How can you make people enjoy learning when Intellectual Elitists like to point out what others don’t know and rub their noses in it?
I define intellectual elitism by judging people by what they know instead, particularly against the standards of personal biases. I find it deeply rooted in an overwhelming desire for validation and praise, even at the expense of others. I see it as a problem because, such a predisposition leads to dismissing ideas as they are being formed and communicated. That snap judgment, based on incomplete information and with such absolute certainty, is inconsistent with aspects balanced and impartial intellectual pursuit. A key symptom and clue of an intellectual elitist is that, they have early on stopped listening and they never criticize their own understanding.
Spotting such people is not that difficult, face to face I find them when it is difficult for me to express my ideas and how they interrupt me in the middle of explanation with an oversimplified assumption of what I was leading to. This is not to be confused with people who try to help others with the best words to contain their ideas. In a conversation, the other speaker chooses not to relate ideas in a middle ground by listening and empathizing in order to use the optimal verbal method for the other person. Not all key names and individuals count as name dropping, it becomes clearly so when they rattle off a long list of names for the sake of supporting their ideas instead of expressing the underlying logic of their argument in a moderate length.
Although I disdain them, I should empathize with them. It takes one to know one, and I am guilty of Intellectual Elitism at times. Such desire to dictate and lecture is a vanity developed when I worked hard to acquire knowledge and I am accustomed to the positive reinforcement of authority and the praise of others. This desire becomes stronger especially when it is not to my strengths and the effort was a challenge.
How I can change to be less of a hog for attention, is about looking at myself with an outside perspective and using the same critical manner I would use to tear down an opponent’s argument at my own pettiness. It’s kind of hard to do, and having good friends who tear you a “new one” and teach you not to take yourself too seriously helps immensely. Self deprecation or Humility has a practical use in learning, it allows me to criticize myself and remember I still have so much more to learn. Such a virtue should be carried over to how I treat others and their views… I try and do it often enough but I’m human after all.
Of course, having such empathy and disgust to Intellectual Elitists in myself does carry over when I see it in others. If I’m disgusted enough at something, sometimes I can’t help but draw attention to it and make an example. Unfortunately this is not the best way, criticism without trust or credibility is just outright verbal attacks. I may not know some people, but I pretty sure they don’t know me either. When broad judgments are made by them regarding what I know, instead of what was said, especially when I barely had anything to say, the proper response is verbal retaliation. Same thing goes with how I should address others, I should avoid making sweeping statements when I really don’t know the person if I don’t want it to be interpreted as an attack.
The old rule parents would teach, “when you have nothing worth saying, don’t say anything” applies more specifically when dealing with such people. Sure they ate up my time, but there is no point in trying to win the value of that sunk cost. Leaving for greener pastures is the best possible course of action, although there is no rule of thumb on how rudely or politely I’ll leave. After all, I wouldn’t know much benefit of the doubt I would have wasted dealing with such people and how I will ever feel at the point of being fed up.
The proper atmosphere, to my point of view, is one that makes everyone feel okay to ask questions that they would otherwise feel stupid to ask. Such nice people to talk and exchange ideas with tend to present themselves with some humor and would at default assume the best of people. They also pay attention and ask good questions about the ideas discussed, stopping to test each other’s understanding, like someone who makes sure he is walking at the same comfortable pace and the other person. They often ask what you mean by your terms, they are not quick to let their own assumptions about the other’s use of language.
In such an atmosphere and around such people, learning becomes easier. Such a circumstance allows me to see the different strengths and potential of others, and thus learn to value and respect them more.
I agree. I am also guilty of Intellectual Elitism and I also found this in most of my relatively intelligent professors before. I used to admire these people when I was younger but not now when I noticed how these people use others in order to raise themselves. I don't think it's good to make fun or question other people's ideas just because we want ours to be noticed. Most of our politicians/lawmakers are intellectual elitists, I think. IMMATURE!
You know, I met this one guy. I laid down my idea to him. It sounds like a crazy idea, really. However, allow me to explain it to you, and you'll see that it is the only logical and rational idea available. That is, if you'll allow me to convince you that this idea is correct in an atmosphere of cordial conversation. But apparently, this person (the guy I met) thinks it best to make fun of the idea. (It's not my idea, it's the standard view held by all experts in the field.) Even worse, he thought it best to make sarcastic, and personal, snide remarks, remarks like "Your [sic] awesome Pecier, does anyone tell you that enough. Simply awesome!" (sarcastic, of course, and copied verbatim) or like "Admiring your work Pecier" (again, sarcastic). I don't know about you, but for me, a truly humble person would never reply in such – what's the right word? – arrogant, in such an arrogant, insensitive and offensive manner.
Just sharing my story. I hope it doesn't happen to any one of you. I hope none of you will ever be the victim of such offensive and anti-constructive criticism.
@Pecier
Intellectual Elitist is when somebody keeps a superior stance when dealing with people not having the same intellectual capacity as they have.
What happened to you is more like they were not interested in your work or what you had to say. They got annoyed with your trying to help them as if they didn't know anything.
If somebody is not asking for help then don't offer to help
Making fun of another person's ideas before you have given them a chance to expound those ideas, is it counted under intellectual elitism? Because if it is, then I was just recently a victim of intellectual elitism myself.
Specifically, I was a victim of a sarcastic response to my (apparently misunderstood) idea. Notice that I'm not talking about a constructive criticism ("I think your idea is wrong, and here's why…. I think this is the correct idea, and I enjoin to you consider it"). Not at all, not a constructive criticism, which I would have welcomed wholeheartedly. What I'm talking about is another person making fun of someone else's idea ("Haha, you're idea is laughable and absurd!"). It's hurtful when somebody does that to you, isn't it? How, do you think, should one respond when one is attacked in such a manner, I mean, when one is made a clown even if one was not yet given a chance to explain one's self?
Or how about being attacked because another person is offended just because you encouraged him or her to pick up a book, is that being a victim of intellectual elitism? I don't know what's so offensive about enjoining another person to learn more, but surprisingly, some people get offended when you tell them there's something they don't know.
Or how about being called a sophist just because you are telling a person to get their words straight? Again, I don't find being corrected offensive, but apparently, some people get offended when you correct them.
Just asking.
*just because you are telling a person to get his or her words straight?
An answer to your question:
Sorry Pecier,
I need to know the other side of the story. I don't know what that person may thinking or what you could have done to provoke such a response.
It would only be fair of me to form my own opinion after that, not assume that the person you came into conflict with was automatically bad. Especially since, as I have said in the article, I wouldn't know and I would rather ask the person than makes any assumptions of the worse.
Here's to Learning!
Long love learning.
I mean, Long live learning. Although the typo above looks good.
Justin, you said "They also pay attention and ask good questions about the ideas discussed, stopping to test each other’s understanding, like someone who makes sure he is walking at the same comfortable pace and the other person." How I hope you practice what you preach.
However, is making fun of another person's idea, and even of another person's very personality a way of making sure that you are "walking at the same comfortable pace and the other person"?
Justin, you also said that humble persons "ask what you mean by your terms[;] they are not quick to let their own assumptions about the other’s use of language." Sometimes we are allowed to define words in our own way. Words, after all, are our servants, not our masters. However, we should use the privilege of defining our own terms very sparingly. We should never forget the fact that the purpose of language is communication, and communication would be impossible if everyone can change the meaning of words at their whim.
Especially in an environment where the people are very critical (and we at FFF are indeed critical), you must always be careful with your use of words. As much as possible, use the standard or accepted definition of words. Avoid using words in their colloquial sense, because colloquial definitions almost always lead to confusion. A corollary of the previous statement: when you know that you are talking to an intelligent audience (such as FFF), feel free to use jargon or technical language if need be. There are time when jargon is a form of intellectual masturbation, but there are also times when it jargon acts as the grease of communication – know when is when.
Finally, if you really, really need to define words your own way, then warn your audience. You wouldn't want them asking questions or criticizing your idea when they have in fact misunderstood it.
In summary, if you really want to communicate an idea, then avoiding confusion with your audience is a top priority, and redefining well-defined words will not help you avoid confusion.
Erratum:
The passage
"There are time when jargon is a form of intellectual masturbation, but there are also times when it jargon acts as the grease of communication – know when is when."
should read
"There are times when jargon is a form of intellectual masturbation, but there are also times when jargon acts as the grease of communication – know when is when."
Personally, I prefer to be blunt if at all possible. The quickest from point A to B is a straight line after all.
Does it make me come off as rude? Maybe, but I think it's worse to be overly PC – you beat around the bush too much, and you'll never get your message across.
@Twin-Skies
Yes, I'm being PC, but not because I want to avoid offending another (I'm sure you've witnessed how sharp my pen can be), but because I want to achieve peace. A war of ideas is good, but a clash of personalities is never what I wanted.
The shortest point from A to B is indeed the straight line, and as far as my present goal is concerned, that straight path is the polite path. Remember that we are not merely robots or computers, we are apes with hormones (like testosterone) and aggression instincts. Reason alone cannot win us; but a well-packaged and sometimes blunted reason can.
Cheers, man.
One good way of not coming off as an elitist is economy of words.
I recall my journ teacher telling us that being a good reporter was being able to transmit the news in as efficient and as simple a way as possible.
Unless we were trying to impress an English proff (and even they hate overly fancy language), it was bad form to use needlessly fancy words was just intellectual masturbation.
On another, justin, I can totally relate with the temptation to call out anybody who makes false or factually incorrect statements.
There are times that people like them just are not worth the time or effort to confront, especially when they're long-suffering victims of what Richard Marcinko calls Head-In-Cement Syndrome.
@Gab
Well, a person can be arrogant when he's trying to protect his ego.
As I see it, A Freethinker will show arrogance to keep others from imposing their ideas on them when everybody is trying to convince him or her of something else. Because other people can be arrogant and "closed-minded" too with their own beliefs. So it's understandable. It's your problem if you are still arrogant when everybody is minding their own business.
Or maybe it's just me. I can never tell if what i'm saying is appropriate at the moment or not.
A Freethinker was once vulnerable and he needs to find a way of backing up his own ideas. And you back yourself up with all kinds of proof and other like-minded people.
Theists back up their own beliefs with an unknowable God, His mob, and their own proofs like the Bible and its interpretations.
avoid this.
Freethinkers have this tendency to become arrogant. We should this. =)
Or might be a function of maturity
This is encouraging. Good post. (Why) are freethinkers easily susceptible to intellectual elitism?
Thanks, To Learning!
@justinaquino
Kindly read my comments below.
I appreciate your honesty and humility in this post, Justin. Here's to learning more and to an atmosphere that allows and balances mutual support and criticism.