Knowledge; the anti-intellectual bias.

I decided that I'd like to explore this idea of knowledge a bit more. After re-reading my post from the other day, I've come to realize that it only scratched the surface and could, and as any 300-500 word post is prone too, be misread. So, I am going to talk some more about knowledge and it's social implications and where it should be placed in people's lives.

When I said that knowledge is a dangerous commodity, I focused my attention inward; discussing the personal implications of an acquirement of knowledge. However, there is another danger to knowledge; something I would like to call the anti-intellectual bias. We live in a time when knowledge of any kind is readily accessible. The internet provides us with the resources to research a topic, learn it's nuances and even engage in conversation with other people about this. It is, in it's purest form, a good thing. It has the potential to bring the wide swath of human knowledge to anyone and this should be celebrated! Unfortunately, it is having a disastrous consequence. What I am talking about is the lack of care that most people take towards this influx of knowledge. If it's on the internet, then it must be true, or at least partly. Consequently, if someone does hours upon hours of research on something, there is a tendency to feel like one is an expert on the topic. The idea that the quantity of the time is more important than the quality of the material. This is almost always done unconsciously, as few are aware that they have been trained, by their culture, to think in such terms.

The problem with this is it makes the person feel like an expert, a type of "lay scholar." This is where the anti-intellectual bias comes into play. If someone begins to view themselves in this way, which is a natural progression from this increase in knowledge, then they start to distrust the "establishment." This distrust of establishment is incredibly nuanced, but can be expressed in one way. The intellectual bourgeoisie seek to lord it over the working class, "average American." There has always been an idea that seeking disciplines such as English or Philosophy is in no way "real" as someone who is doing 40+ work in retail or industry, it seems, be more invested in "real life." This is a dangerous idea though, as people in academia, generally the home of the "intellectual," are seen as not as "real" as the guy working at Target. However, human beings are human beings, and that someone who chose to engage their mind in study instead of work a "typical" job does not make them any one more or less real. These "intellectuals" still have feelings, love, have children, get divorced, care for their animals and want to see the best for their loved ones. They are just as "real" as anyone else.

This anti-intellectual bias becomes further problematic when you enter the realm of conspiracy. Take all the biases and internet searching that I talked about previously, and add a wealth of individuals who seemingly agree with you and you have the making for mass hysteria. It is assumed, since conspiracy theories are not the "general view" of society that they are somewhat more "real" than the popular view. This "hidden knowledge" that has gained an incredible foothold in recent years, is a dangerous commodity. It is a reinforced fantasy, often based on bad science and research that starts with a preconceived notion, instead of looking at the evidence purely and then making a decision. For instance, the idea that vaccines cause autism in children. At a small level, it is seen as the medical "establishment" making kids sick to make money off of vaccines. There are "unnatural" ingredients in vaccines that make people sick and the medical "establishment" knows about. They ship those vaccines all over the world and make huge profits. To get really out there, this is all a way for the New World Order to reduce the human population so it's easier to control. Unfortunately, this is no where near true. Vaccines account for roughly %10 of the money made off of medicine. This is because of the relatively low shelf and use life of vaccines. Prescriptions are much more lucrative and burgeoning business. Also, population growth and more inclusive diagnosis of autism are much better correlations than vaccines.

This isn't just an anti-intellectual bias though. It is also a lack of filtering. When new information is presented, we as humans need to ask some serious questions. Where did this come from? What are the biases present in this information? What are my own biases? Is this a reliable source of information? Is it verifiable by multiple sources? These are all questions that intellectuals and academics are taught to ask and years ago when all research was done at libraries, it was much easier to ask these questions. Ideas were not generally published unless they went through this process and if they were, they were always highly suspect.

The need to find fault with the establishment is a long held view in America, going back to the founding of the nation. Consequently, life can be hard and a distant "other" to blame for life's problems is easy to find. Academics and intellectuals, of which I will lump doctors, psychologists and the like in, have spent many years of their lives studying these topics and will continue to do so. They have wrestled with their chosen fields in ways that the rest of us just cannot, given time and access to resources. They should be given more credit than they are, trusted more than they are. However, the internet is quickly devolving into a place for paranoia, and is becoming one of the most dangerous places for knowledge, even as it seems to be knowledge's greatest benefactor.

P.S. I apologize for any sort of broad generalizations that may tick some of you off. In attempting to figure out how to relate this idea, I need to engage with generalities. Peace.

-Dan