Anti-Intellectualism and the Gorn

One thing that seems to characterize the corporate mentality is the utter lack of interest by most people in things that are not directly relevant to work. Anti-intellectualism is quite common; education is seen as a means to an end, with virtually no desire to learn for the sake of learning.

Ironically, despite this, there is a strong emphasis on education. The company where I work generously provides education reimbursement for all sorts of things that are not even necessarily directly related to an employee's profession. One can study to get an advanced degree (or more likely a college degree... many here have not accomplished much more than a semester or two of higher education... yes that sounds odd, but this is a small market with a limited employee pool).

The usual trend for most schools is that in order to award a Bachelor's degree, one must have a well-rounded education. In other words, apart from studying something which is more overtly practical (e.g. Computer Science), the student should also study subjects such as literature, history, biology, sociology, etc. This requirement appears in direct opposition to the interests and mind-frames of many adult students studying to advance their careers.

As a result of this, I get to hear some amusing theories about the "idiocy" of the professors actually trying to teach something to people who only want the degree. As academics tend to be somewhat arrogant in thinking that their approach to knowledge is superior to the untrained gathering of information, similarly those who have not been schooled in a sanctioned method tend to see academics as a bunch of cloistered fools, who understand little of the real world. Though admittedly there is some truth to this (many of those in academia have never held what I would call a real job), there is something to be said about the rigor of learning things which are not necessarily clearly defined by ones clearly specified interests.

For instance, if a person is to engage in a serious argument or discussion, it makes for a much better and valid debate if one understands some of the basic rules of logic, and how to avoid logical fallacies. One should understand the difference between an argument and contradication.

There is one particular individual with whom I work, who shall be known henceforth as the Gorn.

The Gorn has an amusing worldview... a complilation of right-wing rhetoric mixed with fierce independence. Don't get me wrong... he's a very intelligent person at matters which interest him; he understands databases and logic as it applies to business and systems, however beyond that, he has blinders which prevent him from learning something which does not fit in within his tightly held belief-system.

One day, the Gorn and I started "discussing" politics. Now though I tend to be somewhat left-leaning (partially due to my academic background, the way I was raised, and basic sense), I would much rather engage an intelligent person in discussion who strongly disagrees with my position than a person with whom I agree, but has no clear understanding of why they hold their views. I do not remember the exact issue that we were discussing but I do know that the level of this "discussion" was not on a particularly high level... the responses I was getting from the Gorn mostly tended to suffer from the ad homimem fallacy.

I got frustrated, as I wanted him to make a better argument for his point (I knew there had to be a better one than along the lines of "well you are reading the New York Times, of course you'd believe that liberal junk," or in response to a Paul Krugman article, a reply with something from Ann Coulter or the Drudge Report).

Hoping that I could at least get this discussion to the point where the arguments would meet each on some common ground, I stated, "You know there's a difference between a good argument and a bad argument."

To this, he replied, as if it was the most basic truth, "That's your opinion."

At this point my head nearly exploded, as I realized that a serious discussion with this individual was impossible.

So... stuck working with this person (who I actually like as a human being), I decided to keep a collection of some of the most amusing things he has said... here's a partial list of wisdom I have learned from the Gorn:

• "If you don't have talent or intelligence, that is your fault"
• After describing the story of Mellville's Bartelby the Scrivener, he simply replied: "he should have just been fired."
• DiHydrogen Monoxide is both a serious problem and not water.
• "We found WMDs in Iraq!"
• Also, apparently true wisdom does NOT consist of acknowledgment that we know nothing; it is knowing that you know the truth.
• And my favorite (uttered just the other day): “If a cop pulls a gun on me, I have the right to pull one on him!” (all I could do was laugh and say, "you go right ahead.")

Now of course, this is an extreme example... most people are not quite this absurd or adamant in their beliefs... they'd rather not even talk about that "boring intellectual stuff," however this particular person is highly regarded by this company, and quite likely to go far if he sticks around.

As one with 23 years of schooling, this kind of thing can be quite frustrating to experience on a daily basis. However, as this amount of education has led me to the same place as most of these other people with little more than a high school diploma, maybe I am the one who is the fool.