Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual

After Nixon crushed McGovern in the 1972 election, the film critic Pauline Kael made a remark that has become a touchstone among conservatives. “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won,” she marveled. “I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” While the second sentence indicates the sheltered habitat of the Manhattan intellectual, the first signifies what social scientists call the False Consensus Effect. That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. If the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

[…]

The problem is that the simple trappings of deliberation make academics think that they’ve reached an opinion through reasoned debate — instead of, in part, through an irrational social dynamic. The opinion takes on the status of a norm. Extreme views appear to be logical extensions of principles that everyone more or less shares, and extremists gain a larger influence than their numbers merit. If participants left the enclave, their beliefs would moderate, and they would be more open to the beliefs of others. But with the conferences, quarterlies, and committee meetings suffused with extreme positions, they’re stuck with abiding by the convictions of their most passionate brethren. —Mark BauerleinLiberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual (Chronicle of Higher Education)

This article is in a subdirectory marked “temp,” so I don’t know if it’s permanent.

I think this aspect of academic culture that leads to the impression that academics live in the ivory tower, isolated from the outside world. Baurelein mentions what he calls the “Common Assumption,” which is the unspoken expectation that “all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals.”

I was consciously aware of a variation of this phenomenon when I was studying in Canada. Polite cocktail party conversation and small-talk at graduate social events typically included anti-American sentiments that were not offered for debate, but were instead intended to solicit silent nodding and sighs of assent. For instance, I recall one student, puzzled by a fellow Canadian’s use of a particularly vulgar racist phrase, speculating that since there was a U.S. military base near where this vulgar Canadian grew up, that must have been the source of this Canadian’s vulgarity. When nobody in the room laughed at the outright silliness of this display of “logic,” I had to speak up.

In my role as a journalism teacher, I am increasingly aware of the effect that my own biases may have in the classroom.

A colleague of mine posted a printout of the “States with Higher IQ Vote Democrat” meme, but according to The American Assembler, which published it as a humor item, it appears to be a hoax.

6 thoughts on “Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual

  1. I think it’s also useful to think in terms of being able to debate intelligently with people who hold and defend a “position,” which is perhaps a provisional but reasoned opinion, based on their current understadning of the evidence and issues.

    In an educational setting, it should be acceptable for a student to change his or her position based on an encounter with new evidence; and a student who does change a position shouldn’t be criticized for having been “incorrect” earlier. That doesn’t mean that students shouldn’t hold any convictions, but unless there is an atmosphere that is open to position shifts, there won’t be any real education, just polarization.

    Rayne, while it’s true that some positions in some fields lead to harsher consequences, I cringe at the thought that any academic field or any human endeavor is dominated by one opinion or world view.

    It’s probably not fair to equate “non-liberal” with “Holocaust denier.” While I don’t find any value in what the Holocaust deniers say, I do value a society in which Holocaust deniers are free to present their “evidence” for public scrutiny (if only to show the rest of the world the importance of the task of holocaust education… Seton Hill has a center for Holocaust education, which commemmorates Kristalnacht each year and has surviors on campus to speak regularly… but that’s getting off topic).

  2. I need someone to clarify the last statement made:

    “Now, perhaps you mean that every persons opinion is “valid”, but many times not “correct”. Well, you still need a group of people who are at least making an honest effort to think about what they are saying for the saying to be true.”

    Is this person insinuating that an “honest effort” yields a valid conclusion? Or a correct conclusion? It is true that in science, there can be clear answers based on observation (ie: “the world is round”) However, I aluded to politics, an abstract subject where no proof can be made to establish one answer as “valid” or even “correct.” Being that there cannot be positively “conclusive” evidence to support political theory, politics seems, to me, to be a drove of extrapolated opinions.

    The point, not everything is so “black and white” that it is beyond questioning. Change in opinions happens every day as more conclusive evidence is drawn out of research. (and I am still wondering how change was brought up in the first place ???) People have the right to change if more stable evidence is drawn from discovery to “verify” (for lack of better terms) the opinion.

    There is nothing “anti-academic” or as was put “anti-thinking” about changing or at most, having an opinion that was not verified yet. For example, it was commonly believed that homosexuals were the product of choice. Now, as more reliable methods of psychological research and inquiry are established, it is found that homosexuality is not a choice. Just because an opinion cannot be verified yet, does not mean that other can (and is correct). That kind of reasoning seems more “anti-academic” than saying “every opinion has its own validity.” There is no way to tell if it will not be validated in the future.

  3. Bauerstein forgets a fundamental issue affecting a large portion of secondary education: publicly funded schools must be open and accepting to all students that enter. Perhaps it’s not that academia screens out non-liberal educators. “Liberal”, after all, is based on the root, “libe”, free; being liberal means being open- or broad-minded, free from bigotry, willing to entertain new ideas. In a publicly-funded system, is this attitude not critical to equality in education? That all comers and a multitude of ideas are welcomed?

    Can you imagine what the repercussions would be if an educator taught from a bias that questioned the legitimacy of the Holocaust, that espoused eugenic practices and complete isolationism, that was highly sympathetic to anti-immigration? Are liberal educators likely to have any of these biases? Are these biases that should be entertained at all by any educator? Can conservative educators say that no one within their ranks harbors these biases?

    Perhaps the real problem isn’t whether educators at large are liberal or conservative. Perhaps the real problem is that a premium has not been placed on critical thought and analysis, on active and open questioning and dissent. This is far more important for students to master than the political leanings of their educators. Can conservatives say they are able to advocate this? Are liberals doing their best to encourage this?

    I’ve had hard-core conservative professors at a private business school. Even years later I cringe thinking of a certain Econ prof that encourage the growth of renewable resources by advocating an increase in consumption of paper products. He punctuated his remarks by taking a brand-new piece of white paper off a pad, balling it up and throwing it in the waste can; he said that corporations would work to fill our needs as our needs increased. When I asked him about corporations’ likely response to the increase in dioxin production and chlorine-based waste that act as hormone disruptors when released into the environment, resulting from an increase use of chlorine in paper pulp bleaching, he had no answer and shut me down, moving to the next topic. On the other hand, I had an exceptional business ethics professor who’d been elected as a conservative judge; he entertained all questions, was more likely to answer questions with more questions, and generally increased my understanding of the topic exponentially beyond that which the text covered. It can go either way. I’d prefer a generation of the latter, rather than the former; a generation of students taught to think as the Econ prof, allowed to acquire positions in management, might be the death of our future.

    [You might find this bit an interesting read: http://reason.com/0411/fe.dc.whos.shtml — note the educators who are voting conservatively. Also note the rationales given by those folks who might be considered liberal. What really is conservative or liberal?]

  4. Obviously if someone has the “opinion” that the world is flat, and refuses to accept evidence to the contrary, then I wouldn’t respect that person’s ability to think critically. We do live in a representative government, which means that the people don’t vote directly on every action the government takes. Experts do have a grasp of knowledge that the general public does not have.

    The “Friends” fan Will describes is the same “open minded” person that Evan complains about.

  5. See, the problem is with “It is appreciating and accepting other’s views as just as valid as your own.” Because obviously, not everyone’s views are just as valid as your own. In fact that statement itself is possibly anti-intellectual (um, I mean it’s anti-thinking).

    If everyone else’s views are just as valid as my own, then surely there’s no point in critical thinking is there? I mean after really thinking hard about my beliefs for several days, my newly reasoned beliefs are no more valid than they were before!

    And what really, really, really gets under a persons skin is that according to this mantra, that really, really, really annoying guy/girl who is always spouting off at the mouth without giving the slightest bit of thought to what they’re saying, the one whose opinion completely changes because their new ideas is what Joey on Friends said in the episode before class – well, his opinion is just as valid as yours!

    So stop thinking and start blabbering on! is the feeling that I get every time I hear that mantra.

    Now, perhaps you mean that every persons opinion is “valid”, but many times not “correct”. Well, you still need a group of people who are at least making an honest effort to think about what they are saying for the saying to be true.

  6. “If participants left the enclave, their beliefs would moderate, and they would be more open to the beliefs of others.” -Mark Bauerlein

    I feel as though this is a key issue with politics in general, especially the US. People seem to be pushed (whether by some form of heightened egocentrism or the media) to have more extreme views. In some ways, I agree: extreme, bipolaristic values can create division, even conflict. However, I feel that people have the capability to appreciate difference, but fail to do so for fear of rejection.

    Our society seems to have a knack for setting standards and falling into the realm of either “black” or “white.” Society fails to recognize anything in between as valid. Open-mindedness is not the condition of taking no sides or being in the middle. It is appreciating and accepting other’s views as just as valid as your own. For example, people call me “unpatriotic” for being a democrat and not supporting the War in Iraq, yet fail to grasp the concept of what patriotism really means.

    This whole bipartisan bickering makes me sick. My values and believes are just as valid (and important) as anyone else’s. Sorry for the rant, but I hope to shed some light on this issue.

Leave a Reply to Will Gayther Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *