Skip to main content

34 replies

When did being intelligent and educated become a bad thing?

O No!O No!Old Faithful
In other threads I have seen the term "intellectual elitism". It seems that intelligent and educated people are no longer respected by many of you.

Don't we all want our kids to get good grades and go on to good colleges and universities? Aren't our hopes for our children that they earn respect and good paying jobs, jobs they can ENJOY because they find a way to work in a field they are fascinated with? I mean, isn't that one of the key ingredients to happiness?

So why is it that people don't want intelligent and educated people in leadership roles any more? If it's good for our children, why is it bad in our leaders?

I wonder if it is fear that if people are educated and smart, they will be able to pull the wool over our eyes. If so, I think they are wrong. Of course a certain percentage of the population will always be dishonest, but I don't think that percentage goes up with education. As a matter of fact, common sense tells me it should go down. When you are educated, you can see more options, and the dishonest option's allure shrinks.

I wonder if there is a sort of "inferiority complex" that has taken over middle America. I wonder if a large percentage of people with average IQs and high school educations dislikes the so-called "educated elite" simply because they allow themselves to feel inferior to them.

I hope that is not the case.

I want to see the very best qualified, smartest, saviest people in leadership roles that we can possibly find. I would rather have an experienced captain in charge of this ship than a raw recruit from the midwest who has never been aboard anything larger than a rowboat.

Strong emotion has its place. Emotion can drive creativity in the arts. It can bring us a sense of wonder. It can draw us closer to our families and friends. But it can be a hinderance when there is work to be done. When there is a tough, complicated job to be done, give me cool headed intelligence and education over heart felt emotion every time.

Co-winner of the "Likable Liberal" award who asks, "Can't we all get along?"

1 Corinthians 1:18-24 (CEV)
18 The message about the cross doesn't make any sense to lost people. But for those of us who are being saved, it is God's power at work.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

b50mb50mOld Faithful
I highly respect intelligence and education.

Unfortunately, I don't see much of either in any political party.

The left sees the right as stupid, the right sees the left as stupid.

I see very little of either party worth voting for. To vote for someone who shares my ideas of a country does not make me stupid, not does it make you.

It makes us different.

Researchers have found what some are calling the 'liberal' gene previously associated with novelty seeking.

quote:
Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we test this hypothesis by investigating an association between self-reported political ideology and the 7R variant of the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4), which has previously been associated with novelty seeking. Among those with DRD4-7R, we find that the number of friendships a person has in adolescence is significantly associated with liberal political ideology. Among those without the gene variant, there is no association. This is the first study to elaborate a specific gene-environment interaction that contributes to ideological self-identification, and it highlights the importance of incorporating both nature and nurture into the study of political preferences.


So maybe we can't see eye to eye because our genes are different. What an idea.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
Being intelligent and educated is indeed a good thing. Where is it written that a more intelligent or better educated person makes for a better leader? I have worked with intelligent and highly educated engineers that can't find their way to the bathroom. Common sense, experience, and character have to be part of the equation as well.

quote:
I would rather have an experienced captain in charge of this ship than a raw recruit from the midwest who has never been aboard anything larger than a rowboat.


I agree, yet we elected a leader that has never even been on a boat, but boy is he smart.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
I'm really confused about liberals. Let me pose you a couple hypothetical candidates and how you would rate them as future leaders. First one is a farmer that drops out of school at age 15 but gets homeschooling. The second one is from a poor family and never attends school but goes the self learning route. Any chance of either of these becoming effective or great leaders? What does you book of common sense say about them?
J jefftEverybody Knows My Name
Intelligence does not equal educated.
Educated does not equal intelligent.

That being said, outside of precise and/or technical proficiencies, the greatest asset of higher education is teaching the student to think. The ability to think abstractly, qualitatively, quantitatively and adaptively as situations merit is the best skill of an effective leader. Since these skills are taught, developed and exercised through the course of a higher education, degrees earned serve as a fairly reliable sketch of a person's abilities for leadership.

Of course a person could have skated through the motions and mechanics of a higher degree without actually developing those skills. Yes, a person could self educate to the level of a degreed person. Certainly a home schooled person could develop the same skills as one educated in formal academia. The question one would have to ask is how to ascertain what they have learned and from whom? In the political arena, it would be impossible to answer if you don't know the candidate personally. The down home, folksy, anti-intellectual, "I'm one of you" act from a national level politician is laughable at best and dangerous at worst.

BTW, don't stress yourself trying to pin down "liberals". The terms liberal and conservative have become meaningless, marketing brand names outside the perception and agenda of whoever applying the term.

If you'd really like to elevate the level of candidates and political discourse, demand a binding "none of the above" option on all ballots.
O No!O No!Old Faithful
No, B, but I think someone who has a good education and NO experience is a better choice than someone with a shoddy education and minimal experience. I think you're driving at the Palin vs. Obama thing again. Her "experience" doesn't amount to much in the face of her poor understanding about how government works, and, in her inability to think on her feet. Oh, she does fine with prepared speeches, but the interviews, and even the debate, showed me that without a script, she is lost.

And ferrellj, I'm not "dancing", but I still say I would need more information. As I just told B, knowing the level of education is just ONE factor. I might or might not choose the one with a college education, depending on their experience, and their PEOPLE SKILLS. A big part of being a leader is being able to communicate clearly. If the only information available was what you have given me, I would find out more. If I couldn't find out more, I wouldn't be able to vote in good conscience for any of them!
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
The down home, folksy, anti-intellectual, "I'm one of you" act from a national level politician is laughable at best and dangerous at worst.


Both my candidates listed were "down home, folksy, anti-intellectual, I'm on of you" guys. The first was George Washington and the second was Abraham Lincoln.

I would have to disagree with your assesment that a highly educated degree is a fairly reliable sketch of a persons leadership abilities. A degree does not take into acount a persons demeanor, his common sense, his character, or his ablity to make important and correct decisions. Yes education is important, I'm not saying it isn't. But there are way too many examples of great leadership in politics, military, and industry with less education to make the assumption that you make.

If you really want to elevate the level of candidates then impose term limits, stop the dirty politics, and let more "common people" with real leadership abilities run for office.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
Actually no, ONO, Sarah never was in the equation. I like her personally, but don't want her as president. As much as you like to think I worship her, I don't.

I think ferrell is going for street smarts vs book smarts. (If not, my apologies) Books smarts and no experience gives you a thinker, not a leader. Businesses don't run for long if the guy in charge has nothing to pull from except what he reads in a book.

You want a successful farm get the guy who worked the dirt, watched over the field, noted what did well and what didn't, how his soil works best for some crops,etc...

He may not be able to do calculus, but he can feed your family.
O No!O No!Old Faithful
Ferrelj, the quote you just used did not come from me. The way you posted it makes it look like it did though.

And I never said that education was ALL that mattered. As a matter of fact, I have been saying over and over again that there are a lot more things that must be taken into consideration. The whole point of my starting this thread was to find out why so many people are against educated people in the role of leader.

Comparing Washington's and Lincoln's education to people today is a bit simplistic though. What percentage of people back then got any kind of education?

The other thing that would be a drawback in today's world is that life is a LOT more complicated than it was then, and politics is an impassable maze compared to what it was then. I think that if someone like, say, Sarah Palin, were trying to deal with foreign heads of state on tricky diplomatic subjects, she might just put her foot in her mouth and start a war, or at the very least, be totally ineffective.

You may not believe me, but I say this not because she is a Republican, but because I truly believe she is incompetent. I actually HAVE voted for Republicans in the past. I voted for Ronald Reagan. He was educated, an extremely good communicator, and he knew his way around. He DESERVED my vote. So far, today's crop of Republicans haven't shown me much though.
O No!O No!Old Faithful
B, of course if you want a successful farm, get the guy who knows how to farm. But if you want a successful leader, get someone who knows the ins and outs of the law, and who has communication skills.

And ferrelj, I don't think it is Obama that has caused the political division. I DO blame the Republican obstructionists. The SAID that they would do everything in their power to block him from getting anything done, just so they could make him look bad. Nice bunch of folks, huh? Let's hurt the country to further out political goals.
JenniferJenniferOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Ferrelj, the quote you just used did not come from me. The way you posted it makes it look like it did though.

And I never said that education was ALL that mattered. As a matter of fact, I have been saying over and over again that there are a lot more things that must be taken into consideration. The whole point of my starting this thread was to find out why so many people are against educated people in the role of leader.

Comparing Washington's and Lincoln's education to people today is a bit simplistic though. What percentage of people back then got any kind of education?

The other thing that would be a drawback in today's world is that life is a LOT more complicated than it was then, and politics is an impassable maze compared to what it was then. I think that if someone like, say, Sarah Palin, were trying to deal with foreign heads of state on tricky diplomatic subjects, she might just put her foot in her mouth and start a war, or at the very least, be totally ineffective.

You may not believe me, but I say this not because she is a Republican, but because I truly believe she is incompetent. I actually HAVE voted for Republicans in the past. I voted for Ronald Reagan. He was educated, an extremely good communicator, and he knew his way around. He DESERVED my vote. So far, today's crop of Republicans haven't shown me much though.
What have the Democrats given us in the way of intelligent leaders? As for Palin, she's very intelligent, and she has something Democrats lack and don't understand-common sense.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Karl Rove has spoken...Palin will never get the backing of the RNC, so no Presidential campaign. She will continue to splinter the ReppubTeaCon vote, probably making OBamas second term assured.


I'm inclined to agree with you, but you should include on other possible scenario. She could actually win the nomination, which would definitely assure Obama a second term. If she splinters to vote in the primary, her supporters would be more likely to get behind a moderate than moderates would be to get behind her.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
B, of course if you want a successful farm, get the guy who knows how to farm. But if you want a successful leader, get someone who knows the ins and outs of the law, and who has communication skills.

And ferrelj, I don't think it is Obama that has caused the political division. I DO blame the Republican obstructionists. The SAID that they would do everything in their power to block him from getting anything done, just so they could make him look bad. Nice bunch of folks, huh? Let's hurt the country to further out political goals.


How could the Republicans have blocked anything? Both houses were controlled by a filibuster proof majority.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Excellent point, if your point was to make a useless partisan comment. Karl Rove has spoken...Palin will never get the backing of the RNC, so no Presidential campaign. She will continue to splinter the ReppubTeaCon vote, probably making OBamas second term assured.


I don't think Mickey Mouse running would assure Obama of a second term right now.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Karl Rove has spoken...Palin will never get the backing of the RNC, so no Presidential campaign. She will continue to splinter the ReppubTeaCon vote, probably making OBamas second term assured.


I'm inclined to agree with you, but you should include on other possible scenario. She could actually win the nomination, which would definitely assure Obama a second term. If she splinters to vote in the primary, her supporters would be more likely to get behind a moderate than moderates would be to get behind her.


Yea right, and last year you guys said the TEA party would fade away soon.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Yea right, and last year you guys said the TEA party would fade away soon.


Considering how Tea Partiers don't like to be lumped into one mold, you're pretty quick to do that with anyone who disagrees. I have not predicted that the Tea Party would fade away. I said it would be co-opted, and think I've been proven correct, but never said it would disappear.

As for 2012, I don't care if it's Obama, Hillary, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Thune, etc... They aren't going to get my vote. I'm just making an objective assessment of the situation, which is that moderates will not support Palin, thus increasing Obama's chances at a second term.
b50mb50mOld Faithful
The Tea Party followers know that a split would ruin any chances of changing the presidency.

As I have said REPEATEDLY, I like Sarah, she would not make a good president. Many conservatives feel that way. The Tea Party just wants to move the rep party back to more conservative ideas, as when it started.


The liberals want to move the dem party more to the progressive side.

Until both sides try to meet in the middle, we are screwed.

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×