Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

thesmartset.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 129 posts

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#51

Post by throwanem »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #38
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence. Not at all. It says highly educated people are out of touch with the realities of life of average folks because these categories have very different ranges of first-hand experience.

Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

In my experience, there's no reason to assume that a professor has a better understanding of the world than someone working at Burger King, either. You can be smart and lettered and still ignorant. The trouble is, being smart and lettered means you're a lot less likely to notice.

In general, I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing the stereotype threat they experience around the "unworldly intellectual" idea, and what Lind, who is himself an intellectual of no small repute, is actually saying. It seems like there might be more light and less heat in the discussion if everyone were to take a moment and reflect on the difference. But I'm sorry to say I don't have much confidence that will happen.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#52

Post by throw_away_777 »

nitrogen wrote: post #47
throw_away_777 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

There are a few well-read would-be intellectuals stuck working at a fast food joint simply due to not knowing how to do otherwise.

The existence of some very smart KFC workers doesn't mean that on average McDonald's workers are as intelligent as professors.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#53

Post by tottenhm »

PaulHoule wrote: post #4

The isolation of academia from reality is so large that you almost have to say it is deliberate. In particular, when it comes the issues of the humanities that revolve around "how should you live your life?"; a professor who is tenured has nothing to say to people subject to the "flexible economy" other than to implant false conciousness.

> The isolation of academia from reality is so large that you almost have to say it is deliberate.

Yes... but for context, we can compare an academy with a factory, a military, a primary school, a hospital, a ride-share, or a church. If a person spends the majority of his time on writing papers, shaping steel, marching in formation, tagging on a playground, tending to sick people, driving strangers around the city, or praising god... well, all that focused labor is going to warp his world view a bit. And that is quite deliberate. Institutions are defined by how they isolate their members, direct their members' focus, and acquire comparative-advantage.

Of course, institutions in our time are not absolute. If we turn our attention away from categorical institutions... and instead look at individuals... then the situation gets much more interesting and less dark (but still imperfect)...

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#54

Post by Florin_Andrei »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #38
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence. Not at all. It says highly educated people are out of touch with the realities of life of average folks because these categories have very different ranges of first-hand experience.

Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

> Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor?

They definitely have a better understanding of that slice of the world that they experience while the professor doesn't.

The whole point of the article is aptly summed up by the "let them eat cake" anecdote, by the way.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#55

Post by pawn »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #38
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence. Not at all. It says highly educated people are out of touch with the realities of life of average folks because these categories have very different ranges of first-hand experience.

Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

One example I can think of off the top of my head would be automotive repair. If I can afford to let someone else do it, I will. That's not to say I don't think I could learn it if I needed to, but I don't ever need to. So, I'm happy to let someone "less educated" who knows more about engines do it. There are teenagers who know twice as much about how to fix a car issue. They don't know what the inside of a computer looks like, but they don't need to. Now, take that example and extrapolate it to several other facets of life, and you can say there's a big gap in an educated person's world and that of his less-educated neighbor. Yeah, I know math and physics and how write computer code, but who cares?

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#56

Post by jerf »

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #27

>For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals. So... intellectuals were right about the issues that they were focuse…

Those were two cherry-picked examples of things intelligentsia got right. It was not a claim that they get everything or almost everything right.

I generally share the author's opinions about intellectuals as a category, and the gold standard was, in my opinion, a particularly good choice of an example that intellectuals get right where the common man is often quite wrong. The same concrete connection to the real world that so often leads the common man to be more correct about some very simple things that the intelligentsia misleads them here, because money is not a very concrete thing. It can seem like it is, because you've got this "cash" and this "gold" and it all seems very concrete, but the true driver of the economy, how people subjectively measure value, is very abstract.

But intellectuals can also say some blitheringly idiotic things, like promoting the glorious Five Year Plans when anybody who has ever had to make real plans for the future knows that you generally encounter important divergences in the first week of implementation, or that battle plans never survive contact with the enemy, etc. I also do not endorse economics in general; it is true that "the gold standard" is not good, but economic's track record of telling us what is good is bad.

Intellectual pursuits can be a very powerful and noble thing, but when it fails to correctly ground itself in reality it can become a very powerful and evil thing. I have great respect for intellectuals who admit error and craft new theories or ideas in response to failure and great, great contempt for the majority of those who fancy themselves intellectuals who instead cling to words and theory far, far beyond what is justified when evidence of error confronts them. (Yes, one can't drop a theory the instant one slight deviation is seen, but there are theories still alive today in the intellectual world that should have died decades, and in some particularly sad cases, centuries ago.)

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#57

Post by cylinder »

ryukafalz wrote: post #9
rubidium wrote: post #3

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people. Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish,…

>As a result, my thinking has changed to ... UBI is foolish Could you elaborate on what made you change your mind regarding UBI? It'd be interesting to hear your perspective on this.

Working class wants to work.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#58

Post by usefulcat »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #20

This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence. This sentiment is completely ridiculous, yet I'm sure a lot of people believe it because it makes them feel superior. Pundits and professors are often wrong, but it isn't because they are highly educated. I still trust the opinion of a professor rather than someone working at Pizza Hut…

> This article is saying smart people don't understand how the world works because most of the world's people are average intelligence.

Whether or not "intellectuals" are generally of above average intelligence isn't the point. The point is that the experience of intellectuals, a numerical minority, is atypical relative to the population as a whole.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

pawn wrote: post #55
throw_away_777 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they have different ranges of first-hand experiences? It is undeniable that by any objective measure professors are smarter (in the sense of being better able to tackle intellectual problems) than the average population. Do you honestly think someone working at Burger King has a better understanding of the world than a professor? I urge you to actually have a conversation with such a person.

One example I can think of off the top of my head would be automotive repair. If I can afford to let someone else do it, I will. That's not to say I don't think I could learn it if I needed to, but I don't ever need to. So, I'm happy to let someone "less educated" who knows more about engines do it. There are teenagers who know twice as much about how to fix a car issue. They don't know what the inside of a computer…

> There are teenagers who know twice as much about how to fix a car issue. They don't know what the inside of a computer looks like, but they don't need to. Now, take that example and extrapolate it to several other facets of life, and you can say there's a big gap in an educated person's world and that of his less-educated neighbor.

Which is kind of irrelevant to the subject here, which is really about academics focused on areas of social and policy significance having gaps in that specific subject area that would be filled in if they were just forced to spend a year working in a random working-class non-academic job.

It is specifically not about gaps outside of the targeted academics' areas of work, which is what you seem to be focusing on.

Its more like saying that being forced to spend a year working construction instead of programming would fill in critical gaps in your understanding of computer programming.

Re: Why professors, pundits, and policy wonks misunderstand the world

#60

Post by idrios »

humanrebar wrote: post #14
rubidium wrote: post #3

Glad to see someone acknowledging the myopic view of most intellectuals. During my time in academia (PhD), I'll admit now I had very little idea of what life was like for the majority of people. Since then I've been living among many working class and poverty-level folks. Average household income in my neighborhood is <$22K (U.S.). As a result, my thinking has changed to unions are overall good ideas, UBI is foolish,…

> Creating real neighborhood community (work, education, family, etc) is the best solution... it's just really hard to do! Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions that provided this: regular neighborhood hangout spots, social clubs, adult recreational leagues, and especially churches. > unions are overall good ideas Maybe. Depends. I frequently see union demands oriented around last decade's op…

> Especially since we've largely abandoned previous institutions

True, though I think new institutions will come back. Things like Meetup groups seem to be gaining more traction--The groups are just slow to adoption because they're so new that nobody can be grandfathered in yet by friends or family who have been long-term members.

> Unions are overall good ideas -- Maybe. Depends.

I see unions as just another corporation - they're satisfying a need of "workers should not be exploited", their revenue model is "members pay X% and in return get our strength in numbers", and their activity streams are "fight for favorable legislation" and "Threaten uncompliant businesses".

The problem with unions is they are not treated as corporations in their own right, so unions have become monopolistic, heavily involved in lobbying and partaking in generally corrupt behavior--responding more strongly to incentives to survive and make money than incentives to keep its members happy.

Unions are still powerfully beneficial, but I'd wish there were multiple unions for any industry that competed with each other, some with stricter requirements to get in, each offering different freedoms and protections to its workers

Post reply on HN