« Astroturfers? I'll Show You Astroturfers | Main | Union Thug Who Beat Up Ken Gladney Is SEIU Director »

Not all of our liberal rulers are highly intelligent — but all of them think they are.

When Sotomayor made her "wise Latina" remark, people on the right naturally pointed out her fixation on race and gender. Justly, of course. But what struck me more was the first word: "Wise." I may be showing my age here, but as early as elementary school I was taught--in fact, group pressured as well--not to toot my own horn in public. Whenever some kid started saying about himself, "I'm smart, attractive, achieving..." yada yada, the immediate reaction was, "And humble." Here we have this judge, a person in a position of (supposedly) utmost weight and respect and burden of example, sounding the trumpet to let the world know she is wise. And, now that dissent is no longer patriotic, let no one dare to say "And humble" or an equivalent thereof. Because then the "Latina" (race + gender) part kicks in, to brand the dissenter with our day's mark of shame.

What a concentration of pure premeditated, long-planned malice this pack of power-hungry politicians is!

I subscribe to the ANNIE Oakley effect.

The general rule of thumb is that if you have to TELL people that you're "wise" (or "smart"), you aren't.

And "smart" has little to do with formal education. In many cases the latter is a hindrance to the former.

This is an excellent post that explains what I have been wondering for a long time. Why are Libs split between low achievers and high-intellect "types"?

My wife's family is San Fran based and includes 3 Ph.d's. I don't have to tell you what their politics are, but I can tell you that their arguments are as empty as what we normally expect. My father in law, a Bohemian Club member and Stanford physicist, just sent me a Global Warming book. The NY Times and SF Chronicle are the only media in their home.

They still love me despite my mental handicap of being conservative.

Are they this way because it is comfortable? Do they just lack the curiosity to move outside of their protective dome? My partial answer agrees with the Oakley effect; they do one or two things well, and are afraid to attain the humility that others have.

Dear Conservigilant,

As far as any Annie goes on the Oakley effect, I thought I'd let you know I was in the group of 16 women who were the first ever to qualify as an expert with the M-16 in the US Military. :) I love to shoot, but no time now, sadly.

Barb Oakley

OK, I'll bite. I'm going to order a copy of Evil Genes. I thought those were just things that had infected Nancy Pelosi, but apparently the problem is more widespread. I see you scored an endorsement from Pinker. Having read all of his books cover to cover at least three times each, that's good enough for me. Besides, I dig radical reductionist theories that reduce complex multi-actor scenarios to molecules - I find them strangely compelling while aborrhent.

Robert Nozick also had some ideas as to why intellectuals were prone to moonbattery.

Barbara, my dear woman, your remarks are breakthrough stuff. Indeed, "people are evaluated on the basis of "single solver" problems" is a phrase with such gravity I respectfully take my hat off to you.
It's tempting to go on, but I will leave it at that. Congratulations.

If you have never seen or read it, I direct you to Mr Evan Sayet:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030309a.cfm

Evan manages to find many of the same points.

The Oakley effect really reduces to simple "arrogance".

Liberals develop arrogance as a means to stay resistant to criticism.

They maintain a state of chronic arrogance matched only by fervent desire to protect their intellectual territory.

Intellectual liberalism is an oxymoron if you define intelligence as a means to gaining knowledge.
Rather, Ph.D.-intellectuals are more technical specialists, and have become of immediate necessity, extremely limited in scope.
Because most aren't geniuses they have to become very hard workers, and then carve out a very narrow and tightly defined area of working comfort.
Specialization is how they develop their intellectual self-concept and then generate enough arrogance to protect it; a demeanor is required which suggests that if you question their views, you are less than stupidity incarnate. Then due to arrogance, the complete dominance of one intellectual field transfers easily to all others, regardless.
However, few Ph.D.s can tell you about the membrane properties of a voltage-dependent sodium channel and then discuss Friedman's economic theory or tell you much about Tennyson.

Their liberalism in turn is fed largely from arrogance in a closed-loop manner.
Here are closed-loop qualities of liberal arrogance that are optimized in the individual's mental framework: a distain for individual freedom (the attraction to socialism & fascism), an almost complete lack of empathy (who was the falling man? -most liberals could not tell you without reference), a misunderstanding of human ethics (a failure to grasp that the poor are not necessarily virtuous, and can be greedy, stupid and lazy) for which they substitute moral relativism and critiques of Christianity, and the need for a villain (Bush and/or Cheny--and now the geriatric "mobs"). Also the mental world of the liberal contains the quality of arrogance that compels an unmitigated or tenacious focus on one's own ego (i.e, self-absorption) without faltering.

All of this stems from a need to establish a personal guarantee of their own innate intellectualism, but a guarantee that must be guarded at all times and at any expense--which is why these pathetic microbes have no sense of humor about themselves.

Many of them can come to be classified in the DSM IV jargon as "narcissists".

At the end of their careers, when people no longer need them as experts or refer to them as lesser gods, they occassionally need special psychiatric help.

This is understandable when it becomes apparent that the center of the known Universe has stopped gravitating to you.

They are eliteists. Because of the college-educated "eliteists" of the 1920s who loved to spout off about communism at the drop of a hat, "intellectual" became a nasty word in America.

BTW there's also another social aspect concerning arrogance, and that's criminality.

Criminals commit crimes bc they think they are too resourceful and intelligent to get caught.
Some are, most aren't...but it isn't humility, bitterness or desperation that drives criminals: its arrogance... which posits a sense of entitlement.

The commonality between the intellectual elite and the criminal is arrogance.
Primary among their shared principles, is fascism.

Considering that their inate arrogance manifests itself in many forms also. When a mother tells a child "no" the chid wails and protests. The Child feels "entitled" to have the desired object and no amount of discussion will satiate that desire.

Liberas WANT healthcare. No amount of reason, discussion, precident, or evidence can convince them otherwise. Their arrogance, their unwavering belief that they are somehow OWED that object is no different than a childs desire for a new toy.

Fiberal just scratched the surface about their compelling need to prove how realavant their ideas are, how wise, how knowledgable, how correct, or how THEY should be followed. Liberals just EXPECT it to be done their way and any challenge is an affront to thier inteligence. A critical look at them is an affront to their credentials, whatever they may actually be.

Because of this arrogance and belief that they could never be wrong when they are show how wrong they are which is quite often in reality, it sends them into a rage which chemicaly reduces their inteligence. It's true. Anger will actually reduce the brains ability to function.

Because liberals are perpetually angry at the "villian" who corrects them which diminishes their credibility in their own mind it just fuels the rage making them even less inteligent. The arrogance forces them to protect their reputation at all costs wich just continues the cycle of loss of mental capacity.

Before you know it they storm off in a huff, demonizing the person who was audacious enough to challenge their idea. Just like a child throwing a tantrum they completely lack the maturity to deal with their anger or manage their arrogance in a responsible way.

It's pretty sad actually.