What the fuck is the deal with "intellectuals".
Ok like straight up throughout the whole history of intellectualism, and furthermore I guess just society in general, there's been this whole thing, it goes like this:
1. Someone thinks of something new and really cool.
2. People take it as far as it can go, get really inventive and creative with it, field flourishes.
3. Reaches its logical conclusion, nothing more is said, field stagnates.
4. Someone thinks of something new and really cool.
5. PEOPLE REALLY HATE THAT PERSON.
6. Time passes and somehow step 4 person. becomes step 1 person.
How is it that intellectuals constantly scream "HI LOOK AT ME IM VERY EDUCATED AND KNOW A LOT IM COOL AND OPEN MINDED" and then someone thinks of something truly original and they despise them for it.
Example: George Cantor pioneers the entire theory of sets in like a year, describes an absolutely unintuitive but perfectly mathematically sound theory of infinity which is rich, complex, useful, and interesting. Also not unintuitive if you take any period of time to think about it.
Logical next step: awards, sex, fame, love.
What actually happened: Literal death threats and blacklisting from lots of events and places.
What is it about the status quo being disturbed that makes people so angry? I get the whole "people are scared of change" thing, but when someone proves some incredible theorem and everything changes, why is no one upset then?
Why is it only when new information is introduced? Why are so many people (definitely not all) fine when someone bends gender norms, only to become infuriated at the idea of trans people? When I told my dad my friend liked men, he was supportive, said he was "smart, and knew there was nothing wrong with being gay" (eyes roll big.) But then I tell him my friend uses they/them pronouns, and he, zero exaggeration here, literally tells me "Ill never do that, thats not fucking right and I will never, ever in my whole fucking life refer to someone that way".
But he's "Smart". He watched sci-fi as a kid, and he insists he understands that "In ideal, star trek civilization no one fights, there's no war or hatred, everyone understands eachother". Yet he can't seem to apply thay when it comes to respecting anyone he doesn't already. Zero self awareness doesn't do this mans idiocy justice.
And mathematicians say "logic is logic, fact is fact" yet someone shows them a new idea, built out of logic and fact, and then reject it as "meaningless, not representative of reality" and blacklist him
And even more so say the sociologists, and the skeptics, and the cosmologists, and philosophers, and physicists, and musicians, and politicians, and on and on.
So what separates the people in step 2 from the people in step 5?
What is the inherent difference between those who interpret wholely new information as something to defend against, and those who view it as something to take in, to process and work with?
I'm sure many psychologists have already developed a theory of this phenomenon, but I wanted to wrote a post about it. I truly believe that this difference is both deeper than what I've written about here, and inherent to what I think makes a person good to be around.
As humanity moves forward, hopefully into a new age of respect, solidarity, and awareness, educating against this tendency will become more and more important I think.
