What is it about "elite"? It [u]is[/u] intelligence, stupid

[Snow]

I have conflicting feelings over the excellent DU frontpage article,
"It's Not Intelligence, Stupid" by David Stellfox. This quote in particular bothers me:
"As the only one of six children to get a university degree, I have always struggled with and been uncomfortable with this idea that I am somehow particularly intelligent. It goes against everything I believe in as an anti-elitist, democratic, anybody-can-become-president, American-Dream kind of liberal. "

I thought our recent thread on anti-intellectualism in America was very worthwhile, and I think I'd like to take it a little further. I believe what Mr. Stellfox and others who express similar thought are assuming is that the class of people labeled "intellectuals" is somehow a closed class: you either are born with it or not. This has been demonstrated in cross-national studies, showing that Americans tend to believe that doing well in school, getting advanced degrees, and the like, is a result of heritage, genetics, innate characteristics that cannot be changed. Asians, by contrast, believe academic advancement to be principally a result of actions by the students and parents. In short, it's the old "nature vs nurture" argument. If one believes that the intelligent are a group privileged by birth, then indeed that could lead to resentment, the anti-elitist attitudes. However, that denies people the possibility of developig themselves fully. I think to some extent this is a result of our fondness for testing, for measurement. We are able to convince ourselves that one can measure "IQ" and that fixed number describes an unchangeable characteristic of that person. I am of the opinion that intelligence is much more an acquired amalgam of flexibility, creativity, imagination, adaptability, readiness to consider a variety of options, having a number of viewpoints - well, you get the idea. And I am of the opinion that this intelligence can be enhanced by education (I hope it's obvious I'm not talking schools, here) - broad reading, conversations, study of arts, and so on.

Here, of course, environmental arguments enter in - if you're lacking in the privileges of wealth but instead are handicapped in any number of ways, then even with high intelligence your path will be much rougher. I tend to agree with that idea - if your environment is severely restrictive, it becomes much more difficult to develop that flexibility and adaptibility. Asia is ahead of us historically in some respects on this. The strongly Confucian cultures (Korea is probably the strongest of them) promoted people into the ruling classes based on education as measured by exams. Okay, that sounds like SAT's, and in some sense it was, although the testing was typically on poetry, calligraphy, and rhetoric. And certainly Korean culture, for example, has much narrower options than ours, being a group-oriented and ethnically limited culture. But Korea is full of stories about poor scholars who rose to well-deserved high positions based on their hard study.

DU poster Seneca points out that "elite" is a loaded word that the right wing uses to get a blind reaction, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=315602

He's responding to an article that starts " The problem with the antiwar elite — and by that I mean most of the Democratic presidential candidates and their assorted liberal "wise men" — "

So what we're seeing is that use of the intellect and belonging therefore to a group of people who use their intellects is a negative in this culture and time. If your occupation reflects this preference as well, then you're often painted as someone who chooses to separate themselves from mainstream America, whatever that means.

I think I see two problems here, and I'm rambling, so help me with this. One is that we see intellectuals as a "class", who choose to allow their gifts of intelligence to set themselves aside as distinct and special from ordinary people. Second, we believe that we should not have classes of people in this society, and that therefore being a part of an intellectual class is a bad thing. I think the matter of classes in a society is a matter in real need of debate, especially since we do have hereditary oligarchs in the US. That we do not wish to admit this is I think what I found worrisome about the statement from Mr. Stellfox that I quoted back when I started this post.

[dfong63]

1. why is he a better person,

... who was lucky enough to inherit intelligence from his parents, as opposed to some other person who was lucky enough to inherit material wealth?

[Nikia]

2. But wealth is alright

I think that it a bit odd that some of the same people who criticize intellectuals for being elitists do not criticize wealth elitists. I personally think that education and intelligence is easier for people to attain than wealth in this country. I don't know whether intelligence is based on nature or nurture. I personally think that it is both along with a the conscious decision to work towards it. Some things like math are really about practice. Those who only practice when the teacher makes them do homework or only learn what they have to know for the test are at a disadvantage. It is of course important to begin practicing learning and thinking skills as early as possible so it is important that parents instill these values and experiences in their children even before they attend school. I sometimes wonder if convincing the working class and poor that intellectual elites are the enemy is a trick by the monied elite to not only provide an alternative enemy but to limit the number of potential poor and working class children that do academically achieve and rise above their birth. Teach parents that they don't their kid being an egg head. Teach children that their smart classmate is a nerd and should be ridiculed. Make it so that would be achiever knows that he or she will never fit in either with the people that he or she grew up with or those born with money. After all, it helps keep the poor in their place and limits the competition for children of the rich who hope to go to medical school. I also hate the generalization that a poor child will not do well in school. I think that it encourages defeat along with the social pressures that I mentioned.