despite claiming thousands of years of knowledge Chinese Traditional medicine owes it's start to the 1950s with Mao Zedong's desperation to chinesify all western ideas present in Chinese culture(he refused to use it and insisted on western medicine for himself however).

[Anonymous No.10295085]

>>10294874
>disproves it.
The burden of proof is on the side that makes the first positive claim (i.e. you/Lynn). What is there to disprove? You can't add 2 fucking countries to get a third. The whole method is flawed. Lynn's cringe basically destroyed the country IQ debats, since people post these nonsensical stats all the time without proofchecking the data at all.