America is one of the few cultures with insults for smart people?
japantimes.co.jp
japantimes.co.jp
India elected Narendra Modi who is decidedly nowhere as educated as previous prime minister. The state I am from(Bihar) had series of Chief Ministers who weren't all the educated(or even intelligent as a matter of fact).
I think people select their politicians differently than how they would select their Doctor or mechanic to repair their car or engine. I don't need my doctor to relate to my economic difficulties to treat my illness but this may be a desirable trait in a politician.
The point is - smart people are not always likable and in a politician likability and ability to relate yourself to him/her(even if faked) are desired qualities.
The author may have a point about schools spending lot of money on stadiums and sports and ignoring investment in science and technology but there may be other reasons for that - other than unbridled hate for smart people.
Yet he promotes technology (Startup India, Paperless/Digital Locker, Digital ID, Live tracking of projects online, EVMs, Soil testing labs, Solar) much more than one of the IIT educated Chief Minister. The point is that a good leader does not need fancy degrees from fancy colleges.
That was the whole idea behind Nehruvian socialism. The problem in essence is in a country with poverty levels comparable to Africa, absent education systems, near zero literacy levels. How do you run a capitalist economy? The best you can manage with that kind of human resources is give them dumbest possible manufacturing jobs, by letting foreign investors control what is a newly independent country. Hence around 1947, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru, came up education institutions the likes of IITs, IIScs and other regional colleges. Once you have these people first rung of talented human resources ready, you can now use them to build your private industries. But you can't wait till then, so you still have to build your bureaucracy with pretty darn high civil services exam standards. This is important because while you are building your people, you need to build some government owned industries. This will eventually feed momentum to later to come private industries.
The net result is you get public sector industries, you get ISRO, you get DRDO, you get a stable bureaucracy. All of this will essentially run your country.
The next set of work to do is to fix primary education. So that even the bottom most layers of the society can get a shot at doing good things in life.
You also need healthcare. Because if 20% of your population is limping with polio or can't breath properly because of TB then you can't be a decent economy anyway.
For all that is told about things like Bay Area. The edge California has is not US-101-N or the Caltrain, Its the people.
The IIT guy is the first guy in decades who is taking sense, instead of trying to sell building websites(which any idiot can build) as progress.
Fix your people, then your people fix everything.
As far as Kitabi Kida goes - to my understanding, it is used for those who spent inordinate amount of time with books - not necessarily a insult for being smart. I think there's a subtle distinction here too.
That's "insults for hard work" perhaps, but not "insults for smart people".
There is this mysterious condition first described by Hans Asperger around the WWII, that the chinese fail to recognize and western scientists gave up understanding, until it was finally reclassified as a form of autism, as by every cognitive test they could think of, the people score normal, or (often highly) above average, yet they completely fail at interacting with other people. That is, until somebody realized they are too smart and nobody wants to interact with them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/
This is a necessary consequence of individualism, as being smart in an individualist culture means you are a dangerous competition to basically everybody else, and everybody will do everything they can to make you fail. So it's pretty much certain that an individualist culture will eventually result in "idiocracy" by breeding itself stupid.
Not much of it is true. It's a very old derogatory attack, that goes back to the foundations of the US and the earlier colonies. The 'cultured' Western European elites mocked the region back then as uncivilized, filled with barbarians and simpletons, and so on. This was of course a time when people like Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Paine and Benjamin Franklin were actually arguing and then implementing enlightenment policies in political fact, while nearly all of Europe would proceed to be ruled by despots for another 100-200 years. To say nothing of the flight of people from Europe to American shores over the coming century plus, desperate to escape extreme poverty in Western Europe. And yet the snobbish attacks continued just the same.
Take for example the song, Yankee Doodle, one of the more amusing cases of this in action -
"Traditions place its origin in a pre-Revolutionary War song originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War" ... "The British troops sang it to make fun of their stereotype of the American soldier as a Yankee simpleton who thought that he was stylish if he simply stuck a feather in his cap."
"It was also popular among the Americans as a song of defiance."
We also have a saying: पढोगे लिखोगे बनोगे नवाब, खेलोगे कूदोगे बनोगे ख़राब
Which literally translates to education makes you a king, and playing makes you spoilt.
The generic किताबी कीड़ा insult is largely for nerds with awkward interests and lifestyles.
>>I forget but there is a insult for people who have gained knowledge from reading books but aren't street smart.
Mostly in our culture we try to accumulate a lot at little effort, so cheating is a valuable skill.
>>India elected Narendra Modi who is decidedly nowhere as educated as previous prime minister. The state I am from(Bihar) had series of Chief Ministers who weren't all the educated(or even intelligent as a matter of fact).
For the most of India's political history leaders were about representing people and segments of society backward compared to already well of folks. So what matters really is what policy outlook you have.
But you still have Jawaharlal Nehru who was the prime minister for 17 years, Manmohan Singh was for 10 years. Rajiv Gandhi and Indira Gandhi were both well read and groomed individuals. And you could say Indira was a far better Prime minister than we've had since Nehru.
You have like a good 40 years of well read people running the country.
>>I think people select their politicians differently than how they would select their Doctor or mechanic to repair their car or engine.
No, its the same. If a person is a deep bigot, violence monger from within, he choses leaders who are best at that. Its just that intention doesn't show on people's faces. And whatever they may say outside, they vote with their hearts at the voting booth.
>>The point is - smart people are not always likable and in a politician likability and ability to relate yourself to him/her(even if faked) are desired qualities.
The Doctor analogy describes this better. You chose a good doctor to treat your heart. You don't go to a bad one whole smiles and cracks jokes.
No, it's a literal translation of "book worm". I've never seen it used for people who just have quirky interests and don't otherwise read or study a lot.
Ted Rall, ladies and gentlemen.
Ted Rall is perhaps the least interesting, least insightful, and least amusing living political cartoonist. He fills a certain political niche though, which I guess pays the bills.
In Britain, for example, there's a whole attitude about anybody daring to appear smart, well read, etc that's combined with class putdowns and terms like "pretentious wanker" and such.
Or, what americans would deride as a "nerd" for Brits it would be a "swot" (but it's meaning I think combines nerd with teacher's pet and bookworm).
French have "intello", a derogatory term for intellectual types. Greeks have a similar connotation "kulturiaris" (and a term for nerd/geek that's "spasiklas").
In Spanish, where the author says he couldn't find a term for "geek", they have "empollon".
In Italian the same would be secchione.
"Intello" is not derogatory, it's just short for intellectual.
intello m, f (plural intellos) (informal, derogatory) highbrow (informal, derogatory) nerd, egghead
Also, "intello coincée" and such.
It can also stand for just shorthand, as many terms have dual informal derogatory and friendly use (for that matter, geek has also been used positively in the US as well for a few decades).
Maybe ask a French person then. “Intello” (dismissive diminutive of the word “intellectuel”) is in very common usage amongst school kids, and has been since at least the 60s. “Premier de la classe” (first of the class) is also used very pejoratively by children. Recently though, the French have been very happy to use the word “geek” (albeit pronounced with a French accent) in its original English meaning.
On the other hand, languages like French are extremely rich in insults for stupid people: “bete comme ses pieds,” or “dumb as hell,” literally means “as stupid as his/her feet.”
American English is full of expressions just as colorful than the French in that regard, eg “not the brightest crayon in the box”, “not the sharpest tool in the shed”, “dumber than a bag of hammers”, etc.
This blog post is just a succession of these easily falsiable generalizations that try to use pseudo-linguistic reasoning to demonstrate a blanket sweeping subjective statement (“Americans hate smart people”).
Much like psychologists, linguists suffer a constant barrage of comments and articles by people who think they understand the field but don't. It's quite easy to not know the sheer scope of our ignorance in these fields, unlike STEM where people at least tend to realize they know close to nothing.
"Intello", "être une tête" (can be used both positively and negatively), "grosse tête", "quatre-yeux" (typical image of nerds with thick glasses), "tête d'ampoule" (probably the closest to nerd together with "intello"), "avoir une tête de premier de la classe", "binoclard", "coincé", "pingouin", "rat de bibliothèque", "taupe"...
Clinton > Trump
Gore > Bush
Stevenson > Eisenhower
> I think that the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying - from organisations with acronyms - saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong, because these people - these people - are the same ones who got consistently wrong.
One is made to look like you don't want "experts" in general, e.g. because you're anti-science or whatever. You might not even want an expert doctor, but instead e.g. pray.
The second is about not wanting BS experts (analysts, media pundits, economists) on the payroll of some "fancy organization", that have a track record of being wrong.
Its the old classic thing of people wanting jobs they can't do, and then diluting the job requirements by downplaying the importance of people required to do the job.
Of course, the question is to what extent it is true that experts don't know better, but I'd prefer being wrong due to misinformation than due to sheer dumbness.
In fact, while it is perhaps unsurprising that Rall has missed examples in Chinese and Indian languages listed elsewhere here, it's odd that he misses the many examples in British English - swot, spod, boffin ... Several of which originate in 'good' schools.
Well, in an era when experts give their "expert" opinion based on who pays their bills, that's true for most of the world...
Generally speaking, when someone is called a nerd or (insert uncool descriptive modifier), it's not implied that being smart or studious is something people should be embarrassed of.
Instead, it's implying the lack of some other social skill, trait or normative behavior (i.e., not participating in sports as a child or general difficulty fitting in).
For example, being a genius or reliable hard worker is almost universally admired. Yes, even in the United States. However, if an individual is brilliant yet lacks the social skills to fit in, appears to try too hard relative to the group or makes others feel uncomfortable, their behavior may be seen as idiosyncratic or weird.
Individuals that can display their cognitive abilities while inspiring, impressing or leading others are usually admired.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/28/hacking_motion_cont...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/27/screaming_channels_...
All of these words exist and are used in other English speaking countries.
> Recent research performed at University of Waikato in New Zealand shows that a culture of tall poppy syndrome may result in a reduction in average performance of up to 20% for an organisation and explains how electronic cyberbullying can be considered a modern extension to the physical assassinations of King Tarquin's day.[17]
e.g. if you're gonna do crime, don't be the tall poppy that sticks out in the field of crime. Then apply that concept to more or less everything.
Googling though shows you're right. Interesting.
I think in general the average Australian doesn't care too much if others are successful or rich or whatever, but find it extremely distasteful for somebody to act as if business success or having a lot of money makes them more important than others, or more worthy of honour etc. So in my interpretation, snobby people would be much more prone to copping 'tall poppy syndrome' than a rich but humble person.
I assume this is fairly similar in NZ, but perhaps slightly different.
Intelligence itself rarely commands much respect at all.
Also the latest "taboo" is discrimination on intelligence. You can not help it that you were born below the IQ Bell curve. "You just gotta work harder for it" is like telling an overweight person to "just stop eating so much". Difficulty learning new material puts you at an eternal disadvantage, with no way to catch up to what smart people are learning in their teens and early twenties.
The big five openly discriminate on intelligence. Intelligence and aptitude is also correlated with your upbringing (Did you have smart parents to guide your academic career and interests? Were they rich enough to help put you through a good college?).
For all the renewed interest in identity politics and combating discrimination, intelligence is really the odd one out. High school teachers berate you for something that isn't your fault, it is commonly accepted to call out your low IQ, no matter how much you want to work for a tech company -- even if they favor women, poor people, minorities, war veterans, the disabled -- you are not going to get hired to fill some neurodiversity quota.
The ease with which the left ridicules, stigmatizes, and marginalizes right politicians (Bush & Trump) and those that vote for them is astounding to me. "Those idiot low-educated racists ruined it all! They are not smart enough to vote rationally!". Change "low-intelligence" with any other protected status and such language becomes vile and primitive.
There's a big difference between someone born with a low-IQ and someone who actively maintains their own ignorance. You can argue whether the left is crossing that line in some places, but some portions of the right actively attack higher education, whether it's "trying to convert our kids to socialists" or "attacking Christian values" -- pursuing an education is positive, full stop, no matter what your IQ is.
Also, "stigmatizes and marginalizes right politicians"? You're arguing politicians on the right are being marginalized? And two examples you're using are the last two GOP POTUSes? That's not marginalization. And of course, notably, for all the "coastal elites" talk -- Trump is pretty much the definition of a coastal elite, a billionaire born into privilege who went to an Ivy league college and has lived in NYC his whole life.
https://www.seeker.com/anti-vaccination-parents-richer-bette...
https://qz.com/355398/the-average-anti-vaxxer-is-probably-no...
As far as I know, plastic straw bans are to reduce the amount of unrecoverable plastic waste as well as all the resources that went into producing it. And I wrong? I don’t see how it’s an intellectual fad so much as policy that you personally disagree with. Put another way, are these intellectuals who support plastic straw bans (who??) potentially going to 'wake up' and realize one day that they were incorrect, and that in fact plastic straws are not a source of unrecoverable waste?
Nope. I can live with the downsides of anti-intellectualism in trade for escaping the cult of "genius". People who claim to know better than the rest of us are dangerous.
> Despite the rise of Silicon Valley and its technoelites, the Revenge of the Nerds in the South Bay has managed to line stock portfolios without moving the needle on America’s cultural values. Jocks still rule high schools that spend millions on new football stadiums while starving the arts.
Elon Musk isn't considered a national hero or someone to look up to (in most parts of the US - not talking about cali).
I'm not from the US, but I'm pretty sure that the average person in most states has never heard of either of the people you mentioned.
A movie titled 'Steve Jobs' featured half a dozen Hollywood stars and was nominated for Best Actor and Best Actress at the Oscars - and that's not even the one that Ashton Kutcher starred in. I work in a children's book store and there is a 'Who is Steve Jobs?' book sitting next to 'Who is Barack Obama?'. I think you're wrong.
I'm still glad that the U.S. has a healthy distrust of intellectuals and academics.
I appreciate the work of all of such people, but I reject setting them off from the rest of humanity. We are all frail, fallible humans.
― Aaron Sorkin, The Newsroom Script Episode 1
Anti-intellectualism in American politics, as the author pointed out with Bush, is mostly made up. In most cases it's designed to make the politician more appealing and easier to understand.
(Or, alternately, they failed to grasp how smart you were because you were foreign, so they left it alone. Which might be the same thing you are saying.)
I really don't think that is unique to the U.S. though.
Ironically (the article's from japantimes.com) there's a (reportedly well-known) Japanese saying that might explain it: “The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down.”
(Found that at this longest-url-contender:) https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-the-Japanese-p...
But there's more to "geek". In circuses and carnivals, a geek would capture chickens, bite their heads off, and eat them. Now you gotta remember that most of the audiences lived on farms, or had family who did, so chasing chickens and cutting their heads off was pretty normal. But still ...
So anyway, "geek" is very different from "bookworm" or "egghead". It's more like unconventional, daring and uninhibited.
Plato wrote about Thales:
"Thales was studying the stars and gazing aloft when he fell into a well; a witty and amusing Thracian servant-girl made fun of him because, she said, he was wild to know about what was up in the sky but failed to see what was in front of him and under his feet."
Plenty of ways to make fun of smart people too.
In fact, US feels much more "cult of genius" than Europe... At least from afar.
You're making the same mistake with that line of thinking that the author did.
The Prime minister of my country would never qualify for the terminator[1].
[1] https://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/mark...
Why do humans frequently/occasionally dislike smart people?
But, it was well parodied in the series 'Chuck' as the 'Nerd Herd'.
But I've been at school in Poland in 1990, before most English influences started, and there were insults for people, not because they are smart, but because they focus too much on good grades. It was cool to be smart, it was uncool to show the effort and to care too much. Basically you didn't wanted to be a kujon (literally - a hammerer = someone who mindlessly hammers in every lesson to memory to get best grades).
We also had bookworm (mól książkowy) and "inteligencik" (mostly political label given by communists and their supporters to intellectual workers who weren't on board with the whole communist thing). Outside of politics it was mildly negative label, and wasn't used too much.
Also, there are a few new ones associated with political issues - "wykształciuchy" and "łże-elity" is a degrading way to call people who graduated some university and think they are better than you but actually know nothing. It's a word borrowed from political marketing of the current government, which includes anti-intellectualism (because most experts disagree with them on 99% of their policies, and their target demographics is less educated compared to other parties).
TL; DR: I don't think anti-intellectualism is inherently American, it's a common theme in populism. American schools are just weird (we haven't had words for bully, cheerleader, jock either).
No you cannot use "on the other hand." Languages like English have at least as many if not more insults for stupid people: dumbass, shit-for-brains, dipshit, blockhead, imbecile, dullard, doofus, slack-jawed yocal, and the famous one from Mark Twain, "an idiot of the 33rd degree."
> After food and wine, the French worship the life of the mind.
And apparently the films of Jerry Lewis[1]. So let's say those end up canceling each other out[2].
> The United States, on the other hand, elected Donald “Celebrity Apprentice” Trump over Hillary “I Have a 12-Point Plan” Clinton.
I certainly cannot defend Trump's ban on Muslim face coverings in public schools[3]. There is no denying that is due to virulent strain of anti-intellectualism that has grown to dangerous-- one might say fascistic-- levels as of late.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lewis#French_critical_ac...
[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082501/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_20
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Seriously, the motivations for anti-intellectualism are generally tied to the degree that intellect is valued.