[MBTI General] anti-intellectualism

[Athenian200]

I'm not sure whether I got this right, but you seem to be setting tradition and intellectualism against each other, which I'm not sure is logical... for example, the Jesuits have a long tradition of intellectualism, as do Benedictines, and both are rooted firmly in history.

Tradition itself doesn't oppose intellectualism, but some traditions do.

That wasn't what I meant... I meant that Si wouldn't drive a person to examine their beliefs the way that Ti would. Not that tradition opposes intellectualism... more that the Fi values it less to begin with, and Si doesn't do much to bolster it, and may simply accept tradition as a substitute (the word, not you) for examination of the beliefs. With INFJ's, you would get the impression based on functional order that Ni would already have a bent in that direction on it's own, and Ti would do even more to support that.

Of course, after reading about Isabel being an INFP (thanks Gabe), and some INxJ's not being even slightly interested in that kind of thing, I now think it's not related to type.

Intellectualism isn't always a good thing. Reason is only as good as the knowledge it is based upon. A certain amount of faith outside of the intellectual is wise. I suppose that makes me anti-intellectual. But I don't think it came from an external source, just a mistrust in "intellectual" explanations for things that just didn't "feel" right.

I understood that you meant that. I am an INTJ/INFJ mixture, and I have no interest in the classical subjects you mentioned. I took an interest in classical music a few years ago, but only because I felt guilted into it. I was afraid people would judge me and think me uncultured. For the record, I hated the Classical music, especially symphonies, but I loved the music of the Romance period and the Baroque period. (I hate jazz music too - how very un-INTJ of me!)

Kiddo: You mean that you'll believe in something, long-term, just because it feels right, even if you have no other reason for doing so?

INTJMom: You would take the Romantic and Baroque periods over the Enlightenment and Renaissance? But... there's so much less resonance and meaning.

You two scare me. :horor: :horor:

I'm going to hide now...

 

[heart]

INTJMom: You would take the Romantic and Baroque periods over the Enlightenment and Renaissance? But... there's so much less resonance and meaning.

I think she was meaning the Baroque period in music, roughly between 1600 and 1750 AD, but it overlaps with the classical period. In my opinion it was the finest age of music.

Baroque (1600 – 1760)
Classical (1730 – 1820)
Romantic (1815 – 1910)

Many think Spinoza was the first great thinker of the Age of Reason (Enlightenment) that it ended in 1804.

 

[INTJMom]

...
INTJMom: You would take the Romantic and Baroque periods over the Enlightenment and Renaissance? But... there's so much less resonance and meaning.
...

I don't know.
I may not have studied that time period.
I thought the time periods went: Baroque, Classical, Romance.
I don't know what is before or after that.
All I know is that I was not being an anti-intellectual snob or a crass moron when I used to say I hated Classical music.
I truly hate it.

 

[INTJMom]

I think she was meaning the Baroque period in music, roughly between 1600 and 1750 AD, but it overlaps with the classical period. In my opinion it was the finest age of music.

Baroque (1600 – 1760)
Classical (1730 – 1820)
Romantic (1815 – 1910)

...

Ah yes. Thank you, my love.

Vivaldi is my favorite and I like Mozart and Schubert also.

Can't stand Bach or Beethoven.

 

[Athenian200]

I think she was meaning the Baroque period in music, roughly between 1600 and 1750 AD, but it overlaps with the classical period. In my opinion it was the finest age of music.

Baroque (1600 – 1760)
Classical (1730 – 1820)
Romantic (1815 – 1910)

Oh... I thought she meant that she preferred the Philosophies of the eras by those names. If it's music, that doesn't bother me. Any music tastes are fine, of course.

I'm glad you aren't an anti-intellectual INTJMom... that would make me nervous for some reason.

 

[heart]

Ah yes. Thank you, my love.

Vivaldi is my favorite and I like Mozart and Schubert also.

Can't stand Bach or Beethoven.

Yes, I love Vivaldi, Albinoni, Mozart, Schubert, Handel, some Bach, some Beethoven. Some of Bach and Beethoven's works seem more Baroque than others. jmo.

I also like Tchaikovsky and Rodrigo in the Romantic period.

 

[heart]

Oh... I thought she meant that she preferred the Philosophies of the eras by those names. If it's music, that doesn't bother me. Any music tastes are fine, of course.

I'm glad you aren't an anti-intellectual INTJMom... that would make me nervous for some reason.

The older I get, the more Blake makes sense. Novalis too. Blake understood what Jung undersood. Change cannot come from standards impossed from the external, but that one must go within and find out who and what one is and make the change from the inner to the outer. People tend to throw the baby of spirituality out with the bathwater of cant and religious dogma.

No change will last that does not follow this formula of from inner to outer, this is what many Romantics understood.

Mock On, Mock On, Voltaire, Rousseau
by William Blake

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.

And every sand becomes a gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking eye,
But still in Israel's path they shine.

The atoms of Democritus
And Newton's particles of light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.

 

[Kiddo]

Kiddo: You mean that you'll believe in something, long-term, just because it feels right, even if you have no other reason for doing so?

Only in cases where my empathy is in conflict with the logic. It's like out of that movie "I Robot". There are just times where I can perfectly relate to the logic, but it seems too terribly heartless.

 

[kelric]

I am not meaning so much lack of ability to understand as unwillingness to explore either due to non-interest or extreme negative prejudice. Maybe even violent rejection of such topics at times.

Yes, that is why I thought it would make a good discussion topic.

Not sure whether you'd consider me an INFP or an INTP - my bet is that most folks here would consider me an INFP (not willing to commit either way myself ). I have, and have basically always had, no interest, or even an active disinterest, in many of:

Or do you think that the inward pull of both introversion and intuition would always bring an INF around to exploring the worlds of classical philosophy, literature, art history, classical music, poetry etc?

I wouldn't describe myself as anti-intellectual, though. Anti-Cultural-Intellectual, maybe - especially when it comes to literature and poetry. I love to read... but I've never read what would be called a classical great book with anything but disinterest (granted - this usually came at the command of a teacher - "I have chosen this for you to read - do it."). I can appreciate that "hmm, this is well written" or "wow, it took a lot of work to do this" - but it doesn't appeal, and I certainly wouldn't pursue it. A good deal of this is my desire to "get on with it" - many classical books seem to just plod along, and I get bored and turned off. For philosophy, it can be interesting but I'd rather have a synopsis, I'm pretty bleh on art history (and most art in general, to be honest), and although I enjoy some classical music, I certainly don't prefer it over other types of music (rock, 80's, etc.).

I *do* buy and enjoy more science-intellectual books. Textbooks on nuclear physics, terraforming (yeah, I'm a nerd), linguistics, anthropology, etc. So it's not that I'm just interested in pop culture as opposed to classical culture - more that I'm not particularly interested in culture at all, or that I consider *my* culture to include more science fiction and fantasy fiction and less traditionally "culturally important" works.

Background-wise... I grew up in a very SJ family (everyone but me). School was to get yourself the background to get a job, and there was no pressure (or really presence of) classical culture when I was growing up. I've always been heavily prejudiced against "cultural" education - to me it always seemed like I was being graded objectively on my subjective opinion - which often didn't match the official one. This did not make me happy - especially as grades were so important to my parents - I quite honestly took it as a personal affront at times.

Oops... late and need to run - will check back tomorrow.

 

[scantilyclad]

I think it is possible as well.
Don't get me wrong i love philosophy and i love literature but i almost can't stand classical music, and have no interest in art history. I like to write poems, but i hate reading them.

i consider myself to be a bit intellectual although i do enjoy a bit of pop culture.

 

[ygolo]

I think it is the exclusionary nature of some circles that cause people to dislike it.

Whether is is "cliquish" popularity, or "intellectual snobbery," I believe the source of ill-feeling is the belief of being excluded (or otherwise lacking the ability to take part).

So I think any type can be anti-intellectual.

IMO, most self-labeled "anti-intellectuals" are in-fact marginally "intellectual" themselves.

I'm switch between anti-intellectual and intellectual every alternate Tuesday

 

[Athenian200]

I've been thinking about it. The reason it bothers me for people to reject reason and other forms of validation of their beliefs is because they would be rejecting some of the core ideas upon which I found my understanding of reality. So in essence, they are rejecting my reality, and claiming that they can define reality in their own terms with no observable or interchangeable standard whatsoever.

Of course, this itself is only my desire to protect what I've accepted, because I don't wish to have my reality disrupted. They have this same desire in a different basis, thus as little as I feel I understand them we are actually similar.

The only difference is that my set of beliefs seems to adapt itself better to the nature of reality than those of anti-intellectuals and their ilk. But then again, why should the cognizable nature of reality be the basis of my beliefs, other than that being my personal preference? I guess it's really only my choice...

 

[INTJMom]

Sorry, Heart, for the slight derail.

I've been thinking about it. The reason it bothers me for people to reject reason and other forms of validation of their beliefs is because they would be rejecting some of the core ideas upon which I found my understanding of reality. So in essence, they are rejecting my reality, and claiming that they can define reality in their own terms with no observable or interchangeable standard whatsoever.

Of course, this itself is only my desire to protect what I've accepted, because I don't wish to have my reality disrupted. They have this same desire in a different basis, thus as little as I feel I understand them we are actually similar.

The only difference is that my set of beliefs seems to adapt itself better to the nature of reality than those of anti-intellectuals and their ilk. But then again, why should the cognizable nature of reality be the basis of my beliefs, other than that being my personal preference? I guess it's really only my choice...

And perhaps a person could come to the same conclusions concerning foundational Truths and Reality without ever having read that stuff?

I don't think it's fair to assume a person has "rejected reason" just because they've never read such and such an author.

If it's really truth, more than one person is going to have it, and there's going to be more than one way to get it. It should permeate life, if it's Truth.

That said, I think I know how you feel. I too have "core ideas upon which I found my understanding of reality" and whenever I come across people - usually online - whose worldview is opposed to mine, it is disheartening, and actually can cause me to despair. I don't wish to have my reality disrupted either, and that's why I built my reality on a foundation of timeless truth which will not change - but that too, is my opinion.

 

[reason]

I like to think of myself as an anti-intellectual intellectual, though I am neither. I just like to pretend.

 

[INTJMom]

I'm not positive what an anti-intellectual is, but I think I used to be one.

 

[prplchknz]

I almost posted something in this thread but decided it might not fit, so It's in my blog http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-blogs/2365-anyone-else-12.html#post123952

if anyone's interested basically it's me having no clue about intellectualism or anti-intellectuallism

 

[Sandy]

I'm switch between anti-intellectual and intellectual every alternate Tuesday

You, too? Mine is, however, every alternate Thursday!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I believe it's more likely for INFP's to be anti-intellectual, but that it would be rare for INFJ's (granted, I may be biased).


I'm pretty sure the tertiary Ti would lead INFJ's to that at some point, but the Si might keep INFP's steeped in tradition more..

The Si factor is overriden by that of abstract introverted judgment.

For this reason.

Don't get me wrong, of course. I like INFP's because they have a greater insight into the emotion itself, because they don't need to envision and apply a pattern to see it, and they generally have a certain depth...

Abstract introverted judgment runs deeper than plain introverted intuition because it allows for one to focus the Intuitions intensely inward.

Although I think most of both types get into higher subjects eventually, if their environments and experiences don't prejudice them against it.

And Fi isn't as malleable, because once a (potentially bad) value gets stuck in there, it can't be changed by normal means (if at all)....

Fi is an open-ended function. It does not cease to search for values, much like Ti does not cease to search for truth. Fe, on the other hand is more change averse as it is less flexible. This is the well known J/P paradigm.

Tradition doesn't equal anti-intellectual, and intellectual doesn't equal academic. Not necessarily.)....

Tradition is antitethetical to intellect in this manner: the intellect insists on questioning all in order to discover soundest ideas possible. Tradition insists on accepting the established ideas by default. The existence of intellectual traditions is anathema to the intellectual way of life such enterprises vouch for. Essentially though, it would not be possible to preserve any school of thoguht without a reliance on tradition.

Also, with regard to Fe or Fi disinclining a person to 'go against their culture', it's been shown that intellectualism can be, and has been, harnessed to support, strengthen, justify and explain just about any culture from Nazism to Communism, from orthodoxy to anarchy. Which incidentally, might just be why some people are suspicious of it, regardless of their type.

This is where the intellect is abused to subserve tradition. Had the intellect truly held primacy over practical affairs, it would be concerned with the acquisition of truth first and foremost. The rest would be of ancillary importance.

 

[INTJMom]

...
This is where the intellect is abused to subserve tradition. Had the intellect truly held primacy over practical affairs, it would be concerned with the acquisition of truth first and foremost. The rest would be of ancillary importance.

I apologize for the tangent but...
I'm pretty sure the proponents of Nazism and Communism thought they were expounding the Truth. They were deceived, tragically.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I apologize for the tangent but...
I'm pretty sure the proponents of Nazism and Communism thought they were expounding the Truth. They were deceived, tragically.

They were not thinking about the scholarly discovery of truth but only about the practical applications of what they've been inculcated to believe for the truth to be.