Good art and art history teachers will inform the students to beware of hype and that even the pros don't get a lot of it. Knew two english profs who were married for decades and she never got his poetry.
I always loved music but couldn't "get" other expressive arts. No idea why. Wish I could 'cause I always wondered what they heck I was missing out on! Best I can manage is look at a painting or sculpture, etc., and seeing how much skill and effort it took.
@@amethystimagination3332That's lucky, I had to process that information when I was about 7- I sort of wish I had longer of innocence, but, it's also nice to be prepared
I've never liked debating whether the world is more like _1984_ or _Brave New World_ because to me the debate obfuscates the fact that both styles of control are being used on us simultaneously.
@@NoogieNinjaIMO, it's helpful because it provides a concrete, visceral reference point for people. For example, if you say "Political party X is pushing a specific narrative interpretation of historical material conditions and their effect on modernity to engender rage, resentment and fear in a population to manipulate them because it more aligns with their ideology" most people won't understand, notice, or care. But rephrase that as "They're doing a 1984 to you" and people generally "get" that. No human is a perfectly rational creature, and the masses are generally not even slightly rational. An academic text explaining the minutia of fascism won't register. "Hey, look at the evil 1984 sh*t they're doing" has a better chance.
We are distracted because we are always pitted against each other, trapped in an infinite conflict with no end. When we are displeased with the futile state of the world, and we cannot directly confront these abstract and omnipresent issues, we will only direct our anger to the fellow man. And it is no snaccident
Just like the Japanese up to the end of WWII. _"The Grave of The Fireflies" is, essentially, a documentary on the cultural disruption and societary collapse induced by discovering that following the Bushido and fighting to the last man accomplishes nothing, actually, in front of superior industrial resources. Not that Japanese society hasn't found a way back to some of those old habits, with similarly final results._
In my opinion, it's not that intellectuals are elitists, but rather that elitists like to consider themselves intellectuals; and when both tend to look and sound the same, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two. To combat this, I often end my sentences with unexpected, humorous exclamations. SHABOINGLE!
This is so true and the biggest example of this right now is probably Elon Musk. He constantly portrays himself as this genius when in reality if you know even the most basic things about anything he talks about you would know he is extremely ignorant and lies constantly. I watched a video where he was talking with a computer programmer about twitters code and all he was doing is saying big words acting like he knows what he's talking about and when he was called out on it by the professional he kicked him out.
@Potato6480 Precisely. Elon's no intellectual, he just uses high-level vocabulary and has a lot of money; but that is no substitute for a true intellect.
and today "intellectual" tends to mean educated neoliberal capitalist, so a lot of them are essentially right wing even if they don't outright claim to be. how many people say "intellectual" and think "has read A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy or has read Women, Race and Class"
you also get the experts, who think, they know other things, because they are used to being smart. oh a Professor of x is on TV and he is talking about y, great. He sounds smart, but I might as well ask a random person.
My history teachers were pretty great orators, but even then I found the lessons only mildly interesting. But now that I've graduated and started writing a book, I found myself reading a lot about history, willingly and excitedly. My takeaway is that people change 😆
Not even. There's just no level of teaching to compete with the Internet. Anyways, I'm glad that I always loved history, regardless of who taught it. Just skip ahead, read, and ignore your teacher lol
I love the Cunkverse. But what worries me are the people who don't get the joke. There are people who enjoy comedy and don't get the joke. They laugh for the wrong reason. They aren't laughing at Cunk. They are laughing at these "useless intellectuals."
@@wipis59i think there is a risk if the viewer is already pre-judged against scientists/intellectuals. I can imagine this show appealing to an anti-intellectual audience, but i also feel that the show does a good job at leaving them in their value. Cunk is a foolish character who asks outlandish questions and the interviewed people respond patient and maturely given the circumstances.
It’s good, but just an Ali G rip off to me. Ok I agree it’s done differently, but the template is there. Put a few “inits” in it and you’ll get very close to Ali G.
@marchdarkenotp3346 Because you're about 50 years too late to the death of the author debate and all the reaction you're going to get out of me by claiming that 'fun can be had incorrectly' is pointing and laughing at you.
Whenever the History Channel is doing anything grounded in or related to real history, it's these two. Whenever Hollywoo is making another cheesy modern rom-com set in "historical times" for the Oscar bait/clout, it's those two...
My favorite moment is in 'Cunk on Earth' when she asks a gotcha question (I believe, "Why do we still have war? Answer in three words.") And the interviewee gives a serious and cogent answer to what is meant to be an absurd question, and Diane Morgan suddenly realizes she's the one on the back foot who doesn't know how to respond. (But really, who doesn't love Abba?)
Their choice of people to interview (or at least people who make the cut) really lends itself to this. I don't recall her ever interviewing someone who got really lost, and in many ways their ability to consistently give cogent answers to superficially absurd questions is an object demonstration of the power of intellectualism. A stark contrast to the messages of marketing and populism.
Honestly, I think the academics are in on it. There's a woman who has appeared multiple times who gets cheered on by my academic colleagues every time she pops up. The whole POINT of teaching is to bridge gaps in understanding and answer questions, meeting people where they are and walking them across the bridge. They're doing exactly what they should be doing. I've had that squeeeeeee moment of changing mental gears during a seminar after a question from a student. It's good for both of us. Brooker has a track record of taking the piss out TV formats that flatten the value of the information and thinking contained within. History IS boring if it's communicated badly. That's what gets lampooned most.
I'm surprised people are even debating this. They are in on it, it's not a secret, it's not a theory, you can easily find that information with a Google search. They don't know the questions that'll be asked, but they are informed it's a comedy show and that they should treat Philomena as if she was a curious child.
This is a really well made video but I cant help but feel that "anti-intellectualism" just isn't the right phrase for what the Cunk character represents. Cunk acts and speaks like a child, asking bewildering questions, comparing ancient history to minecraft, or showing disinterest in theatre (meant for adults). I wouldn't consider a child "anti-intellectual", and a lot of Cunk's character really reminds me of when I was working with kids. I see it more as a naive curiosity, the same way a child will ask why? why? why? why? why? The point I've understood from this video (and agree with) is that Cunk is almost like a gateway for anti-intellectuals themselves to maybe learn something new, by identifying with Cunk while still being exposed to the earnestness and patience of the guests. That being said I think labeling naive curiosity or childlike misunderstanding as anti-intellectual is a bit misplaced.
except the “naivety” cunk shows is explicitly willful. it is something she chooses to be, continually. in that sense, she is firmly a character meant to pander to anti-intellectuals, presumably for intellectuals to laugh at, except that this show spends the majority of its time also tearing down experts and intellectualism
@@aricheec7722 The show itself isn't "tearing down experts and intellectualism"; it's satirizing people who do. It's the same sort of thing Stephen Colbert did with his Daily Show/ Colbert Report character. When Colbert, in the role of an ignorant conservative talking head, interviewed experts and asked loaded questions or dismissed obvious facts, he made himself the butt of the joke-because the audience was overwhelmingly not ignorant or conservative and knew better. I doubt many conservatives watched that show and thought the Colbert character was genuinely championing their perspective, and I doubt many people who don't care about science or history are watching Cunk and feeling validated.
She's definitely not meant to be particularly childlike. She's just meant to be an exaggerated version of a fairly typical kind of English person who doesn't know much and doesn't care to know much that isn't directly relevant to her daily life.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” by Neil Postman
@TripleA_Battery 1984 is about totalitarian state, which any google search will tell you is what the Stalin regime was classified as. Another quick google search will tell you that Orwell modeled the 1984 regime/party after the Soviet Union under Stalin.
@@TripleA_Battery A quick google search will tell you that Stalinism is a totalitarian regime. Another quick google search will tell you that Orwell wrote 1984 modelling the regime/party after the Soviet Union under Stalin.
The unfortunate result of so many people being so beat down by the current state of work and such is that they do not have the mental brainpower left to learn about new things. It is also exactly what those in power want.
Yes, this. I am not sure if this is covered by the end of the video but I feel that laziness and hedonism are red herrings when it comes to talking about everyday people's anti-intellectualism. Most people work, take care of someone else (a child or elderly parent), then have chores, or something else draining that must be done. At the end of the day.= they must weight the benefit of learning some abstract theory that they may not relate to against relaxing, their own hobbies or just going to sleep. Focusing on the hedonism and laziness is some what elitist itself, or at least presumptuous as it seems put down anyone not learning as lazy and it ignores systemic factors. It also flat out excludes how hard learning can be in some of these cases especially in the pre-internet days.
@@Blech-h9zmore like created, bought, built and maintained by those with political power, and by those with political power I mean those with capital and economic power. Aka the owners of the economy (by owning the places and ways through which work is produced, lets call it the means of production) and, by extension, the owners of our lives in society.
I really enjoyed this video. One of things I've noticed in the past several years isn't just the distrust of experts or a belief of academics to be boring, but that people are being less and less curious; they lack any intellectual curiosity. It is that no one every seems to ask "why does that happen?" or "how does that work?" when hearing a new fact. It doesn't necessarily have to be a complicated to highly academic concept. Things like "why do onions make my eyes water?" and "How does my watch know how many hours I slept?". My family used to often think my habit of constantly looking up stuff, no matter how simple, to be odd and quirky. After my mother moved in with me, she slowly started doing the same thing because she couldn't help but be curious after seeing me being curious. But so many people in the US, at least, has no one to followor look to.
I’ve had people get mad at me for looking up stuff they say , which I mostly do because I didnt know was true. I believe people view it as me trying to prove them wrong (which yes sometimes I abuse google to do that lol) but really I just love learning new things.
Unfortunately, part of the "distrust" in experts you mentioned deepened during the Covid period. Then, Media wishing to keep a fear narrative rolling, presented to us AS experts, either chosen puppets... or whoever was on hand (sometimes barely related to the subject) to keep. The REAL experts were unheard of OR kept away, mostly for having doubts or different opinions from the main narrative. When all was said and done (and much of it wrong), the population, who had been mislead, afraid and barricaded was angry, and the TV clowns came to embody the image of "the expert": ouch.
@@MsBlackIntrovert I've had that happen, too. I do my best to say out loud something positive like "That's so cool, let me pull it up on Google, etc, so I can read more about later."
I was also surprised how many people don't bother to Google stuff related to their job. I worked investor accounting for a little over a decade as an analyst, which meant I used things like Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access daily I got a weird reputation over the years of just "knowing" how to fix software issues. In reality whenever someone asked me to come look at their computer because something wasn't working, 99% of the time I just typed the issue into Google and found the solution. I was constantly confused that it never seemed to occur to most of my coworkers to Google it themselves and try a few suggests from the results before asking my help. And I see this from all generations.
From what you said here, I think we both agree that Cunk does a great job lampooning BOTH the sterile, arcane discussions of academics, as well as the rise of anti-intellectualism. I get the feeling that Brooker feels similarly to you and your discussion of the Mona Lisa. Some things are boring but still worth appreciating.
I feel like anyone who thinks academic discussions are sterile should get to know more academics. :P (Eventually, this could also help dispel the impression that they are arcane, too.)
Just because it's boring doesn't mean it's interesting, because there's a lot of content and information that is boring but is important at some point in academic studies and in society.
@@noatrope I have a bachelor's degree in political science and almost a master's in public administration. Those by no means make me some sort of expert, but I have seen and read a lot of published research papers as part of my education, while having had multiple classes that were largely focused on discussion. I do believe that you probably could make most things interesting -- take, for instance, the writings and podcast of Malcom Gladwell (ignoring the controversies over the veracity of some of his claims lol). He makes things super interesting and fun. But I also think there are some things that just, either are inherently not that interesting, and would require a lot a work to make interesting, or are things that simply aren't the sort of thing that strikes *your* fancy. *Shrug*
@@christopherh2729 Your parenthetical about ignoring Malcolm Gladwell's veracity is the point though right? Gladwell is interesting not necessarily because what he says is true or accurate but because it feels true; maybe because its similar to our own pre-conceived perception just dressed up in a way that makes it seem like novel or hidden knowledge.
Today, ive noticed it really a lot while arguing online... People demand proof, demand studies.... but then they dont bother to read them or just brush them aside as nonsense... Makes it really hard to debate, when the side is not willing to even acknowledge your point of view and the evidence you bring to the table... while their only provided evidence.... are youtube videos... And im Gen Z, im the one who's supposed to have this Low attention span
The whole concept of throwing sources at people is stupid anyway. Even if they were going to look at the sources (which they never, ever do) then it's two people competing over which other person they are on the side of. I tend to have the depth of thought that when people start screaming for sources I can tell them, "Actually this is an independent thought and I don't have a link to someone famous who 100% agrees with me, so you can either engage the actual conversation happening now or leave." I'm not interested in narcissists doing a big display which is for 'the audience' even though nobody is watching the conversation and neither do their care. It's just posturing when people do that online, you can never convince them of anything.
For the same reasoning as you ridicule another's view as incorrect you call yourself correct. As such, you declare truth can only be found in your own views and lock yourself in blind faith making you evermore conceited. Through this closemindedness you are the same as those you criticize.
@@jonlannister345 It's hilarious to call other people narcissistic for wanting to discuss something grounded in reality while elevating your singular perspective to that level. You can have those discussions and that's fine but if someone has a grounded reason for why they think what they think and you respond "achtusally we should just discuss vibes" you are being the narcissist to an incredible INCREDIBLE degree.
FYI what's called a "posh accent" in slang terms is technically called Received Pronunciation. Everyone argues about what exactly it means, naturally, but it's that upper class British accent us 'muricans associate with Bond villains.
Actually received pronunciation is middle class and is intended to be accentless and easy to understand. Posh people can sometimes have a plummy accent all of their own that can be just as hard to understand as working class dialects.
I think you've confused RP with a true posh accent. Thinl of RP as the BBC in the 20th century obviously posh but accessible language and easy to understand. A posh accent is someone like Boris Johnson guffawing, like u understand about 50% of what they say
You're correct, and I don't know why people are so confused. RP is the queen's english. More people used to speak that way - like on the radio - but it's fallen somewhat out of fashion. A range of accents can be described as RP, including a range of comprehensibility. It's a somewhat general descriptor as well, usually differentiating pronunciations common in many specifically English accents in contrast to american accents. If your accent is less received and more rhotic, there are fewer or more minor differences. Though rhoticity also has class implications in both places which are unintuitive to the other.
Actor here. "stereotypical British accent" = Contemporary Received Pronunciation Posh Twat = Cambridgeshire 1050s TV presenters = Traditional RP Royalty + aristocracy = Heightened RP Neutral English accent = "Neutral Standard English (ofc) All of that being said, accent coaches will disagree about where the lines get drawn between all of these and exactly what makes each one what it is etc
i think the issue is that while the show is trying to appeal to if not anti-intellectuals but non-intellectuals, it doesn't really show said audience how or why these topics are so important, and CAN be interesting. I love it, but its almost as if its better if you already know the history, and those who don't are in it more for maybe, stickin' it to the nerds? I don't know... Now more than ever, we need to make knowing things and learning cool and rewarding.
you have to remember there were TOO MANY people who watched the boys and thought homelander was the good guy for YEARS. everything in our society is inherently political and plenty if not too many people do indeed just see entertainment as simply that. at some point their minds refuse to engage with anything further than as entertainment value
I think it doesn't help that many jobs now are soul crushing and mental oriented, people are tired of the work week and budgeting for rent and bills and food and what have you, and the last thing they want to do is expend yet more mental energy on something that isn't strictly necessary for their continued survival.
People think pieces of media are tests which the author holds the correct answer to. There is no such answer key. Every belligerent in every war saw themselves as the good guys. Until God judges at the end of time, it's all just difference of opinion.
I would say the show is more about the socratic method with a rude/child mentality twist, which allows it be easier to digest and share for others. Sort of the cheese around the medicine.
She’s not anti intellectual…she’s engaging in Socratic dialogue or irony. It’s actually a role you fill in an argument of “acting like an idiot” - it’s satire…..extreme satire, this show is not a documentary but purely comedy for intellectuals. HOWEVER I think people aren’t getting that…….which is interesting and does speak to your point.
exactly! I don’t know a single person who has watched cunk on earth that didn’t enjoy history and politics because it is inherently “learning” about history and politics. It’s a show intended for people who already have and possess knowledge about history to mock the seriousness of it and enjoy it from a different perspective in a Socratic and ironic way!
That's definitely true for the actress and the role of the show, but the character she's playing is quite anti-intellectual, though I'd rather say she's intellectually disinterested
@ well the thing is, she is playing a character intentionally characterized as idiotic that’s what I was saying before about playing the role of the idiot when engaging in Socratic inquiry
I'd argue Philomena Cunk is akin to Space Ghost or The Eric Andre Show; bewildering expert interviewees. Adam West: "I do not have any superpowers." Space Ghost: "So your whole life is a lie?"
The best thing my high-school English teacher did to make Shakespeare interesting was revealing to a bunch of teens that there is a bunch of horny jokes in the text, because of the different class groups it needed to appeal too. Never saw a room of teens be as interested or snickering in Romeo and Juliette before or after.
The heads of the maids? Or their MAIDEN-HEADS AYYYYYY! Thou'lt fall BACKWARD when thou hast more wit AYYYYYY! Look for me tomorrow and you'll find me a GRAVE MAN AYYYYYY-COUGH-COUGH-*dies*
i went to two different high schools so i had two different english teachers. the both of them explained this about shakespeare. it made me appreciate the stories more having the context of the kinds of people who would have been watching the plays when they were being written. it was also fun to be able to roll my eyes at stupid dad jokes in the plays written four centuries ago lol. my favourites were hamlet and king lear.
I disagree with three points of this video. 1. Pop culture isn't worth less than "culture" and Cunk's POV (what's called "internalanti-intellectualism") is not only a good reflection of the audience's attitudes and thus a narrative tool for identification but also a necessary corrective to many history documentaries and media in general that uncritically vaule only "high culture". 2. Cunk is obvously a character all the interviewed researchers know about beforehand. Cunk's function is not "external anti-intellectualism", she's a narrative tool for the experts to assert themselves as clever, witty and sympathetic. It's similar to "hostile" late night show interviews, a good example was the Colbert Report or currently Ziwe. The "worse" her questions, the more pronounced her disdain towards the interviewee, the better can the interviewee portray themselves in comparison. I think this has issues as well, as uncritically repeating the history documentary trope of the talking head expert masks how science and knowledge are actually produced, not by singular geniuses but by large teams and collaborations across the globe. 3. It's ignorant to simply write off "anti-intellectualism" assome kind of envy, angst or ignorance. For many people who collectively have been economically and culturally excluded from access to higher education instiutions, it's an almost necessary consequence for them that they question the epistemiologies they had no part in. Ignoring systemic issues such as class, race and gender can lead to misguided ideas about the "negative" aspects such as the described "Huxleyan" media industry, which is not a mere fact of anti-intellectual preferences but a tool of power.
It's actually fully in line with Brave New World to indicate that many people do not engage with the world for reasons other than laziness. A core chunk of the start of the novel was about manufacturing consent and the scope of an individual's capacity
at the same time it seems like people thinking they know stuff that they merely read a headline about, is at an all time high. But actual learning? it's dead
They want to understand about what they feel it is important. Maybe we don't ask or do not convince them. Look at the effort religion has to make people pay attention to some fake stories. A lot of research was put into making the fake feel real. Other areas do not make such research.
@@zerotwo7319❤i think youre onto something. A lot of people who do find history and in a general sense academia important dont know how to communicate the breadth of benefits that come from learning them. Theres an “it just is” approach to it. The culture around education, especially higher education is marred with this faux superiority of doing the “real” stuff. The important stuff. While ironically dismissing the real lives and opinions of people who dont engage with these things.
Learning does take alot of time. A lot of Americans dont have the time to learn, they are stuck providing for themselves and immediate family. Capitalism is happy to keep them poor and on the "assembly line" for whatever industry they might be in. Stay dumb, stay working, right wing media will tell you what to think, and RWM is absolutely and blatantly anti intellectual. Welcome to Trump 2.0
I'm halfway convinced the Dunning Kruger effect itself is a Dunning Kruger effect. The original paper does have graphs, they're just essentially horizonal lines that AFAICT show that people don't know how good they did at a test of something they didn't study. Apparently neither of the authors noticed this is hardly a surprising outcome, and in particular that it really doesn't support the conclusions the paper draws. Yes, I'm *fully* aware of the irony here 😅
it doesn't help that modern schooling is basically optimized to produce factory workers. get to your assigned room, obey your shift authority, move to your new station at the ring of the bell...
@capricioushorse Are you referencing Idiocracy? Cause that's not the movie we're gonna get. The government in Idiocracy was still fundamentally benevolent and tried to help their people and maintain "normal society" despite their inability to do so. The government we just got isn't that. We got one that is actively malevolent and trying to do harm intentionally for their own gain. The GOP is less Idiocracy and more the Orc hordes of Sauron. The Idiocracy government is just dumb. Fascists are dumb AND actively evil. Crazy world when Idiocracy is the preferred future.
The academics aren't "the butt of the joke" because Cunk herself is the butt of the joke. The UK isn't a society obsessed with the appearance of success and comedians with TV shows don't feel that their personal prestige is in play. UK comedy tends to be based on the ridiculousness of the central character - from Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part (who became Archie Bunker in the US), through John Cleese in Fawlty Towers to The Ricky Gervais character in The Office (English version) and beyond. I say "tends to be" because it isn't a hard and fast rule, but there aren't a lot of British comedies on the Sergeant Bilko model, in which the comedy revolves around the central character emerging with the upper hand. Of course, the documentary format is being satirized in the Cunk programmes, but mind-boggling ignorance (not anti-intellectualism) is the mechanism for that, not the message being delivered.
Maybe I feel… protective of Cunk, but I think it’s certainly the type of show where what you get out of it depends on what you show up with. For academics, it’s a bit of a balm to watch Cunk poke fun at art and academia in ways academics are discouraged from expressing, or to compare Cunk to current student attitudes, and comparisons to modern media, jokes, or addressing alienation through them is an important part of academic theory, but I do think a lot of people are showing up to it from an anti-intellectual standpoint.
I am a French writer. So forgive my bad english. Very sorry to say that in 30 years (I wrote my first novel in 1995) the intellectual level of the kids has gone incredibly low. I mean that some of my novels, written for children around ten, are now only understandable by children around 13 or 14. Not only the vocabulary, but the plot... But I've got to say something : I met a lot of teachers, librarians, during these years, and their intellectualism, their tendancy to complicate the art works and many other subjects does a lot to discourage the students. Thank you for the very interesting subject.
Cunk reminds me of Colbert’s early work in terms of the obfuscating stupidity. If you enjoy that vibe, I would point you in the direction of a gem from the 1980s, the character Max Headroom, an “AI” (played by a real human actor) who both spoofed and directly called out anti-intellectualism, consumer culture, and our incessant need for entertainment. The character hosted a very Cunk-like talk show in which he tormented his guests with bizarre nonsequiturs and seemingly dumb questions that horseshoe back around to being satirical. He was also a character in the sci-fi tv show 20 Minutes Into The Future, an early installment in the cyberpunk genre. (In the first episode of the show, the plot revolves around very short ads called ‘blipverts’ being distributed by a media company called ZikZak. A later episode was about a politician using AI deepfakes to spread misinformation. This was made in the 80s. I think someone on the writing team had the gift of prophecy.)
I came down here to mention the similarity with Stephen Colbert, but figured someone beat me to it. Spot on about Max Headroom, I barely remember that.
Similarly, Brass Eye and The Day Today both feature 'interviews' with unexpextant celebrities, and the entire show is a spoof on how news media manipulates us. Idk if it's lack of exposure creating a bias on my part, but most of the English language shows that have this kind if cynical attitude that I can think of, are British. Possibly because Americans took longer to give up on the world than we did 😅
@@monkeymox2544it's because the US is far younger and we have not had as much generational experience with/trauma from watching and living with the ill effects of imperialism, its insidious marriage to capitalism, the way it completely undermines, superficializes and deteriorates culture and quality of life as a whole. Although, I fear this "experiment" is going to fail, quite disastrously, with global implications, before we reach that point, regardless.
My issue with analyses like this griping about the effects of an apparent rise in anti-intellectualism is that they never genuinely engage with its causes, either attributing it to the malign influence of particular individuals (i.e. Trump) or treating it as some kind of inscrutable cultural trend, absolving the "intellectual" class (of which these analysts typically view themselves members) of any responsibility. By simply pointing to the most easily ridiculed examples of anti-intellectuals such as flat-earthers and young earth creationists, while refusing to acknowledge the serious issues plaguing today's academic and scientific institutions such as the replication crisis, regulatory capture, ideological predominance, the "publish or perish" environment, and rampant plagiarism, these analyses contribute nothing towards actually alleviating the trend of anti-intellectualism. But they sure do make sympathetic viewers feel very self-satisfied and superior to others, so that's something.
I get the impression, especially with this particular video, that the whole idea is political. Effectively this is a pseudo-intellectual extension of the idea, "Do not disagree with me, who the hell do you think you are?" Hence the demonization of most people in the country while associating them with flat earthers and moon landing deniers. This is propaganda, as usual, that's why they are not addressing anti-intellectualism, but actually advocating for anti-intellectualism by declaring that it is anti-intellectual to disagree with anyone who is listed as an expert. It's the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority plainly on display.
Excellent comment! I find it quite similar to the Marxist belief that we could never view the world objectively, only get closer to that objective fact with subjective instruments as time goes on. Therefore, one can say that to practice intellectuallism, we must acknowledge that there is never going to be an Answer, and as such it seems more important to assert your ignorance and actively alleviate it by being open to engage with everything.
This was my take on watching this video as well. It just feels so…elitist? Arrogant? IDK how to put it exactly but it ignores all of the logical fallicies often done by liberal leaning types of people, (the extreme end of the trans debate, the wage gap fallacy that was disproven decades ago, ignoring very real concerns regular people have over migration and crime) and hyper focuses on that more anti intellectual sides of conservative circles For a video encoraging people to learn more about the world and get out of their comfort zones its a pretty biased take
Daniel Rigney’s final category of anti-intellectualism “Unreflective Hedonism” reminds me a lot about the topics that David Foster Wallace was speaking about in a 2003 interview. DFW was talking about how in modern American there is less time spent thinking, that a problem that would require at least 30 minutes of reflection would be left to only 30 seconds of serious thought. How background music would be pumped through common areas so as to stop silence coming forth and potentially giving way to serious thinking of one’ own life situation.
The shows were made for intellectuals!! They never set out to appeal to non/anti intellectuals. The writing comes with the assumption that people have prior knowledge to topics (mostly general and honestly not even trivia level), and it’s Cunk’s incredible ability to constantly miss the point, 3/3 strike,that makes the jokes work. One finds it funny only bc they understand how these pieces of history/science/art philosophy SHOULD be inquired, and how important that process is. The show just so happened to uncover how many people out there actually follow Cunk’s train of thought without knowing any of the things she discussed. People SHOULD know Beethoven, Court of Camelot, the Soviet Union, light speed, etc. otherwise, it’s an education issue.
Cunk is presented as a Rorschach-like mirror to the viewer. I always thought Cunk was making a parody of herself and the class of Self-Absorbed, disinterested people she strives to represent.
Thing is, the quote about "thinking about thinking is a waste of time" is actually quite genius. I stay away from a lot of philosophy, because it's extremely easy to come up with deep-seeming thoughts which have a lot of profundity and internal consistency, yet do not describe reality. So they have no practical utility. And 'Does it work?' is the single best way to tell if something is true. I can come up with all sorts of dazzling, internally-consistent thoughts myself. They're called fiction stories.
While I don't think you're wrong, I do think that anti-intellectualism is not just a product of cultural shifts. We know that governments, companies, and movements often times use intellectualism as a way of attributing legitimacy to their practices and objectives... often times to the detriment of individuals and their communities. I don't see the resurgence of anti-intellectualism as being a turn away from critical thinking-it seems more a result of a public becoming more and more aware of the pitfalls of automatically trusting traditionally respected and much admired professionals (academics/doctors) to always have their best interests at heart. Which schools funded research into the effects of opioids with funds provided by pharmaceutical companies? Who is lobbying politicians on behalf of major corporations? Why are politicians' spouses able to buy and sell stock in companies that are under investigation? This is something that (stateside at least) people across the political spectrum are all questioning. It's not a rising movement around anti-intellectualism, it's a rising distrust toward those we used to believe should be trusted because SOME have proven to be unworthy of that trust.
The utility of pop culture is that, an idea so vast that it required a 1,300 page novel in 1873 to convey it, can now be casually tossed into an episode of The Amazing World Of Gumball as a throwaway gag, and the audience understands it. Not in its totality, but just enough to grasp it and work with it. Pop culture compresses high culture into a .zip format. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Amazing book referenced that, person complaining an auto-translator wasn't working and the AI running it said "It works fine you're just an idiot who doesn't understand cultural context. If they're using idioms or references from their own culture, it won't translate sensibly if you don't know it. If they say 'Shaka when the walls fell,' it's important to know if Shaka was a conquering warlord or a general contractor." Paraphrased cause I read it years ago, but still makes me giggle.
You should realize, if you are stressed out about the world, that there are lots of people out there trying to do the right thing and learn about the world. All of the experts that Cunk talks to, do in fact exist. There are still people out there doing important studies about the reality of the world. Things like charities still exist. There will never be a time when true art is wiped from existence, even if AI gets much better. Also, there have always been violence and bad leaders. The most depressing thing is just staying online because all of humanities inadequacy is laid bare, but there has always and will always be room for exceptional people to do exceptional things. You can get bogged down in negativity because its so readily available, but you don't have to. You just have to find your passion.
The point being- there are smart people in the world. There are quality movies being made, excellent music being played, and deep and moving books being written. It's just that they're unlikely to be shown in the popular media forums.
I’ve had this itching feeling for the past year or so that I’ve been falling into a deep complacency as I shirk any mental work and independence for mindless entertainment. This just hammered it home. Fuck man, I need to spend time away from my screens.
In regards to the show teetering on the knife's edge between comedy and despair: this, also, has been exemplified by writers from the latter half of the 20th century. One of the most popular sitcoms in America throughout the 1970s and 1980s, whose finale remains the most-watched piece of scripted television on Earth, was M*A*S*H: a sitcom about Korean War surgeons trying to find ways to keep laughing while they stitch pieces of meat that used to be men back together and their hospital gets routinely bombed. The main character's best friend dies on his operating table in the *middle* of season 1 (out of 11). The finale ends with everyone as a broken shadow of themselves with a fundamental piece of themselves missing, and with the shadow of Vietnam already looming. America's most popular sitcom. (This show was a response to the Vietnam War; it started airing in 1973, while it was still going; and its lifespan was entirely within the bounds of the Cold War. M*A*S*H takes place in the Korean War, but it's about every war.)
The Mona Lisa’s fame made much more sense to me once I discovered that there was a huge scandal surrounding the theft of the Mona Lisa, which was much less well known at the time. It was still overrated 😊 but not as overrated as it is now. Yeah, I said it.
I've gone through 19 years of formal schooling, thoroughly enjoying most of it (with the exception of no more than a handful of teachers/lecturers). I remember a lot from my learning and I use correct the correct grammar and speak in full sentences, most of the time. I use words that have more than two syllables, that I learned in my school years and later. I believe that constant expansion of my knowledge and interests is an imperative bestowed upon me with the brain. And I have a serious social problem. Colleagues (turns out I don't really have friends) tend to dislike me for thinking I look down on people. But that is not what really bothers me. What bothers me is the social pressure on me to dumb down my speech to be likeable rather than on others to improve theirs, especially painful when I know that they have at least as much education as I do. Why is it a problem for people to speak correctly, as they have learned, and use a wider range of vocabulary?
@artursandwich1974, Based on your last two sentences, I'd say your colleagues are right. You totally look down on them! Here's an idea: you keep speaking the way you do, unapologetically, and let them -individual human beings with their own unique experiences of the world, values and perspectives, do the same, and learn to chill out. You do understand their meaning when they are speaking to you, do you not? And they in turn understand your more inspired word choices? Then stop making it an issue in your head. You are not the arbiter of "correct" speech. Don't be that person. I guarantee you'll be more successful at making friends. Signed, Also has 19 years of formal schooling under her belt.
@Cest_toute_plate i see your point. The thing is I do not like them less for their speech or judge them on it, but they dislike me for mine (the issue is not in my head, I've been plainly told that). And I sometimes do get confused about their meanings if they use the same words for various meanings instead of more precise ones (but I can live with that). It is still the implied expectation for me to pretend to hate the beautiful richness of my mother tongue in order to be well liked, that hurts.
@@artursandwich1974 OK, well now they sound like a pretty insecure bunch. Hope you can move on one day to where there is a more respectful and mature work environment.
I haven't watched Cunk, but the clips in this video reminded me less of Borat and more of another Sacha Baron-Cohen character: Ali G. I didn't realize it was produced by the creator of Black Mirror. I watched a couple of Black Mirror episodes and found them incredibly upsetting. To the point where I was asking myself "why would anyone torture themselves like this?" I can relate to the fears about society that are expressed in the themes, but I found a deep level of cynicism that seemed to be telling me to stop hoping for anything different. I'm glad to learn about them indirectly through this video. Thanks for making it, and for the history lesson about anti-intellectualism in the USA! I think that's all the Cunk I need.
Isn't all of this also just a side effect of people being able to get their voices out more than ever? All this anti-intellectualism has always existed, people generally have not known a lot about the world. I remember a historian from London (the girl with the short hair if anyone knows her name, she's great) reading articles that interviewed common people in the early 19th century about the world. And they really did not know anything, and had very weird ideas about the sun and all. We forget that, because those people could not read. We think that we are so much more sexual and open now then ever, but the fact is that we didn't use to write about that stuff. This isn't a debunk of the video or anything, it's just something to keep in mind before getting too depressed. I personally think empathy towards people is a very underrated tool to counter this rise. It's very scary and takes patience, but we can't sit here being mad at people for not wanting to know stuff thinking they're going to change their minds. Why can't academics actually directly engage in the kind of pseudo-intelectual videos that people like? I think, if done right, it would really help accademia much more than just being mad at the 'state of the world'
"Why can't academics actually directly engage in the kind of pseudo-intellectual videos that people like?" Because many intellectuals fear that doing so might inadvertently promote the pseudo-science with which they're engaging. They would rather not engage at all than take that risk. Also, many of the people who watch those videos have already come to the conclusion that they don't like or trust intellectuals. They wouldn't watch the "debate" with an open mind; they would only watch to see the intellectuals they resent being "owned." I've noticed that there is distrust on both sides. Some intellectuals seem to distrust non-intellectuals as much as some non-intellectuals distrust them.
Perhaps she's also demystifying expertise and experts. Cunk's also highlighting, personifying our communal ignorance and anti science and anti expert bias. I'm not sure what her intent is but I find the show educational in terms of highlighting and questioning social norms we take for granted the complexity of the universe, human culture and the problems of ignorance and elitism.
It’s kind of sad in itself, really. Clunk is ironic. Satirical. It’s not meant to be some grand takedown of intellectualism. There is no big meaning behind it. People like this RUclipsr view themselves as intellectuals, and are taking a satirical character seriously, and taking offence to it. Honestly I think there’s a bit of a cultural mismatch too. British irony has never been understood very well by Americans. Not all, of course. But as a general rule.
Oh, isn't it just delightful how the daily grind leaves everyone so utterly drained that they can't muster the energy to learn anything new? Exactly how the powers-that-be planned it, I'm sure.
Of course some higher power planned all of this. More like you are superimposing judaico-Christian theology on your attempt to explain a complex world. Just like Marx did it. Grow up resentful christian.
I don't think it's that simple. Adults not having the time nor resources to get into higher education (whether it be leisure learning, non-institutional learning like apps and websites, or institutional learning) definitely plays a role. But overwhelmingly, it's due to what occurs or doesn't occur in primary and second education for most people. And overwhelmingly what influences the value a child places in or their tendancy towards learning is their parents. You have kids that by age 14/15 are already turned off from education. So these kids grow up to have their own kids and the cycle restarts: we have a home that is much less likely to produce kids who value education and learning. The second big factor (this one I don't have a source on) would be the education system. Because even if parents aren't nurturing a learning mind, the school should be a safetynet in such a way where the child does not need a supporting parent. Furthermore, a parent can do their best and still fail due to what's happening or not happening school-side, so a unified front is definitely needed or needed more. Either way, anti-intellectualism is definitely a socio-economic issue and reform and policies that tackle the job market in relation to time for child raising and education would curb it.
So is it bad to change it? I think it's not. In today's day you have an ability to express yourself however you want, unlike the days before. I don't see any irony here.
It's strange to see that class is tied to education in this. Stating that 'A good amount of them might have started out as working class themselves'. I'm educated, and I'm still lower class, as I was when born.
Class has a very different meaning depending on where you are. In the US it is tied more to income. In the UK it is tied both to birth and education. People with a university degree behind them all can reasonably consider themselves middle class, whatever their birth.
@@capitalb5889 Well I live in the UK, and I'm as poor as when I was born, and that's after gaining my various qualifications in college/uni and other places.. I still have to decide if I want heating during winter, or food.
THE RETURN OF QC!!!! I remember the Patreon announcement that the channel was going to be dead indefinitely while you guys rested up, so I hope that you are both doing well now and having a happy 2025!!!
I just had to comment about your inclusion of AI in this well put together video. I personally feel very nihlistic about the depreciating value of human thought with emerging AIs. AIs are not omniscient (yet anyway) but are capable of evaluating and pulling information from across history and disciplines orders of magnitude faster than the most brilliant of people. The best human chess player cannot beat the best AI chess player consistently. It seems that the BEST CASE SCENARIO for humanity as AI continues to grow by leaps and bounds (IF alignment problem is solved) is humanity and life being in a utopian zoo with little to no control over its own destiny and having the objective knowledge that that is indeed in humanity and life's best interest. The only practical value in having vast knowledge would be rooted in aesthetic appreciation of the world and the enrichment of human experience: not enough value for most people in complex and rigorous fields. Much pleasure and immediate gratification must be sacrificed to obtain that knowledge and I dont observe for most people would be worth it. Better yet, if a singularity qualifying AI system would emerge, the volume of its comprehension of reality may be so intricate and vast that our little grey sponges wouldnt have the capacity to hold enough of it to meaningfully bother.
I think shows and discussions like this have an issue with covering technology in general because on one hand technology can be a cause of anti-intellectualism; but fear of technology itself can also be a root of anti-intellectualism. This often forces shows such as this to choose which form of anti-intellectualism they are more okay.
100%. Attacks on higher ed, attacks on expertise, belief in internet grifters. The Internet has made us dumber. It's revealed that a shockingly high number of ppl really can't be trusted with having so much information available to them, because they fundamentally lack critical thinking skills.
I find it odd that you would conclude the public distrust towards intellectuals would stem mainly from their historical association with notions of elitism rather than the actual ideological conflicts happening in the academic sphere right now.
Maybe they don't use Huxley as much as Orwell because Orwell's story is the more deadly of the two and since it's our intendency to avoid death we pay that one more attention as a more important lesson from art maybe?
Your video is right most of the time. With a small point to be made. Intellectuals aren't always right. This seems obvious but there are a couple examples of how they can be wrong which feedsbanti intellectualism on a deeper level. When uneducated people do try to learn from them. Firstly is tied to arrogance. Some do get caught in the superiority complex. Not even necessarily the egotistical way, but in falsely thinking their knowledge and expertise translates to many others subjects when it does not. A great example of this is Einstein writing about politics. But biggest of all, is a history of actual intellectuals engaging in politics. And bringing with it disaster. Because especially in the social sciences, opinions can vary so strongly, but with only one truly right answer. Someone can have a well thought out very internally consistent set of ideas, which actually do not translate to large human systems. An intellectual who cares about perception and legacy have a strong disincentive to admit they were wrong. It can undermine their credibility and lifes work, and even challenge their income. Very few people stand for integrity in that situation. This is even more true once ideas become institutionalized. So instead of one person doing this an entire apparatus can behave this way. There's many examples where such an institution would run a society into the ground before changing or admitting fault. Conditions can be so bad on the ground, that even the least educated can see the faults that the well connected court intellectuals refuse to acknowledge. I think this last point, more than any truly contributes to anti intellectual sentiment. Because it in their minds, justifies the biases they had based on emotion and intuition.
This is something only an “intellectual” would do. Take an ironic and unserious form of media, form an opinion of it based on your perception of it, and then take offence to its meaning, based on your own perception of it. She’s essentially fighting shadows that she’s invented herself. The second she took Cunk seriously, she lost. There’s no grand meaning. It’s not a takedown of intellectuals. It’s not a takedown of the sciences. It’s a silly ironic comedy filled with satire.
Most people who voiced dissident opinions about the official coof narrative weren't pointing the finger at medical professionals, claiming that they possess more medical knowledge than the expert; they were pointing the finger saying, "I don't trust you". That's quite different, and can't be as easily chalked up to the Dunning-Kruger effect. But, those promulgating the official narrative never bothered to take a step back, and ask themselves the obvious question: "Why have ordinary people lost trust in our experts?". I see from this video that nothing has been learned since then.
I'm studying medicine and that is a topic that has interested me a lot, the lack of trust in medics. It is a big problem, as it doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are, you can't help a patient who doesn't believe what you say and will not follow recommendations. The biggest problem honestly is that doctors have become pretty apathetic and they don't engage enough with the patient. Before you had to ask questions and examine the patient as that was the only was to diagnose, but with the advent of modern tests many doctor just reffer patients to get tests and barely even interact with them. This reliance on tests also often results in doctors just haphazardly sending the patient to exam after exams to find something, instead of questioning and exploring the patient correctly to zero in on what the patient is most likely to have. This makes the doctors look like they don't know what's going on and like they are draining their wallet, and drives a lot of resentment towards medics.
Totally agree. And those who didn't tRuSt tHe eXpErTs were quite right not to do so, since the 'authorities' were demonstrably lying about so many aspects of that entire fiasco. That mistrust was _earned_ and, ironically, it didn't spring from ignorance; quite the opposite.
I appreciated this. I keep thinking, though, that those of us watching it might think we're not also part of the problem, that because we're aware of the problem we're somehow exempt from self-reflection about it. But all of us are part of this.
Another reason why some people are drawn into the anti-intellectualism current is that the so-called establishment is frequently exploiting the knowledge gap between the public and the elites in order to claim that the ideological choices they make are just the result of technocratic thinking that the plebs are too ignorant to question or even understand. That frustrating rhetoric motivates some underprivileged people to think that questioning experts is their way out of submitting to the dominant ideology under capitalist societies. I kind of empathize with that, although obviously, anti-intellectualism doesn't help people understand what's wrong and how to fix it. An example I can give you took place during the economic crisis in my country, Greece, where private banks where rescued by public money and austerity measures were applied, destroying the lives of poor working people and causing huge recession that drove work conditions and social net 50 years back. This thing was marketed as common sense, the only logical policy that would solve the trouble caused by past "populism". Anyone who protested this was deemed a clueless peasant, so the way the elites handled the crisis was a political choice serving their interests, but they pretended that it was a purely technocratic thing that nobody with economic knowledge would dare to question. They would say that their ideal prime minister would be an elite banker instead of a politician, because only such a person is totally free to make the right choices with no regard to the cost. Half of the EU was bragging that they needed more technocrats in power. The moral of this narrative was a purely undemocratic one: We common people should leave our fates to the knowledgeable people, instead of questioning them with our idiotic dissent. Similarly, when there's a global pandemic and you see people like Bill Gates lecturing everybody on public health and acting as if they are the bearers of scientific knowledge instead of simply promoting their economic interests, you're going to see people with a justified aversion to this elitist political process. Of course, the trouble is that they may end up turning their justified frustration to a wrong direction: Instead of criticizing people like Gates for using their influence to achieve closed patents and protect the economic interests of big pharmaceuticals against the global need for easily accessible vaccines, people would start raving against scientists for telling them that the vaccine works and they should take it. It's no wonder that it's usually historically oppressed groups that tend to be more resistant to trust experts in such cases, as they've been lied to and manipulated by the "knowledgeable" ones far more than the rest. To me this tells us that anti-intellectualism is indeed bad, but we should also resist the technocratic ideology. It's just that we must do it the hard way, by popularizing science, promoting education and understanding of complex subjects, instead of thinking that the solution is to just ignore experts.
7:57 - "So many are just trying to survive..." THIS! It's difficult to lay blame to certain people should they not be interested in more intellectual tangents if their current struggles prevent them from doing so! Sometimes I'd like to think that thinking about thinking is a luxury afforded to those who have the free time to do so. Of course that isn't representative but gosh damn does it feel like that at times. Great vid!
I watched a presentation once about Jackson Pollock who was called a genius because he flung paint onto a canvas with a stick. I asked why his paintings were worth millions when it was possible for anyone to produce a Pollock style painting. The presenter spoke of "tonal balance", "cohesive flow", "rhythmic tension" and even "Jungian symbolism" when describing Pollock's work. When I asked wtf those terms even meant he smiled condescendingly and suggested I take a class in art appreciation. I left feeling that the man giving the presentation believed he was more intelligent than I was yet he couldn't describe what about the paintings made them any more special than what could be achieved in a grade school class. I honestly believe these "experts' use these terms to heighten their own importance in what is basically a scheme to launder money.
If you like this, it's worth looking up "Chrlie Brookers Screen Wipe" "Weekly Wipe" "How TV Ruined Your Life" and the Weekly Wipe (all on RUclips) mentioned in the video which is great! Thank you for the great analysis.
Both anti-intellectualism is wrong and this blind obedience to experts that the author of this video seems to advocate for is wrong. Experts are humans who, like all of us, have to battle their own inner demons on a daily basis. If you think they are any more moral or ethical than the rest of us you are a fool. It doesn’t help that academia has been overrun with leftist who do tend to view the world in unrealistic ways, read Thomas Sowell. It’s also important to understand that research is financed heavily by tax dollars which makes it heavily political and therefore a little corrupt. Try publishing research that shows the climate change is not the end of the world; just ask Richard Lindzen what happens to such scientists and journal editors. Remember, for example, how the elites labeled everyone that said COVID came out of a lab as racist and conspiracy theorists? Why should we trust them? If you question the climate change narrative you’re labeled a “denier” like you’re denying the holocaust. This stinks of tactics which much of the general public doesn’t appreciate. I mean, look at how the author of this video lumps climate change skeptics in with flat Earthers, do you see the tactics? This breeds mistrust. Academia is well under paid for their level of expertise. They know this and this makes them resentful to Capitalism which is one reason why academia is dominated by leftism. They then try pushing quasi religious ideas like such as transgenderism as if it’s settled science and everyone, who is not a total coward and can kinda think for themselves, see this and then becomes skeptical that these institutions are interested in truth. Once you see that politics has corrupted almost everything, you start to question everything and rightfully so. Honestly I would not read too deeply into the Cunk videos, really they’re just dumb jokes to make everyone lighten up and laugh. You can totally be into intellectual endeavors and also simultaneously laugh at jokes about them. You can take yourself seriously and also have the good nature to laugh at yourself, it’s called having balance.
Your section on Brave New World (7:04) made me think, how is watching video essays on youtube much different from rot content? Both are passive forms of media, both are watched for entertainment. Are video essays just the intellectual / elitist version of Ow, my Balls! ? I suppose even just the fact that the video made me think about it critically, is a big difference.
Most Highbrow Pasttimes like Theatre and Opera are passivly consumed. Meanwhile Gaming - a form of Entertainment, that is not passivly consumed - has a bad reputation.
@@Ribulose15diphosphat Gaming is like the ultimate passive consumption hobby. Like you do interface with it, most games are designed to be acessible to everyone these days, and they almost all constantly shell your brain with dopeamine with basically no effort on your part.
One thing to note about Borat vs. Cunk is that a lot of the experts featured in Cunk were not only familiar with Diane Morgan's work to some extent, but also many of them are TV regulars. In the US, there's this big divide between TV people and intellectuals, I often hear Bill Nye basically being touted as the only mainstay of US television to represent the sciences to the previous generation. Meanwhile, on UK TV, it's not unusual to see historians and scientists and museum curators, people with PhDs or dozens of years of expertise in their chosen field, participate on comedy shows, making fools of themselves, just being human. I think that serves a lot to bring the sciences to the people as well - if the people conveying them are seen as normal people. I think many of them play along well with the conceit of Cunk, to the point where a lot of the comments on her clips seem to think they pick up random experts who've never seen a television in their life. Meanwhile there exists a Monty Python clip where Stephen Hawking runs over Brian Cox (a Cunk regular) with his wheelchair and then ascends into space while singing a song about the galaxy.
With regard to what this video is trying to express, it feels very funny seeing the wrong graph being attributed to the Dunning-Kruger Effect once again (11:26) (not that important of course as it's a minute detail)
Sad but true: I enjoyed this video a lot, as a short, pleasant distraction from fascism, and instead of reading a book, or just to keep from thinking... it's a cycle that never ends
A hundred thousand words to explain what cunk says about contemporary comedy; and yet not a single thought of introspection as to why contemporary comedy might be dying the way it is....
16:04 This is similar to how comedy and tragedy worked back in ancient times, with comedy focusing on the common folk, while tragedy focusing more on those higher up, usually kings.
What a platform RUclips is! You can produce content of no substance that is reliant on content that has dubious substance and then get paid! Fantastic!
So are you under the impression that this video is in some way different from the rest of the mindless entertainment of the modern (and not so modern) age?
Quick note on the Dunning-Kruger effect: The effect doesn't actually show what you use it for in the video, it's not the "i don't really know anything, that's why i don't know i know nothing" Which is pretty ironic, as the Dunning-Kruger effect as used by pretty much everyone PROVES what people think about the effect, while it itself doesn't actually say so xD
I feel that going over the anti-elitism argument without acknowledging the wealth needed to gain access to higher education is a little dishonest in presenting the argument. Knowledge and the ability to influence it are still gatekept in American society, despite academics criticizing people for not wanting to learn. I actually wanted to learn when I found an economic article earlier this month. It was a shame when I didn't have the extra money to pay to read it. When more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck, paywalling knowledge and education will always be an act of classism, not anti-intellectualism.
I think for people to want to engage with subjects that are difficult, uncomfortable, and sometimes painful, like history or maths, art, or science, you need give them sufficient reason to. Why do these things matter? How do they impact the daily lives of ordinary people? How will knowing about these things benefit ordinary people? I'm not saying they don't matter, I believe they do quite a lot, I just think why they do needs to be communicated to the general public for them to take an interest in them. Also I think another possible reason for anti-intellectualism is a distrust of academics, and I think one big reason for that is because most people have no interaction with academics or academia. The last time they interacted with anything intellectual was in grade school, and even then it was tainted by the sort of authoritarian school system that exists in much of the West, as well as underpaid, overwhelmed, and stretched too thin teachers that often don't have the time to explain *why* any of what they're teaching matters and how it relates to their students. Also science just isn't accessible, most people don't have the funding to buy their own equipment to run their own studies to be able to see for themselves that what they're being told is true, nor the training. Would a potential solution be setting up places where people *could* run these experiments themselves? Or at least see them being run? I'm not sure lol Also I think the replication crisis has hurt how much people trust authority figures, as well as conflicts of interest in academia, pushing things that will make them money over caring about the truth.
Good video! Actually, as a "Posh Brit" myself, I disagree about Huxley, he's definitely a snob, just because someone is saying "you've raised a significant question" does not make them humble, actually I would argue that it makes them... condescending? Brits use subtext, ALOT. Especially upper classes. It's a thing. It's elitist, not in relation to intellectualism, but class. He's being patronizing, Americans do tend to miss this subtext, which is why there is often tension between the American directness and the British wit. It is ironic though, because it's very clear to me.
Interesting. I've heard a great lecturer giving advices on how to do a great lectures, and he advised to not reply "good question" after receiving a question because it could be interpreted as condescending. It always intrigued me why. Maybe it suggests a kind of parent-child relation related to some posh-brit culture!
@@fran6b Yes, it also has a lot to do with the tone and the implication. British subtext is a bit contradictory as in saying good question could ironically be interpreted as your question was terrible, but I will indulge you because you don't know any better.
@ That's more subtle than sarcasm, for sure. Tone and subtext seems the key element to consider here, as you point it out. I'm just often to naive to get those second degree interpretation of otherwise normal expression! But when you know, you know. Thanks for your insights!
@ No worries, to be honest, sometimes I get a bit sick of it! I'm very used to it in my family, but sometimes it just gets a bit too condescending and negative so being naive to it isn't so bad. Although I'm glad I could help, because it can also be fun!
@@PsychesFlora Being genuinely naive can simply means that we refuse to play the unwritten game of a subculture, to explore what is up outside it! I wish you a beautiful day :)
Well, she is definitely mocking Anti-Intellecturalism as well. And mocks propaganda disguised as science. Like when she says something like: "America became regarded as a land of the free, which came as a surprise to all the slaves."
It's notable that this wonderful video essay about Philomena Cunk came out 35 years after the unrelated Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam.
Dum dum dum....
We have reached the peak of comedy
👏👏👏👏😂😂😂😂
fascinating. it's also noteworthy that there is in fact a connection between them, which i know because
🤣🤣🤣🤣
as someone who studied art history I can assure you that a lot of us look at the Mona Lisa and go "ok."
It's really only popular because of the time it got stolen
Good art and art history teachers will inform the students to beware of hype and that even the pros don't get a lot of it. Knew two english profs who were married for decades and she never got his poetry.
I always loved music but couldn't "get" other expressive arts. No idea why. Wish I could 'cause I always wondered what they heck I was missing out on! Best I can manage is look at a painting or sculpture, etc., and seeing how much skill and effort it took.
I highly recommend the song Mona Lisa by Lonely Island
I like the Mona Lisa and think it's a good painting! Hehe!
Was in the show cunk on earth but her crying at finding out nukes are in fact real and still exist was morbidly hilarious yet still very relatable.
I, too, love ABBA
I had the same reaction when I realized that nukes are in fact still active and at the ready at all times
I dare say oddly touching
"I love ABBA"
@@amethystimagination3332That's lucky, I had to process that information when I was about 7- I sort of wish I had longer of innocence, but, it's also nice to be prepared
I've never liked debating whether the world is more like _1984_ or _Brave New World_ because to me the debate obfuscates the fact that both styles of control are being used on us simultaneously.
yeah that kind of sci-fi just observes and exagerates pre-existing issues in society. comparing society to stuff like 1984 and BNW is kinda redundant
@@NoogieNinjaIMO, it's helpful because it provides a concrete, visceral reference point for people.
For example, if you say "Political party X is pushing a specific narrative interpretation of historical material conditions and their effect on modernity to engender rage, resentment and fear in a population to manipulate them because it more aligns with their ideology" most people won't understand, notice, or care.
But rephrase that as "They're doing a 1984 to you" and people generally "get" that.
No human is a perfectly rational creature, and the masses are generally not even slightly rational. An academic text explaining the minutia of fascism won't register.
"Hey, look at the evil 1984 sh*t they're doing" has a better chance.
Scifi doesn't predict, it describes - Ursula K Le Guin
What do you mean I cant dip my balls in the McDonalds deepfrier ? Literally 1984
We are distracted because we are always pitted against each other, trapped in an infinite conflict with no end. When we are displeased with the futile state of the world, and we cannot directly confront these abstract and omnipresent issues, we will only direct our anger to the fellow man.
And it is no snaccident
"The Egyptian believe the most significant things you can do in life is dying."
Just like a christian? No way. It is not like they were close.
@zerotwo7319 You won't believe this but all abrahamic religions suffer from this. Hindu and Buddism oddly want to STOP being reborn.
Just like the Japanese up to the end of WWII.
_"The Grave of The Fireflies" is, essentially, a documentary on the cultural disruption and societary collapse induced by discovering that following the Bushido and fighting to the last man accomplishes nothing, actually, in front of superior industrial resources. Not that Japanese society hasn't found a way back to some of those old habits, with similarly final results._
@@stone-hand When things are too neat, it's a sign you may be a chauvinist.
Sounds like Plato
In my opinion, it's not that intellectuals are elitists, but rather that elitists like to consider themselves intellectuals; and when both tend to look and sound the same, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two. To combat this, I often end my sentences with unexpected, humorous exclamations. SHABOINGLE!
This is so true and the biggest example of this right now is probably Elon Musk. He constantly portrays himself as this genius when in reality if you know even the most basic things about anything he talks about you would know he is extremely ignorant and lies constantly. I watched a video where he was talking with a computer programmer about twitters code and all he was doing is saying big words acting like he knows what he's talking about and when he was called out on it by the professional he kicked him out.
@Potato6480
Precisely. Elon's no intellectual, he just uses high-level vocabulary and has a lot of money; but that is no substitute for a true intellect.
glad someone else shares this opinion... BAZINGA
and today "intellectual" tends to mean educated neoliberal capitalist, so a lot of them are essentially right wing even if they don't outright claim to be.
how many people say "intellectual" and think "has read A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy or has read Women, Race and Class"
you also get the experts, who think, they know other things, because they are used to being smart. oh a Professor of x is on TV and he is talking about y, great. He sounds smart, but I might as well ask a random person.
History is definitely NOT boring. There are just too many boring history teachers.
My history teachers were pretty great orators, but even then I found the lessons only mildly interesting. But now that I've graduated and started writing a book, I found myself reading a lot about history, willingly and excitedly. My takeaway is that people change 😆
That reminds me of a quote I once read: "There are no boring subjects, only boring teachers."
it depends so heavily on the way it's taught, but it's the same with everything else honestly.
Not even. There's just no level of teaching to compete with the Internet. Anyways, I'm glad that I always loved history, regardless of who taught it. Just skip ahead, read, and ignore your teacher lol
I think the biggest component of this is choice, you choose the topic to learn about, and can invest as much as you want
I love the Cunkverse. But what worries me are the people who don't get the joke. There are people who enjoy comedy and don't get the joke. They laugh for the wrong reason. They aren't laughing at Cunk. They are laughing at these "useless intellectuals."
@@wipis59i think there is a risk if the viewer is already pre-judged against scientists/intellectuals. I can imagine this show appealing to an anti-intellectual audience, but i also feel that the show does a good job at leaving them in their value. Cunk is a foolish character who asks outlandish questions and the interviewed people respond patient and maturely given the circumstances.
'These idiots don't know that their enjoyment is incorrect '
Boy, I wonder why people have developed such a disdain for so called experts lol
It’s good, but just an Ali G rip off to me. Ok I agree it’s done differently, but the template is there. Put a few “inits” in it and you’ll get very close to Ali G.
@@user-sb8rv4ke6w And you, of course, doesn't entertain the possibility (and fact) that their enjoyment could be incorrect. Why is that?
@marchdarkenotp3346 Because you're about 50 years too late to the death of the author debate and all the reaction you're going to get out of me by claiming that 'fun can be had incorrectly' is pointing and laughing at you.
"As someone who enjoyed learning about history, and I don't just mean WWII or the Roman Empire"
What a callout
Whenever the History Channel is doing anything grounded in or related to real history, it's these two. Whenever Hollywoo is making another cheesy modern rom-com set in "historical times" for the Oscar bait/clout, it's those two...
I’m right here, geez
That's almost a Cunk line.
haha take that men, LOL #girlboss moment right folx?
Which roman empire? Augustus, Nero, or HRE?
My favorite moment is in 'Cunk on Earth' when she asks a gotcha question (I believe, "Why do we still have war? Answer in three words.") And the interviewee gives a serious and cogent answer to what is meant to be an absurd question, and Diane Morgan suddenly realizes she's the one on the back foot who doesn't know how to respond.
(But really, who doesn't love Abba?)
"Fear, Honour, and Interest, in a nutshell." For anyone wondering.
@@ThinkaloudHill Did you just leave Helen of Troy out? :grin:
@@col0342 doesn't that count as interest?
Their choice of people to interview (or at least people who make the cut) really lends itself to this. I don't recall her ever interviewing someone who got really lost, and in many ways their ability to consistently give cogent answers to superficially absurd questions is an object demonstration of the power of intellectualism. A stark contrast to the messages of marketing and populism.
@@Mycorrhiza...and honour.
If pondering life's big questions is just a colossal waste of time, then living it must be a real blast of productivity.
These proud deltas and epsilons, so happy to live the unexamined life...
It typically is
@@naomistarlight6178Alphas and Betas wont make any more plants grow than Deltas and Epsilons
@@naomistarlight6178 what in the world are deltas and epsilons
@@greyknight180 wait till you hear about ligmas
Honestly, I think the academics are in on it. There's a woman who has appeared multiple times who gets cheered on by my academic colleagues every time she pops up. The whole POINT of teaching is to bridge gaps in understanding and answer questions, meeting people where they are and walking them across the bridge. They're doing exactly what they should be doing. I've had that squeeeeeee moment of changing mental gears during a seminar after a question from a student. It's good for both of us.
Brooker has a track record of taking the piss out TV formats that flatten the value of the information and thinking contained within. History IS boring if it's communicated badly. That's what gets lampooned most.
They are in on it. They tell them about who cunk is, and to just treat her questions seriously.
I'm surprised people are even debating this. They are in on it, it's not a secret, it's not a theory, you can easily find that information with a Google search. They don't know the questions that'll be asked, but they are informed it's a comedy show and that they should treat Philomena as if she was a curious child.
They are in on it. They know it's a comedy show.
@@lerdog This is what happens when Americans discover a comedy character that's been around in the UK for 15 years and act is if it's a new thing.
@@gerarddearie-zd2gb i bet you can;t even name one american
This is a really well made video but I cant help but feel that "anti-intellectualism" just isn't the right phrase for what the Cunk character represents. Cunk acts and speaks like a child, asking bewildering questions, comparing ancient history to minecraft, or showing disinterest in theatre (meant for adults). I wouldn't consider a child "anti-intellectual", and a lot of Cunk's character really reminds me of when I was working with kids. I see it more as a naive curiosity, the same way a child will ask why? why? why? why? why?
The point I've understood from this video (and agree with) is that Cunk is almost like a gateway for anti-intellectuals themselves to maybe learn something new, by identifying with Cunk while still being exposed to the earnestness and patience of the guests. That being said I think labeling naive curiosity or childlike misunderstanding as anti-intellectual is a bit misplaced.
except the “naivety” cunk shows is explicitly willful. it is something she chooses to be, continually. in that sense, she is firmly a character meant to pander to anti-intellectuals, presumably for intellectuals to laugh at, except that this show spends the majority of its time also tearing down experts and intellectualism
@@aricheec7722 The show itself isn't "tearing down experts and intellectualism"; it's satirizing people who do. It's the same sort of thing Stephen Colbert did with his Daily Show/ Colbert Report character. When Colbert, in the role of an ignorant conservative talking head, interviewed experts and asked loaded questions or dismissed obvious facts, he made himself the butt of the joke-because the audience was overwhelmingly not ignorant or conservative and knew better. I doubt many conservatives watched that show and thought the Colbert character was genuinely championing their perspective, and I doubt many people who don't care about science or history are watching Cunk and feeling validated.
Did you watch the entire video?
vince, you did _not_ understand the point of the show _at all_
She's definitely not meant to be particularly childlike. She's just meant to be an exaggerated version of a fairly typical kind of English person who doesn't know much and doesn't care to know much that isn't directly relevant to her daily life.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
“Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” by Neil Postman
Orwell feared Stalinism, Huxley feared late stage, information age Capitalism, apparently.
@@alexsm3882Orwell feared totalitarianism, not Stalinism.
@TripleA_Battery 1984 is about totalitarian state, which any google search will tell you is what the Stalin regime was classified as. Another quick google search will tell you that Orwell modeled the 1984 regime/party after the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Orwell admired Hitler, so I'd argue he feared Stalinism, for the simple fact that Stalin was the antithesis to Hilter.
@@TripleA_Battery A quick google search will tell you that Stalinism is a totalitarian regime. Another quick google search will tell you that Orwell wrote 1984 modelling the regime/party after the Soviet Union under Stalin.
The unfortunate result of so many people being so beat down by the current state of work and such is that they do not have the mental brainpower left to learn about new things. It is also exactly what those in power want.
it’s always always been like this, most people who lived on earth worked then died, while the wealthier often have the comfort of learning
Yes, this. I am not sure if this is covered by the end of the video but I feel that laziness and hedonism are red herrings when it comes to talking about everyday people's anti-intellectualism. Most people work, take care of someone else (a child or elderly parent), then have chores, or something else draining that must be done. At the end of the day.= they must weight the benefit of learning some abstract theory that they may not relate to against relaxing, their own hobbies or just going to sleep.
Focusing on the hedonism and laziness is some what elitist itself, or at least presumptuous as it seems put down anyone not learning as lazy and it ignores systemic factors. It also flat out excludes how hard learning can be in some of these cases especially in the pre-internet days.
Considering the last election, willful ignorance is alive and well.
@@Blech-h9zmore like created, bought, built and maintained by those with political power, and by those with political power I mean those with capital and economic power.
Aka the owners of the economy (by owning the places and ways through which work is produced, lets call it the means of production) and, by extension, the owners of our lives in society.
sounds like a conspiracy theory to me
I really enjoyed this video. One of things I've noticed in the past several years isn't just the distrust of experts or a belief of academics to be boring, but that people are being less and less curious; they lack any intellectual curiosity. It is that no one every seems to ask "why does that happen?" or "how does that work?" when hearing a new fact. It doesn't necessarily have to be a complicated to highly academic concept. Things like "why do onions make my eyes water?" and "How does my watch know how many hours I slept?". My family used to often think my habit of constantly looking up stuff, no matter how simple, to be odd and quirky. After my mother moved in with me, she slowly started doing the same thing because she couldn't help but be curious after seeing me being curious. But so many people in the US, at least, has no one to followor look to.
I’ve had people get mad at me for looking up stuff they say , which I mostly do because I didnt know was true. I believe people view it as me trying to prove them wrong (which yes sometimes I abuse google to do that lol) but really I just love learning new things.
@@MsBlackIntrovert same!
Unfortunately, part of the "distrust" in experts you mentioned deepened during the Covid period. Then, Media wishing to keep a fear narrative rolling, presented to us AS experts, either chosen puppets... or whoever was on hand (sometimes barely related to the subject) to keep. The REAL experts were unheard of OR kept away, mostly for having doubts or different opinions from the main narrative. When all was said and done (and much of it wrong), the population, who had been mislead, afraid and barricaded was angry, and the TV clowns came to embody the image of "the expert": ouch.
@@MsBlackIntrovert I've had that happen, too. I do my best to say out loud something positive like "That's so cool, let me pull it up on Google, etc, so I can read more about later."
I was also surprised how many people don't bother to Google stuff related to their job. I worked investor accounting for a little over a decade as an analyst, which meant I used things like Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access daily I got a weird reputation over the years of just "knowing" how to fix software issues. In reality whenever someone asked me to come look at their computer because something wasn't working, 99% of the time I just typed the issue into Google and found the solution. I was constantly confused that it never seemed to occur to most of my coworkers to Google it themselves and try a few suggests from the results before asking my help. And I see this from all generations.
From what you said here, I think we both agree that Cunk does a great job lampooning BOTH the sterile, arcane discussions of academics, as well as the rise of anti-intellectualism. I get the feeling that Brooker feels similarly to you and your discussion of the Mona Lisa. Some things are boring but still worth appreciating.
I feel like anyone who thinks academic discussions are sterile should get to know more academics. :P (Eventually, this could also help dispel the impression that they are arcane, too.)
@@noatrope was going to say this! should attend one of our lab meets. idk where this idea of sterile academia comes from.
Just because it's boring doesn't mean it's interesting, because there's a lot of content and information that is boring but is important at some point in academic studies and in society.
@@noatrope I have a bachelor's degree in political science and almost a master's in public administration. Those by no means make me some sort of expert, but I have seen and read a lot of published research papers as part of my education, while having had multiple classes that were largely focused on discussion.
I do believe that you probably could make most things interesting -- take, for instance, the writings and podcast of Malcom Gladwell (ignoring the controversies over the veracity of some of his claims lol). He makes things super interesting and fun.
But I also think there are some things that just, either are inherently not that interesting, and would require a lot a work to make interesting, or are things that simply aren't the sort of thing that strikes *your* fancy. *Shrug*
@@christopherh2729 Your parenthetical about ignoring Malcolm Gladwell's veracity is the point though right? Gladwell is interesting not necessarily because what he says is true or accurate but because it feels true; maybe because its similar to our own pre-conceived perception just dressed up in a way that makes it seem like novel or hidden knowledge.
Today, ive noticed it really a lot while arguing online... People demand proof, demand studies.... but then they dont bother to read them or just brush them aside as nonsense... Makes it really hard to debate, when the side is not willing to even acknowledge your point of view and the evidence you bring to the table... while their only provided evidence.... are youtube videos...
And im Gen Z, im the one who's supposed to have this Low attention span
I tell ppl they have the world at their fingertips, and are demanding me go find the answer just so they can ignore it.
Because they don't actually care about providing evidence, they're arguing that in bad faith.
The whole concept of throwing sources at people is stupid anyway. Even if they were going to look at the sources (which they never, ever do) then it's two people competing over which other person they are on the side of.
I tend to have the depth of thought that when people start screaming for sources I can tell them, "Actually this is an independent thought and I don't have a link to someone famous who 100% agrees with me, so you can either engage the actual conversation happening now or leave." I'm not interested in narcissists doing a big display which is for 'the audience' even though nobody is watching the conversation and neither do their care. It's just posturing when people do that online, you can never convince them of anything.
For the same reasoning as you ridicule another's view as incorrect you call yourself correct. As such, you declare truth can only be found in your own views and lock yourself in blind faith making you evermore conceited. Through this closemindedness you are the same as those you criticize.
@@jonlannister345 It's hilarious to call other people narcissistic for wanting to discuss something grounded in reality while elevating your singular perspective to that level. You can have those discussions and that's fine but if someone has a grounded reason for why they think what they think and you respond "achtusally we should just discuss vibes" you are being the narcissist to an incredible INCREDIBLE degree.
FYI what's called a "posh accent" in slang terms is technically called Received Pronunciation. Everyone argues about what exactly it means, naturally, but it's that upper class British accent us 'muricans associate with Bond villains.
Bond villains and Mary Poppins 😂
Actually received pronunciation is middle class and is intended to be accentless and easy to understand. Posh people can sometimes have a plummy accent all of their own that can be just as hard to understand as working class dialects.
I think you've confused RP with a true posh accent. Thinl of RP as the BBC in the 20th century obviously posh but accessible language and easy to understand. A posh accent is someone like Boris Johnson guffawing, like u understand about 50% of what they say
You're correct, and I don't know why people are so confused. RP is the queen's english. More people used to speak that way - like on the radio - but it's fallen somewhat out of fashion. A range of accents can be described as RP, including a range of comprehensibility. It's a somewhat general descriptor as well, usually differentiating pronunciations common in many specifically English accents in contrast to american accents. If your accent is less received and more rhotic, there are fewer or more minor differences. Though rhoticity also has class implications in both places which are unintuitive to the other.
Actor here.
"stereotypical British accent" = Contemporary Received Pronunciation
Posh Twat = Cambridgeshire
1050s TV presenters = Traditional RP
Royalty + aristocracy = Heightened RP
Neutral English accent = "Neutral Standard English (ofc)
All of that being said, accent coaches will disagree about where the lines get drawn between all of these and exactly what makes each one what it is etc
🥹 "D'you like ABBA?"
😠 "I love ABBA"
Lol my favorite part. Surprisingly wholesome 😂
*ACDC
@@sophiepooks2174 0/10 ragebait
i think the issue is that while the show is trying to appeal to if not anti-intellectuals but non-intellectuals, it doesn't really show said audience how or why these topics are so important, and CAN be interesting. I love it, but its almost as if its better if you already know the history, and those who don't are in it more for maybe, stickin' it to the nerds? I don't know...
Now more than ever, we need to make knowing things and learning cool and rewarding.
you have to remember there were TOO MANY people who watched the boys and thought homelander was the good guy for YEARS. everything in our society is inherently political and plenty if not too many people do indeed just see entertainment as simply that. at some point their minds refuse to engage with anything further than as entertainment value
I think it doesn't help that many jobs now are soul crushing and mental oriented, people are tired of the work week and budgeting for rent and bills and food and what have you, and the last thing they want to do is expend yet more mental energy on something that isn't strictly necessary for their continued survival.
People think pieces of media are tests which the author holds the correct answer to.
There is no such answer key.
Every belligerent in every war saw themselves as the good guys. Until God judges at the end of time, it's all just difference of opinion.
@@andrewprahst and since some don't believe in a deity, it's all just difference of opinion. nothing else.
@@andrewprahst Religion is a sad and ironic excuse for not understanding media. Do you also project any meaning you wish into scripture?
Low media literacy. We are doomed not because one stupid guy, but because the stupid guys.
I would say the show is more about the socratic method with a rude/child mentality twist, which allows it be easier to digest and share for others. Sort of the cheese around the medicine.
Yes - there are some moments where it gets weirdly profound.
She’s not anti intellectual…she’s engaging in Socratic dialogue or irony. It’s actually a role you fill in an argument of “acting like an idiot” - it’s satire…..extreme satire, this show is not a documentary but purely comedy for intellectuals. HOWEVER I think people aren’t getting that…….which is interesting and does speak to your point.
exactly! I don’t know a single person who has watched cunk on earth that didn’t enjoy history and politics because it is inherently “learning” about history and politics. It’s a show intended for people who already have and possess knowledge about history to mock the seriousness of it and enjoy it from a different perspective in a Socratic and ironic way!
it is just a toned-down version of Ali G show with a Dianne from HR
That's definitely true for the actress and the role of the show, but the character she's playing is quite anti-intellectual, though I'd rather say she's intellectually disinterested
@ well the thing is, she is playing a character intentionally characterized as idiotic that’s what I was saying before about playing the role of the idiot when engaging in Socratic inquiry
I'd argue Philomena Cunk is akin to Space Ghost or The Eric Andre Show; bewildering expert interviewees.
Adam West: "I do not have any superpowers."
Space Ghost: "So your whole life is a lie?"
I watched it after seeing it compared with wonder showzen, specifically the beat kids segment
The best thing my high-school English teacher did to make Shakespeare interesting was revealing to a bunch of teens that there is a bunch of horny jokes in the text, because of the different class groups it needed to appeal too. Never saw a room of teens be as interested or snickering in Romeo and Juliette before or after.
The heads of the maids? Or their MAIDEN-HEADS AYYYYYY!
Thou'lt fall BACKWARD when thou hast more wit AYYYYYY!
Look for me tomorrow and you'll find me a GRAVE MAN AYYYYYY-COUGH-COUGH-*dies*
Did you ever see a room of teens interact with Romeo and Juliet before or after at all?
i went to two different high schools so i had two different english teachers. the both of them explained this about shakespeare. it made me appreciate the stories more having the context of the kinds of people who would have been watching the plays when they were being written. it was also fun to be able to roll my eyes at stupid dad jokes in the plays written four centuries ago lol. my favourites were hamlet and king lear.
I disagree with three points of this video.
1. Pop culture isn't worth less than "culture" and Cunk's POV (what's called "internalanti-intellectualism") is not only a good reflection of the audience's attitudes and thus a narrative tool for identification but also a necessary corrective to many history documentaries and media in general that uncritically vaule only "high culture".
2. Cunk is obvously a character all the interviewed researchers know about beforehand. Cunk's function is not "external anti-intellectualism", she's a narrative tool for the experts to assert themselves as clever, witty and sympathetic. It's similar to "hostile" late night show interviews, a good example was the Colbert Report or currently Ziwe. The "worse" her questions, the more pronounced her disdain towards the interviewee, the better can the interviewee portray themselves in comparison. I think this has issues as well, as uncritically repeating the history documentary trope of the talking head expert masks how science and knowledge are actually produced, not by singular geniuses but by large teams and collaborations across the globe.
3. It's ignorant to simply write off "anti-intellectualism" assome kind of envy, angst or ignorance. For many people who collectively have been economically and culturally excluded from access to higher education instiutions, it's an almost necessary consequence for them that they question the epistemiologies they had no part in. Ignoring systemic issues such as class, race and gender can lead to misguided ideas about the "negative" aspects such as the described "Huxleyan" media industry, which is not a mere fact of anti-intellectual preferences but a tool of power.
It's actually fully in line with Brave New World to indicate that many people do not engage with the world for reasons other than laziness. A core chunk of the start of the novel was about manufacturing consent and the scope of an individual's capacity
I just can't understand how people do not want to learn new things, and it's scary how little most people know.
at the same time it seems like people thinking they know stuff that they merely read a headline about, is at an all time high. But actual learning? it's dead
They want to understand about what they feel it is important. Maybe we don't ask or do not convince them. Look at the effort religion has to make people pay attention to some fake stories. A lot of research was put into making the fake feel real. Other areas do not make such research.
@@zerotwo7319 you're right and you should say it
@@zerotwo7319❤i think youre onto something. A lot of people who do find history and in a general sense academia important dont know how to communicate the breadth of benefits that come from learning them. Theres an “it just is” approach to it. The culture around education, especially higher education is marred with this faux superiority of doing the “real” stuff. The important stuff. While ironically dismissing the real lives and opinions of people who dont engage with these things.
Learning does take alot of time. A lot of Americans dont have the time to learn, they are stuck providing for themselves and immediate family. Capitalism is happy to keep them poor and on the "assembly line" for whatever industry they might be in. Stay dumb, stay working, right wing media will tell you what to think, and RWM is absolutely and blatantly anti intellectual. Welcome to Trump 2.0
12:28 Fun fact: That graph of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is actually an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
I'm halfway convinced the Dunning Kruger effect itself is a Dunning Kruger effect. The original paper does have graphs, they're just essentially horizonal lines that AFAICT show that people don't know how good they did at a test of something they didn't study. Apparently neither of the authors noticed this is hardly a surprising outcome, and in particular that it really doesn't support the conclusions the paper draws.
Yes, I'm *fully* aware of the irony here 😅
it doesn't help that modern schooling is basically optimized to produce factory workers. get to your assigned room, obey your shift authority, move to your new station at the ring of the bell...
What happens when the ACTUAL anti-intellectuals take power and oust the experts? It's a good question. And now we'll see.
I think there was a movie about that.
@capricioushorse Are you referencing Idiocracy?
Cause that's not the movie we're gonna get. The government in Idiocracy was still fundamentally benevolent and tried to help their people and maintain "normal society" despite their inability to do so.
The government we just got isn't that. We got one that is actively malevolent and trying to do harm intentionally for their own gain.
The GOP is less Idiocracy and more the Orc hordes of Sauron.
The Idiocracy government is just dumb.
Fascists are dumb AND actively evil.
Crazy world when Idiocracy is the preferred future.
What do you think the current US administration is about
Imagine thinking that dei hacks are actually the experts
@@gctechs jesus it's already spreading
The academics aren't "the butt of the joke" because Cunk herself is the butt of the joke. The UK isn't a society obsessed with the appearance of success and comedians with TV shows don't feel that their personal prestige is in play. UK comedy tends to be based on the ridiculousness of the central character - from Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part (who became Archie Bunker in the US), through John Cleese in Fawlty Towers to The Ricky Gervais character in The Office (English version) and beyond. I say "tends to be" because it isn't a hard and fast rule, but there aren't a lot of British comedies on the Sergeant Bilko model, in which the comedy revolves around the central character emerging with the upper hand.
Of course, the documentary format is being satirized in the Cunk programmes, but mind-boggling ignorance (not anti-intellectualism) is the mechanism for that, not the message being delivered.
The paradox is that the people who can really appreciate or even "get" Cunk humour are intellectuals!!
Maybe I feel… protective of Cunk, but I think it’s certainly the type of show where what you get out of it depends on what you show up with. For academics, it’s a bit of a balm to watch Cunk poke fun at art and academia in ways academics are discouraged from expressing, or to compare Cunk to current student attitudes, and comparisons to modern media, jokes, or addressing alienation through them is an important part of academic theory, but I do think a lot of people are showing up to it from an anti-intellectual standpoint.
I am a French writer. So forgive my bad english. Very sorry to say that in 30 years (I wrote my first novel in 1995) the intellectual level of the kids has gone incredibly low. I mean that some of my novels, written for children around ten, are now only understandable by children around 13 or 14. Not only the vocabulary, but the plot... But I've got to say something : I met a lot of teachers, librarians, during these years, and their intellectualism, their tendancy to complicate the art works and many other subjects does a lot to discourage the students.
Thank you for the very interesting subject.
Cunk reminds me of Colbert’s early work in terms of the obfuscating stupidity. If you enjoy that vibe, I would point you in the direction of a gem from the 1980s, the character Max Headroom, an “AI” (played by a real human actor) who both spoofed and directly called out anti-intellectualism, consumer culture, and our incessant need for entertainment. The character hosted a very Cunk-like talk show in which he tormented his guests with bizarre nonsequiturs and seemingly dumb questions that horseshoe back around to being satirical. He was also a character in the sci-fi tv show 20 Minutes Into The Future, an early installment in the cyberpunk genre. (In the first episode of the show, the plot revolves around very short ads called ‘blipverts’ being distributed by a media company called ZikZak. A later episode was about a politician using AI deepfakes to spread misinformation. This was made in the 80s. I think someone on the writing team had the gift of prophecy.)
I came down here to mention the similarity with Stephen Colbert, but figured someone beat me to it. Spot on about Max Headroom, I barely remember that.
Similarly, Brass Eye and The Day Today both feature 'interviews' with unexpextant celebrities, and the entire show is a spoof on how news media manipulates us.
Idk if it's lack of exposure creating a bias on my part, but most of the English language shows that have this kind if cynical attitude that I can think of, are British. Possibly because Americans took longer to give up on the world than we did 😅
@@monkeymox2544it's because the US is far younger and we have not had as much generational experience with/trauma from watching and living with the ill effects of imperialism, its insidious marriage to capitalism, the way it completely undermines, superficializes and deteriorates culture and quality of life as a whole. Although, I fear this "experiment" is going to fail, quite disastrously, with global implications, before we reach that point, regardless.
My issue with analyses like this griping about the effects of an apparent rise in anti-intellectualism is that they never genuinely engage with its causes, either attributing it to the malign influence of particular individuals (i.e. Trump) or treating it as some kind of inscrutable cultural trend, absolving the "intellectual" class (of which these analysts typically view themselves members) of any responsibility. By simply pointing to the most easily ridiculed examples of anti-intellectuals such as flat-earthers and young earth creationists, while refusing to acknowledge the serious issues plaguing today's academic and scientific institutions such as the replication crisis, regulatory capture, ideological predominance, the "publish or perish" environment, and rampant plagiarism, these analyses contribute nothing towards actually alleviating the trend of anti-intellectualism. But they sure do make sympathetic viewers feel very self-satisfied and superior to others, so that's something.
I get the impression, especially with this particular video, that the whole idea is political. Effectively this is a pseudo-intellectual extension of the idea, "Do not disagree with me, who the hell do you think you are?"
Hence the demonization of most people in the country while associating them with flat earthers and moon landing deniers.
This is propaganda, as usual, that's why they are not addressing anti-intellectualism, but actually advocating for anti-intellectualism by declaring that it is anti-intellectual to disagree with anyone who is listed as an expert. It's the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority plainly on display.
yes very well said
@@jonlannister345 great comment. completely agree
Excellent comment!
I find it quite similar to the Marxist belief that we could never view the world objectively, only get closer to that objective fact with subjective instruments as time goes on.
Therefore, one can say that to practice intellectuallism, we must acknowledge that there is never going to be an Answer, and as such it seems more important to assert your ignorance and actively alleviate it by being open to engage with everything.
This was my take on watching this video as well. It just feels so…elitist? Arrogant? IDK how to put it exactly but it ignores all of the logical fallicies often done by liberal leaning types of people, (the extreme end of the trans debate, the wage gap fallacy that was disproven decades ago, ignoring very real concerns regular people have over migration and crime) and hyper focuses on that more anti intellectual sides of conservative circles
For a video encoraging people to learn more about the world and get out of their comfort zones its a pretty biased take
Daniel Rigney’s final category of anti-intellectualism “Unreflective Hedonism” reminds me a lot about the topics that David Foster Wallace was speaking about in a 2003 interview. DFW was talking about how in modern American there is less time spent thinking, that a problem that would require at least 30 minutes of reflection would be left to only 30 seconds of serious thought. How background music would be pumped through common areas so as to stop silence coming forth and potentially giving way to serious thinking of one’ own life situation.
The shows were made for intellectuals!! They never set out to appeal to non/anti intellectuals. The writing comes with the assumption that people have prior knowledge to topics (mostly general and honestly not even trivia level), and it’s Cunk’s incredible ability to constantly miss the point, 3/3 strike,that makes the jokes work. One finds it funny only bc they understand how these pieces of history/science/art philosophy SHOULD be inquired, and how important that process is. The show just so happened to uncover how many people out there actually follow Cunk’s train of thought without knowing any of the things she discussed. People SHOULD know Beethoven, Court of Camelot, the Soviet Union, light speed, etc. otherwise, it’s an education issue.
Cunk is presented as a Rorschach-like mirror to the viewer. I always thought Cunk was making a parody of herself and the class of Self-Absorbed, disinterested people she strives to represent.
Thing is, the quote about "thinking about thinking is a waste of time" is actually quite genius.
I stay away from a lot of philosophy, because it's extremely easy to come up with deep-seeming thoughts which have a lot of profundity and internal consistency, yet do not describe reality. So they have no practical utility. And 'Does it work?' is the single best way to tell if something is true.
I can come up with all sorts of dazzling, internally-consistent thoughts myself. They're called fiction stories.
While I don't think you're wrong, I do think that anti-intellectualism is not just a product of cultural shifts. We know that governments, companies, and movements often times use intellectualism as a way of attributing legitimacy to their practices and objectives... often times to the detriment of individuals and their communities. I don't see the resurgence of anti-intellectualism as being a turn away from critical thinking-it seems more a result of a public becoming more and more aware of the pitfalls of automatically trusting traditionally respected and much admired professionals (academics/doctors) to always have their best interests at heart.
Which schools funded research into the effects of opioids with funds provided by pharmaceutical companies? Who is lobbying politicians on behalf of major corporations? Why are politicians' spouses able to buy and sell stock in companies that are under investigation?
This is something that (stateside at least) people across the political spectrum are all questioning.
It's not a rising movement around anti-intellectualism, it's a rising distrust toward those we used to believe should be trusted because SOME have proven to be unworthy of that trust.
The utility of pop culture is that, an idea so vast that it required a 1,300 page novel in 1873 to convey it, can now be casually tossed into an episode of The Amazing World Of Gumball as a throwaway gag, and the audience understands it. Not in its totality, but just enough to grasp it and work with it.
Pop culture compresses high culture into a .zip format.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
is there a particular amazing world of gumball bit you're referencing, or is this just a general example?
@@Greg-ix4nu Naw. I've barely watched the show, but I know it's one where they toss in a *bunch* of interesting references/ideas.
Amazing book referenced that, person complaining an auto-translator wasn't working and the AI running it said "It works fine you're just an idiot who doesn't understand cultural context. If they're using idioms or references from their own culture, it won't translate sensibly if you don't know it. If they say 'Shaka when the walls fell,' it's important to know if Shaka was a conquering warlord or a general contractor." Paraphrased cause I read it years ago, but still makes me giggle.
Very meta how a video claiming to be about Anti-Intellectualism perpetuates the false internet version of the "Dunning-Kruger effect" .
You should realize, if you are stressed out about the world, that there are lots of people out there trying to do the right thing and learn about the world. All of the experts that Cunk talks to, do in fact exist. There are still people out there doing important studies about the reality of the world. Things like charities still exist. There will never be a time when true art is wiped from existence, even if AI gets much better. Also, there have always been violence and bad leaders. The most depressing thing is just staying online because all of humanities inadequacy is laid bare, but there has always and will always be room for exceptional people to do exceptional things. You can get bogged down in negativity because its so readily available, but you don't have to. You just have to find your passion.
The point being- there are smart people in the world. There are quality movies being made, excellent music being played, and deep and moving books being written.
It's just that they're unlikely to be shown in the popular media forums.
I’ve had this itching feeling for the past year or so that I’ve been falling into a deep complacency as I shirk any mental work and independence for mindless entertainment. This just hammered it home. Fuck man, I need to spend time away from my screens.
In regards to the show teetering on the knife's edge between comedy and despair: this, also, has been exemplified by writers from the latter half of the 20th century.
One of the most popular sitcoms in America throughout the 1970s and 1980s, whose finale remains the most-watched piece of scripted television on Earth, was M*A*S*H: a sitcom about Korean War surgeons trying to find ways to keep laughing while they stitch pieces of meat that used to be men back together and their hospital gets routinely bombed. The main character's best friend dies on his operating table in the *middle* of season 1 (out of 11). The finale ends with everyone as a broken shadow of themselves with a fundamental piece of themselves missing, and with the shadow of Vietnam already looming. America's most popular sitcom.
(This show was a response to the Vietnam War; it started airing in 1973, while it was still going; and its lifespan was entirely within the bounds of the Cold War. M*A*S*H takes place in the Korean War, but it's about every war.)
The Mona Lisa’s fame made much more sense to me once I discovered that there was a huge scandal surrounding the theft of the Mona Lisa, which was much less well known at the time. It was still overrated 😊 but not as overrated as it is now. Yeah, I said it.
I've gone through 19 years of formal schooling, thoroughly enjoying most of it (with the exception of no more than a handful of teachers/lecturers). I remember a lot from my learning and I use correct the correct grammar and speak in full sentences, most of the time. I use words that have more than two syllables, that I learned in my school years and later. I believe that constant expansion of my knowledge and interests is an imperative bestowed upon me with the brain. And I have a serious social problem. Colleagues (turns out I don't really have friends) tend to dislike me for thinking I look down on people. But that is not what really bothers me. What bothers me is the social pressure on me to dumb down my speech to be likeable rather than on others to improve theirs, especially painful when I know that they have at least as much education as I do. Why is it a problem for people to speak correctly, as they have learned, and use a wider range of vocabulary?
@artursandwich1974, Based on your last two sentences, I'd say your colleagues are right. You totally look down on them! Here's an idea: you keep speaking the way you do, unapologetically, and let them -individual human beings with their own unique experiences of the world, values and perspectives, do the same, and learn to chill out. You do understand their meaning when they are speaking to you, do you not? And they in turn understand your more inspired word choices? Then stop making it an issue in your head. You are not the arbiter of "correct" speech. Don't be that person. I guarantee you'll be more successful at making friends. Signed, Also has 19 years of formal schooling under her belt.
@Cest_toute_plate i see your point. The thing is I do not like them less for their speech or judge them on it, but they dislike me for mine (the issue is not in my head, I've been plainly told that). And I sometimes do get confused about their meanings if they use the same words for various meanings instead of more precise ones (but I can live with that). It is still the implied expectation for me to pretend to hate the beautiful richness of my mother tongue in order to be well liked, that hurts.
@@artursandwich1974 OK, well now they sound like a pretty insecure bunch. Hope you can move on one day to where there is a more respectful and mature work environment.
@Cest_toute_plate 👍
I haven't watched Cunk, but the clips in this video reminded me less of Borat and more of another Sacha Baron-Cohen character: Ali G.
I didn't realize it was produced by the creator of Black Mirror. I watched a couple of Black Mirror episodes and found them incredibly upsetting. To the point where I was asking myself "why would anyone torture themselves like this?" I can relate to the fears about society that are expressed in the themes, but I found a deep level of cynicism that seemed to be telling me to stop hoping for anything different.
I'm glad to learn about them indirectly through this video. Thanks for making it, and for the history lesson about anti-intellectualism in the USA! I think that's all the Cunk I need.
The one episode of Black Mirror you may enjoy is San Junipero.
Isn't all of this also just a side effect of people being able to get their voices out more than ever? All this anti-intellectualism has always existed, people generally have not known a lot about the world. I remember a historian from London (the girl with the short hair if anyone knows her name, she's great) reading articles that interviewed common people in the early 19th century about the world. And they really did not know anything, and had very weird ideas about the sun and all. We forget that, because those people could not read. We think that we are so much more sexual and open now then ever, but the fact is that we didn't use to write about that stuff.
This isn't a debunk of the video or anything, it's just something to keep in mind before getting too depressed. I personally think empathy towards people is a very underrated tool to counter this rise. It's very scary and takes patience, but we can't sit here being mad at people for not wanting to know stuff thinking they're going to change their minds. Why can't academics actually directly engage in the kind of pseudo-intelectual videos that people like? I think, if done right, it would really help accademia much more than just being mad at the 'state of the world'
"Why can't academics actually directly engage in the kind of pseudo-intellectual videos that people like?"
Because many intellectuals fear that doing so might inadvertently promote the pseudo-science with which they're engaging. They would rather not engage at all than take that risk.
Also, many of the people who watch those videos have already come to the conclusion that they don't like or trust intellectuals. They wouldn't watch the "debate" with an open mind; they would only watch to see the intellectuals they resent being "owned."
I've noticed that there is distrust on both sides. Some intellectuals seem to distrust non-intellectuals as much as some non-intellectuals distrust them.
J. Draper is the historian you mentioned, I believe
This is the best video essay since the release of the chart topper Belgian techno anthem pump up the jam.
Uselessness is a popular activity that more and more of us are finding unavoidable. - Mavro Syvannah
Perhaps she's also demystifying expertise and experts. Cunk's also highlighting, personifying our communal ignorance and anti science and anti expert bias. I'm not sure what her intent is but I find the show educational in terms of highlighting and questioning social norms we take for granted the complexity of the universe, human culture and the problems of ignorance and elitism.
This is 25 minutes of how some people can't see irony.
It’s kind of sad in itself, really. Clunk is ironic. Satirical. It’s not meant to be some grand takedown of intellectualism. There is no big meaning behind it. People like this RUclipsr view themselves as intellectuals, and are taking a satirical character seriously, and taking offence to it. Honestly I think there’s a bit of a cultural mismatch too. British irony has never been understood very well by Americans. Not all, of course. But as a general rule.
Oh, isn't it just delightful how the daily grind leaves everyone so utterly drained that they can't muster the energy to learn anything new? Exactly how the powers-that-be planned it, I'm sure.
Of course some higher power planned all of this. More like you are superimposing judaico-Christian theology on your attempt to explain a complex world. Just like Marx did it. Grow up resentful christian.
Even if they did have time they wouldn't care. These people are the perpetrators, not the victims
@@xmurisfurderx Continue your war on the common man, knowing full well there is nobody of value who will side with you
I don't think it's that simple. Adults not having the time nor resources to get into higher education (whether it be leisure learning, non-institutional learning like apps and websites, or institutional learning) definitely plays a role. But overwhelmingly, it's due to what occurs or doesn't occur in primary and second education for most people. And overwhelmingly what influences the value a child places in or their tendancy towards learning is their parents. You have kids that by age 14/15 are already turned off from education. So these kids grow up to have their own kids and the cycle restarts: we have a home that is much less likely to produce kids who value education and learning.
The second big factor (this one I don't have a source on) would be the education system. Because even if parents aren't nurturing a learning mind, the school should be a safetynet in such a way where the child does not need a supporting parent. Furthermore, a parent can do their best and still fail due to what's happening or not happening school-side, so a unified front is definitely needed or needed more.
Either way, anti-intellectualism is definitely a socio-economic issue and reform and policies that tackle the job market in relation to time for child raising and education would curb it.
@@xmurisfurderx How hypocritical.
This is an A+ essay. It comes at the uncanny perfect time for me while I work on my thesis on the map of the conscience universe.
The irony of “elitism” is the famous geniuses all weren’t rich. Most were of the people.
So is it bad to change it? I think it's not. In today's day you have an ability to express yourself however you want, unlike the days before. I don't see any irony here.
It's strange to see that class is tied to education in this. Stating that 'A good amount of them might have started out as working class themselves'. I'm educated, and I'm still lower class, as I was when born.
I think it's cause people from different places tend to use class differently and in some places it's for life and in some it can change
The people being interviewed by cunk are likely not working class. That's what she meant.
Class has a very different meaning depending on where you are. In the US it is tied more to income. In the UK it is tied both to birth and education. People with a university degree behind them all can reasonably consider themselves middle class, whatever their birth.
@@capitalb5889 Well I live in the UK, and I'm as poor as when I was born, and that's after gaining my various qualifications in college/uni and other places.. I still have to decide if I want heating during winter, or food.
@@Spacecookie- really sorry to hear that. I hope things work out for you.
THE RETURN OF QC!!!!
I remember the Patreon announcement that the channel was going to be dead indefinitely while you guys rested up, so I hope that you are both doing well now and having a happy 2025!!!
yeah, this channel is so great
Did they say why they went on hiatus?
I just had to comment about your inclusion of AI in this well put together video. I personally feel very nihlistic about the depreciating value of human thought with emerging AIs. AIs are not omniscient (yet anyway) but are capable of evaluating and pulling information from across history and disciplines orders of magnitude faster than the most brilliant of people. The best human chess player cannot beat the best AI chess player consistently. It seems that the BEST CASE SCENARIO for humanity as AI continues to grow by leaps and bounds (IF alignment problem is solved) is humanity and life being in a utopian zoo with little to no control over its own destiny and having the objective knowledge that that is indeed in humanity and life's best interest. The only practical value in having vast knowledge would be rooted in aesthetic appreciation of the world and the enrichment of human experience: not enough value for most people in complex and rigorous fields. Much pleasure and immediate gratification must be sacrificed to obtain that knowledge and I dont observe for most people would be worth it. Better yet, if a singularity qualifying AI system would emerge, the volume of its comprehension of reality may be so intricate and vast that our little grey sponges wouldnt have the capacity to hold enough of it to meaningfully bother.
I think shows and discussions like this have an issue with covering technology in general because on one hand technology can be a cause of anti-intellectualism; but fear of technology itself can also be a root of anti-intellectualism. This often forces shows such as this to choose which form of anti-intellectualism they are more okay.
Being dumb is becoming cool for everyone, whether you're aware of your lack of knowledge or not.
100%. Attacks on higher ed, attacks on expertise, belief in internet grifters. The Internet has made us dumber. It's revealed that a shockingly high number of ppl really can't be trusted with having so much information available to them, because they fundamentally lack critical thinking skills.
How pseudophilosophical.
I find it odd that you would conclude the public distrust towards intellectuals would stem mainly from their historical association with notions of elitism rather than the actual ideological conflicts happening in the academic sphere right now.
Maybe they don't use Huxley as much as Orwell because Orwell's story is the more deadly of the two and since it's our intendency to avoid death we pay that one more attention as a more important lesson from art maybe?
Your video is right most of the time. With a small point to be made.
Intellectuals aren't always right. This seems obvious but there are a couple examples of how they can be wrong which feedsbanti intellectualism on a deeper level. When uneducated people do try to learn from them.
Firstly is tied to arrogance. Some do get caught in the superiority complex. Not even necessarily the egotistical way, but in falsely thinking their knowledge and expertise translates to many others subjects when it does not. A great example of this is Einstein writing about politics.
But biggest of all, is a history of actual intellectuals engaging in politics. And bringing with it disaster. Because especially in the social sciences, opinions can vary so strongly, but with only one truly right answer. Someone can have a well thought out very internally consistent set of ideas, which actually do not translate to large human systems. An intellectual who cares about perception and legacy have a strong disincentive to admit they were wrong. It can undermine their credibility and lifes work, and even challenge their income. Very few people stand for integrity in that situation. This is even more true once ideas become institutionalized. So instead of one person doing this an entire apparatus can behave this way. There's many examples where such an institution would run a society into the ground before changing or admitting fault. Conditions can be so bad on the ground, that even the least educated can see the faults that the well connected court intellectuals refuse to acknowledge.
I think this last point, more than any truly contributes to anti intellectual sentiment. Because it in their minds, justifies the biases they had based on emotion and intuition.
Excuse me, 1980 isn't "almost 50 years ago!" Signed, someone born in 1983
yeah! its only 45 years ago!
Closer to 50 than 40.
@@Ornithopter470 Да, ставь эту точку, она же, блять, так нужна.
My family has literally told me "See it snowed in Colorado, all this 'global warming' is bull shit."
The hilarious lack of self-awareness required to create a video full of *pretended* self-reflection is a format I’ll never grow tired of.
This is something only an “intellectual” would do. Take an ironic and unserious form of media, form an opinion of it based on your perception of it, and then take offence to its meaning, based on your own perception of it. She’s essentially fighting shadows that she’s invented herself. The second she took Cunk seriously, she lost. There’s no grand meaning. It’s not a takedown of intellectuals. It’s not a takedown of the sciences. It’s a silly ironic comedy filled with satire.
The difficult part about scepticism is not to be sceptical about someone else, but to also be sceptical of yourself.
Most people who voiced dissident opinions about the official coof narrative weren't pointing the finger at medical professionals, claiming that they possess more medical knowledge than the expert; they were pointing the finger saying, "I don't trust you". That's quite different, and can't be as easily chalked up to the Dunning-Kruger effect. But, those promulgating the official narrative never bothered to take a step back, and ask themselves the obvious question: "Why have ordinary people lost trust in our experts?". I see from this video that nothing has been learned since then.
Thank you for saying this. I hope those in every position of power humble themselves and consider this question.
I'm studying medicine and that is a topic that has interested me a lot, the lack of trust in medics. It is a big problem, as it doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are, you can't help a patient who doesn't believe what you say and will not follow recommendations.
The biggest problem honestly is that doctors have become pretty apathetic and they don't engage enough with the patient. Before you had to ask questions and examine the patient as that was the only was to diagnose, but with the advent of modern tests many doctor just reffer patients to get tests and barely even interact with them. This reliance on tests also often results in doctors just haphazardly sending the patient to exam after exams to find something, instead of questioning and exploring the patient correctly to zero in on what the patient is most likely to have.
This makes the doctors look like they don't know what's going on and like they are draining their wallet, and drives a lot of resentment towards medics.
Totally agree. And those who didn't tRuSt tHe eXpErTs were quite right not to do so, since the 'authorities' were demonstrably lying about so many aspects of that entire fiasco. That mistrust was _earned_ and, ironically, it didn't spring from ignorance; quite the opposite.
I appreciated this. I keep thinking, though, that those of us watching it might think we're not also part of the problem, that because we're aware of the problem we're somehow exempt from self-reflection about it. But all of us are part of this.
never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. specifically, the immense damage they can and will do.
the stupid people are powerless, those who made them stupid are the ones in control.
Yes, "Summer of love", never forget.
Another reason why some people are drawn into the anti-intellectualism current is that the so-called establishment is frequently exploiting the knowledge gap between the public and the elites in order to claim that the ideological choices they make are just the result of technocratic thinking that the plebs are too ignorant to question or even understand. That frustrating rhetoric motivates some underprivileged people to think that questioning experts is their way out of submitting to the dominant ideology under capitalist societies. I kind of empathize with that, although obviously, anti-intellectualism doesn't help people understand what's wrong and how to fix it. An example I can give you took place during the economic crisis in my country, Greece, where private banks where rescued by public money and austerity measures were applied, destroying the lives of poor working people and causing huge recession that drove work conditions and social net 50 years back. This thing was marketed as common sense, the only logical policy that would solve the trouble caused by past "populism". Anyone who protested this was deemed a clueless peasant, so the way the elites handled the crisis was a political choice serving their interests, but they pretended that it was a purely technocratic thing that nobody with economic knowledge would dare to question. They would say that their ideal prime minister would be an elite banker instead of a politician, because only such a person is totally free to make the right choices with no regard to the cost. Half of the EU was bragging that they needed more technocrats in power. The moral of this narrative was a purely undemocratic one: We common people should leave our fates to the knowledgeable people, instead of questioning them with our idiotic dissent.
Similarly, when there's a global pandemic and you see people like Bill Gates lecturing everybody on public health and acting as if they are the bearers of scientific knowledge instead of simply promoting their economic interests, you're going to see people with a justified aversion to this elitist political process. Of course, the trouble is that they may end up turning their justified frustration to a wrong direction: Instead of criticizing people like Gates for using their influence to achieve closed patents and protect the economic interests of big pharmaceuticals against the global need for easily accessible vaccines, people would start raving against scientists for telling them that the vaccine works and they should take it.
It's no wonder that it's usually historically oppressed groups that tend to be more resistant to trust experts in such cases, as they've been lied to and manipulated by the "knowledgeable" ones far more than the rest.
To me this tells us that anti-intellectualism is indeed bad, but we should also resist the technocratic ideology. It's just that we must do it the hard way, by popularizing science, promoting education and understanding of complex subjects, instead of thinking that the solution is to just ignore experts.
She's also kind of deep. I cry with Cunk every time I watch the one about the nukes. She's doing a bit, but it still gets me.
7:57 - "So many are just trying to survive..." THIS! It's difficult to lay blame to certain people should they not be interested in more intellectual tangents if their current struggles prevent them from doing so! Sometimes I'd like to think that thinking about thinking is a luxury afforded to those who have the free time to do so. Of course that isn't representative but gosh damn does it feel like that at times. Great vid!
so, you are intellectually deconstruct someone who is deconstructing intellectuals intellectually by being non intellectual...cute
I watched a presentation once about Jackson Pollock who was called a genius because he flung paint onto a canvas with a stick. I asked why his paintings were worth millions when it was possible for anyone to produce a Pollock style painting. The presenter spoke of "tonal balance", "cohesive flow", "rhythmic tension" and even "Jungian symbolism" when describing Pollock's work. When I asked wtf those terms even meant he smiled condescendingly and suggested I take a class in art appreciation. I left feeling that the man giving the presentation believed he was more intelligent than I was yet he couldn't describe what about the paintings made them any more special than what could be achieved in a grade school class. I honestly believe these "experts' use these terms to heighten their own importance in what is basically a scheme to launder money.
If you like this, it's worth looking up "Chrlie Brookers Screen Wipe" "Weekly Wipe" "How TV Ruined Your Life" and the Weekly Wipe (all on RUclips) mentioned in the video which is great! Thank you for the great analysis.
The episode about aspiration is a must watch.
@@kuzz4587 the love one always gets me.
@@kuzz4587agreed
Both anti-intellectualism is wrong and this blind obedience to experts that the author of this video seems to advocate for is wrong. Experts are humans who, like all of us, have to battle their own inner demons on a daily basis. If you think they are any more moral or ethical than the rest of us you are a fool. It doesn’t help that academia has been overrun with leftist who do tend to view the world in unrealistic ways, read Thomas Sowell. It’s also important to understand that research is financed heavily by tax dollars which makes it heavily political and therefore a little corrupt. Try publishing research that shows the climate change is not the end of the world; just ask Richard Lindzen what happens to such scientists and journal editors. Remember, for example, how the elites labeled everyone that said COVID came out of a lab as racist and conspiracy theorists? Why should we trust them? If you question the climate change narrative you’re labeled a “denier” like you’re denying the holocaust. This stinks of tactics which much of the general public doesn’t appreciate. I mean, look at how the author of this video lumps climate change skeptics in with flat Earthers, do you see the tactics? This breeds mistrust. Academia is well under paid for their level of expertise. They know this and this makes them resentful to Capitalism which is one reason why academia is dominated by leftism. They then try pushing quasi religious ideas like such as transgenderism as if it’s settled science and everyone, who is not a total coward and can kinda think for themselves, see this and then becomes skeptical that these institutions are interested in truth. Once you see that politics has corrupted almost everything, you start to question everything and rightfully so.
Honestly I would not read too deeply into the Cunk videos, really they’re just dumb jokes to make everyone lighten up and laugh. You can totally be into intellectual endeavors and also simultaneously laugh at jokes about them. You can take yourself seriously and also have the good nature to laugh at yourself, it’s called having balance.
Your section on Brave New World (7:04) made me think, how is watching video essays on youtube much different from rot content?
Both are passive forms of media, both are watched for entertainment. Are video essays just the intellectual / elitist version of Ow, my Balls! ?
I suppose even just the fact that the video made me think about it critically, is a big difference.
Most Highbrow Pasttimes like Theatre and Opera are passivly consumed. Meanwhile Gaming - a form of Entertainment, that is not passivly consumed - has a bad reputation.
@@Ribulose15diphosphat Gaming is like the ultimate passive consumption hobby. Like you do interface with it, most games are designed to be acessible to everyone these days, and they almost all constantly shell your brain with dopeamine with basically no effort on your part.
@@spooky8491 "With basically no effort on your part"
Sure, if you play easy games.
@ I think that implies that you can only have fun when you win. Hard games fill you with a lot of thrills and adrenaline long before you win.
One thing to note about Borat vs. Cunk is that a lot of the experts featured in Cunk were not only familiar with Diane Morgan's work to some extent, but also many of them are TV regulars. In the US, there's this big divide between TV people and intellectuals, I often hear Bill Nye basically being touted as the only mainstay of US television to represent the sciences to the previous generation. Meanwhile, on UK TV, it's not unusual to see historians and scientists and museum curators, people with PhDs or dozens of years of expertise in their chosen field, participate on comedy shows, making fools of themselves, just being human. I think that serves a lot to bring the sciences to the people as well - if the people conveying them are seen as normal people.
I think many of them play along well with the conceit of Cunk, to the point where a lot of the comments on her clips seem to think they pick up random experts who've never seen a television in their life. Meanwhile there exists a Monty Python clip where Stephen Hawking runs over Brian Cox (a Cunk regular) with his wheelchair and then ascends into space while singing a song about the galaxy.
With regard to what this video is trying to express, it feels very funny seeing the wrong graph being attributed to the Dunning-Kruger Effect once again (11:26) (not that important of course as it's a minute detail)
Sad but true: I enjoyed this video a lot, as a short, pleasant distraction from fascism, and instead of reading a book, or just to keep from thinking... it's a cycle that never ends
A hundred thousand words to explain what cunk says about contemporary comedy; and yet not a single thought of introspection as to why contemporary comedy might be dying the way it is....
16:04 This is similar to how comedy and tragedy worked back in ancient times, with comedy focusing on the common folk, while tragedy focusing more on those higher up, usually kings.
What a platform RUclips is! You can produce content of no substance that is reliant on content that has dubious substance and then get paid! Fantastic!
So are you under the impression that this video is in some way different from the rest of the mindless entertainment of the modern (and not so modern) age?
Quick note on the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The effect doesn't actually show what you use it for in the video, it's not the "i don't really know anything, that's why i don't know i know nothing"
Which is pretty ironic, as the Dunning-Kruger effect as used by pretty much everyone PROVES what people think about the effect, while it itself doesn't actually say so xD
It's fun watching Americans do a video essay on what Brits just instinctively understand
The first celebrity victim of cancel culture would surely be Socrates
One could say that overthinking a satire piece in a RUclips essay (does the world need more of those?) full of clichés is anti-Intellectualism.
2:12 Ngl, I always thought the main joke of the show was simply that Cunk is stupid and, as you said, ludicrous.
I feel that going over the anti-elitism argument without acknowledging the wealth needed to gain access to higher education is a little dishonest in presenting the argument. Knowledge and the ability to influence it are still gatekept in American society, despite academics criticizing people for not wanting to learn. I actually wanted to learn when I found an economic article earlier this month. It was a shame when I didn't have the extra money to pay to read it. When more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck, paywalling knowledge and education will always be an act of classism, not anti-intellectualism.
you have an incredible voice and the audio quality is amazing. great setup. cheers. i enjoyed watching.
Maybe if experts didn't abuse their authority to push agendas and line their pockets, people would trust them more.
Prove it
@@randomsnow6510 covid.
@@3zzzTyle for example?
I think for people to want to engage with subjects that are difficult, uncomfortable, and sometimes painful, like history or maths, art, or science, you need give them sufficient reason to.
Why do these things matter? How do they impact the daily lives of ordinary people? How will knowing about these things benefit ordinary people?
I'm not saying they don't matter, I believe they do quite a lot, I just think why they do needs to be communicated to the general public for them to take an interest in them.
Also I think another possible reason for anti-intellectualism is a distrust of academics, and I think one big reason for that is because most people have no interaction with academics or academia. The last time they interacted with anything intellectual was in grade school, and even then it was tainted by the sort of authoritarian school system that exists in much of the West, as well as underpaid, overwhelmed, and stretched too thin teachers that often don't have the time to explain *why* any of what they're teaching matters and how it relates to their students.
Also science just isn't accessible, most people don't have the funding to buy their own equipment to run their own studies to be able to see for themselves that what they're being told is true, nor the training. Would a potential solution be setting up places where people *could* run these experiments themselves? Or at least see them being run? I'm not sure lol
Also I think the replication crisis has hurt how much people trust authority figures, as well as conflicts of interest in academia, pushing things that will make them money over caring about the truth.
Do you really think the average MAGA retard cares about the replication crisis?
The association between being educated and being some sort of evil "elite" is one of humanity's biggest threats.
Good video! Actually, as a "Posh Brit" myself, I disagree about Huxley, he's definitely a snob, just because someone is saying "you've raised a significant question" does not make them humble, actually I would argue that it makes them... condescending? Brits use subtext, ALOT. Especially upper classes. It's a thing. It's elitist, not in relation to intellectualism, but class. He's being patronizing, Americans do tend to miss this subtext, which is why there is often tension between the American directness and the British wit. It is ironic though, because it's very clear to me.
Interesting. I've heard a great lecturer giving advices on how to do a great lectures, and he advised to not reply "good question" after receiving a question because it could be interpreted as condescending. It always intrigued me why. Maybe it suggests a kind of parent-child relation related to some posh-brit culture!
@@fran6b Yes, it also has a lot to do with the tone and the implication. British subtext is a bit contradictory as in saying good question could ironically be interpreted as your question was terrible, but I will indulge you because you don't know any better.
@ That's more subtle than sarcasm, for sure. Tone and subtext seems the key element to consider here, as you point it out. I'm just often to naive to get those second degree interpretation of otherwise normal expression! But when you know, you know. Thanks for your insights!
@ No worries, to be honest, sometimes I get a bit sick of it! I'm very used to it in my family, but sometimes it just gets a bit too condescending and negative so being naive to it isn't so bad. Although I'm glad I could help, because it can also be fun!
@@PsychesFlora Being genuinely naive can simply means that we refuse to play the unwritten game of a subculture, to explore what is up outside it! I wish you a beautiful day :)
Well, she is definitely mocking Anti-Intellecturalism as well. And mocks propaganda disguised as science. Like when she says something like: "America became regarded as a land of the free, which came as a surprise to all the slaves."