The Unsubtle Art of Intellectual Snobbery
The Unsubtle Art of Intellectual Snobbery
Are Studies Labelling Dissenters as 'Stupid' Undermining Democracy?
In an era where divisive political and social issues abound, a disturbing trend is emerging in the academic world. Recent studies appear to be aligning cognitive abilities and education levels with specific political and health-related beliefs, seemingly branding those who disagree with mainstream narratives as less intelligent or educated. This phenomenon raises a crucial question: Are such studies a subtle form of intellectual snobbery that undermines the very essence of democratic discourse?
Information is becoming as ubiquitous as the air we breathe but a troubling paradox is emerging: As our access to diverse viewpoints expands, the tolerance for differing opinions seems to be narrowing. Those who challenge the prevailing narrative are often not just disagreed with, but openly derided. But this isn't just a matter of hurt feelings or bruised egos; there's an insidious layer to it, one where academic studies are wielded as weapons to 'prove' the intellectual inferiority of those who think differently.
Take, for instance, a study focusing on the Brexit referendum, which suggests a correlation between higher cognitive abilities and voting "Remain." This research, conducted at the University of Bath, analysed data from 3,183 UK couples and found that individuals with higher cognitive skills, and those with spouses possessing higher cognitive abilities, were more likely to vote “Remain”. While the study claims to account for various socio-economic and personality traits, its implications are clear: those who voted "Leave" are subtly painted as less capable of recognising and resisting misinformation.
Similarly, a study conducted in the United States found a strong correlation between low education levels and vaccine hesitancy. More than half of the unvaccinated American adults who exhibited strong hesitancy towards the COVID-19 vaccine had a high school education or less. This study, which included a wide range of socio-demographic variables, seems to suggest that a lack of formal education is a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy.
Another study conducted last year found that people who believe in conspiracy theories or pseudoscience, suffer from paranoia or schizotypy, are narcissistic or religious/spiritual and have relatively low cognitive ability.
These studies, while claiming to be academically sound in their methodology, raise ethical and societal questions. By correlating intelligence or education with certain political or health beliefs, are we not creating a dangerous precedent where dissent is not just politically but intellectually marginalised? Are we not, in essence, saying that to disagree with a certain perspective is not just a matter of opinion but a sign of cognitive inferiority? This plays into a larger, more disturbing narrative: the pathologisation of dissent.
It's reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" comment during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, where she categorised half of Donald Trump's supporters as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." Such statements, much like the implications of these studies, do not just challenge opposing viewpoints but delegitimise them on a fundamental level.
The danger here is two-fold. Firstly, it encourages a form of intellectual elitism, where only those with certain educational backgrounds or cognitive abilities are deemed capable of 'correct' thinking. Secondly, it risks alienating and further radicalising those whose opinions are dismissed as intellectually inferior, deepening societal divides.
At the heart of this issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of intelligence and education in shaping beliefs and opinions. Intelligence is often mistakenly viewed as a monolith, a single, quantifiable entity that determines our capacity to understand and engage with the world. This view, however, ignores the multifaceted nature of intelligence, which encompasses a wide range of cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, creativity, and more. Education, similarly, is not just a measure of knowledge or intellectual capacity, but a reflection of a complex interplay of socio-economic factors, personal experiences, and cultural backgrounds.
By framing dissenting opinions as a product of lower intelligence or inadequate education, these studies do more than just stigmatise certain viewpoints. They create an environment where intellectual elitism takes precedence over open discourse. This not only stifles debate but also undermines the very foundations of democratic society, which thrives on the exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives.
Moreover, such narratives ignore the myriad of reasons why individuals might hold certain beliefs or opinions. Political stances or health choices, for instance, are often influenced by a person's lived experiences, cultural context, access to information, and trust in institutions, among other factors. Reducing these complex motivations to a mere function of cognitive ability or educational attainment is not only simplistic but also dismissive of the genuine concerns and values that drive people's decisions.
While the intention of these studies might be to understand complex societal issues better, their framing and the narrative around them play into a broader culture of intellectual condescension. It's a slippery slope from using educational and cognitive metrics as tools for understanding to weapons for belittling.
The implications of this trend extend beyond the realm of academic studies. It permeates the media, influences public policy, and shapes the way we interact with one another on a daily basis. When dissent is pathologised, the societal urge to understand and empathise with different perspectives diminishes. This leads to polarisation, where the middle ground is lost, and dialogue is replaced with diatribe.
In a democratic society, the diversity of opinion is not just a right but a necessity. The moment we start associating dissent with stupidity, we risk undermining the very foundations of democratic discourse. It's crucial to remember that intelligence and education do not always equate to wisdom, and wisdom can often be found in the most unexpected of places. The challenge, then, is to engage with differing viewpoints respectfully and constructively, recognising that disagreement is not a sign of intellectual inferiority but a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. After all, isn't the ability to engage with and understand diverse viewpoints a true mark of intelligence?
70 something with a BSc (1976) and MSc (2016) in mathematics. Retired a couple of years ago after a successful career in IT and other related fields. I voted for Brexit and declined the jab. I must be a fool.
The studies’ results are not surprising - the goal of education has been for some time to « format » people into compliant citizens, rather than encourage critical thinking which discourages compliance. The more educated, the more formatted, the more narrative embracing.
Also the more educated/ formatted / narrative embracing the more likely to go up the corporate hierarchy - if you ve been relatively successful, you have no reason to question your government who has delivered for you : you have a nice job, house etc why would you question the system that got you there? But if you ve been screwed over , if the system has failed you , you never even had a chance at education, you are much more likely to question the system ...
In my experience those most likely to question narrative are either not university educated - not been formatted and can observe- or are highly educated (phds) and have been taught to deconstruct and question (and in fact I believe the vaccine hesitancy study showed just that : non university educated AND phds were the most likely to be hesitant- one s relying on instincts / practical intelligence , the other on analysis (let’s face it - narrative doesn t add up whether in theory or practice !)).
I say this as someone with a first class honour degree, a masters degree, a good job, a nice house etc . Whilst I never bought into the narrative , didn t touch the vaccine etc I ve never felt able to discuss my viewpoints with my « socio economic » circle. . The only people in my « socio-economic » circle who question the narrative all have one thing in common : they come from countries where the regime was oppressive, don t trust govt , and can recognise totalitarianism. I think there are some in higher socio economic circles who see the issues but arrogantly think it will not impact them , that they ll be spared because they « complied » , that all the troubles coming will only impact « the stupid people ».
Lastly , a number of people in my « socio economic circle » have commented that my viewpoints may or may not be correct but they made me « unhappy / distrustful/ suspicious » and it was far « happier / smoother / less anxiety causing » to buy into the narrative, in other words, it was more comfortable to bury one s head in the sand .... it may be so, but if deep down people actually know they are being bullshitted, might explain all the depression, stress and neuroticism - they just can t quite put their finger on what it is that’s causing this...