From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Stigma against JAQing off and trolling[edit]

Is the stigma against JAQing off and trolling anti-intellectual? Skepticism might be described as an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions which may indicate possible misstatement due to error or fraud, and a critical assessment of evidence. Yet these are exactly the kinds of qualities and behaviors that are often dismissed as JAQing off and trolling. A devil's advocate is basically a troll; his whole point is to go into an assembly and state a dissident opinion that everyone else is afraid to voice lest it offend someone.

Maybe RationalWiki should elect devil's advocates (DAs) to counterbalance the influence of the elected moderators. The DAs would be immune from being banned for JAQing off or trolling, and their job would be to go around stating and defending unpopular views, and attacking the mainstream views. People could tag articles and statements within articles as being in need of a DA to challenge groupthink (kind of like how any member of Congress can request a GAO investigation into a matter). Probably the DAs should be elected for some lengthy term, kinda like how the Comptroller General of the United States serves for fifteen years. Basically this position would be like an independent inspector-general.

An alternative is for someone to create another wiki to criticize from the outside, but no one feels anymore like going to the trouble to do that, so that won't happen. Landmartian (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you trolling? ;) (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec with a trolltroll) While not for your more specific reasons of choice, this isn't a theoretically awful idea; that said, I have little desire to attempt its practice. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe RationalWiki should elect devil's advocates (DAs) to counterbalance the influence of the elected moderators. What influence? And We can't even be asked to get a mod election running and the BoT election was a shamble til the deadline was pointed out, a third election is not happening. As to your idea, that isn't what Devils Advocates are for (hint: in no shape or form what you say), and all you want is the right to demand we consider Child sex Abuse, Legitimate rape, and other stupid positions you've sided on more favorably. Not happening. --Miekal 04:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible distinction[edit]

Anti-intellectualism as believing that higher education is generally nonsense ("no one needs that Calculus anyway" or in earlier days "she just needs to go to college to find a husband") stems from ignorance. Scepticism toward (public) intellectuals/pundits, especially when famous only for their media appearances and rather ignorant about subjects they pontificate about can be well justified, if

  • the person has low intelligence (often found in the humanities/social sciences)
  • knows not quantitative methods:
"It's a legacy of sensitivity of a scientifically incapable elite - who is aghast if someone does not know Milton, but happy about its own inability of basic math and science. I have - without success - tried to make statistics and logic
compulsory for admission to Harvard" - Steven Pinker (source

war being caused by resource shortage (see the answers here:

  • rely on moral accusations (especially bad with historical analogies), as in the inane idea that opponents of the Iraq war are appeasers, thus similar to supporting Hitler and perhaps fascists at heart :|
  • are unaccountable for their ideas. This is a bit like listening to stock market experts who might just be interested in making a few sales.

Some of these concerns are summarised in "Intellectuals and Society" by T. Sowell (, just so that I'm not accused of plagiarising. (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

While social sciences are easier than real sciences, the people that go into them are still above average. StickySock (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Useless Fields?[edit]

Is it anti-intellectualism to believe that not all knowledge is equal? That is, some degrees add more to society than others? CorruptUser (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservatism and high culture[edit]

This article exemplifies the vision that American conservatism has about culture: — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Richard Hofstadter[edit]

@Bongolian I am wondering if this article might be made to conform to the POV of Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadter. Winner of the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for General Literature, this book is often regarded as the first significant attempt in understanding anti-intellectualism. From the Columbia Journalism Review: "When somebody mentions “anti-intellectualism,” Richard Hofstadter’s book usually comes to mind as the place where the problem was defined. " Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. I have no familiarity with the book though. Bongolian (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)