I'm a little 's' Stoic. I love the notion of Stoicism, but I can honestly imagine Aurelius / Seneca smacking their thumb with a hammer and uttering "OH you fucker!" at the top of their lungs as...
I'm a little 's' Stoic. I love the notion of Stoicism, but I can honestly imagine Aurelius / Seneca smacking their thumb with a hammer and uttering "OH you fucker!" at the top of their lungs as well as I do / have / will do.
Holiday has left me bereft of how to critique the broicism movement until right here and now. The cocky-smirk ways of writing summed it up entirely. It's got the same feel as the tech-bro / startup-ceo types who give you a shit eating grin before trying to sell you a jumped up taxi-service called "liftr" and that's what sets my teeth on edge compared to reading the actual tracts.
If public thinking externalizes the dialogue that takes place in the mind, distributing thought over a larger sphere, then it requires a kind of egalitarianism, too. A public intellectual should think in tandem with her audience, and she cannot do so if she sets out to teach them how to be stoical from on high. Should no adequately equal public emerge, her only choice is to invent one, writing as if her relations to her readers were democratic. Thinkers like Namwali Serpell, Kwame Anthony Appiah, and Anahid Nersessian embody this approach: they are academics, but their public writing does not simply regurgitate the arguments first developed in their research in a chattier, cheaper form. No matter the venue, they make hefty demands on their readers, because they have high expectations of their audience.
This is shit you get taught the second you walk into the boardroom as well.
I'm a jovial and affable person, quicker to a joke than I am about a serious work matter. But that absolutely stops the second I'm in front of a board with a CEO / Chairperson at the head. You read your audience expertly and you'll get what you want out of a slide deck / presentation or conversation.
But so many academics / broicism / whatever types don't get that you have to do the same for Joe Public. You want to appeal to mass audiences? You've got to not sound like a condescending prat and be authentic in a chatty, jovial kind of way... you can't be arrogant about these things, else no-one else shall engage.
I think your mileage may vary, depending on the audience. There are famous media personalities whose whole appeal is that they talk authoritatively to their audience. We've seen it, there's a...
I think your mileage may vary, depending on the audience. There are famous media personalities whose whole appeal is that they talk authoritatively to their audience. We've seen it, there's a massive population that latches onto deferring to spokespeople who both 1. act like they're the end-all authority on the subject at hand and 2. reaffirm their audience's worldview. Superiority and confidence are compelling supplements to actual reasoning or charisma. While you and I may feel repulsed by it, there are millions of people who jump on the idea of something like "liftr" because they like the pitch.
Great take but not only this, these guys are trying to sell an idea to people who are already so engaged they've paid for it. But they're not only selling the idea, the superiority and confidence...
Superiority and confidence are compelling supplements to actual reasoning or charisma
Great take but not only this, these guys are trying to sell an idea to people who are already so engaged they've paid for it. But they're not only selling the idea, the superiority and confidence are also part of the sale. What these guys are giving is that "I am supperior" because I know all this stuff I'm explaining to you, but you can be just as superior and confident too by listening to (and paying for $$) what I have to say to you
The fact is that most people outside of the academics don't want to meet on a level playing field. The masses don't have a clue what they believe or what they want and just want someone to lead the way, it's why demagoguery is so effective. The Yale Review misses the mark here in completely not understanding that these authors are not writing for them, they are writing for an audience who readily buys into being "spoken down to." As an aside, am I the only one who doesn't actually feel the tone of these authors is so condescending? Or maybe I'm just showing my own predilections for authority figures
I guess you're right when it comes down to that, it's just bothersome to see good things always get perversed by shisters who just want to sell. The whole lack of actual critical thinking from...
I guess you're right when it comes down to that, it's just bothersome to see good things always get perversed by shisters who just want to sell.
The whole lack of actual critical thinking from people really unnerves me. "Please just think for me so I do not have to" without any true grasp of wider problems or longer term thoughts that "this taxi" really just get me bothered in a way I can't describe.
Bro culture in tech and higher management will unlikely change. It's such a widespread, systemic issue that you can find multiple articles written about this exact issue. Thing is, bro culture...
Thing is, bro culture itself is a response to high-nose, high-brow culture of academia. It's about "renegading" the rejection of bros in high education settings. However, sadly but unsurprisingly, it has mutated into its own high-nose, high-brow culture of "achshuallay" and "technicuhllay".
The gist of the matter is that niches and groups (and sub-groups) or cultures/sub-cultures all tend towards carving out their own terf. You do not step into another's terf and expect to be heard. You have to play by the terf's rules. That's how their existence can be protected.
It's all a bunch of toxic behaviour at the end of the day. What really starts to matter or irk people is when these become so obnoxious as to be their own undoing.
Toxic culture is damn fascinating like this. I'm tech and I have at least three people who are the "achshually" types in close proximity and they just get exhausting to have to deal with on a...
Toxic culture is damn fascinating like this. I'm tech and I have at least three people who are the "achshually" types in close proximity and they just get exhausting to have to deal with on a regular basis. Then there's academics and the business types who are all navel-gazing for one reason or another, I just wish folks didn't have to wrap themselves in toxic trademarks to succeed or get by in life.
The gist of the matter is that niches and groups (and sub-groups) or cultures/sub-cultures all tend towards carving out their own terf. You do not step into another's terf and expect to be heard. You have to play by the terf's rules. That's how their existence can be protected.
Which is just alien to me. I'm a neurodiverse guy, I'm in Senior Leadership and I'm empathic and caring for just about anyone around me. The concept of terf is entirely alien to me as I try and forge paths for people to walk in a more caring way? I think I just see the world for what it could be, rather than what it is sometimes. Might be naive, but it's better than succuming to some of this stuff and being part of the problem.
I think what this perspective leaves out is that public discourse is fundamentally not egalitarian. Like, this writer can potentially reach thousands or readers and have them all hear her take,...
If public thinking externalizes the dialogue that takes place in the mind, distributing thought over a larger sphere, then it requires a kind of egalitarianism, too. A public intellectual should think in tandem with her audience, and she cannot do so if she sets out to teach them how to be stoical from on high. Should no adequately equal public emerge, her only choice is to invent one, writing as if her relations to her readers were democratic. Thinkers like Namwali Serpell, Kwame Anthony Appiah, and Anahid Nersessian embody this approach: they are academics, but their public writing does not simply regurgitate the arguments first developed in their research in a chattier, cheaper form. No matter the venue, they make hefty demands on their readers, because they have high expectations of their audience.
I think what this perspective leaves out is that public discourse is fundamentally not egalitarian. Like, this writer can potentially reach thousands or readers and have them all hear her take, but she's not going to hear the take that each of those people have in response. Unless she goes around looking for forum posts talking about her article, she's never going to hear my response. That's not thinking in tandem. That's not equal.
Even talking on a forum isn't necessarily an equal playing field. I can always throw out whatever bullshit take I want and then just refuse to read the followup responses of others. I think here is where the answer to the original question lies. The reason so many people condescending when writing stuff online is because they want to come across as authoritative.
If your goal is just to influence or control people, to get them to do what you want, then you don't want dialogue. You want people to believe you know better than them and they should just trust you. If you have two perspectives, one which acknowledges they are uncertain of their conclusions, and one which boldly asserts total confidence, people are going to on average be more swayed by the latter. So if your goal is to sway people, you should go with the latter.
So, in my mind, the answer to this question is that a "public intellectual" is different than an "intellectual". Being center stage in public discourse will naturally attract ambitious narcissists who don't actually want to be challenged, so over time the public sphere gets overwhelmed with smug arrogant pricks.
I'm a little 's' Stoic. I love the notion of Stoicism, but I can honestly imagine Aurelius / Seneca smacking their thumb with a hammer and uttering "OH you fucker!" at the top of their lungs as well as I do / have / will do.
Holiday has left me bereft of how to critique the broicism movement until right here and now. The cocky-smirk ways of writing summed it up entirely. It's got the same feel as the tech-bro / startup-ceo types who give you a shit eating grin before trying to sell you a jumped up taxi-service called "liftr" and that's what sets my teeth on edge compared to reading the actual tracts.
This is shit you get taught the second you walk into the boardroom as well.
I'm a jovial and affable person, quicker to a joke than I am about a serious work matter. But that absolutely stops the second I'm in front of a board with a CEO / Chairperson at the head. You read your audience expertly and you'll get what you want out of a slide deck / presentation or conversation.
But so many academics / broicism / whatever types don't get that you have to do the same for Joe Public. You want to appeal to mass audiences? You've got to not sound like a condescending prat and be authentic in a chatty, jovial kind of way... you can't be arrogant about these things, else no-one else shall engage.
I think your mileage may vary, depending on the audience. There are famous media personalities whose whole appeal is that they talk authoritatively to their audience. We've seen it, there's a massive population that latches onto deferring to spokespeople who both 1. act like they're the end-all authority on the subject at hand and 2. reaffirm their audience's worldview. Superiority and confidence are compelling supplements to actual reasoning or charisma. While you and I may feel repulsed by it, there are millions of people who jump on the idea of something like "liftr" because they like the pitch.
Great take but not only this, these guys are trying to sell an idea to people who are already so engaged they've paid for it. But they're not only selling the idea, the superiority and confidence are also part of the sale. What these guys are giving is that "I am supperior" because I know all this stuff I'm explaining to you, but you can be just as superior and confident too by listening to (and paying for $$) what I have to say to you
The fact is that most people outside of the academics don't want to meet on a level playing field. The masses don't have a clue what they believe or what they want and just want someone to lead the way, it's why demagoguery is so effective. The Yale Review misses the mark here in completely not understanding that these authors are not writing for them, they are writing for an audience who readily buys into being "spoken down to." As an aside, am I the only one who doesn't actually feel the tone of these authors is so condescending? Or maybe I'm just showing my own predilections for authority figures
I guess you're right when it comes down to that, it's just bothersome to see good things always get perversed by shisters who just want to sell.
The whole lack of actual critical thinking from people really unnerves me. "Please just think for me so I do not have to" without any true grasp of wider problems or longer term thoughts that "this taxi" really just get me bothered in a way I can't describe.
Bro culture in tech and higher management will unlikely change. It's such a widespread, systemic issue that you can find multiple articles written about this exact issue.
Thing is, bro culture itself is a response to high-nose, high-brow culture of academia. It's about "renegading" the rejection of bros in high education settings. However, sadly but unsurprisingly, it has mutated into its own high-nose, high-brow culture of "achshuallay" and "technicuhllay".
The gist of the matter is that niches and groups (and sub-groups) or cultures/sub-cultures all tend towards carving out their own terf. You do not step into another's terf and expect to be heard. You have to play by the terf's rules. That's how their existence can be protected.
It's all a bunch of toxic behaviour at the end of the day. What really starts to matter or irk people is when these become so obnoxious as to be their own undoing.
Toxic culture is damn fascinating like this. I'm tech and I have at least three people who are the "achshually" types in close proximity and they just get exhausting to have to deal with on a regular basis. Then there's academics and the business types who are all navel-gazing for one reason or another, I just wish folks didn't have to wrap themselves in toxic trademarks to succeed or get by in life.
Which is just alien to me. I'm a neurodiverse guy, I'm in Senior Leadership and I'm empathic and caring for just about anyone around me. The concept of terf is entirely alien to me as I try and forge paths for people to walk in a more caring way? I think I just see the world for what it could be, rather than what it is sometimes. Might be naive, but it's better than succuming to some of this stuff and being part of the problem.
I think what this perspective leaves out is that public discourse is fundamentally not egalitarian. Like, this writer can potentially reach thousands or readers and have them all hear her take, but she's not going to hear the take that each of those people have in response. Unless she goes around looking for forum posts talking about her article, she's never going to hear my response. That's not thinking in tandem. That's not equal.
Even talking on a forum isn't necessarily an equal playing field. I can always throw out whatever bullshit take I want and then just refuse to read the followup responses of others. I think here is where the answer to the original question lies. The reason so many people condescending when writing stuff online is because they want to come across as authoritative.
If your goal is just to influence or control people, to get them to do what you want, then you don't want dialogue. You want people to believe you know better than them and they should just trust you. If you have two perspectives, one which acknowledges they are uncertain of their conclusions, and one which boldly asserts total confidence, people are going to on average be more swayed by the latter. So if your goal is to sway people, you should go with the latter.
So, in my mind, the answer to this question is that a "public intellectual" is different than an "intellectual". Being center stage in public discourse will naturally attract ambitious narcissists who don't actually want to be challenged, so over time the public sphere gets overwhelmed with smug arrogant pricks.
Same reason as a lot of behaviors…. They see other people do it, so they do it themselves.