dheddle
Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
I am not equating smart people with intellectualism. The smart people I mentioned are also intellectuals, at least in my definition of the word. They are smart and curious and informed and passionate and well educated and engaged. (I know that to be true of my colleagues, and concede it to be true of Pharyngula commenters.) The point remains that they display no (in my estimation) statistically significant bump in their leadership or governance or compromise or consensus-reaching skills over a random selection of “ordinary folk.”
As for those who disliked and didn’t vote for Al Gore, it wasn’t because he was too smart. (Hardly.) Rather, it was because he was perceived as creepy and condescending.
Bill Clinton was (is) very smart and popular. Why? In large part because he connects with people and he knew how to lead. You can dismiss this as identity politics but nevertheless it is true, and his personal popularity allowed him to run an effective government. Regan was not nearly as cerebral, but just as popular, and again an effective president, and again in part because of a connection that had nothing to do with intellectualism. Carter was an intellectual and a disaster in the Whitehouse. (Yes I know, these are just my opinions.)
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
