Republican distrust of expertise

[F1fan]

When I was in college for my psych degree I had to take an experimental psychology class. My study was to examine the attitudes about science to the degree of religiosity a person had. I predicted a correlation between high religiosity and poor attitudes towards science, and for low religiosity with favorable attitudes towards science, and the conclusion was 99.99%. It exceeded my expectations. It was definitive, the more religious a person was the less they trusted science. For example I asked if the subject accepted evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life. The more religious answered no to the questions about science. The less religious a person was the more they accepted science as true.

I suspect the link between the GOP and the Christian right has a lot to do with why republicans don't trust expertise, don't trust science, and refuse to acknowledge their own ignorance, the Kruger Dunning Effect. The devolution of conservative politics since the 1990's can be linked to the tie with religious belief.

 

[anna.]

I'll speak as a third-way who is more GOP adjacent than Dem.


First, congratulations.

Thank you. : )

Second, that Catholic University education may have surprised you. I went to Xavier University for a bit and it was far from a conservative institution. This included a theology professor recommending that everyone not read the bible for 10 or 20 years.

The problem was these were very small, conservative, classical liberal education Catholic colleges: Thomist rhetoric, Great Books, etc. Not like going to Notre Dame or Georgetown. My parents would never have sent me to a 'liberal' Catholic college.

 

[Mister Emu]

The problem was these were very small, conservative, classical liberal education Catholic colleges: Thomist rhetoric, Great Books, etc. Not like going to Notre Dame or Georgetown. My parents would never have sent me to a 'liberal' Catholic college.

My apologies for the presumption.

 

[anna.]

My apologies for the presumption.

No apology necessary. : )

My parents weren't Catholic Democrats, they were Catholic Republicans. Very orthodox. Not all the way to traditionalists but very religiously and socially conservative.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Report on growing Republican distrust of higher education.
The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Is university education an élitist conspiracy by radical, left-leaning liberals intent on indoctrinating our innocent, God-fearing youth with critical thinking, atheism, evolution, socialism &al?
Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

Thoughts?

My personal theory is that a lot of it comes from simple resentment. They don't like being told what to do by someone who they think thinks he's "better than them". For example, they hate Fauci for saying some pretty mundane things, "wash your hands, wear a mask, get vaccinated" not because they actually disagree, but because he's a guy with a degree and a career telling them what to do. Then, of course, they have to justify their visceral outrage, and they "yes-and" themselves into this collective nonsense about depopulation vaccines. It's all done in tiny steps, and none of it's conscious.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Report on growing Republican distrust of higher education.
The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Is university education an élitist conspiracy by radical, left-leaning liberals intent on indoctrinating our innocent, God-fearing youth with critical thinking, atheism, evolution, socialism &al?
Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

Thoughts?

I'll tell you the truth...I want to be glib about this. But I can't.

Can it really be that "American values" are threatened by facts? If that's the case, then those "American values" are entirely based on dogma. Did dogma help the Wright brothers get a machine off the ground, or NASA to send humans into space and land on the moon (there are those, I admit, who think that never happened)? Did dogma help figure out how to tap the power of the atom, and so bring WWII to a quick close (and threaten the rest of history -- another matter)?

No -- I contend that those Republicans (and I'll bet it's not nearly all of them) who make such claims do not represent the majority of the nation. They're just louder -- because they're more terrified. Their level of ignorance has left them incapacitated by fear of things they don't (but could easily) understand.

For example:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That article had 3 points. The first, the need for job training "vocational education" is one. Not everyone is destined for the kind of careers that are helped by college. Increasing funding for skilled trades training is something I support.

The second is the distrust of the media outside the bubble. Yes, that's an issue.

The third, the perception that colleges are hotbeds of radical communist Muslim leftists is real and ignorant in the extreme. The chemistry degree I got had no training in how to subvert America with chemical additives added to the water supply. That attitude is the result of demagogues creating fear and anger in those who don't know how colleges work..

To be fair, I did take insect physiology Marxism and insecticide toxicology for communist radicals.

 

[Heyo]

 

[Heyo]

Report on growing Republican distrust of higher education.
The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Is university education an élitist conspiracy by radical, left-leaning liberals intent on indoctrinating our innocent, God-fearing youth with critical thinking, atheism, evolution, socialism &al?
Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

Do you mean people who would first ask question and then shoot? That would put one traditional, American value on its head.

 

[Secret Chief]

People who know things are just sick perverts. Think of the children! (But don't think for long, else you too will fall into evil ways).

 

[Mock Turtle]

Damned left-wing liberals are not doing their job properly - or else we wouldn't have had Trump elected in the first place.

Yes, academics tend to be left wing – but let's not exaggerate it (theconversation.com)

 

[exchemist]

Report on growing Republican distrust of higher education.
The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Is university education an élitist conspiracy by radical, left-leaning liberals intent on indoctrinating our innocent, God-fearing youth with critical thinking, atheism, evolution, socialism &al?
Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

Thoughts?

It looks as if the Republican party is strongly positioning itself as the party of the less educated, which may be associated with a rural vs. urban political segmentation, which in turn may be aligned to a degree of white supremacism. As a political package, it seems to be coherent, except that Republicans are also the party of the very rich.

Anglo-Saxon culture has always had an anti-intellectual tendency, which is not in itself wholly unhealthy. But the internet allows people, especially less educated ones, access to a whole structure of thought based on ignorance. It is rather alarming that a major political party has decided to embrace that.

I feel sure the strategy is bound to blow up eventually, since embrace of ignorance is bound to lead to screw-ups. The danger is that it only does so after the Republicans have engineered the collapse of democracy, which they seem intent on trying to bring about.

 

[Augustus]

Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

One thing people tend not to get is that a significant part (not all) of the perceived problem is not with experts, but pseudo-experts.

People tend not to question the expertise of plumbers or that of pilots or engineers whose expertise can be demonstrated practically.

On many other issues: economics, psychology, diversity, etc. 'expert' often means credentialed 'expertise', rather than practically demonstrated expertise. This kind of expertise may be real but it may also be the result of 'playing the academic game' well enough to impress other pseudo-experts.

Via the media, people have been exposed to these 'experts' being wrong on all kinds of issues, yet expecting to be taken seriously the next time they opine on something. There is no penalty for being wrong, so expertise becomes disconnected from being right.

There are only so many times you can see experts being wrong without starting to question the system. On this they have a point, people should critically question the system of credentialism and the experts it produces.

Once trust in a system becomes damaged then that legitimises some people rejecting anything the system tells you that you don't like.

Obviously this is a problem and I certainly don't agree with many US Republicans on this, but people should be sceptical of at least some of what is passed for 'expertise' in the modern world.

 

[PureX]

Demagogues tend to have something real to work with. It is pure pretense to say that higher education as a whole isn't left-biased in America. That's the reality of decades of left ideologues aiming themselves at every level of education and a right-predisposition towards moving into industry that has led to a significant imbalance in the political spectrum on campus.

Not everywhere, or in every department, but there is plenty of on-campus antagonism towards different modes of thought.

The "right" is now, and especially in the U.S., an echo-chamber for the plutocracy that the U.S. has become. The "ideals" that right wing media espouses are all basically just capitalist propaganda, and the right's politicians are all basically just toadies for the rich. The "right" is not an ideological movement, as it pretends to be. It's an elaborate advertising campaign touting the values of the wealthy elites that now control government and media, and have taken aim at either controlling or eliminating higher education. And they are making progress in that direction even as they complain and label higher education an "enemy of the people". The only thing higher education is the enemy of is the profound ignorance that the corporate elitists depend on to maintain their stranglehold on the nation.

 

[Secret Chief]

Anglo-Saxon culture has always had an anti-intellectual tendency

That's interesting. If there is truth in it, I wonder why that would be so?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Report on growing Republican distrust of higher education.
The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Is university education an élitist conspiracy by radical, left-leaning liberals intent on indoctrinating our innocent, God-fearing youth with critical thinking, atheism, evolution, socialism &al?
Are experts and "people who know things" a danger to traditional, American values?

Thoughts?

No Democrat's? Just Republicans?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The "right" is now, and especially in the U.S., an echo-chamber for the plutocracy that the U.S. has become. The "ideals" that right wing media espouses are all basically just capitalist propaganda, and the right's politicians are all basically just toadies for the same. The "right" is not an ideological movement, as it pretends to be. It's an elaborate advertising campaign touting the values of the wealthy elites that now control government and media, and have taken aim at either controlling or eliminating higher education. And they are making progress in that direction even as they complain and label higher education an "enemy of the people". The only thing higher education is the enemy of is the profound ignorance that the corporate elitists depend on to maintain their stranglehold on the nation.

Well I'll be. Clearly with no bias whatsoever.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One thing people tend not to get is that a significant part (not all) of the perceived problem is not with experts, but pseudo-experts.

People tend not to question the expertise of plumbers or that of pilots or engineers whose expertise can be demonstrated practically.

On many other issues: economics, psychology, diversity, etc. 'expert' often means credentialed 'expertise', rather than practically demonstrated expertise. This kind of expertise may be real but it may also be the result of 'playing the academic game' well enough to impress other pseudo-experts.

Via the media, people have been exposed to these 'experts' being wrong on all kinds of issues, yet expecting to be taken seriously the next time they opine on something. There is no penalty for being wrong, so expertise becomes disconnected from being right.

There are only so many times you can see experts being wrong without starting to question the system. On this they have a point, people should critically question the system of credentialism and the experts it produces.

Once trust in a system becomes damaged then that legitimises some people rejecting anything the system tells you that you don't like.

Obviously this is a problem and I certainly don't agree with many US Republicans on this, but people should be sceptical of at least some of what is passed for 'expertise' in the modern world.

But doesn't this rely on the ability to be as critical and rational as necessary, with such coming from education, and where so often what is aimed at people assumes this is missing, and often gets away with it. Which is why so many can't see Trump for what he is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No -- I contend that those Republicans (and I'll bet it's not nearly all of them) who make such claims do not represent the majority of the nation. They're just louder --

Thank you for saying so. I have a lot of family who are pro life about blastocysts and who view the issue precisely as I have said: good versus satanic. They have, however, been all over the map on other issues. It is indeed mostly a lot of noise, and people gather to the side which they perceive to be less destructive.

It looks as if the Republican party is strongly positioning itself as the party of the less educated, which may be associated with a rural vs. urban political segmentati

You make a good point though actually its not positioning itself to be the party of the less educated. There will always be two parties or fewer here. It is positioning itself as the rural party, since the country has a long history of urban vs rural. I think this separation has to do with our country's size, its sprawling isolation only recently erased by the internet -- and tv. I am beginning to see the effects of that erasure only partly stemmed by the crazy partiality of news outlets and church leadership. The ice and fire have come together and are being changed to a new medium.

 

[exchemist]

That's interesting. If there is truth in it, I wonder why that would be so?

This article makes an attempt to address it:Britishness and anti-intellectualism

Maybe partly because we English got our revolution out of the way early and have been suspicious of radicalism ever since.