Critical Thinking: A Tale of Many Elitisms - Part 3: The Intellectual Elite

“Consider your origin: you were not made to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”

Ulysses in Dante Alighieri’s “La Divina Commedia”, Book 27[i]

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, – nor the human race, as I believe,– and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”

Plato, “Republic”[ii]

Knowledge is power. This has always been true, since our pre-human ancestors first learned how fashion crude tools. In modern society, this is truer than ever. As the Economist points out in a brilliant 2006 article, “the success of advanced economies is increasingly dependent not on their physical capital but on their capacity to mobilise their citizens' brainpower[iii]”. Leadership in science and technology leads to economic and even military strength. Large scale data analytics provide unprecedented insights in every field, from economics to health care to biology.

There are only two kinds of knowledge: 1) Knowledge we possess and 2) Knowledge we don’t possess yet. The first kind is a readily available source of invaluable insights that can be gathered using data mining and pattern-seeking algorithms. This requires mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists. The second kind can only be gathered through the scientific method. This requires scientific research and experimental scientists. Applying new knowledge and insights from existing knowledge requires creative inventors in every field, from engineers to physicians. Describing new knowledge to the public and thinking through its possible consequences requires talented writers, journalists, philosophers, ethicists as well as film-makers and visual artists. All these professions, which are increasingly interconnected in large cooperative networks, are the engine of progress. Their practitioners are intellectuals, and they are as unpopular as they are indispensable, particularly in the United States. These people make up the “intellectual elite”, which for reasons we’ll explore below is also a “meritocratic elite”. Before we dwell on the reasons why large segments of the public revile intellectuals, let’s take a deeper look at the two quotes that open this post.

Dante’s Divina Commedia places Ulysses is placed in the Inferno (Hell) because of his treachery that led to victory in the Trojan war, and because of his inquisitiveness that left no stones unturned. Yet, Dante shows sympathy for this character, and describes his unquenchable thirst for knowledge. To encourage his companions to sail beyond familiar waters into the unknown, he reminds of their “origins”, and tells them that humans were made to pursue virtue and knowledge. The implication here is that without knowledge, virtue is not enough. In the late Middle Ages, this was an absolutely revolutionary statement. It is one of the first expressions of the movement that became the Renaissance, spurring people to explore the unknown and not to be content with recycled old wisdom. I don’t have Dante’s literary talent, but with the benefit of living in the era of evolutionary biology, I would paraphrase his memorable verse as follows: “Consider your evolutionary origin. You evolved as a social species that depends on gathering knowledge. Go forth and explore, so that you can learn more about life and how to make the world better”.

Plato’s quote, from the 4^th century BC and thus far more ancient than Dante’s, is even more revolutionary. It specifically states that kings and princes must be philosophers. In other words, no one should be allowed to handle political power without being trained in philosophy. Just how groundbreaking a statement this was becomes clear when we understand what Plato meant by philosophy. He didn’t mean “soft” science. He considered it a foregone conclusion that rulers must have knowledge in military theory, economics, law and politics. By “philosophy”, he meant higher mathematics. In ancient Greece, there was no distinction between philosophers and scientists. Pythagoras, Thales, Euclid and Plato himself were superb mathematicians. Euclid almost single-handedly created all the geometry that modern high school students learn in the 21^st century, which is all the geometry most humans ever learn. Archimedes of Syracuse laid the foundations of fluid dynamics and differential calculus, centuries before Newton and Leibniz. Democritus formulated the first atomic theory of matter. These people were all considered “philosophers”. Plato wanted political leaders to be trained in the mathematical sciences, because only through such training he believed it’s possible to access ultimate realities. He was explicitly calling for intellectual elites to be in charge.

Making allowances for historical differences between modern and Greek science, I agree with his point in the sense that scientific illiteracy is a major weakness in any elected official, unless they rely on expert advisors. Especially today, when momentous decisions on topics like conservation, alternative energies, health care and disease prevention must be made, such decisions should not be made by people who do not understand the scientific method and have no subject matter expertise. Statistics, for example, is essential to understand aggregate data from climate science as well as population sciences. As President Obama aptly put it, “Ignorance is not a virtue”[iv].

Today more than ever, humanity faces complex problems that don’t have simpleminded, easy solutions. Intelligence and education is what we desperately need to solve them.

And yet, over two thirds of Americans don’t complete college degrees. Only 32.5% of Americans complete a bachelor’s degree, compared to 38.7% of Western Europeans and a whopping 54% of Russians. An even smaller fraction of Americans (12%) hold an advanced degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D., M.D., Pharm.D. etc.). Of these, more than half are foreign-born [v]. In 2014, the U.S. ranked 19^th out of 28 OECD countries in educational attainment. In 1995, it ranked first. Educational attainment correlates with health, engagement in society, trust in the institutions and economic mobility[vi]. Add to this the fact that the quality of a high school education is very uneven countrywide, and the picture that emerges is that of a society in which vast swaths of the population are insufficiently educated to think critically about key issues. This may explain the wide diffusion of implausible conspiracy theories and urban myths, which influence the judgment of voters[vii].

What this means in practice is that some 68.5% of Americans are nearly completely cut off from opportunities for economic mobility. Understandably, this segment of the population is growing increasingly resentful, particularly because populist propaganda fans the flames of this resentment without offering realistic solutions. One might argue that a few exceptionally talented college dropouts go on to become billionaires. Or one might cite the example of Abraham Lincoln, who was self-taught, but exceptionally well educated. That these people were probably so exceptionally intelligent and/or driven that they didn’t even need formal instruction. But these individuals are the exceptions, not the rule. Today, the vast majority of people who don’t hold advanced degrees have very little hope of achieving “the American Dream”. This is dramatically different from the reality of the 1950s.

The 32.5% of Americans who are college-educated, and especially the 12% who hold higher degrees, make up the “intellectual elite” in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans who didn’t complete advanced degrees. Although it’s impossible to generalize and there are exceptions, these people tend to be: 1) highly mobile and based in urban areas, because they generally work for high-tech companies, biotech and pharmaceutical companies, academic centers, health science centers, major law firms etc.; 2) cosmopolitan, since over half of those holding a terminal degree are foreign-born, and a significant fraction are first-generation. Moreover, frequent international travel is part of their professional experience; 3) either not religious or not intolerant of other cultures and religions, as their work environments are multinational and multicultural; 4) open-minded and not very sensitive to populist propaganda, since their professions require critical thinking skills. As a group, the “intellectual elite” are not nearly as wealthy as the plutocratic elite, but they are certainly better off than average middle class Americans. This makes them a “meritocratic elite”, which is sought after by companies and higher learning institutions[viii].

Because of their education and their work experiences, these individuals are less likely to embrace bigotry, racism or religious intolerance, and they tend to be politically progressive. Yet, they are regarded with suspicion, mistrust or downright hostility by many working class, traditionalist Americans. I am not aware of a scientific study of the attitudes of intellectuals towards working class Americans, but decades of life experience in this group tell me that most highly educated Americans, whether native-born or foreign-born, do not look down upon their less educated compatriots. On the contrary, they tend to embrace progressive, inclusive politics and to favor a broadening of higher education opportunities. This famous quote by Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould summarizes the attitude I have observed to be most common among American intellectuals: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”[ix] As a group, intellectuals are not nearly as elitist as they are accused of being, and they are certainly less elitists than plutocrats in their political attitudes.

And yet, a vast communication chasm exists between urban and coastal intellectuals and heartland-dwelling working class America. There are several reasons for this. Religion is one of them. Someone like Stephen Jay Gould would have been looked upon with mistrust by many Americans simply because he was an evolutionary biologist. Until very recently, over 40% of Americans still believed that God created the world and humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This is in sharp contrast with the rest of the developed world. Only in 2015 did the fraction of Americans believing in creationism finally drop below the fraction who accept evolution[x], but this means that there remain over 120 million people in this country who believe the biblical creation myths to be literally true. Most of these people live in the heartland and don’t hold higher education degrees (see “A Tale of Many Elitisms, Part 1”). Bigotry and xenophobia are additional, related reasons for resentment against intellectuals. As we have seen above, over half of highly educated Americans are foreign-born (Asian, European and African). Many more are first-generation. A personal acquaintance will serve as a representative example of what is a fairly typical story. This person came to the US as a junior scientist, and eventually became a citizen. Through hard work and talent, this individual became one of the top scientists in the world in his field. His sons are a highly successful physician and a deputy Attorney General respectively, both in East Coast states. All are Democrats. On the face of it, this sounds like a good old American success story. Hard work and risk-taking paid off. Except, the protagonist is neither white nor Christian, and his life experience is completely different from that of typical, native-born, God-fearing Americans living in the heartland.

These "elite" immigrants don’t come into this country to pick vegetables or work in sweatshops like so many previous immigrant groups who had to work their way up the ladder of American society. They are invited to come into Ivy League universities or high-tech companies, where they bring highly valuable skills. While very few are truly wealthy, they do generally earn better wages than millions of working class Americans who grew up thinking of themselves as the number 1 people on Earth. Is it so surprising that these success stories inspire resentment among white working class Americans, rather than admiration and respect?

Meritocracy sounds good in theory, and most Americans like to believe that hard work and talent pay off. In reality, the intellectual professions are perhaps the last bastion of meritocracy in American society, since there exist reasonably reliable measures of intellectual productivity. For everyone else, upward mobility through hard work is much less likely than they think[xi],[xii]. Intellectual meritocracy is unpopular both on the extreme right and the extreme left of the political spectrum. Conservatives fear intellectuals because of their independence and progressive leanings. Liberals dislike an emphasis on talent and competitiveness in favor of complete egalitarianism. However, to quote the Economist: “The rise of a global meritocracy offers all sorts of benefits, from higher growth in productivity to faster scientific progress. It can boost social mobility and allow all sorts of weird and wonderful talents to bloom. The talent wars may be a source of trepidation for companies and countries. But they should also be a cause for celebration” [xiii]. The same article argues correctly that for these benefits to materialize without an anti-intellectual backlash, progressive political measures must be implemented, including progressive taxation and a broadening of educational opportunities, so that more of the population can gain access to a level meritocratic playing field. Most intellectuals understand this, and that this is one reason for their progressive political leanings. However, intellectuals must learn to communicate effectively with anti-intellectuals in order to make their case.

Anti-intellectualism has always been a feature of American culture, and it’s worsening as the knowledge gap between the highly educated and the rest of the country widens. Over the past few decades, scientific and technological progress has accelerated dramatically, but the knowledge of the average high school graduate has not kept pace with it. As Alex Berezow wrote in June 2016 “As a society, we never grew up beyond high school. Not being smart continues to be cool. Rejecting the collective wisdom of scientists, economists, academics, and journalists is applauded. Spurning the "establishment" (defined, it seems, as anybody with expertise on any subject) has become the new national pastime…[xiv]. Berezow lists among possible reasons for rising anti-intellectualism the “democratization of information” through the internet and the politicization of debates, which tends to cause facts to be overshadowed by opinions and personal attacks. In fact, the wide availability of internet memes, factoids, distorted facts and intentional lies can give someone the impression that an internet connection can replace a formal education, and that with a little research online everyone can become an expert in their chosen fields. Unfortunately, just as they grossly underestimate the extent of economic inequality, many Americans also seriously underestimate the extent of educational inequality. To put it bluntly, they don’t know just how much they don’t know. This can have grave consequences when health care decisions are made without the benefit of medical expertise or when the over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers showing evidence of climate change published to date can be ignored based on biased, blatant disinformation put forth by special interests.

Intellectuals are caricatured by populists as ivory tower eggheads whose “book knowledge” is useless, and who are out of touch with “the real world”. While a few ivory tower academicians still exist, “book knowledge”, that is actual subject matter expertise, is not only useful but indispensable to solve the complex global problems we face. Even more importantly, the scientific method and critical thinking habits are indispensable to analyze the knowledge that we gather and make decisions based on it. Far from being isolated in an ivory tower, as a group, highly educated people are more likely than average to be engaged in public discourse [xv] and be informed about world problems with a global, long-term perspective.

The cultural differences between intellectuals and anti-intellectuals are real. These two tribes do need to get to know each other better, and they need to communicate more effectively rather than viewing each other through the prism of stereotypes. However, a complete cultural integration of modern intellectuals within an old-fashioned, traditionalist American society model would be difficult. A Chinese-born computer scientist or a German-born molecular biologist are not likely to turn into creationist Bible thumpers, and they would find it difficult to adapt to life outside of the urban and coastal enclaves they inhabit. Rural American rituals like Wednesday evening worship, Friday night high school football, deer hunting camps etc. are not likely to hold any interest for them. On the other hand, the only way to dispel stereotypes about intellectual elitism is to learn how to communicate effectively with people who are not inclined to listen. It isn’t easy, but it’s necessary.

Above all, intellectuals must be able to demonstrate their humanity and articulate the fact that they pursue knowledge in order to leave a better world for their children, not simply to satisfy idle curiosities.

In order to solve the real problems facing us, collective decision making must be based on accurate data. Representative democracies work well only when voters are sufficiently well informed, have access to accurate information and have the ability to process this information rationally. This includes learning and using critical thinking and listening to subject matter experts, particularly when there is a broad consensus among them.

Intellectuals are not the enemy of working class Americans, nor are they an irrelevant elite. Their work is the best hope we have for a better future for humanity and the planet. However, how much good they are allowed to do will critically depend on how effectively they interact with other constituencies in society. The final post in this series will explore the political interplay between “elites” and the possible outcomes of these interactions.