The rise of ignorance

[caervek]

Why has it become so common for people to be proud of their ignorance and anti-intellectualismus?

Basically,

The internet has provided dumb/gullible people with an unlimited amount of incorrect, wrong and deliberately misleading information. As they are too dumb/gullible to correctly check that information (or simply don't bother as it fits with what they want to think/believe) they fall for it, and then they defend it because if it is wrong then they are wrong and that means they were dumb/gullible and they don't want to admit that.

There's loads of really good examples of nonsense that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny like chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracies, Bill Gates and vaccines, etc. Yet millions still fall for it and don't just fall for it but believe they are intelligent/wise because they can see the truth to it, when in reality they're just too dumb to realise it's blatant nonsense.

[deenman]

It's not that they're proud of it. Either they simply don't believe you, or they don't want to.

you can't chose beliefs,unless you count deliberately ignorning information that goes against your belief as such

[Cynical Asshole]

Why has it become so common for people to be proud of their ignorance and anti-intellectualismus?

The reason is simple: SOCIAL MEDIA.

For example let's look at celebrities.

Social media absolutely destroyed celebrities.

Before social media, they were held in high regard as we didn't know anything about their personal lives, their tastes and their political opinions, so we assumed the best about them, we assumed they were these intelligence and educated people. But when social media became a thing, all these celebrities couldn't help themselves and started blabbing their mouths about all sorts of things, mostly ignorant, stupid and entitled things. So all that aura of mysticism and superiority just vanished, and they were exposed as being exactly as they are: ivory tower rich and privileged MANCHILDREN who have no idea what they're talking about, and who live in their own bubble where they have no connection to average joe and real life itself.

The latest celebrity moron to commit career suicide by social media was Rachel Zegler.

If you're an idiot in a group of people, and you're at least wise enough to know you're an idiot, it's better to shut the hell up and let people assume you're smart, rather than open your mouth and prove them otherwise.

People were always stupid, but social media allowed them to voice that stupidity and also reach out to other similarly stupid people and be able to congregate into echochambers of stupidity and/or political bias from where any dissenting voices are removed/banned because they disturb the circle jerk going on and the circle jerkers don't like being disagreed with, only approval and agreement is allowed. Like for example Bluesky, Reddit, or the Politics section of MMO-Champion.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

you can't chose beliefs,unless you count deliberately ignorning information that goes against your belief as such

You can absolutely choose beliefs. I can choose to believe that right now you are dressed like pikachu. I can't prove it...but I can believe it.

[loras]

Why has it become so common for people to be proud of their ignorance and anti-intellectualismus?

Because in too many cases the "intellectuals" were more akin to priests, comissars and peddlers than anything resembling scientists, and that evaporated a lot of credibility.

That wouldn't have been an issue per se had enough people had the sense to act on that, rather than to stubbornly pretend they could still build arguments on their authority.

Alas the opposite of the latter happened extensively, effectively "overdrawing" their own authority thus further reducing their own credibility.
Doesn't help that this particular process made it obvious that arguments based on authority are often fallacies regardless of the authorities in question, as people who use such argumentation are very often less than impressive in terms of intelligence in practice.

Compare "Elon Musk said...." to "Experts claim...", with both being followed by accurate citations.
Neither is a real argument yet in practice citations are so extensively abused that references to authority are almost always exactly as funny as the former example.

- - - Updated - - -

You can absolutely choose beliefs. I can choose to believe that right now you are dressed like pikachu. I can't prove it...but I can believe it.

Belief tends to entail a bit more than that for most.
No i don't know how they do it either.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Belief tends to entail a bit more than that for most.
No i don't know how they do it either.

It's still always a choice.

[Vankrys]

What do you mean "has become?"

This isn't anything new.

Used to be people respected others with knowledge. and listen to them.
The fact that half of the american electorate disrespected, and some even threaten with violence Anthony Fauci, simply because of his knowledge of infectious disease and his willingness to advise the president in time of crisis is mind boggling.

People rejecting expertise is no longer on the fringe, they are mainstream.

[Gestopft]

Used to be people respected others with knowledge. and listen to them.

I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's famous quote about this: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

He said that 45 years ago, in 1980. The 1800's saw the Know Nothings and Burned-over District. This is what I mean by "nothing new."

People rejecting expertise is no longer on the fringe, they are mainstream.

As to this- I think it's an argument of degrees here, but I don't disagree that it's worse right now. I think the general degrading conditions in society have led to all-around institutional distrust which adds in this, but I would be remiss if I didn't include the right-wing media/politcal landscape that has intentionally fanned this flame. And this isn't sudden either; despite paying lip service to expertise, the GOP as an institution has been very anti-expertise for decades. They're just completely open about it now.

[mbit2]

People rejecting expertise is no longer on the fringe, they are mainstream.

1920 Edward Bernays came up with "science says you need bacon for breakfast" as false marketing knowing people trust scientists so lets exploit that. Shortly after you had doctors advertise smoking... since then academia got used widely in fraudulent marketing and experts lost credibility with each step. Nowadays people have to assume the guy on tv is there to lie for profit.

Stanford also got a funny case few years ago where the prof of ethics was found guilty forging data for publications on honesty research.
Its no wonder people ask is it real or fake again?

And lastly everyone has a degree nowadays.
Widening access to academia gave the public the ability to verify and so tv experts lost their education monopoly.
Its not a rise of ignorance but a rise in education equality.

[Al Gorefiend]

Because in too many cases the "intellectuals" were more akin to priests, comissars and peddlers than anything resembling scientists, and that evaporated a lot of credibility.

Nowadays "intellectuals" are more self-titled internet addicts who "know" alot by virtue of being chronically plugged in. They read a lot of Wikipedia and Reddit so they're just super ready to debate you at a moments notice because they've seen this before. A lot of their personalities are amalgomous mix of other people's experiences from around the world, not lived experiences of their own.

[diller]

1920 Edward Bernays came up with "science says you need bacon for breakfast" as false marketing knowing people trust scientists so lets exploit that. Shortly after you had doctors advertise smoking... since then academia got used widely in fraudulent marketing and experts lost credibility with each step. Nowadays people have to assume the guy on tv is there to lie for profit.

Stanford also got a funny case few years ago where the prof of ethics was found guilty forging data for publications on honesty research.
Its no wonder people ask is it real or fake again?

And lastly everyone has a degree nowadays.
Widening access to academia gave the public the ability to verify and so tv experts lost their education monopoly.
Its not a rise of ignorance but a rise in education equality.

none if this makes much sense or is the reason.

[Endus]

1920 Edward Bernays came up with "science says you need bacon for breakfast" as false marketing knowing people trust scientists so lets exploit that. Shortly after you had doctors advertise smoking... since then academia got used widely in fraudulent marketing and experts lost credibility with each step. Nowadays people have to assume the guy on tv is there to lie for profit.

Stanford also got a funny case few years ago where the prof of ethics was found guilty forging data for publications on honesty research.
Its no wonder people ask is it real or fake again?

Your two examples are like a century apart, and you think that reflects a strong trend?

And lastly everyone has a degree nowadays.
Widening access to academia gave the public the ability to verify and so tv experts lost their education monopoly.
Its not a rise of ignorance but a rise in education equality.

Thinking a Bachelor's Degree makes you an "expert" is fucking laughable. It's a basic qualification for entry-level work in a field. A "you're now qualified to be someone's apprentice" kind of thing. A BSc in Chemistry makes you qualified to wash an actual scientist's glassware and keep the lab clean, not to do chemistry. Maybe you'll have an exciting day watching a setup so you can tell the actual chemist when it starts to boil. Most professional BA degrees only qualify you either for entry into the "actual" school for the field, like pre-med or pre-law or the like, or they teach you the basic skills you'll need for lower-rung jobs, like a BA in architecture will teach you to be a draftsperson, but you won't be a project lead designing your own buildings with only that level of education.

Earning a BA doesn't take talent or smarts. It just takes diligence. You're not even expected to do personal research at that level; you're just reading up on the field and studying up to get a simple understanding of the basics.

Overestimating the value of your own education is itself a "rise of ignorance".

[Ereb]

I stopped caring about politics because I want to be happy. I don't think I'm stupid for it, just unconcerned.

That's....not what he meant by that lmao

[mbit2]

Your two examples are like a century apart, and you think that reflects a strong trend?



Thinking a Bachelor's Degree makes you an "expert" is fucking laughable. It's a basic qualification for entry-level work in a field. A "you're now qualified to be someone's apprentice" kind of thing. A BSc in Chemistry makes you qualified to wash an actual scientist's glassware and keep the lab clean, not to do chemistry. Maybe you'll have an exciting day watching a setup so you can tell the actual chemist when it starts to boil. Most professional BA degrees only qualify you either for entry into the "actual" school for the field, like pre-med or pre-law or the like, or they teach you the basic skills you'll need for lower-rung jobs, like a BA in architecture will teach you to be a draftsperson, but you won't be a project lead designing your own buildings with only that level of education.

Earning a BA doesn't take talent or smarts. It just takes diligence. You're not even expected to do personal research at that level; you're just reading up on the field and studying up to get a simple understanding of the basics.

Overestimating the value of your own education is itself a "rise of ignorance".

Nice shitpost, strawmaning bachelor when master is easier to get than old diploma.

[Gabriel]

Nice shitpost, strawmaning bachelor when master is easier to get than old diploma.

But... Bachelor's is a prequisite for getting a Master's?

[P for Pancetta]

Your two examples are like a century apart, and you think that reflects a strong trend?



Thinking a Bachelor's Degree makes you an "expert" is fucking laughable. It's a basic qualification for entry-level work in a field. A "you're now qualified to be someone's apprentice" kind of thing. A BSc in Chemistry makes you qualified to wash an actual scientist's glassware and keep the lab clean, not to do chemistry. Maybe you'll have an exciting day watching a setup so you can tell the actual chemist when it starts to boil. Most professional BA degrees only qualify you either for entry into the "actual" school for the field, like pre-med or pre-law or the like, or they teach you the basic skills you'll need for lower-rung jobs, like a BA in architecture will teach you to be a draftsperson, but you won't be a project lead designing your own buildings with only that level of education.

Earning a BA doesn't take talent or smarts. It just takes diligence. You're not even expected to do personal research at that level; you're just reading up on the field and studying up to get a simple understanding of the basics.

Overestimating the value of your own education is itself a "rise of ignorance".

While I agree a bachelor's degree doesn't make one an expert it's more then what you make of it. Maybe it's different in Canada, but here (Europe atm) a bachelor's degree grants you access to a lot more then just entry level jobs, and in some cases it's the "actual" school(nursing for example). I completed a bachelor's degree in chemistry before I went and got my master's in computer science (I didn't really like chemistry, but I was good at it and chose it because it made sense at the time). I personally found the Bsc chemistry harder then the Msc in Comp-sci. Not a lot of Chemistry Bachelor's end up in a laboratory and more often then not when they do they work at a higher level then most of the lab technicians there because most lab technicians went to a vocational school to become a lab technicians or assistant. Most labs aren't university labs or high end corporate research who only hire PHD's. You're right about the architecture one, but then again it's also quite rare for beginning architects to design their own buildings. When I went to university the most popular choice was Civil Engineering, That's what a good friend of mine chose, and afterwards she did a masters in civil engineering and started working for an architecture bureau, shortly after this she went back to university to get a phd in architecture paid for by said company, even then it took her a few years before she became a "real" architect.

What I'm getting at is that your examples are weird, of course you're not going to be designing the next mall or neighborhood with a Bsc, but most with a PHD in architecture won't be doing that either until they got a few years of experience working for an architecture bureau. Here a Bsc in architecture is quite rare, most people start with a Bsc in civil engineering and then pivot to Architecture when going for a Msc or other ways like the friend I mentioned before. And if you want to work in a lab and even take on more managerial responsibilities while doing so, then choosing a Bsc in chemistry is the perfect choice.

And while I agree most people can complete a Bsc quite easily (it doesn't require a lot of intelligence, just diligence and perseverance), here at least you are expected to do some personal research, at the very end you finish your Bsc with a thesis similar to a master's and you're expected to do your own research then (if it requires it, some Bsc's don't). granted most of the time this kind of research is rather trivial, but the same goes for master degrees and even a lot of PHD's these days.

Here at least there is a significant difference between the levels of various Bsc's, if you do a Bsc in a hard science you can expect a serious education that might rival or surpass certain easier master's programs in difficulty and effort required. other Bsc's are easier for example nursing which was until quite recently (it also involves physical activities, which the hard sciences don't have) had various levels with most people coming from vocational schools, now all new nurses are trained at a Bsc level. Social worker is another Bsc that's easier then most. but for both of these you need certain personality traits and skills to do the job properly.

I do agree on the last part. a Bsc is now the minimum in a lot of cases, even a master's degree isn't special anymore and PHD's also have gotten a lot more common. My dad works as a lead scientist at T&I (technology and innovation is the new research and development) for a large corporation. and he started there a long time ago with a Bsc-equivalent degree, currently they do not invite anyone for a job interview that does not have at least a PHD and even then most people get rejected. Same thing happens at the company I work for, the most interesting jobs require a PHD.

[Gabriel]

While I agree a bachelor's degree doesn't make one an expert it's more then what you make of it. Maybe it's different in Canada, but here (Europe atm) a bachelor's degree grants you access to a lot more then just entry level jobs, and in some cases it's the "actual" school(nursing for example). I completed a bachelor's degree in chemistry before I went and got my master's in computer science (I didn't really like chemistry, but I was good at it and chose it because it made sense at the time). I personally found the Bsc chemistry harder then the Msc in Comp-sci. Not a lot of Chemistry Bachelor's end up in a laboratory and more often then not when they do they work at a higher level then most of the lab technicians there because most lab technicians went to a vocational school to become a lab technicians or assistant. Most labs aren't university labs or high end corporate research who only hire PHD's. You're right about the architecture one, but then again it's also quite rare for beginning architects to design their own buildings. When I went to university the most popular choice was Civil Engineering, That's what a good friend of mine chose, and afterwards she did a masters in civil engineering and started working for an architecture bureau, shortly after this she went back to university to get a phd in architecture paid for by said company, even then it took her a few years before she became a "real" architect.

What I'm getting at is that your examples are weird, of course you're not going to be designing the next mall or neighborhood with a Bsc, but most with a PHD in architecture won't be doing that either until they got a few years of experience working for an architecture bureau. Here a Bsc in architecture is quite rare, most people start with a Bsc in civil engineering and then pivot to Architecture when going for a Msc or other ways like the friend I mentioned before. And if you want to work in a lab and even take on more managerial responsibilities while doing so, then choosing a Bsc in chemistry is the perfect choice.

And while I agree most people can complete a Bsc quite easily (it doesn't require a lot of intelligence, just diligence and perseverance), here at least you are expected to do some personal research, at the very end you finish your Bsc with a thesis similar to a master's and you're expected to do your own research then (if it requires it, some Bsc's don't). granted most of the time this kind of research is rather trivial, but the same goes for master degrees and even a lot of PHD's these days.

Here at least there is a significant difference between the levels of various Bsc's, if you do a Bsc in a hard science you can expect a serious education that might rival or surpass certain easier master's programs in difficulty and effort required. other Bsc's are easier for example nursing which was until quite recently (it also involves physical activities, which the hard sciences don't have) had various levels with most people coming from vocational schools, now all new nurses are trained at a Bsc level. Social worker is another Bsc that's easier then most. but for both of these you need certain personality traits and skills to do the job properly.

I do agree on the last part. a Bsc is now the minimum in a lot of cases, even a master's degree isn't special anymore and PHD's also have gotten a lot more common. My dad works as a lead scientist at T&I (technology and innovation is the new research and development) for a large corporation. and he started there a long time ago with a Bsc-equivalent degree, currently they do not invite anyone for a job interview that does not have at least a PHD and even then most people get rejected. Same thing happens at the company I work for, the most interesting jobs require a PHD.

It depends on whether you get your Bachelor's degree from a University, or a University of Applied Sciences.

A bachelor's degree from a University is basically just a Master's degree you never finished, while a bachelor's degree form a university of applied sciences is basically an engineering degree.

The requirements for completing that bachelor's degree is also completely different between the two. In a university you actually need to write a thesis, while in university of applied sciences you can basically turn in a Power Point presentation you did the night before while you were drunk.

[Kraenen]

Technology allowed the already-existing motivated reasoning machine to accelerate. People have always been ignorant, they just felt like they got more education and therefore were more justified in their rigidly-held beliefs.