Elitism... is it Bad? Good? Ugly?

[Nephtys]

I'm reading the thread about creationism on the rise (it's not a surprise sadly), and that gets me thinking quite on this matter. It's fairly obvious a good majority of people are not well educated, just plain stupid, or both. They may have great skills and life experience, but rational thought remains something only present occasionally.

Now I think... "Wow. This common blue-collar, red-state citizen is praised as being 'down to earth'." Now why is that? Why here in the States do we rather idolize for example, ordinary people instead of any elite of some kind? We in fact, disdain elitism. There is no "Oh wow! You're a professor!", but rather "You wouldn't last ten seconds in my life, book-learner!" in many cases.

Why is this the case? Why is skill and hard work not respected, but rather disdained at many times? Why is scientific advice on the most basic of things ignored? This kind of attitude is found less of course in the more 'elite' of groups, but why is being a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer or whatever not praised but criticized?

This is the same kind of attitude that makes people in the US think Science is a 'close minded elite institution', that are self-serving and soforth. I really don't think it's simple envy over success in some cases. An Ph.D typically makes less than a McDonald's manager. So what is it?

[Darth Wong]

Elitism about anything you've directly or indirectly inherited is arguably a bad thing because it's so grossly unfair to people who did not inherit those things, hence the bad connotations of historical elitism. Elitism about individual achievement, however (and completion of a difficult education is certainly an individual achievement), is almost certainly a good thing.

When people attack elitism as if all forms of elitism are bad, they're actually attacking the entire concept of meritocracy without realizing it.

Of course, one could argue that intelligence is inherited, so smart people shouldn't look down on dumb people. There is some merit to that argument from a social sympathy point of view, but for the purposes of decision-making, one should most definitely look down on the unintelligent, and what is politics and voting but decision-making? Besides, even an intelligent person has to work hard to complete a difficult education. Stupidity is as much a state of mind as a genetic trait.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

My hypothesis is that it's jealousy and human nature to denigrate others that you perceive as your better or that have more than you. Human's have an intrinsically greedy, selfish side, and I don't mean just dealing with the accumulation of material wealth; that is one thing, though.

Humans, however, are also greedy and competitive when it comes to social status and other, non-materialistic things. If they don't get what they want, and if they especially know they can't do something themselves, they will get huffy about it and try to scorn what they think they cannot do in an effort to knock it down or downplay it s they feel better.

I seem to think this relates to the sour grapes syndrome wherein the fox, unable to get the grapes on high that someone else had and could get, ended up using ridicule, mocking, and scorn, saying he didn't want them anyway and they probably sucked. I think partly when they are jealous, but can't get it themselves, they denigrate it in favour of something they do have to try to uplift themselves.

I also think this phenomenon has been transferred via cultural institutions and magnified by historical 'oopsies." Lots of times in history, you have had people who really were the "elite," such as the plutocratic or aristocratic types. People associate anything 'above' with the old-time elite, thus it must be bad. I don't think they want to trust something they see as "bad."

I come across the "book-larning" comment a lot too. I really just think they would want to, but don't have the time, money or whatever to do it, so they just feel like knocking others down who do, but it has become culturally popular over time as a type of collective effort to poison the well.

[Darth Raptor]

The anti-intellectualist movement is symptom of humanity's greater problem with tribalistic bigotry. There's a huge double standard here. Ministers and theologians are never disparaged by the blue collar types, and yet their careers demand a lot of study and little actual grunt work. What's the difference? The difference is the theologian is reinforcing your way of life and everything that's familiar to you. The evolutionary biologist is caustically eroding it away.

[Civil War Man]

Now I think... "Wow. This common blue-collar, red-state citizen is praised as being 'down to earth'." Now why is that? Why here in the States do we rather idolize for example, ordinary people instead of any elite of some kind?

I blame a large part of it on the common myth that the United States were created by ordinary Joes. Rather hilarious because if the Founding Fathers showed up today, they'd be decried as elitists (you know, since all of them are either wealthy businessmen or landed gentry).

This kind of attitude is found less of course in the more 'elite' of groups, but why is being a doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer or whatever not praised but criticized?

I find that with the stereotypical anti-elitists, you aren't criticized for your job unless you are actually trying to do it. If you are a doctor, you are admired until you start giving medical advice (particularly if it contradicts the patient's preconceived notions of their condition). If you are a lawyer, you are admired until you start giving legal advice (especially true in the case of criminal defense attorneys and "ambulance chasers").

This is the same kind of attitude that makes people in the US think Science is a 'close minded elite institution', that are self-serving and soforth. I really don't think it's simple envy over success in some cases. An Ph.D typically makes less than a McDonald's manager. So what is it?

Envy and insecurity probably do factor into it. Besides my hypothesis above, another big cause is probably because the Elite jobs are all professional, which require years training and practice to master. As much as the Elite are decried, their jobs still carry a lot of prestige and/or wealth that is very desirable. And a lot of the anti-elitists lack either the funds or the intelligence to get the necessary education to become one of the Elite. So when they run into a successful OR surgeon, a tenured college professor, or a highly skilled engineer, they get the feeling that the "elite" are lording their wealth and brains over the peons.

[Darth Wong]

Part of the problem is that they know well-educated people think poorly educated people are stupid. So they bristle at the perception and lash out defensively. The problem is that they outnumber the well-educated people, so their anger and resentment can become a major political force, actually reaching the point where public policy decisions are made in defiance of what the most qualified people have to say about them.

That's why a scientist is admired until he starts telling people they're wrong about a matter of science. That's his job and he is qualified to do precisely that, but stupid people hate someone reminding them of what they are. So they get angry at him and bash him for being "close-minded" and "elitist".

The reason they don't do this to ministers is that the minister is only claiming to be a representative of a much bigger power, and they don't do it to the bigger power because they're afraid of him. Ministers are constantly telling people what's wrong, what not to do, etc. But they have that outside authority, whereas a scientist has only superior education and intelligence at his disposal, rather than irrational fear.

[Jalinth]

Elitism is like many things.

Taken in moderation it is vital - helps to promote social mobility and meritocracy in general.

But taken to extremes, it can be very unhealthy. Right of birth can be a very elite type principle. So can going to the right schools, right country clubs, etc... None of which are healthy for a country.

I'm aware that in France, much of the top civil servants (along with a number of industry leaders) are all Enarques. While undoubtedly very good at school, you've just restricted the leadership to a very small group of people while ignoring others who might have not been able to attend that university for whatever reason. Family, lack of ambition during school that corrected itself in early adulthood, whatever. This isn't healthy.

Same issue with Japan to an extent. The sheer competion to get into the good schools and the existence of a tiering system - so if you didn't get into the right elementary school, it is virtually impossible to get into the top university.

[Winston Blake]

Excessive praise of democracy might also contribute to anti-intellectualism. Once you've got the idea that what 'most people' think must be right, it's a small step to 'other characteristics of most people = good'. If 'everyone is equal' and 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', then since intellectuals are a minority, whenever it's suggested that their opinion and decisions carry more weight than the average joe, it's natural to view this as self-glorifying. Intellectuals don't fit into the idea that consensus is correctness. With America's endless repetition of democracy! equality! freedom!, it's not surprising that the idea that some people actually are better than others causes cognitive dissonance.

[K. A. Pital]

it's not surprising that the idea that some people actually are better than others causes cognitive dissonance

They aren't technically better. Just more educated, more into some area of science, perhaps... So, I don't understand why there is such hatred towards technical specialists and scientists. This "cog head" denigrating insults, cretinist accusations of a "World Scientific Conspiracy" or something.

Where the fuck does this come from? In Russia, people rever scientists and especially natural sciences specialists like physics, medicine, math, chemistry. Generally they have utmost respect from the general population, and "professor of nuclear physics" credentials cause general awe and the willingness to listen.

Not because a person is "better" than you, but because he is more educated and more... professional in science, you know. In Russia, people value the professionalism of scientists. Perhaps they're less paid because of our economic crises, but they are widely, almost universally respected in society.

Why not so in the U.S.? With the major scientific breakthroughs of the XX century, where does this Neo-Luddhism even come from?

[K. A. Pital]

Also, this "EVIL SCIENTIST" bullshit that is often-touted in U.S. comics and blockbusters. Fucking repugnant. Where does that take root?

Uber-evil-scientific genius taking over the world with his mega-weapon-of-doom?

Why, just why? And these idiotic silly stories live on, and on, and on until now. I'm really amazed for how long can the comic and Hollywood subculture preserve this idiotic Luddism vestige!

[CarsonPalmer]

The mad scientist cliche is not really Luddism. Scientists are used in comic books because they can oppose the hero through tricks and traps, rather than brawn, and if their fighting the hero, they've got to be evil, right?

[K. A. Pital]

Scientists are used in comic books because they can oppose the hero through tricks and traps

So can non-scientist. "Supervillains", actually, can oppose the superhero via brute force. And then, why do you even need "tricks and traps"? Why are scientists drawn into this crap? There's probably more to it, than just "tricks and traps".

Note that the first supervillain in the 1939 comics - was a scientist.

This was 1939. A time, when a mad religious, nazi nutbar was about to continue his quest for European domination through outright war, sparkling a worldwide conflinct. The villain? Not a nazi, no-no. Not a religious fanatic - some Inquisitor or a Taleban islamist. A scientist.

All this crap about Superman having superior brute force, so then a supervillain should have superior intellect...

The whole common theme "smart people are evil masterminds" is ridiculous.

And note that while superheroes posess superpowers, only in modern comics do they also possess, at least some "embryonic" science skills.

Also, many of the superheroes are uneducated teenagers. Who battle "criminal professors". Spider-Man 2 was particulary repulsive to me because of the whole fucking premise - a scientist and his technology are evil while a stupid mutant teenager is the hero of the day.

I understand that the idea "Even if I'm a pathetic teenager who doesn't have a fucking clue about science, I can save the world and battle evil scientist" must have an appeal to the uneducated and silly youth.

But I find this simply outrageous. Rant over.

[brianeyci]

"You wouldn't last ten seconds in my life, book-learner!"

Part of it is that it's true... in high school. People who's education stops in high school only remembers what being a nerd in high school's like. Going to the computer room playing games all lunch, never getting any girlfriends, stuck in the library all day. They imagine this extends to scientists.

But in university there are people who have it all. Intelligent, beautiful, dress well and have social skills. They are not the nerds in high school. I used to think university was overrated. I changed my mind after a summer's worth of menial labor. University is my escape. I feel sorry for people who fucked up when they were kids and now believe they can't learn anything for the rest of their lives.

Of course I happen to be the stereotypical nerd still (and I like myself!), introverted, prefer a book over a movie with friends, not too many friends in the first place (quality over quantity!) and I fucking hate getting drunk and bars and clubs. But there's a lot of people in university who do have the whole package, who had/are the whole package. People like DW, Stark, aerius. I am one of those "would not last ten seconds" in a blue collar job people, but there's people who do have it all and would kick ass in anything they do. People with the total package.

Of course people's perceptions who quit at high school are from high school--that if you're a bookworm you have a screw loose. Like in CSI a few nights ago where the woman said "I'm a scientist. I'm terrible with kids!" As if being a scientist meant you were detached, aloof and withdrawn. Bah.

[wolveraptor]

Also, many of the superheroes are uneducated teenagers. Who battle "criminal professors". Spider-Man 2 was particulary repulsive to me because of the whole fucking premise - a scientist and his technology are evil while a stupid mutant teenager is the hero of the day.

Peter Parker is an aspiring scientist and is presented as a nerd in the comics as well. The theme here is that scientists well and good, but they shouldn't get too uppity with their gosh-darned technolo-gee and whatnot. Only a slight step up from what you were complaining about.[/nitpick]

[Ghost Rider]

Also, many of the superheroes are uneducated teenagers. Who battle "criminal professors". Spider-Man 2 was particulary repulsive to me because of the whole fucking premise - a scientist and his technology are evil while a stupid mutant teenager is the hero of the day.

I understand that the idea "Even if I'm a pathetic teenager who doesn't have a fucking clue about science, I can save the world and battle evil scientist" must have an appeal to the uneducated and silly youth.

But I find this simply outrageous. Rant over.

You were watching the same movie right?

I mean the same one where Peter Parker grasped easily on the level of Octavius the theories behind his project...was by no mean an idiot, and is presented as an intelligent college student?

But obviously that must equate in your your world, he's an uneducated idiot.

One thing to watch someone go "The theories in this movie are outlandish and downright fucking wrong!", another to rant about something that did not happen.

Seriously if you're going to rant about something get the facts correct.

[Darth Servo]

The short story: elitism is good if you EARNED it but not if it was given to you for nothing.

[Darth Raptor]

Scientists are the magicians of our age. Even when individual scientists are portrayed in a positive light, science itself is portrayed as a dangerous Pandora's Box of power. Although the mad scientist has devolved into little more than a self-parody, there's still this overarching belief that you shouldn't "play God" in even the more serious fiction. What most people fail to notice is that when science comes up with really nasty stuff, it usually does so at the behest of industrialists or military leaders. Science done in haste, in secret and for profit should be on the receiving end of a lot of scrutiny. I'm not sure if some of that carries over into the unpopularity of academics, or if that's still just bog standard anti-intellectualism.

[Stofsk]

Also, many of the superheroes are uneducated teenagers. Who battle "criminal professors". Spider-Man 2 was particulary repulsive to me because of the whole fucking premise - a scientist and his technology are evil while a stupid mutant teenager is the hero of the day.

Well done Stas, you're even more off the mark than Ghost pointed out.

The technology in Ocatvius' experiment wasn't presented as evil no matter how hard you want to try to say that it was - it was horribly flawed but not evil, it was presented as a solution to the West's looming energy crisis. Otto failed in it's design, not in it's intent.

Otto Octavius didn't start out evil, he suffered a mental collapse as a result of his experiment failing, his wife whom he loved dying in front of his eyes, and physically injured as well; he didn't twirl any moustache and cackled with delight at how he was going to destroy New York because he was a spiteful scientist. He was even talked out of being the bad guy at the end - a dignity afforded to a man who was originally a good person. This is all in addition to Peter being a talented science student in college, not some 'stupid mutant freak'.

I don't even like the film but at least I saw it. I don't know what film you saw, however.

[Stofsk]

Scientists are used in comic books because they can oppose the hero through tricks and traps

So can non-scientist. "Supervillains", actually, can oppose the superhero via brute force. And then, why do you even need "tricks and traps"? Why are scientists drawn into this crap? There's probably more to it, than just "tricks and traps".

Both of you are wrong. Science is shown as amoral, neither good or bad - scientists can be moral or immoral, depending on their personality, circumstances, and temperament. Reed Richards vs Doctor Doom, anybody?

Note that the first supervillain in the 1939 comics - was a scientist.

And one of the first superheroes was Batman - a forensic scientist and a detective who wasn't a dumbass.

This was 1939. A time, when a mad religious, nazi nutbar was about to continue his quest for European domination through outright war, sparkling a worldwide conflinct. The villain? Not a nazi, no-no. Not a religious fanatic - some Inquisitor or a Taleban islamist. A scientist.

Wow, gee... I guess you must have missed all those fucking "Captain America knocks out Hitler" comics.

All this crap about Superman having superior brute force, so then a supervillain should have superior intellect...

Actually Superman has a superior intellect too. I don't even read Superman and I know that.

The whole common theme "smart people are evil masterminds" is ridiculous.

And note that while superheroes posess superpowers, only in modern comics do they also possess, at least some "embryonic" science skills.

Because Spiderman was bitten by a radioactive spider completely by random, he didn't, you know, go to a science fare demonstrating the usefulness of atomic energy while also being introduced as a bookworm chem nerd. I'm sure glad you're here to tell us about things any idiot could read in the first ever issue of Spiderman.

Also, many of the superheroes are uneducated teenagers. Who battle "criminal professors". Spider-Man 2 was particulary repulsive to me because of the whole fucking premise - a scientist and his technology are evil while a stupid mutant teenager is the hero of the day.

I understand that the idea "Even if I'm a pathetic teenager who doesn't have a fucking clue about science, I can save the world and battle evil scientist" must have an appeal to the uneducated and silly youth.

But I find this simply outrageous. Rant over.

Glad you're finding this outrageous, considering it appears to be complete invention. I suppose it's easy for outrage to occur when you manufacture the cause of your discontent.

[wolveraptor]

Question: why don't people look down on the elitists of other fields, such as athletics?

[Nephtys]

Question: why don't people look down on the elitists of other fields, such as athletics?

People DO look down at snobbery, but that's more an act of assholishness than anything else. People do criticize the paychecks of athletes, but that's again a seperate affair.

The worst explaination I've ever heard was an athlete 'Earned it'. Even applied to a good sport olympic athlete, that's pretty terrible. How does a Ph.D not 'earn it' either? It takes just as long, if not longer.

People do look down on inherited business elitists, or those who gained their position through connections rather than merit. But this just makes me puzzle at why Academics, as close to meritocracy as we can really get, is still affected.

[Patrick Degan]

Because the skills of mind, as opposed to those of brawn, are not seen by Joe Sixpack as real work and he resents being told about anything by somebody who, in his blinkered view, doesn't really "work for a living".

[K. A. Pital]

I mean the same one where Peter Parker grasped easily on the level of Octavius the theories behind his project...was by no mean an idiot, and is presented as an intelligent college student?

"Intelligent college student"? Might be. He's still a colledge student. He doesn't have any fucking credentials. Spider-Man's "nerd" persona Peter Parker is actually one of the superheroes who does have a grasp of science - however, does he even care about it? He's saving the world from a scientist with his wank mutant powers, not his intellect.

The technology in Ocatvius' experiment wasn't presented as evil no matter how hard you want to try to say that it was

In the end, only the outcome mattered. The thermonuclear synthesis was presented as a Pandora's box which should not be opened, or else, and the A.I. of Octavius' mechanic limbs was presented as sentient and having a will - an evil will - of his own. Evil machines, my ass.

Otto Octavius didn't start out evil

Common theme. Little supervillains with intellect start out as inherently evil. Which doesn't change the fact they're presented as EVIL.

Stofsk

And one of the first superheroes was Batman - a forensic scientist and a detective who wasn't a dumbass.

Oh, got me. Point taken. Actually, Batman is indeed not a dumbass, one of the smartest characters from the whole "superhero" mansion. And he's also a normal human, not some sort of freak. Another one which comes to mind is X-men's Xavier...

I guess you must have missed all those fucking "Captain America knocks out Hitler" comics

Tell me some issues where someone "knocks out" Hitler before the War started. Perhaps I lack knowledge here. But it was June (or July?) 1939. And was anyone knocking Hitler out in comics?

Actually Superman has a superior intellect too

Wasn't accented until lately, and generally isn't accented even now. What people want to see are superpowers, not intellect.

[Ghost Rider]

I mean the same one where Peter Parker grasped easily on the level of Octavius the theories behind his project...was by no mean an idiot, and is presented as an intelligent college student?

"Intelligent college student"? Might be. He's still a colledge student. He doesn't have any fucking credentials. Spider-Man's "nerd" persona Peter Parker is actually one of the superheroes who does have a grasp of science - however, does he even care about it? He's saving the world from a scientist with his wank mutant powers, not his intellect.

Yes, because what he demonstrated in the film to Connors was noting his intelligence, but do you present any evidence, nope, nada, zero. He grasped Otto's experiment well enough to tell him what was fucking wrong with it...but that escapes your keen rant as well.

You keep ranting, because you need to go "Oh...well...he wasn't using his intellect!!!!!", seriously are you even fucking watching the same film or are you ranting because no one else will hear you unless you practically lie off your ass about said film?

[Patrick Degan]

Superman's scientific skills are a big feature of the Silver Age run of the comics. His Fortress of Solitude was depicted with a fully-equipped laboratory stocked with advanced machinery from across the galaxy which Superman employed in a variety of projects; from constructing robot duplicates of himself to maintaining the bottled-city of Kandor to his repeated efforts to discover a means to neutralise kryptonite to the monitoring of the Phantom Zone. The challenge posed by both Luthor and Braniac was not one that could be met by mere brawn alone --particularly in devising ways to defeat them without killing them, which would have violated his personal moral code.