I couldn't resist using "butt stick stupid" in my title. Y'all forgive me.

Perhaps strangely, I would say that common sense and "book larnin" MAY be mutually exclusive, in the same way that "well-educated" is not the same things as "college educated." In at least 3 industries I've worked in (mental health, education, and construction), the degree often indicated someone who THOUGHT they knew a lot more than they actually knew - and it was often difficult to get any new information into that person's head.

However, that being said, being proud of one's ignorance is just nauseating. When hiring, I look for someone who is smart and competant.

Education, in any form, SHOULD be highly valued - yes it's time. And you are justifiably proud of your accomplishments.

You're lucky. It was made clear to me that I was going to be cleaning floors for the rest of my life by the time I was nine. So my attitude towards education is, um, not entirely positive.

Myself, I think the dismissive attitude towards knowledge has a great deal with peoples' unease with uncertainty. As Socrates pointed out the more you learn the more you realize how much you don't know. Uncertainty increases as you learn more.

People like to be sure of themselves. They like to believe that things will get better, or at least remain the same. And they like to believe that what they are doing is the right thing.

Once you get too much 'larnin' that certainty goes away.

By the way, that first quote is by Peter F. Drucker. He also came up with this zinger: "BA stands for Bugger All, MBA stands for More Bugger All and PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper." *wink*

That said I appreciate literate, intelligent and humble people such as yourself. They make the world a better place. It's the prideful ones, proud of their ignorance or proud of their education, that make life unpleasant.

I would love to see the love of learning return to the country as a cool thing. But having said that, I realize how little I want learning to be some sort of fad, subject to the whims of the public. It should be something steady and always desirable. But it's become "uncool" which is to say, it's become a commodity that is not desired.

Of course, there's a way out of it. But you can't start with the people in front of you. You have to go back and start again with the kids.

I think it's reasonable for people to be proud of their accomplishments. I think that people who are consistently anti-intellectual are sometimes trying to level things out by tearing others down. That's too bad.

Rated for your perspective and the vocabulary lesson. :-)

I feel your pain.

Anti-intellectualism would seemingly be a form of fear manifest. Romantic Heretic cites fear of uncertainty; Rob cites a low self-esteem, which is usually fearful for those who have it.

I think there is a large element of laziness involved, as well. I can’t count the times I’ve heard people say, “I don’t have the energy” or “It’s too difficult” regarding critical thought about a subject or issue.

We often hear about common sense versus book “larnin”, but I don’t hear people ever truly define what they mean by “common sense”. That term seems to have many different meanings for many different people. How many times did we hear over the past 8 years that Bush had common sense? Did he? I would argue that he did not.

I disagree that book “larnin” and common sense are mutually exclusive. They are overlapping aspects of the intellect. Reliance on one over the other to any extreme will most likely not yield good results. Common sense without ability in logic and critical thinking is often little more than total ignorance of the complexities in world issues, which is why Bush was such a miserable failure. Book “larnin” without common sense usually leads to decisions that do not consider the human element of relationships between various aspects of an issue.

RATED

I agree with the idea of overlapping aspects of the intellect. I have seen the most intelligent people do the stupidest things imaginable. Being somewhat of an autodidact, when I do something dumb I've noone to blame but myself.

Thanks, everyone, for the confirmation that I'm not alone in thinking it's time to adjust the thinking in this country. Much appreciated.

Butt was good marketing. I do believe it ( the other club).

Charity,

Re: "… I honestly thought that pride in ignorance would go out of vogue once Bush was out of office…"

While I agree that "43" was a poster child of this phenomenon, this was more just a coincidence, not the cause.

Here are two possible components, both candidates for cause. In combination -- and now they are in tight combination -- they unfortunately seem to guarantee that pride in ignorance will not go out of vogue any time soon.

Component 1 - The natural thirst for pier approval

Those who are good athletes, excel in the science curricula, have irresistible charm or humor, or show some other desirable qualities, they are usually valued members of their pier groups. But the desire to be valued tickles also those, who can rely on none of these qualities. They can use a number of substitutes and anti-intellectualism is only one of them: nationalism, sexism, racism, religious intolerance come to mind as alternatives. They all work the same way: "I am good because I belong to this group (even if this a group of ignorant). And I will look even better if I denigrate the values you have."

Such practices are always present in any society, but they are held in check be healthier opinions. And of course the denigrators know the usefulness of such tools is limited: you can find people who think you are cool, but can't get a raise or promoted to a better position for just praising ignorance. These cards are seldom overplayed. Besides, it is inconvenient to be on this side of the argument when the majority understands that this is BS. The needed mass support for anti-intellectualism is missing more often than not.

But supportive conditions can be created.

Component-2 Pleasing the masses

Imagine a hypothetical party that stands on the platform of 'benefiting the successful', lowering taxes on the few, outsourcing the work of the many. In a representative democracy they can count on the votes of the few, but that is not enough to be elected and run the country. One needs at least some support from those who's interest they don't stand for. Counter-intuitive? Not in clever politics…

If you create the impression that you stand for OTHER THINGS that might be acceptable to the many, and if you convince them that these other things are MORE IMPORTANT than their lost jobs or stagnating income or higher taxes, who knows, they may believe you. And vote for you despite their best interest.

It is also useful to mix a cocktail from various components: What if we …
(1) argue against excellence in general and
(2) show that 'nuance' (one of the signs of understanding) is FRENCH, therefore alien to us!
(3) And that a simple guy who is like you, will handle complex things better (common sense)
(4) the guy also goes to the same kind of church you do
(5) and of course, he is not a woman…

One should notice the irony: if you praise ignorance because you are fishing for people less knowledgeable, you will have a good chance theywill not catch you cheating. Because they are ignorant. So bring in a carload of red herrings!

You are obviously a person who is not only educated but who is also educated.
I personally know of hunerts and hunerts of peoples who gradgigated hi skool and are about as educated as a butt stick.
Having a degree (and I have an MA) is no guarantee of an education. There are far too many uneducated educated people and not enough educated uneducated people. I feel fortunate to be an educated educated person but not because of my formal education. It's because of work and effort and passion and persistence and, most of all, reading and thinking.
If that makes me elitist then that's just fine with me.

I'm trying to put names with the quotes. So far, I have a set of three initials. Am I close?

"Here, here!" I could not have written it better. I also am sick of education being equated with elitism. I have to say that the idea of a writing site being full of members who make this assertion is rather frightening.

Reading through the comments, a question occurred to me, "Is there a difference between having a degree and being educated?" My own sense is that in the 70s, colleges began to move away from a commitment to providing students with a liberal education. Such an educational experience is a far cry from that provided by many of today's courses of study that are designed to prepare people for entry into specialized fields of work at the expense of "a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement ... characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study" (definition of a liberal education provided by Wikipedia).

I've had a slightly different bone to pick with those around me, including those I love like my own daughter. My daughter is well educated and frankly, smarter than I am. She already has the credentials to prove it including finishing as the valedictorian of her high school, a President's Scholarship to her undergraduate school, and a Master's Degree from Harvard. I am so proud I could explode.

Then we got into discussions about how global linguistic communications will begin to adopt the short-hand used in sending text messages over time... and I become unhappy. It was not unlike how unhappy I became when people began talking about embracing ebonics in the Black communities a few decades ago.

I think this only happens when we, as a people, become too lazy to value our English language. Too lazy to learn how to use it properly in all spoken and written forms.

I will admit that in my youth I was proud of my ability to communicate equally effectively in school, work... or out on the block. But to my way of thinking, I didn't choose one over the other. I could do it because I valued the education necessary to enable me to write or speak with anyone.

I don't think "butt stick stupid" people can do that. Too bad for them.

Great post.

I've been concerned about this very idea. This new dislike or in some cases hatred for educated people is rather troubling.

It's the educated people that should be leading the country not people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Beck... That's not to say that they aren't intelligent. They no doubt are but they use their intelligence for evil.

Educated people that are apolitical and dedicated to public service would be a breath of fresh are compared to the charlatans that we see in meetings with corporate flacks and corporate sycophants.

But to the people peddling the lies about global warming and lies about dioxins and cigarettes, true educated people are a threat.

Perhaps that is the root of this manufactured distrust of educated people, they ARE a threat to the corporatocracy that we find ourselves in.

It would appear that aside from Bush style republicans being racists, they are smug and haughty in their illogic and ignorance.

There is no pride in choosing to be stupid or to be led by evil and incompetent fools.

In the land of idiots the thinking man is supposed to be king, not court jester or worse...

I like the title.

And since my own education has been devalued for the past 8 years - I am pleased.

Not only education has been devalued, but science.

At my parent's house a few weeks ago my dad (bless his heart) made a snarky comment about global warming.

My sister (who has been taken over by the dark side) loudly interrupted - NO POLITICS!

This is because we cannot discuss politics at family gatherings - not any more.

I had to say, however - "Um, this is not politics. This is science. Different president. Now it is science."

Pissed everyone off.

It was cool.

Tenacity that was hysterical. LOL

Did you see Walter Kirn talk about his new book on Colbert Report last week? He made some of the same points but not in as colorful and poignant a way. Thumbs up rating.

I don't think Bush is responsible for the anti-intellectual trope in the culture, he is merely a symptom. Americans have long had this "plain-spoken" Davy Crockett/ Andy Jackson fantasy. I think it's more noticible now because higher education has become so difficult to obtain, with all that says both about "inverse snobbery" AND not being exposed to deeper things. As for my own spelling (my apologies), I mistakenly stored my textual abilities in my right hemisphere. This makes the words flow, but they are mutable as hell and subject to the shape changes you find when asleep~

Good article.

It is interesting the Bush the uniter was a more successful divider than this country has ever seen. The idea that science is political is astounding. Under that different filter, I see the effects here in my neighborhood. There are legions of people that are defending the corporate polluter that has ruined the rivers and public parks here. The defenders point to 'sound science' cooked by industry hacks and rail against 'tree hugging liberals' that bring their own science to the table. The mood has gotten very nasty at public meetings as the 'squishy' left confronts the hard right.

Us environmentalists 'hate the rich' (the people running the plants), 'hate the poor' (because we want to close down the polluter and kill jobs). We want to make it so hard for an honest *GAG* company to clean up their mess (by requiring verifiable standards for the cleanup) that no corporation would ever dare to open a plant in the area ever again. We want to elevate the tree above all human life and prosperity and seek to make 'humanism' the new national religion. That last one, even I'm surprised at. I don't know where that came from.

We've had wound way too tight wingnuts go off at meetings get a lot of support too. Of course the local media takes their side. They get fantastic coverage from the local radio station that also carries Limbaugh and Hannity and from the local Chamber of Commerce...

It's been amazing how a human health tragedy has morphed into a political sideshow...

You all make some good points.

As to the difference in education now and then, when I graduated with a BS in Bus. Mgmt in 1987, the requirements also included things like biology, chemistry, a foreign language, and two years of english classes. It may be different now.

Thank you all for commenting.

I felt some stirrings of practicality when my oldest child, an English major, was planning what courses to take in her senior year at an elite Northeastern university. Her response to my concerns: "Mom, it's about education, not job training."

(She wait tables all that long.) :)

"I personally know hundreds of dumb and lazy people with degrees." (yes, "hundreds")"

FUNNY! exaggeration stated as fact is always off putting to me too - great post, insightful points - thanks!

I have no idea where my sheepskin is now, it used to be under the couch, but that hasn't stopped my belief that the pursuit of knowledge is any less of an ongoing thing. Why shouldn't we better ourselves? We have the resources at hand.
I can also make a shiv just incase.
Shank you very much.

This exists for the most part in the South and Midwest. It is 100% due to religion. Interesting that the creator of the Movie Idiocracy grew up in Texas.