Various types of snobbery - which ones apply to you?

[jajdude]

Snobbery, or would you say snobbishness, comes in many forms, though maybe they are all basically the same, feeling like one is better than others for some reason. I wonder if it is possible to classify its many types. I suppose we have some obvious ones. I'll try to think of some example.

There could be the intellectual snob, who knows more because he has read more, or something like that.

The travel snob, more aware of the world, he thinks, having been to numerous countries.

A strange one: The "my past was harder than yours" snob, who firmly believes he is better person for having gone through difficulties whereas most others have had an easy time of it in comparison.

Oh, there must be many more. When it comes to things like food, movies, coffee, books, music, clothes, the list can be long.

Add something if you have an idea.

[Charles Darnay]

The culture snob.

[YesNo]

The technie snob who tells you to read the FAQ before you ask a question again.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Definitely an intellectual/cultural snob. I can't help but think myself better than people who listen to nothing but pop music from the radio. I joke around a lot with my friends about what horrible taste in music or movies (they barely ever read) they have. It's lighthearted and I don' think a lot of them think I'm serious, but I usually am.

[YesNo]

Definitely an intellectual/cultural snob. I can't help but think myself better than people who listen to nothing but pop music from the radio. I joke around a lot with my friends about what horrible taste in music or movies (they barely ever read) they have. It's lighthearted and I don' think a lot of them think I'm serious, but I usually am.
Having been on both sides of the snob/snobbed dualism, I suspect your friends actually know you are serious. They are just humoring you and perhaps baiting you to offer more entertaining enlightenment.

This makes me think that there must be a meta-snob. The snob who silently thinks they are better than the current snob pontificating to them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In any case, I'm not mean about it (at least, I don't think I am). My post makes me really sound like a jerk, but I'm not. It's just crap friends give each other, and I get just as much as I give. :nod:

[KCurtis]

Having been on both sides of the snob/snobbed dualism, I suspect your friends actually know you are serious. They are just humoring you and perhaps baiting you to offer more entertaining enlightenment.

This makes me think that there must be a meta-snob. The snob who silently thinks they are better than the current snob pontificating to them.
Yes but those people could just be a bit more humble.

[Helga]

I know a type of snob who thinks she is every guys dream and acts like it, she looks down at other girls who aren't like her. she is the type who sings 'I am pretty, oh so pretty' in her head as she looks in the mirror. maybe I am just annoyed by this type cause she might be right.

anyway of the snobs listed above I think I am both a meta-snob and the strange snob.

[Buh4Bee]

I definitely look down my nose at other people, so I can be a snobby. But I don't have enough money to be a real snob. I also don't have the intellectual power to be an academic snob. So being an average person, I'd say I'm snob-lite!

[Paulclem]

A strange one: The "my past was harder than yours" snob, who firmly believes he is better person for having gone through difficulties whereas most others have had an easy time of it in comparison.

We call this inverted snobbery, though the worst exmples are quite aggressive about it, and can't see the value beyond their own environment.

I've got some of this - though I can appreciate others values.

[jajdude]

I guess the strange one is like when old-timers with their strange pride, go on about kids these days and "in my day.." (barefoot, uphill through snow both ways for 10 miles and we liked it!).

Job snobs. Not much explanation needed. People who treat service workers like waiters like crap.

The "where you are from" snob is an odd one too, but quite common. That someone could even imagine he is a better person because he comes from a big or important city is kind of mind-boggling. Or even the country one is from, but then nationalism and regionalism are both rampant all over the damn world. There's a reason we have so many terms and slang words that are synonyms for "hick" or "rube". And what is weird about all this is that you'll often find that the small town people tend to be better people in a lot of ways, less paranoid perhaps, friendlier maybe.

[Darcy88]

I guess I'm something of an intellectual snob. When I'm with friends who share a love of literature or who are into philosophy or history or whatever we often joke about the philistines, referring to those who never pick up a book and are passionate only about hockey, big trucks and xbox. We call them phillies.

I've been on the other end too though. I dated this hipster girl who only listened to obscure indy music and had a look of utmost disgust and disdain on her face when she checked my itunes and saw the odd pop song. There were a couple nickelback songs and I swear she almost turfed me then and there.

I've also encountered it with rich people, especially as a kid in school when my clothes were often tattered and I couldn't afford to go snowboarding, and it was supposedly a great dishonour that my family lived in a mobile home.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nickleback songs? I'm not sure it would have been unjustified. :D

[Darcy88]

Nickleback songs? I'm not sure it would have been unjustified. :D

Yeah, I know, I know. There's a bit of philistine in me.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't think I'm a snob at all, but I have always been perceived as one. Maybe I'm the oblivious kind? I speak clearly. I have diversified interests. I take care of myself. Some people despise those traits. C'est la vie.

I like your Lebowski quote, Mutatis.

[kiki1982]

Haha, the philistine joke... Jup, that's me and my husband. Then we are 'quality of life' snobs. As long as we have enough money to live off and enjoy life, we would do the bare minimum instead of all those silly people going to work every day. My friends pitied me for being a housewife :rolleyes:. How silly is that? Much better life than when we were both working.

Oooh, the intellectual snob also applies to us. I for one despise the kind that doesn't seem to think about things at all.

My hubby is a peculiar kind of snob... I think you could call him a geogrpahy and linguistic snob. Since his mum bought him an atlas when he was four (as his legs were taped up for like 3 years), he learned to read and knows all the places in the world, what country they are in, even what political union they may belong to. When someone says they come from here or there, he will tell them a few facts about it they probably didn't even know :svengo:.
He's a linguistic snob because he knows about 10 languages and can tell where his EU students are from just by looking at their names. And when they think they can make a deft remark that their name is surely a common name elsewhere, he'll say that it would be written so-and-so and that's not the case. Sometimes people give him a blank stare when that happens :p.

[JuniperWoolf]

My boyfriend is an intellectual snob (hardcore) and my best friend is a guitar/MMORPG snob. He's the kind of guy who scares n00bs away from WoW.

For me, I'm a bit of a bush snob. I've said things like: "Are those new hiking boots? Your feet are going to be covered in blisters an hour from now," and "what did you bring to drink? Milk?!? Bad idea."

[KCurtis]

I guess I am a geographical and music snob. I live on a small peninsula, hence small towns. I did not grow up here but work with many people who do. They annoy me because they can be small minded. I suspect many of them have never had a real conversation with a black person, other than a parent of a student. I also work in a school district where ALL the staff are white. I get impatient with them.
I also have eclectic music tastes, and don't really listen to top 40 stuff. Not many people my age have the same musical tastes around where I live. Some must, but I can't find them.

[YesNo]

This thread got me wondering what constitutes a snob. Simply liking music that is not on the top 40 list shouldn't make one a snob in itself. I suspect there has got to be some verbal abuse involved directed at those who might take offense at it.

[Darcy88]

This thread got me wondering what constitutes a snob. Simply liking music that is not on the top 40 list shouldn't make one a snob in itself. I suspect there has got to be some verbal abuse involved directed at those who might take offense at it.

That girl I mentioned didn't just like obscure music, she had a really uppity condescending attitude towards anyone who listened to popular music.

Funny things is, most people can find something to be snobbish about. Those philistines I referred to could be snobbish about their fancy big trucks or even their manly high-effort jobs in the oil fields or construction. There are some people who are lazy and ignorant and have nothing to be snobbish about, but they are not a large segment of the population.

[YesNo]

Yes, a certifiable snob would need that "uppity condescending attitude" to be snobbish otherwise they are just someone with unusual tastes.

[Drkshadow03]

The insufferable and pretentious pseudo-intellectual character, Paul, from the oscar-nominated Woody Allen film, Midnight in Paris. Now there is a snob!

[jajdude]

It's hard not to be a snob occasionally. I'd say that's normal. It's the people who are usually that way that are hard to take. It's weird to me for someone to say he has better taste in something. What does that mean? Some believe it though.

[PoeticPassions]

I suppose I am somewhat of a film snob... While I will watch all kinds of movies, I do tend to look down upon people that have a pedestrian taste for films and would list 'Pretty Woman' or 'Die Hard' as their favorite movies (though I have seen both numerous times). But I like to critique films and when someone does not agree, I get pretty heated... heh.

I guess I would say the same for literature... if your favorite author is Dan Brown or Nicholas Sparks, I will judge that you are somewhat intellectually inferior, though that won't make a difference in befriending you... I have a lot of friends who have never read a book before, and they fulfill me in different ways than my friends that have read a wide array of books and are great conversationalists.

[tonywalt]

I see. It's more a case of how you define or identify yourself. In today's world, especially on this side the pond, it would not take much to be easily defined as a snob.

[Pensive]

The only type of snob I can be is the kind that looks down upon others for being a snob and never believing herself to be one. :p

However I have often been called a snob of various types such as:
a literary snob - I have sometimes gotten in rows with people over books like Twilight and The Alchemist (or other works by Paulo Coelho).
a moralistic snob - who strongly adheres to the general moral code of society
a music/film snob - who is perceived to have trouble respecting people who appreciate sappy productions.
a language snob - somebody who is perceived to look down upon people for using incorrect spelling just because I can't help not correcting them! :p

But I doubt if there is any grain of truth in any of these. :p

[prendrelemick]

I suffer from inverted snobbery. That is, looking down on people who I perceive as snobbish. I'm usually wrong by the way.


I think snob comes from the Latin for "without nobility" something like - sine nobilis.

[Delta40]

I think I might be an inverted snob. I work at the tax office and speak to many arrogant snobs but they still have to account to me why they can't pay their tax obligations and should be considered for alternative ways to pay. Honestly, their definition of extenuating circumstances is really entertaining! I suppose when I speak to people who are experiencing genuine hardship, I can't help but look down at snobs.

[jajdude]

"I have a lot of friends who have never read a book before"

How is this possible?

[PoeticPassions]

"I have a lot of friends who have never read a book before"

How is this possible?

Well, ok, maybe not a lot of them, but I have a few. Or the they have read parts of a book, but never finished it (mainly in high school, cliff notes, etc). So, this is quite possible... unfortunate, but possible. I still get shocked when people tell me something like 'I don't read books.' But different strokes for different folks, I guess. I will say that the more the Internet becomes an integral part of our lives and that we use e-learning and digital media in schools the less people will read books.. or so I believe.

The decline of society...

[Alexander III]

I guesse I am more of a classical snob in the sense of the word. The fact that I have aristocratic blood from my mothers side and big fianance and bussines men from my fathers side - has always given me a sense of superiority compared to most other people. But in my defense, could it have been any other way?

Also the fact that children such as myself all go to schools together and our famillies all go and do the same things creates such a sheltered environment, that does slow ones perception of reality as a child. Before the age of 12, I thought that the way I lived and my friends lived was normal, that everyone was like us, and in fact me and my friends would be ashamed if we appered more rich, the object was to look as middle class as possible, seeming as we were was uncool, looking normal was cool. Then you as you become older and money is no lnger about buying that playstation game, but much more, one does feel superior. When one goes to the best schools, his friends and their parents are all important people, lives in isolation from the majority of people - all of that sytem seems to me specificaly designed to create a sense of superciliousness. Snobbery, is not so much about personal charcter, but the inevitable result of ones environment.

[MarkBastable]

I guesse I am more of a classical snob in the sense of the word. The fact that I have aristocratic blood from my mothers side and big fianance and bussines men from my fathers side - has always given me a sense of superiority compared to most other people. But in my defense, could it have been any other way?

....Snobbery, is not so much about personal charcter, but the inevitable result of ones environment.


I don't think it is inevitable, because if it were, everyone with that kind of background would be a snob. But many aren't. It's just not in their character.

[Bluehound]

I can be a bit of an inverted snob, I was brought up on a council estate with very little, I do tend to look down on "silverspooners" in theory, but in practice once you get to know people you find that everyone has their troubles.

Conversely I can be a bit of a social snob, I definitely look down on people who are doing things like fighting, spitting, arguing, pissing or drinking in the street. Have a little respect for yourself and your environment for Petes sake.

[Alexander III]

I don't think it is inevitable, because if it were, everyone with that kind of background would be a snob. But many aren't. It's just not in their character.

They are all snobs, some of them just put on an act when they are with diffent people so as not to offend anyone.

Here is an example my mother told me. In europe the wealthy dont wander around the streets with their best jewles and clothes, and they in public seem very normal. But when they are in local gatherings were the masses can't see them, they wear their jewles and show of their enormous wealth amongst themselves. There is equall petty vanity amongst us as the bourgoisee. We Know the european public thinks this is because the rich try to be modest and don't like ostentation. In truth it is because they are scared, they don't want people to know how much they truley have, they want to appear as normal as possible. Because european history unlike that of the east has 1789 and 1919 in them. It is fear, which the people think is respectability. If it were not for 1789 and 1919, we in europe would behave the same way as the privelleged of countries in Asia, the same level of ostenation and competition which is made public in some countries we esnure to keep private amongst ourselves.

And yes I assure you, when you grow up like I do, you are just as likley to think of yourself as not better than everyone else as a spartan was likley to think democracy a stronger form of goverment.

No offense, but to you they appear not to be snobish because you are not one of them. That is the plain truth. Trust me I was born into it, and there is so much facade and imprortance on maintaining a certain image for everyone who is not us that is becomes tragicly hillarious at some points. I remember that when we used to go to the club on weekends there was the unspoken rule of treating the workers their as our friends. We knew that their job there was to serve us, and they knew that too. But instead of being honest, we treat them as if they were our freinds and they treat us as if we were their friends, but everyone unspokenly knows their place, and the whole hypocrisy of it, but it has become just the way things are done.

I will always know I am better than you because from birth I was given no other choice. It is twisted, but then again it is perfectly rational. If an aristocrat was raised in a way to know he is just like everyone else, he is far more likley to be less inclined to protect the family name or wealth. Sorry mark, but were you born like me, you would have become a "snob". The choice is not yours.

[MarkBastable]

They are all snobs, some of them just put on an act when they are with diffent people so as not to offend anyone.

Maybe the non-snobby privileged and the snobby privileged simply don't mix much. In which case, I am more likely to have met members of the former group than you are.

[Alexander III]

Maybe the non-snobby privileged and the snobby privileged simply don't mix much. In which case, I am more likely to have met members of the former group than you are.

Look, if you want to keep your current world perceptions that is fine, I thought it was my duty to point out the truth, I did my job, the rest is your free will.

[Darcy88]

I will always know I am better than you because from birth I was given no other choice. It is twisted, but then again it is perfectly rational. If an aristocrat was raised in a way to know he is just like everyone else, he is far more likley to be less inclined to protect the family name or wealth. Sorry mark, but were you born like me, you would have become a "snob". The choice is not yours.

You aren't any better than us members of the "masses" though. And if you are superior to many you are still no more superior than a large number of educated persons from the lower and middle classes. The only thing you really have to base your superiority on is money, but money is no actual honour, as the monied class as a whole is proportionally just as awful and unadmirable as the lower or the middle.

I appreciate you speaking the truth though. I've heard this attitude is quite common among the rich.

[MarkBastable]

Look, if you want to keep your current world perceptions that is fine, I thought it was my duty to point out the truth, I did my job, the rest is your free will.

Gee, thanks.

[Alexander III]

You aren't any better than us members of the "masses" though. And if you are superior to many you are still no more superior than a large number of educated persons from the lower and middle classes. The only thing you really have to base your superiority on is money, but money is no actual honour, as the monied class as a whole is proportionally just as awful and unadmirable as the lower or the middle.

I appreciate you speaking the truth though. I've heard this attitude is quite common among the rich.

I think you misunderstood, or maybe not - but I was pointing out the internal contradiction I have. On one hand I know I am not better than everyone else. On the other hand I know I am better than everyone else. What I am saying is, if you are raised the way we are, the former may or may not come but the latter reality shall always be there it is inescapable. To tell you why we are all convinced that there is truth behinde the fact that we are better, I would have to recount to you my entire life, as it is a sum of many small things. But yes it is strange as a contradiction - and the result is that some mornings I awake to find find myself knowing we are better than everyone else, other morning I awake to find us all hypocrites.


Gee, thanks.

Well **** Mark, what can I say - You are just like those PM's who used to say " no no, the black people love being slaves, they are better off for it" and when The abolitionists say "we have brought with us actual slaves to atesst to the truth" you reply "yes sure they may be slaves, but I know far more about slaves than them, because I sir will not change my views acodring to the truth, I shall change the truth acording to my view."

For a guy who attempts to be a witt, you sure do ste yourself up for a lot of ridicoule.

[MarkBastable]

Well **** Mark, what can I say - You are just like those PM's who used to say " no no, the black people love being slaves, they are better off for it" and when The abolitionists say "we have brought with us actual slaves to atesst to the truth" you reply "yes sure they may be slaves, but I know far more about slaves than them, because I sir will not change my views acodring to the truth, I shall change the truth acording to my view."

For a guy who attempts to be a witt, you sure do ste yourself up for a lot of ridicoule.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that precisely because of your background and preconceptions, you're not in a good position to make generalised statements about the character and motivations of every individual whom you consider to be in your class. Yes, I can see that that's what you believe, but my experience of those people, about whom I have no general preconceptions, leads me to believe you're mistaken.

There's a sort of looped logic to your argument, though, because if I were to produce a privileged person who professed to disagree with you, you'd simply say, "Well, that person is lying, for the reasons I've stated."

So - we'll just have to accept that we each think the other is wrong.

The 'gee, thanks' was an ironic response to your giving me permission to have my opinion, erroneous though you believe it to be.

[BienvenuJDC]

You misunderstand. I'm saying that precisely because of your background and preconceptions, you're not in a good position to make generalised statements about the character and motivations of every individual whom you consider to be in your class. Yes, I can see that that's what you believe, but my experience of those people, about whom I have no general preconceptions, leads me to believe you're mistaken.

There's a sort of looped logic to your argument, though, because if I were to produce a privileged person who professed to disagree with you, you'd simply say, "Well, that person is lying, for the reasons I've stated."

So - we'll just have to accept that we each think the other is wrong.

The 'gee, thanks' was an ironic response to your giving me permission to have my opinion, erroneous though you believe it to be.

I'm not about to go back and try to follow all the dialogue that lead to this response, but I would have to say that what you said here makes lots of sense.

[Alexander III]

There's a sort of looped logic to your argument, though, because if I were to produce a privileged person who professed to disagree with you, you'd simply say, "Well, that person is lying, for the reasons I've stated."


Let me start basic. Are any of your friends aristocrats? if no, what on earth would lead you to believe you know more about us than I.

[BienvenuJDC]

Let me start basic. Are any of your friends aristocrats? if no, what on earth would lead you to believe you know more about us than I.

Such a ring of arrogance. I'd like to know how you define aristocrat. I'm far removed from the English society, and I'm not sure if there is an American equivalent to your definition of aristocrat. It seems that even if there is, you probably wouldn't recognize it. Does one have to be born an aristocrat? Or is there certain criteria that must be in place for one to qualify?

I'm sorry that I haven't kept up with the entire dialogue, but what is the point that no one else here can possibly be as enlightened as yourself?

[Alexander III]

Such a ring of arrogance. I'd like to know how you define aristocrat. I'm far removed from the English society, and I'm not sure if there is an American equivalent to your definition of aristocrat. It seems that even if there is, you probably wouldn't recognize it. Does one have to be born an aristocrat? Or is there certain criteria that must be in place for one to qualify?

I'm sorry that I haven't kept up with the entire dialogue, but what is the point that no one else here can possibly be as enlightened as yourself?

Lets say you are in a room with two guys wanting to know more about pakistani culture. One of the guys is english, born and bred; the other is pakistani born and bred. When both of them give conflicting information about "what life is like for a pakistani man" - who do you trust? The englishman or the pakistani?

[BienvenuJDC]

Lets say you are in a room with two guys wanting to know more about pakistani culture. One of the guys is english, born and bred; the other is pakistani born and bred. When both of them give conflicting information about "what life is like for a pakistani man" - who do you trust? The englishman or the pakistani?

Well, I've never trusted an Englishman before, and I've never met a Pakistani. However, I'm not sure if the illustration is totally fair. Some of what you speak about may be tainted by perspective. There's also an aspect of honesty. The Pakistani in question may have reason to paint a picture that is not accurate. I can very well see that a Pakistani man might want me to believe that things are better than they actually are (or maybe he wants me to believe things are worst than they are).

Let me give an example, the old man who exaggerates about how hard things were "back in the day". While he may be better informed about the times, he tells his story with a skewed bias according to what he wants me to believe.

[Scheherazade]

Lets say you are in a room with two guys wanting to know more about pakistani culture. One of the guys is english, born and bred; the other is pakistani born and bred. When both of them give conflicting information about "what life is like for a pakistani man" - who do you trust? The englishman or the pakistani?And whose opinion would be more "objective"? The one who is involved (emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and so on) or the one who is an observer (with minimal personal involvement)?


R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed without further warning.

[JuniperWoolf]

If you base your value on the class you're born into, you're essentially judging your worth by the accomplishments of others, your family members who lived and died before you were born. I don't see much of a chance to gain a personal sense of accomplishment or strength there. To me, it's much better to measure your worth based on what you know and what you can do, and how capably you handle yourself in various situations.


And whose opinion would be more "objective"? The one who is involved (emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and so on) or the one who is an observer (with minimal personal involvement)?

Hmm, that's true, but level of exposure still counts for something. If I wanted to hear someone talk about a culture (which we could say the European "aristrocracy" lifestyle would fall under, however snobby it might be), I'd rather listen to someone who is actually a member of that culture. Both arguments have merit, though.

[BienvenuJDC]

And whose opinion would be more "objective"? The one who is involved (emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and so on) or the one who is an observer (with minimal personal involvement)?


Excellent way of summing up my thoughts. You made what I was thinking very clear.

How does one accurately convey an unbiased and complete truth concerning their manner of life. Of course even if one does demonstrate a truthful aspect of their life, it may not be complete. The perspective of happiness, for instance, depends highly on how one views happiness. One aristocrat may paint a glorious picture of success and grandeur based on wealth and power, while another may see those things worthless seeing a pauper's wealth in love and family. While one the one aristocrat may have family, he/she may have sacrificed the love for wealth and power.



Hmm, that's true, but level of exposure still counts for something. If I wanted to hear someone talk about a culture (which we could say the European "aristrocracy" lifestyle would fall under, snobby though it is), I'd rather listen to someone who is actually a member of that culture. Both arguments have merit, though.

Yes, it seems that if we collect various perspectives, we may be better equipped to discern the truth that is found somewhere in the middle.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yes, it seems that if we collect various perspectives, we may be better equipped to discern the truth that is found somewhere in the middle.

Now you're thinking like an anthropologist.


Well, I've never trusted an Englishman before, and I've never met a Pakistani.

Hahaha, you sound like my parents, when I was sixteen my dad threatened to strangle an English boy I brought over. What's up with that? Why English people, they're so... like us.

[KCurtis]

Hahaha, you sound like my parents, when I was sixteen my dad threatened to strangle an English boy I brought over. What's up with that, why are so many North Americans specifically anti-British?

Maybe he threatened to strangle him because the English boy had ideas about you. :idea::eek:
I ADORE everything British! I love Britishisms, British old ladies, gentlemen, literature, architecture, music, humor-that one is my favorite. That's why I have a hard time arguing with Emil. He's definitely British.

[JuniperWoolf]

Maybe he threatened to strangle him because the English boy had ideas about you.

Nah, he specifically said "YOU'RE DATING THIS FRUITY LITTLE BRITISH GUTTER RAT?!?" He made his specific objection perfectly clear, and besides, he never threatened to strangle the Canadian boys I went out with (or the one kid who's parents brought him over from India).

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, I've never trusted an Englishman before, and I've never met a Pakistani.

I don't know what's more surprising; not trusting an Englishman or never having met a Pakistani!


I ADORE everything British! I love Britishisms, British old ladies, gentlemen, literature, architecture, music, humor-that one is my favorite. That's why I have a hard time arguing with Emil. He's definitely British.

Excellent. Oh what good taste you have.

[KCurtis]

Let me start basic. Are any of your friends aristocrats? if no, what on earth would lead you to believe you know more about us than I.
Oh my.........this just confirms my belief that aristocracy is not anywhere near where I want to be. Money never impressed me.


I don't know what's more surprising; not trusting an Englishman or never having met a Pakistani!



Excellent. Oh what good taste you have.

I do, that I must say. Oh! Almost forgot- I love the small refrigerators most British people have. I have one, and most Americans think it odd. I just ask them how much food do I really need? Most who think it odd are also fat. Not me, no way, never.


Nah, he specifically said "YOU'RE DATING THIS FRUITY LITTLE BRITISH GUTTER RAT?!?" He made his specific objection perfectly clear, and besides, he never threatened to strangle the Canadian boys I went out with (or the one kid who's parents brought him over from India).

Well that is entirely rude! He didn't even like his accent? Did he not like the Queen?
My husband loves the Queen.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well that is entirely rude! He didn't even like his accent? Did he not like the Queen?
My husband loves the Queen.

To most Albertans, the queen is just "that woman on the $20 bill."

[Paulclem]

To most Albertans, the queen is just "that woman on the $20 bill."

To most of us English masses, she's also "that woman on the $20 bill." (We don't actually look at the notes here- here today and gone...today!).

[Alexander III]

Well, I've never trusted an Englishman before, and I've never met a Pakistani. However, I'm not sure if the illustration is totally fair. Some of what you speak about may be tainted by perspective. There's also an aspect of honesty. The Pakistani in question may have reason to paint a picture that is not accurate. I can very well see that a Pakistani man might want me to believe that things are better than they actually are (or maybe he wants me to believe things are worst than they are).

Let me give an example, the old man who exaggerates about how hard things were "back in the day". While he may be better informed about the times, he tells his story with a skewed bias according to what he wants me to believe.


I will concede that is a very just point you bring up. But I was not glamorising the aristocracy, if anything I was saying a harsh truth which speaks very negativley about the aristocracy. But still I suppose it is just preference. Personaly I trust my grandfather more when it comes to knowing about the war, compared to a 20 year old history student.

{edit}


If you base your value on the class you're born into, you're essentially judging your worth by the accomplishments of others, your family members who lived and died before you were born. I don't see much of a chance to gain a personal sense of accomplishment or strength there. To me, it's much better to measure your worth based on what you know and what you can do, and how capably you handle yourself in various situations.


Oh come on that is not true. Genetics my dear. I am not saying that being born into the aristocracy means you have good genes, ever majory familly has their wakos, and yes there was a lot of inbreeding. But if a man should not be proud of his ancestors, is it not just as true that a man should not be proud of the great men of his nation?

"To me, it's much better to measure your worth based on what you know and what you can do"'

yes and from birth, most of us learn straight away that that is one of the principle reasons we are better. We unlike the majority of people, actualy can do whatever we want.

[KCurtis]

Oh come on that is not true. Genetics my dear. I am not saying that being born into the aristocracy means you have good genes, ever majory familly has their wakos, and yes there was a lot of inbreeding. But if a man should not be proud of his ancestors, is it not just as true that a man should not be proud of the great men of his nation?


yes and from birth, most of us learn straight away that that is one of the principle reasons we are better. We .unlike the majority of people, actualy can do whatever we want.

Are you for real? You keep mentioning aristocracy, is it meant to impress people on this forum? If so, you can count me out. It's rather a turn off. Who cares who you are related to? You sound like a spoiled little brat.

[tonywalt]

Alex is always way to honest for our day and age:p

[Emil Miller]

European aristocracy sold its birthright for money after the French revolution of 1789. A recent case being that of the the Marquess of Milford Haven, a cousin to the Queen, marrying the daughter of George Walker, a former Billingsgate fish porter who got lucky during the property boom of the 1980s. It is interesting that it was the minor aristocracy in France that initiated the revolution as a protest against land taxes by the King and his courtiers, who were absentee landlords from their estates, and were often exempt from taxation. It's difficult to make a distinction between a vicious minor aristocrat like St-Just and a megalomaniac Robespierre using the bloodthirsty mob to slaughter their way to a republic, and the upper aristocracy who brought it upon themselves. In any event, their very low profile, with the exception of the British Royals, is a good indication of how anachronistic they have become.

[Paulclem]

Oh come on that is not true. Genetics my dear. I am not saying that being born into the aristocracy means you have good genes, ever majory familly has their wakos, and yes there was a lot of inbreeding. But if a man should not be proud of his ancestors, is it not just as true that a man should not be proud of the great men of his nation?

"To me, it's much better to measure your worth based on what you know and what you can do"'

yes and from birth, most of us learn straight away that that is one of the principle reasons we are better. We unlike the majority of people, actualy can do whatever we want.

I'm impressed by people who achieve despite not having the kinds of advantage that rich/priviledged people have. What can you expect of the rich and priviledged? That they achieve so much more given the advantages. Yet our own Royals show how lamentable they are, despite the best of everything. Why do you never see the Queen interviewed live? Why is there so much scandal associated with the major Royals - Andrew, Edward, Fergie, Charles? How mediocre are they to be so bad at something they were brought up to be?

In fact - money and opportunity aside - it may well be a positive disadvantage to have such an upbringing. Moving in the circles they do, they are less likely to develop social flexibility. Can they get on with anyone? Unlikely, for the very attitudes and expressions used by our resident aristo.

Why do people become annoyed with your posts Alex? There's no grace in some of them. You're all too keen - as Tony has succincly said - to point out your class' , and your own, social advantages. it's a bit like a neighbour who goes on and on about their fancy car, whilst also saying, I know it doesn't really make me a better person, but...

The funny thing is - having read a lot of your posts, and others responses to them, that you're liked on Litnet. Long may that continue - but I'm always up for a ding-dong about class. :lol:

[KCurtis]

To most Albertans, the queen is just "that woman on the $20 bill."
Really? My relatives in Toronto love the Queen. But maybe Alberta is more like the western frontier, just guessing. I don't know much about Alberta, other than it being COLD. And I like the name Alberta, and the Clapton song.


To most of us English masses, she's also "that woman on the $20 bill." (We don't actually look at the notes here- here today and gone...today!).

All I know is what I see on T.V.- the Queen is out and about, and crowds are waving to her. I admit my ignorance.

[JuniperWoolf]

Oh come on that is not true. Genetics my dear. I am not saying that being born into the aristocracy means you have good genes, ever majory familly has their wakos, and yes there was a lot of inbreeding. But if a man should not be proud of his ancestors, is it not just as true that a man should not be proud of the great men of his nation?

"To me, it's much better to measure your worth based on what you know and what you can do"'

yes and from birth, most of us learn straight away that that is one of the principle reasons we are better. We unlike the majority of people, actualy can do whatever we want.

The path that this discussion is taking is about to come uncomfortably close to the horribly, mind-numbingly boring genetics vs. environment debate, but it's impossible to know whether a free-time filled life as a born rich kid is a better environment in which skill, intelligence and virtue can develop or whether this is better accomplished in a life of trials that accompanies having to work hard. Both arguments are easy to represent. I obviously favour the latter, that it's hardship rather than leasure which makes all things strong, this appears to be the natural order - but you could argue that it's because that's what I've witnessed. Still, I've heard of very few aristocrats making any great accomplishments in the realms which I follow lately, at least not in the last century.

[Emil Miller]

All I know is what I see on T.V.- the Queen is out and about, and crowds are waving to her. I admit my ignorance.

If 'all that you know' is what you see on TV, then you have a stereotypical view of reality. Waving crowds can accompany TV celebrities, politicians, pop singers or practically any engineered event imaginable. It's not due to ignorance but gullibility.

[Paulclem]

All I know is what I see on T.V.- the Queen is out and about, and crowds are waving to her. I admit my ignorance.

No, there are plenty of people who go to see her. There are many people who respect her dignity. I don't personally have anything against the Queen as a person. But her strength is that she does nothing much of significance. She's just a figurehead who has nothing to say to the rest of us.

Charles is somewhat different, but, in the the same way that the Queen represents something of the 40's and 50's, he represents something from the past too. I think he's already past his time, which is tragic for him really. It does make you wonder why the Queen has hung on into her 80s. He's her son and heir in waiting. What is it about him that makes her reluctant to give it up? Or is she just happy to hang on whilst her son loses his vitality and becomes a King who can reign for significantly fewer years? I think they're odd.

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, there are plenty of people who go to see her. There are many people who respect her dignity. I don't personally have anything against the Queen as a person. But her strength is that she does nothing much of significance. She's just a figurehead who has nothing to say to the rest of us.

Charles is somewhat different, but, in the the same way that the Queen represents something of the 40's and 50's, he represents something from the past too. I think he's already past his time, which is tragic for him really. It does make you wonder why the Queen has hung on into her 80s. He's her son and heir in waiting. What is it about him that makes her reluctant to give it up? Or is she just happy to hang on whilst her son loses his vitality and becomes a King who can reign for significantly fewer years? I think they're odd.

:lol: You make it sound like the Queen is being deliberately selfish for not having died. This is a view that I've heard before too strangely.

Edit: I didn't know that the British Monarchy has got their own official website:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/

[KCurtis]

If 'all that you know' is what you see on TV, then you have a stereotypical view of reality. Waving crowds can accompany TV celebrities, politicians, pop singers or practically any engineered event imaginable. It's not due to ignorance but gullibility.

What I meant was I don't really know how the British public feels about
her, and from what I see on the news is that many people do like her. I realize not everyone in Britain feels this way. But I don't watch the BBC, or get British newspapers, so I can only go by what I see. I already said I admit my ignorance. My husband loves her because of how she behaved during the war- she stayed. But my husband loves everything British too.

[Paulclem]

:lol: You make it sound like the Queen is being deliberately selfish for not having died. This is a view that I've heard before too strangely.

:lol:

Unintended. She could have stepped down as she became older - in her 70s. Who would blame her for letting her eldest, and quickly ageing son, take over the throne. Perhaps she doesn't have that flexible a mind, but who else would keep their son waiting for 30 years or more to do a job he has been brought up to do? He's in his 60's now, and we'll get all the - isn't he doing well despite his age - guff when he finally gets it. But people retire in their 60s for a reason. Well, I suppose he's only got to nod and shake a few hands.

[LitNetIsGreat]

What I meant was I don't really know how the British public feels about
her, and from what I see on the news is that many people do like her. I realize not everyone in Britain feels this way. But I don't watch the BBC, or get British newspapers, so I can only go by what I see. I already said I admit my ignorance. My husband loves her because of how she behaved during the war- she stayed. But my husband loves everything British too.

I'm pretty sure a recent poll revealed that most British people were in favour of the monarchy, though I can't remember the numbers. They still have a lot of supporters but most people are somewhere in the middle of things I think, with a hardcore minority who oppose it. I think this is about accurate.

[Paulclem]

What I meant was I don't really know how the British public feels about
her, and from what I see on the news is that many people do like her. I realize not everyone in Britain feels this way. But I don't watch the BBC, or get British newspapers, so I can only go by what I see. I already said I admit my ignorance. My husband loves her because of how she behaved during the war- she stayed. But my husband loves everything British too.

Her reputation from that time as persisted - sharing in the trials of the British public and all that. It only recently came out that they didn't have the same rations as everyone else - and I'm sure they were well protected in their shelters.

A lot was made of her role as a WAAF, but, in this cynical age, it's easy to see through the PR. The same happens with that Hewitt look-a-like Harry. The BBC slavishly reports how he accompanies the arctic explorer teams to the North pole - for a couple of days, or joins the recent Everest team - on their training, or has shots of him playing with african kids. It's all PR, and rather sickening.

[LitNetIsGreat]

:lol:

Unintended. She could have stepped down as she became older - in her 70s. Who would blame her for letting her eldest, and quickly ageing son, take over the throne. Perhaps she doesn't have that flexible a mind, but who else would keep their son waiting for 30 years or more to do a job he has been brought up to do? He's in his 60's now, and we'll get all the - isn't he doing well despite his age - guff when he finally gets it. But people retire in their 60s for a reason. Well, I suppose he's only got to nod and shake a few hands.

:p They mostly don't step down though do they? As for retiring the age is supposedly getting older and older now though remember as it goes up and up to 68/70 - ha? There is no sodding way I'm working full-time anywhere over the age of 50, sooner if I can swing it. Besides the Queen is still pretty mobile and alert so I can't really blame her for not stepping down or dying yet I think.

[Emil Miller]

What I meant was I don't really know how the British public feels about
her, and from what I see on the news is that many people do like her. I realize not everyone in Britain feels this way. But I don't watch the BBC, or get British newspapers, so I can only go by what I see. I already said I admit my ignorance. My husband loves her because of how she behaved during the war- she stayed. But my husband loves everything British too.

The British public will move as it always does and jump to the media's requirements. That is why there is always a battle going on as to who controls the media. The Royal family has one big thing in it's favour in this regard: namely, patronage. Even the most rabid anti-monarchist wilts at the thought of getting a title, even though titles are now conferred on nonentities as a form of keeping in with the lower orders.

[Paulclem]

:p They mostly don't step down though do they? As for retiring the age is supposedly getting older and older now though remember as it goes up and up to 68/70 - ha? There is no sodding way I'm working full-time anywhere over the age of 50, sooner if I can swing it. Besides the Queen is still pretty mobile and alert so I can't really blame her for not stepping down or dying yet I think.

I think it's strange. Her own son has been waiting for this job all his life. She's in her 80's and could have given it up, passed on the family business, 20 years ago when he was still in his prime.

Can you imagine the owner of a business hanging on into their 80's and keeping the son waiting until his mid sixties. Weird.

Of course the whole media hype is that - isn't she doing well - aren't they alert etc etc. Well of course - they've never done a stroke of meaningful work. How hard is it to walk up and down, read a speech that someone has written for you, and say a couple of things to people. All that garbage about how hard they work - it makes you laugh. They have to get dressed up and be taken for lunches to fancy venues and meet a few people. Wow. I'm sweating just thinking about it.

[Darcy88]

Hahaha, you sound like my parents, when I was sixteen my dad threatened to strangle an English boy I brought over. What's up with that? Why English people, they're so... like us.

Did you not see my painstakingly meticulous research into the differences between Brits and Canadians submitted on the Chomsky thread?

[Darcy88]

Oh come on that is not true. Genetics my dear. I am not saying that being born into the aristocracy means you have good genes, ever majory familly has their wakos, and yes there was a lot of inbreeding. But if a man should not be proud of his ancestors, is it not just as true that a man should not be proud of the great men of his nation?


Its good you're not saying that, because I really doubt it can be proven that aristocrats on average possess a significant genetic superiority over us common-folk. I'd put my own genes against those of any aristocrat and I can think of plenty of other lower and middle class individuals who could do the same.

[MarkBastable]

Let me start basic. Are any of your friends aristocrats? if no, what on earth would lead you to believe you know more about us than I.

Yes.

Hard though that may be for you to believe, someone as common as me does actually know some aristocrats.

So, now what?

[OrphanPip]

Ideas of national and class solidarity or identification are iffy anyway. At the heart of it, nations are imagined communities. Darcy, me, and Jun are all Canadian but what do we really have in common besides shared passports? An Irish working class slum in Montreal is not very similar to rural Alberta or the Pacific coast. So, why should I identify along nationalist lines with them, or people who lived before I was born, or even my neighbour across the street.

[Darcy88]

Ideas of national and class solidarity or identification are iffy anyway. At the heart of it, nations are imagined communities. Darcy, me, and Jun are all Canadian but what do we really have in common besides shared passports? An Irish working class slum in Montreal is not very similar to rural Alberta or the Pacific coast. So, why should I identify along nationalist lines with them, or people who lived before I was born, or even my neighbour across the street.

I totally agree. I feel I have much more in common with someone from Seattle or Portland than I do with you in Montreal or JBI in Toronto. I used to be into baseball back when I played. My team was the Seattle Mariners. A person once asked me "why don't you root for the Blue Jays?" "Why would I?" I answered. "Because they are Canadian." All I could say was "what does that even mean?"

Damn. I guess I'll never get to be Prime Minister. Not with this attitude. There goes that dream.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know what's more surprising; not trusting an Englishman or never having met a Pakistani!


Neely, have you ever met an Appalachian?

[prendrelemick]

My Landlord is a Peer of the Realm - not one of your Johnnie-come-lately peers, but an old fashioned, came-across-with-the-Conqueror, peer. When he comes to his shooting lodge in August (for the grouse,) we tenents are invited to a soiree, and rub shoulders with his family and friends (minor royals, millionaires, lairds etc - ladies who smell nice.)

What can I say, they are dissappointingly nice people, no snobbery at all. I think it is because they are established and confident in their position. It is the middle class and social climbers who are the worst snobs.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=prendrelemick;1117532]

My Landlord is a Peer of the Realm - not one of your Johnnie-come-lately peers, but an old fashioned, came-across-with-the-Conqueror, peer.

Not one of us then. :biggrin5:

[Paulclem]

I wouldn't dislike someone just because they were of a particular class. It's how they come across, and I too have met aristos and public school educated people, and most of them, like most people from whatever class, are nice people.

I don't like the presumption of airs and graces - as most people don't, and the presumption that being of a class makes you better. Most people aren't like this.

As for the Royals, they are in the unfortunate position of being bulled up by a slavish and cowtowing media. But what would they care anyway. They don't - can't possibly have any idea of things beyond their freshly painted environs.

I do dislike the opposite end of the scale too - the aggressive inverted snob and boor. Thee's no need for it really.

[KCurtis]

Yes.

Hard though that may be for you to believe, someone as common as me does actually know some aristocrats.

So, now what?

So where do you meet them? I just want to be prepared, in case I ever do.

[Alexander III]

Yes.

Hard though that may be for you to believe, someone as common as me does actually know some aristocrats.

So, now what?

No idea why you think I would find it hard to believe, considering how little I know of you.

But now that that is cleared, what in their behavior would lead you to believe that What I orginialy posted is not true?

[MarkBastable]

No idea why you think I would find it hard to believe, considering how little I know of you.

But now that that is cleared, what in their behavior would lead you to believe that What I orginialy posted is not true?


Sorry - let me understsand here. Your question is, what is it about the lack of any hint of snobbery in their behaviour or character that leads me to believe that they aren't snobs?

[Alexander III]

Sorry - let me understsand here. Your question is, what is it about the lack of any hint of snobbery in their behaviour or character that leads me to believe that they aren't snobs?

Well, when I am out an about I don't act like a snob, did you not read before my previous post about the hypocrisy of acting like anti-snobs when in truth they very much are snob.

[MarkBastable]

Well, when I am out an about I don't act like a snob, did you not read before my previous post about the hypocrisy of acting like anti-snobs when in truth they very much are snob.

Yes, I did. You think they are snobs who are lying, and that explains them acting unsnobbily. I think they're honestly not snobs, and that explains them acting unsnobbily. Both explanations fit the observable behaviour.

And as I said, we have to agree to differ about which explanation is right.

[Darcy88]

I actually think its kind of funny for any aristocrat, after a century of most statesmen and artists and intellectuals and businessmen having arisen from the working class, to still regard themselves as being in any way superior. Its adorable really, like a little kid who thinks his dad can beat up any man.

Aristocracy is silliness. Its all about meritocracy.

[Alexander III]

Yes, I did. You think they are snobs who are lying, and that explains them acting unsnobbily. I think they're honestly not snobs, and that explains them acting unsnobbily. Both explanations fit the observable behaviour.

And as I said, we have to agree to differ about which explanation is right.

I like that never broke in gibbering remarks and petty persona remarks, and that we could calmly arrive to this mutual and only conclussion possible regarding our discussion. Most other posters don't make it this far without it descending into a shouting match. Well played.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely, have you ever met an Appalachian?

No idea.

I guess I just wondered how someone could not trust a person just because they happened to be born in a particular place. I don't think a place of origin is any grounds to judge a person's character. (I'm not offended by your original remark mind, I thought it was quite funny - personally I never would trust a Scot, ha, ha.)


It is the middle class and social climbers who are the worst snobs.

Yes this is my experience too, generally speaking of course.

In terms of abdication, I can see Paul's point but it just doesn't really happen. The only monarch to voluntary do so in British history was Edward VIII in the Simpson affair, that's since the good old Egbert and Alfred days back in AD 890s. Certainly the "work" of a life of luxury and state visits, being waited on daily and all of that, does obvious wonders for ones health but I can't blame the her for not packing it in. Besides, she has probably read King Lear.

David Cameron is also related to the Queen apparently (or the monarchy in some way) - fingers crossed that he doesn't ........ ........ etc, etc.:smilewinkgrin:

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]They mostly don't step down though do they? Besides the Queen is still pretty mobile and alert so I can't really blame her for not stepping down.

It's worth remembering that the Queen is 85 and if she lives as long as her mother, she will be 101 before she hands in her dinner pail. In which case, Charles will be 79 before he becomes King. If he continues this trend, William will be 67 before he becomes King. So we will finally have rule by gerontocracy.

[MarkBastable]

I like that never broke in gibbering remarks and petty persona remarks....


....er....




Well **** Mark, what can I say - You are just like those PM's who used to say " no no, the black people love being slaves, they are better off for it" and when The abolitionists say "we have brought with us actual slaves to atesst to the truth" you reply "yes sure they may be slaves, but I know far more about slaves than them, because I sir will not change my views acodring to the truth, I shall change the truth acording to my view."

For a guy who attempts to be a witt, you sure do ste yourself up for a lot of ridicoule.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l____R e m i n d e r

Personalised and/or off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

The OP:
Snobbery, or would you say snobbishness, comes in many forms, though maybe they are all basically the same, feeling like one is better than others for some reason. I wonder if it is possible to classify its many types. I suppose we have some obvious ones. I'll try to think of some example.

There could be the intellectual snob, who knows more because he has read more, or something like that.

The travel snob, more aware of the world, he thinks, having been to numerous countries.

A strange one: The "my past was harder than yours" snob, who firmly believes he is better person for having gone through difficulties whereas most others have had an easy time of it in comparison.

Oh, there must be many more. When it comes to things like food, movies, coffee, books, music, clothes, the list can be long.

Add something if you have an idea.

I am not sure whether aristocracy is the biggest source of snobbery today. How many countries do still have a ruling aristocratic class? If we think universally, there are many other areas people show snobbery... Money is the most predominant one, probably. Education? Religion?

How about on the Forum? Don't we consider ourselves better than those who enjoy casual reading as opposed to Joyce or Shakespeare or what have you? Do we not always talk about Richard and Judy's or Oprah's Book Club in disdain? Aren't movies always worse than the books they are based upon? Do we not despair how "they" always buy the "worthless" books, making likes of JK Rowling and Dan Brown both popular and rich? Aren't hardback or special edition books superior to the paperback ones and don't we all simply love buying books to showcase them rather than borrowing them from *gasp* a public library?

PS: I readily admit that I have a snobbish attitude towards those who show above listed tendencies... Please don't tire your fingers out by pointing that out! ;)

[Darcy88]

F i n a l____R e m i n d e r

Personalised and/or off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

The OP:

I am not sure whether aristocracy is the biggest source of snobbery today. How many countries do still have a ruling aristocratic class? If we think universally, there are many other areas people show snobbery... Money is the most predominant one, probably. Education? Religion?

How about on the Forum? Don't we consider ourselves better than those who enjoy casual reading as opposed to Joyce or Shakespeare or what have you? Do we not always talk about Richard and Judy's or Oprah's Book Club in disdain? Aren't movies always worse than the books they are based upon? Do we not despair how "they" always buy the "worthless" books, making likes of JK Rowling and Dan Brown both popular and rich? Aren't hardback or special edition books superior to the paperback ones and don't we all simply love buying books to showcase them rather than borrowing them from *gasp* a public library?

PS: I readily admit that I have a snobbish attitude towards those who show above listed tendencies... Please don't tire your fingers out by pointing that out! ;)

A good question is whether such snobbery is not actually a good thing. I started reading books and getting educated because it made me feel like a better person. I apply myself at school or at work because I don't want to feel like a stupid lazy bum. The same snobbish sentiments I show towards the philistines I do not hesitate to heap upon myself when I am ignorant about something.

Ignorance and a lack of taste are bad, their opposites good, and therefore it seems that a certain degree of snobbishness is entirely justified.

[Emil Miller]

A good question is whether such snobbery is not actually a good thing. I started reading books and getting educated because it made me feel like a better person. I apply myself at school or at work because I don't want to feel like a stupid lazy bum. The same snobbish sentiments I show towards the philistines I do not hesitate to heap upon myself when I am ignorant about something.

Ignorance and a lack of taste are bad, their opposites good, and therefore it seems that a certain degree of snobbishness is entirely justified.

Aren't you confusing snobbishness with self-respect?

[Darcy88]

Aren't you confusing snobbishness with self-respect?

No, because the opposite of those qualities I respect in myself I am snobbish towards when they are present in others.

[Scheherazade]

A good question is whether such snobbery is not actually a good thing.It is a good question, indeed. My answer would be "no".

Like Emil points out, if it is your wish to "improve" yourself by reading certain books, that is fine; however, in my opinion, it is not acceptable to show contempt towards those who do not share your enthusiasm on the subject.

My best friend is a keen reader but he does not care about fiction at all and spends all his free time reading philosophical and scientific (particularly physics) books. According to him, reading fiction, no matter how "great" the books might be, is a waste of precious time. He does not consider it an improvement at all and probably feels towards us fiction-readers the way you feel towards the "casual" readers.

[Darcy88]

It is a good question, indeed. My answer would be "no".

Like Emil points out, if it is your wish to "improve" yourself by reading certain books, that is fine; however, in my opinion, it is not acceptable to show contempt towards those who do not share your enthusiasm on the subject.

My best friend is a keen reader but he does not care about fiction at all and spends all his free time reading philosophical and scientific (particularly physics) books. According to him, reading fiction, no matter how "great" the books might be, is a waste of precious time. He does not consider it an improvement at all and probably feels towards us fiction-readers the way you feel towards the "casual" readers.

What about someone who never reads? Someone who has free time but rather than seek to enrich their minds instead sit around doing nothing but play video games or watch the tube? I know people who haven't picked up a book in years.

I'm not saying such people are bad or contemptible in themselves. But their aliteracy as an aspect of who they are is itself deserving of a negative reaction.

[Paulclem]

Ignorance and a lack of taste are bad, their opposites good, and therefore it seems that a certain degree of snobbishness is entirely justified.

I would say no too. Attainment of good qualities and skills are one thing. Attitude is another. Snobbery is a bad attitude, whether the person is well read or not. I don't see that they correllate. You're justifying looking down on people, judging them, making assumptions about them etc based upon a very limited criteria.

Ignorence has many causes and effects, and perpetuates ignorence in itself.

Lack of taste is an opinion, and is no more real than saying one team is inherently better than another.

[MarkBastable]

What about someone who never reads? Someone who has free time but rather than seek to enrich their minds instead sit around doing nothing but play video games or watch the tube? I know people who haven't picked up a book in years.

I'm not saying such people are bad or contemptible in themselves. But their aliteracy as an aspect of who they are is itself deserving of a negative reaction.

There are two quite separate things here.

First, you ask us to consider people who don't read. I don't think anyone can get sniffy about people who don't read - and I say that as a writer. Reading is one of many ways to pass the time, or enrich the soul, or learn stuff - but it's not the only way, and it's not obligatory either. I know plenty of people (my mum, for a start) who don't read much, if at all. They have other things to do, and good luck to them.

Second, you ask us to consider those who 'sit around doing nothing but play video games or watch the tube' - though you seem to think that they're doing that rather than reading, which is not necessarily true. They might be doing that rather than fishing, or painting, or gardening, or making models of the Houses of Parliament out of matchsticks.

So, in order to be clear why they are 'deserving of a negative reaction', I think you ought to say whether

a) it's the fact that they aren't reading that upsets you (and you'd feel the same if they spent their bookless days counting daisies rather than watching TV),

or whether

b) it's the fact that they are watching TV that upsets you (and you wouldn't feel so negative if they were doing something - anything - that you considered more 'enriching', even if it wasn't reading).

[Darcy88]

There are two quite separate things here.

First, you ask us to consider people who don't read. I don't think anyone can get sniffy about people who don't read - and I say that as a writer. Reading is one of many ways to pass the time, or enrich the soul, or learn stuff - but it's not the only way, and it's not obligatory either. I know plenty of people (my mum, for a start) who don't read much, if at all. They have other things to do, and good luck to them.

Second, you ask us to consider those who 'sit around doing nothing but play video games or watch the tube' - though you seem to think that they're doing that rather than reading, which is not necessarily true. They might be doing that rather than fishing, or painting, or gardening, or making models of the Houses of Parliament out of matchsticks.

So, in order to be clear why they are 'deserving of a negative reaction', I think you ought to say whether

a) it's the fact that they aren't reading that upsets you (and you'd feel the same if they spent their bookless days counting daisies rather than watching TV),

or whether

b) it's the fact that they are watching TV that upsets you (and you wouldn't feel so negative if they were doing something - anything - that you considered more 'enriching', even if it wasn't reading).

All things being equal, I respect someone who spends their free time reading more than someone who spends it in front of the tube. If I'm depressed and end up on the couch watching television all day instead of sitting at my desk reading I lose my self-respect too. If reading is too narrow a focus then I would extend my point to include all intellectual and cultural pursuits. My brother hardly ever reads but he spends his time writing and playing music and that is no less praiseworthy than my own literary activities. I mentioned reading because we're on a literature forum and the post I was responding to spoke of snobbery related to books.


I would say no too. Attainment of good qualities and skills are one thing. Attitude is another. Snobbery is a bad attitude, whether the person is well read or not. I don't see that they correllate. You're justifying looking down on people, judging them, making assumptions about them etc based upon a very limited criteria.

Ignorence has many causes and effects, and perpetuates ignorence in itself.

Lack of taste is an opinion, and is no more real than saying one team is inherently better than another.

There are good opinions and bad opinions. Not all opinions are equal. The person who says "Shakespeare is ****" is quite simply wrong. The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking. It only shows the laughable absurdity that the notion of equality has become when an attitude like mine is rejected by intelligent people.

[BienvenuJDC]

All things being equal, I respect someone who spends their free time reading more than someone who spends it in front of the tube. If I'm depressed and end up on the couch watching television all day instead of sitting at my desk reading I lose my self-respect too. If reading is too narrow a focus then I would extend my point to include all intellectual and cultural pursuits. My brother hardly ever reads but he spends his time writing and playing music and that is no less praiseworthy than my own literary activities. I mentioned reading because we're on a literature forum and the post I was responding to spoke of snobbery related to books.



There are good opinions and bad opinions. Not all opinions are equal. The person who says "Shakespeare is ****" is quite simply wrong. The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking. It only shows the laughable absurdity that the notion of equality has become when an attitude like mine is rejected by intelligent people.

You have to ask WHY they don't read. Is it just because they are lazy, or maybe they have such learning disabilities that makes reading (more than road signs and food packages) extremely difficult. There are people who don't read books that are able to do things mechanically that would make our heads spin. So we need to be careful concerning our judgments on other folks.

[Jack of Hearts]

My Landlord is a Peer of the Realm - not one of your Johnnie-come-lately peers, but an old fashioned, came-across-with-the-Conqueror, peer. When he comes to his shooting lodge in August (for the grouse,) we tenents are invited to a soiree, and rub shoulders with his family and friends (minor royals, millionaires, lairds etc - ladies who smell nice.)

What can I say, they are dissappointingly nice people, no snobbery at all. I think it is because they are established and confident in their position. It is the middle class and social climbers who are the worst snobs.

This reader is a pretty good peer himself. Coupla bottles of Aquafina and we're off to the race-horses. Erm, races.







J

[Buh4Bee]

Yes, I suppose I could consider myself a literary snob.

[YesNo]

I try my best not to be a snob, but how someone else perceives me is another matter. I don't think I know enough about any topic to not learn something from someone else, but that doesn't mean I won't disagree.

Regarding reading or the tube, it occurred to me that people are probably on their computers more than they are watching TV in their spare time. My niece who brags that she doesn't ever, ever read anything, is often gabbering away on Facebook. Not only is she reading, but writing as well.

[MarkBastable]

How about on the Forum?

Don't we consider ourselves better than those who enjoy casual reading as opposed to Joyce or Shakespeare or what have you?

Hang on - is this a totally inclusive 'we'. Coz I don't.

Do we not always talk about Richard and Judy's or Oprah's Book Club in disdain?

Nope, don't think so.

Aren't movies always worse than the books they are based upon?

No, not always. In fact, if it's Tolkien, the movies are way better.

Do we not despair how "they" always buy the "worthless" books, making likes of JK Rowling and Dan Brown both popular and rich?

Nuh-uh. Got nothing against the people who buy the books. Just not keen on Dan.

Aren't hardback or special edition books superior to the paperback ones and don't we all simply love buying books to showcase them rather than borrowing them from *gasp* a public library?

Certainly not. I never buy hardbacks.

That's a hell of a 'we' you got there. And I suspect I'm not the only one who wouldn't sign up to it. I'm not sure you would either, really.

[Paulclem]

.



There are good opinions and bad opinions. Not all opinions are equal. The person who says "Shakespeare is ****" is quite simply wrong. The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking. It only shows the laughable absurdity that the notion of equality has become when an attitude like mine is rejected by intelligent people.


I wouldn't say that there are good and bad opinions. I might say an opinion has a positive or negative effect, and in my view that's the only kind of opinion that really matters - the one for good or ill. Whether someone thinks Shakey is ***** is neither here nor there. (I don't by the way). In fact both opinions can be valid if justified by a good argument. It's still only an opinion though.

The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking.

I think this is a highly suspect statement. Why would a person never read - books presumably? Illiteracy? better things to do? Using the computer instead? Are an immigrant whose English is a second language? A friend of mine in secondary school never read a book in his life - and - I was surprised to find out, neither did a number of my other mates. They were in no way ignorent - unless of course they couldn't chat about Tolstoy - but then they might if they had seen the film, or a documentary on him.

I'd reject your attitude because it is laden with rather unspecific assumptions about people who don't read books. I think equality is another matter.

[Jack of Hearts]

I try my best not to be a snob, but how someone else perceives me is another matter. I don't think I know enough about any topic to not learn something from someone else, but that doesn't mean I won't disagree.

Regarding reading or the tube, it occurred to me that people are probably on their computers more than they are watching TV in their spare time. My niece who brags that she doesn't ever, ever read anything, is often gabbering away on Facebook. Not only is she reading, but writing as well.

Well there's reading and then there's reading. Does she go into italics when she reads?

For the other part of the convo: This putting the reading on the pedestal always makes this poster laugh. It's no 'peer' joke though.








J

[MarkBastable]

The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking.

Simply not true.

[Scheherazade]

That's a hell of a 'we' you got there. And I suspect I'm not the only one who wouldn't sign up to it. I'm not sure you would either, really.Dunno. So far you are the only who objected to my post in this manner.

I should apologise, though. I had meant to say "apart from Mark".

Just in case this was overlooked in my original post...

PS: I readily admit that I have a snobbish attitude towards those who show above listed tendencies... Please don't tire your fingers out by pointing that out! ;)
Well there's reading and then there's reading. Does she go into italics when she reads?

For the other part of the convo: This putting the reading on the pedestal always makes this poster laugh. It's no 'peer' joke though.Aren't the former and latter parts of this post somewhat contradicting?

[BienvenuJDC]

I have discovered that "we" all really do love each other....just like family! We bicker like family, we chat like family, and we even love to despise each other...just like family. But in the end, we really do love each other here. ...or maybe this is just like "Cheers" where ...Everybody knows your name...

[Jack of Hearts]

Hopefully not. There's some really dry humor at play here.








J

[BienvenuJDC]

Hopefully not. There's some really dry humor at play here.


J

How does dry humor compare to dry wine?

[Drkshadow03]

And whose opinion would be more "objective"? The one who is involved (emotionally, psychologically, intellectually and so on) or the one who is an observer (with minimal personal involvement)?



Isn't that more problematic? The person inside the culture will still have insight, experiences, and see elements that may be invisible to an outsider. And how do we know the observer (with minimal personal involvement) isn't judging things from his own cultural assumptions? Or the sources of information that they can educate themselves with (books, talking to people, living there and interacting with the people) isn't tainted emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, etc.

[MarkBastable]

Dunno. So far you are the only who objected to my post in this manner.

I should apologise, though. I had meant to say "apart from Mark".

Just in case this was overlooked in my original post...

I didn't object to it. I disagreed with it.

Well, good. I shall forgive you on this occasion.

And, yeah, I did see that bit of the original post, but I assumed you were being disarmingly ironic.


How does dry humor compare to dry wine?

I produce the former and consume the latter.

[BienvenuJDC]

I produce the former and consume the latter.

Oh, but Mark, you contrasted them, I asked for a comparison.

[Jack of Hearts]

Haha!






J

[MarkBastable]

Fair point. You keep up this level of pedantry and I'll consider admitting you to the club.

[BienvenuJDC]

Fair point. You keep up this level of pedantry and I'll consider admitting you to the club.

:banana:

[Scheherazade]

Isn't that more problematic? The person inside the culture will still have insight, experiences, and see elements that may be invisible to an outsider. And how do we know the observer (with minimal personal involvement) isn't judging things from his own cultural assumptions? Or the sources of information (books, talking to people, living there and interacting with the people) isn't tainted emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, etc.).Should the gymnasts be the judge of their own performances in the competitions? Take the word of dictators or different political regimes that their own people are happy rather than sending in international observers? Are parents the best to judge their children's talents?

And most importantly, should we rely on JBI's opinion that Canada is waaaayyy better than the USA?
I didn't object to it. I disagreed with it.Isn't objection is a form of expressing disagreement?

And, yeah, I did see that bit of the original post, but I assumed you were being disarmingly ironic.You give me too much credit.

[MarkBastable]

Isn't objection is a form of expressing disagreement?

Objection may be a form of disagreement, but disagreement isn't necessarily a form of objection. For instance, I may disagree that fox hunting is fun, but that doesn't mean I object to it.

(See, Bien, these are the standards of pedantry necessary. It's a tough job.)

[BienvenuJDC]

[QUOTE=Scheherazade;1117937]Isn't objection is a form of expressing disagreement?QUOTE]

Objection may be a form of disagreement, but disagreement isn't necessarily a form of objection. For instance, I may disagree that fox hunting is fun, but that doesn't mean I object to it.

(See, Bien, these are the standards of pedantry necessary. It's a tough job.)

Now what is wrong with Fox Hunting?
http://img.alibaba.com/wsphoto/v0/510057791_1/Free-shipping-7-pieces-luxurious-faux-fur-sexy-fox-costume-Orange-white-black-wholesales-Cat-woman.jpg

[Scheherazade]

(See, Bien, these are the standards of pedantry necessary. It's a tough job.)Yeah, like picking on the ESOL girl...

*sigh*

[Drkshadow03]

Should the gymnasts be the judge of their own performances in the competitions? Take the word of dictators or different political regimes that their own people are happy rather than sending in international observers? Are parents the best to judge their children's talents?

And most importantly, should we rely on JBI's opinion that Canada is waaaayyy better than the USA?

The judges can only judge the gymnasts because more than likely they themselves were once gymnasts and understand proper execution of the moves. So they are in fact working from personal experience.

As a teacher, my experience has been parents can go either way. Occasionally, parents can be very good judges of their child's talent and behaviors, which has given me insight on something I'm missing to help them improve; but they also can be some of the worst judges too.

I'm not touching the dictator one, the whole no discussion of politics on the forum might call on the wrath of the moderators. :smilewinkgrin:

[Darcy88]

The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking.

Simply not true.

All I know is that nearly every intelligent person I've ever come to know either reads or likes to read. Over my life I've worked alongside dozens of people, been friends with dozens of people, have in whatever way come to know many, many more, and this rule holds true for an almost total percentage. There are exceptions yes, but I said "likely," not "definitely."

When I said "people who don't read" I specifically referred to people who are literate and have free time but who simply never pick up a book. I know such people. None of them are particularly sharp.

And I question whether someone substantially ignorant of science, culture, philosophy, of the whole higher experience of man's mind, could be called "intelligent." The word has an ambiguous meaning that could be stretched to include a vast assortment of individual intellectual capacities, but in a general sense, the one most of us mean when we use it most of the time, it is unlikely to be correctly applied to one who NEVER reads anything other than a road sign, cooking recipe or user manual.

[BienvenuJDC]

All I know is that nearly every intelligent person I've ever come to know either reads or likes to read. Over my life I've worked alongside dozens of people, been friends with dozens of people, have in whatever way come to know many, many more, and this rule holds true for an almost total percentage. There are exceptions yes, but I said "likely," not "definitely."

When I said "people who don't read" I specifically referred to people who are literate and have free time but who simply never pick up a book. I know such people. None of them are particularly sharp.

And I question whether someone substantially ignorant of science, culture, philosophy, of the whole higher experience of man's mind, could be called "intelligent." The word has an ambiguous meaning that could be stretched to include a vast assortment of individual intellectual capacities, but in a general sense, the one most of us mean when we use it most of the time, it is unlikely to be correctly applied to one who NEVER reads anything other than a road sign, cooking recipe or user manual.

Consider redefining "intelligent" then. Your view of that word may be too narrow.

[Darcy88]

Consider redefining "intelligent" then. Your view of that word may be too narrow.

I originally said that its unlikely for someone who never reads to be correctly considered intelligent, intellectually speaking. My experience is in line with this assertion. Is it really that controversial to say that, generally speaking, intelligent people read? I've moved in many circles and worked countless jobs and this is the honest impression I've received. For real, looking back at everyone I've gotten to know in my life I struggle to find even a few people possessed of an above average level of intelligence who did not read at all, ever. Even the intelligent ones who never think to read a classic still seek out some book of popular science or contemporary fiction, thus proving that they have in themselves the interest and curiosity for knowledge and beauty that is the hallmark of intelligence.

Actually never mind. I'm just going to discount my experience and assume it was singularly unrepresentative. And my definition of intelligence may be too narrow, but its also possible that many on this thread uphold a definition that is too broad.

[MarkBastable]

"I originally said that its unlikely for someone who never reads to be correctly considered intelligent..."

If I've identified the original statement, you actually said,

"The person who never reads is likely an ignorant person, intellectually speaking."

'Ignorant' isn't the opposite of 'intelligent'. The first is to do with knowing stuff. The latter is the capacity for thinking about stuff. So, to stress the difference, there are many things of which any intelligent person is ignorant.

In the general context in which you used 'ignorant', it would appear to mean 'people who don't read are unlikely to know much about intellectual things'.

As I say, I don't think that's true - even with the qualifier 'likely'. I can see how you could make an argument for this though.

Then you said, its unlikely for someone who never reads to be correctly considered intelligent.

That, I'd say, is even less convincing. Many, many highly-intelligent people perceive and process the world without ever reading, either for pleasure or, unless it's functionally necessary, for practical purposes. In business, for instance, I've noticed a high correlation between creative entrepreneurial skills and a complete lack of interest in books.

That's my experience, which is contrary to yours, evidently.

[billl]

My experience with people who write the code that drives, for example, the computers we're using is that a lot of them spend almost no (heck, absolutely no) time reading novels or short stories or poetry, at least for some of the most prolific periods in their professional (and hobbyist) lives. It would be difficult to find a group less interested in classic literature, I think--but fans of Neal Stephenson, etc. would have some representation among them.

Still, they are pretty damn "intelligent".

[JuniperWoolf]

Dunno. So far you are the only who objected to my post in this manner.

*throws in hat*

I'm really not as you described, because I only read library books (except for when I can weasel other people into buying books for me), I read things that snobs scoff at just to be contrary and also I can think of several movies that are better than the book. The Shining for example - has anyone here ever actually read that book? It's crap. Lolita too (yeah, that's right).


How does dry humor compare to dry wine?

They are both very intoxicating.


All I know is that nearly every intelligent person I've ever come to know either reads or likes to read.

*shrug* I used to think my stepfather was stupid until he showed me a fully functioning cannon he built from bits of scrap metal that were left around his shop. Very few of the science and math students that I know care about literature either (but some do).

[Scheherazade]

The judges can only judge the gymnasts because more than likely they themselves were once gymnasts and understand proper execution of the moves. So they are in fact working from personal experience. They are not working from a personal experience but from a professional one. They are qualified to pass on unbiased and objective judgement (as much as possible).
I'm not touching the dictator one, the whole no discussion of politics on the forum might call on the wrath of the moderators. :smilewinkgrin:Clever move. One never knows what these moderators will do.

[Darcy88]

[I]
In the general context in which you used 'ignorant', it would appear to mean 'people who don't read are unlikely to know much about intellectual things'.

As I say, I don't think that's true - even with the qualifier 'likely'. I can see how you could make an argument for this though.


Okay, I'm sure I've said some incorrect things throughout this thread, but what you say there is flat out at odds with the obvious reality. It is likely that someone who never reads books is going to be ignorant of intellectual things. How can this particular assertion be disputed? I'm not merely talking about classic literature. I said BOOKS - period. That includes scientific works.

[MarkBastable]

Okay, I'm sure I've said some incorrect things throughout this thread, but what you say there is flat out at odds with the obvious reality. It is likely that someone who never reads books is going to be ignorant of intellectual things. How can this particular assertion be disputed? I'm not merely talking about classic literature. I said BOOKS - period. That includes scientific works.

As I say, you can make an argument for that one - and you'd make it by defining 'intellectual' in terms of what's contained in books. That's a supportable premise, perhaps.

It's the other assertion - 'correctly called intelligent' - that I most object to. And not only do I object to it, I disagree with it too. (Just so you know, Scheh.)

[Darcy88]

As I say, you can make an argument for that one - and you'd make it by defining 'intellectual' in terms of what's contained in books. That's a supportable premise, perhaps.

It's the other assertion - 'correctly called intelligent' - that I most object to. I disagree with it too. (Just so you know, Scheh.)

I'm talking about likelihoods, not about absolutes. I'll still contend that is unlikely for someone who never reads, and I am talking about one who doesn't pick up a book over entire spans of many years, to be intelligent. Doesn't mean they are stupid, but I highly doubt that much of what comes out of their mouths will be of a very intellectually stimulating quality.

[MarkBastable]

I'm talking about likelihoods, not about absolutes. I'll still contend that is unlikely for someone who never reads, and I am talking about one who doesn't pick up a book over entire spans of many years, to be intelligent. Doesn't mean they are stupid, but I highly doubt that much of what comes out of their mouths will be of a very intellectually stimulating quality.

Yeah, I know. You said that. Would you like me to disagree with it again?

[Darcy88]

Yeah, I know. You said that. Would you like me to disagree with it again?

You disagree but you don't offer contrary evidence or experiences.

[BienvenuJDC]

You disagree but you don't offer contrary evidence or experiences.

Wisdom doesn't come from a book, but it comes from life experience.

[Darcy88]

Wisdom doesn't come from a book, but it comes from life experience.

I agree. I've just noticed that the wisest people, those most adept at distilling wisdom from experience, also typically display a fondness for the written word.

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree. I've just noticed that the wisest people, those most adept at distilling wisdom from experience, also typically display a fondness for the written word.

It could be that you're typically more likely to associate with book lovers.

[Darcy88]

It could be that you're typically more likely to associate with book lovers.

I understand why that might occur to you but its not the case. I've worked with many crews on farms or in restaurants or in construction. You don't pick your co-workers. You also don't pick your family and as a result of my grandparents' great reproductive profligacy I have too many aunts, uncles and cousins to name.

I still struggle to come up with even a few intelligent people who have shown absolutely no liking or tendency to read.

I'm not saying if that if you don't read you're stupid. The average level of intelligence far exceeds stupidity. But to call someone intelligent actually means something to me. It implies a keen mind, a high intellectual capacity, an uncommon adeptness with words, ideas, images.... I don't know. The very ambiguity of the term intelligence makes discussion rather difficult.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The Shining for example - has anyone here ever actually read that book? It's crap.
I've gotta call BS on that one. The book's amazing. One of King's best. The movie is good, but the ending is so lamely anti-climactic it ruins it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I understand why that might occur to you but its not the case. I've worked with many crews on farms or in restaurants or in construction. You don't pick your co-workers. You also don't pick your family and as a result of my grandparents' great reproductive profligacy I have too many aunts, uncles and cousins to name.

I still struggle to come up with even a few intelligent people who have shown absolutely no liking or tendency to read.

ok...I work in construction management...so, I can tell you that MOST construction workers are just idiots. I'll refrain from comments about farmers and restaurant workers as well. It may also be the new generation of workers that are drawn to those professions as well. I wonder how demographics affect that as well.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've gotta call BS on that one. The book's amazing. One of King's best. The movie is good, but the ending is so lamely anti-climactic it ruins it.

ok...now according to the rulebook? Do you have to have a BS card in your hand in order to call BS? And do you have to wait until your turn comes around?

http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=300&uid=678007378

[Darcy88]

ok...I work in construction management...so, I can tell you that MOST construction workers are just idiots. I'll refrain from comments about farmers and restaurant workers as well. It may also be the new generation of workers that are drawn to those professions as well. I wonder how demographics affect that as well.

A lot of them are idiots. But here its a pretty well-paying occupation and so you get all kinds. Generalizing about construction workers here is as impossible as generalizing about nurses, police-men or teachers. One summer I worked on a house with a crew of four. Three of them were half-witted hooligans who all gave me mean looks when I would break out Jane Eyre on lunch breaks. The other guy was one of the intelligent people I keep mentioning and though he had never read on a job site before he took my cue and began reading a book on neuroscience whenever there was a break in the action.

[BienvenuJDC]

A lot of them are idiots. But here its a pretty well-paying occupation and so you get all kinds. Generalizing about construction workers here is as impossible as generalizing about nurses, police-men or teachers. One summer I worked on a house with a crew of four. Three of them were half-witted hooligans who all gave me mean looks when I would break out Jane Eyre on lunch breaks. The other guy was one of the intelligent people I keep mentioning and though he had never read on a job site before he took my cue and began reading a book on neuroscience whenever there was a break in the action.

Usually the more intellectual minded people end up in the office in project management. However, some of the intelligent ones that just don't want to end up in an office become foremen.

[Darcy88]

Usually the more intellectual minded people end up in the office in project management. However, some of the intelligent ones that just don't want to end up in an office become foremen.

Yeah, this guy on my crew was very intelliegent and also quite musically gifted, but he had issues with depression and substance abuse. It sounds like you deal with a much larger operation than I've ever been a part of. My boss was just a guy with a lot of contacts and he would phone up people who knew how to work when a particular job came up. The last time I saw him he threatened my life and I wound up spending the next week held up in my house with a gun at my side because he was a very scary man. True story.

[MarkBastable]

You disagree but you don't offer contrary evidence or experiences.

Well, neither of us has produced any evidence, because we're both basing our view on personal experience. However, I did give a very specific example from my experience.

Still, shall we agree to differ and leave it at that?

[JuniperWoolf]

I've gotta call BS on that one. The book's amazing. One of King's best. The movie is good, but the ending is so lamely anti-climactic it ruins it.

What?!? You're crazy, the movie was waaaay better and the book wouldn't even qualify as "meh." Next you'll be telling me that you liked Carrie as a book more than as a film.


I agree. I've just noticed that the wisest people, those most adept at distilling wisdom from experience, also typically display a fondness for the written word.

My 2nd year psychology professor said that the one group of people that he above all wouldn't want to be lost in the woods with is professors. They'd just argue about what should be done for hours, no one would end up doing anything and everyone would freeze to death. The ability to actually do practical stuff is a form of intelligence (a superior form in my opinion, the ability to survive trumps having read Dostoevsky), and in that regard book-folk are generally lacking. If someone reads books that's great, but it doesn't mean that they can fix their own car, or build a fire, or find their own food in any way besides monetary exchange, or de-fuse a crackhead who wants to stab you, or do literally anything useful at all at a crash site, ect...

There are obvious exceptions to all generalizations, experience with literature doesn't preclude practical intelligence, Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance blah blah blah. I'm just saying, I know hundreds of people who aren't into books and I'd trust them to get me through any potenetially dangerous situation before I'd trust some English student or something. My father is one such person. Actually my whole town is crawling with them, people with rough hands who know how to handle just about anything, and yet not once when I was a teenager working at the video store did a single one of them recognize any of the books that I read at the counter.

[Darcy88]

What?!? You're crazy, the movie was waaaay better and the book wouldn't even qualify as "meh." Next you'll be telling me that you liked Carrie as a book more than as a film.



My 2nd year psychology professor said that the one group of people that he above all wouldn't want to be lost in the woods with is professors. They'd just argue about what should be done for hours, no one would end up doing anything and everyone would freeze to death. The ability to actually do practical stuff is a form of intelligence (a superior form in my opinion, the ability to survive trumps having read Dostoevsky), and in that regard book-folk are generally lacking. If someone reads books that's great, but it doesn't mean that they can fix their own car, or build a fire, or find their own food in any way besides monetary exchange, or de-fuse a crackhead who wants to stab you, or do literally anything useful at all at a crash site, ect...

There are obvious exceptions to all generalizations, experience with literature doesn't preclude practical intelligence, Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance blah blah blah. I'm just saying, I know hundreds of people who aren't into books and I'd trust them to get me through any potenetially dangerous situation before I'd trust some English student or something. My father is one such person. Actually my whole town is crawling with them, people with rough hands who know how to handle just about anything, and yet not once when I was a teenager working at the video store did a single one of them recognize any of the books that I read at the counter.

I'm not really talking about "practical" intelligence. I've met some real dumbasses who are gifted when it comes to fixing cars or surviving in the bush or overcoming many other common challenges. I give them credit and think that much of what they can do is impressive. But have a long conversation with them and not much of an intellectually stimulating nature will come out of their mouths. Science, politics, art and philosophy are all hazy subjects to them. I don't understand why people are so loathe to admit that there is a clear division between people with sharp intelligent minds and people without. An unintelligent person beholds the political spectacle and his or her understanding fails to penetrate beyond the rhetoric of the day. The intelligent person espies principles which like eternal platonic forms shape and determine that rhetoric. The intelligent ones, even if they don't read Dostoevsky or Sarte, in my experience typically display a liking for books. The more intelligent the person often the more pronounced this liking happens to be. There are exceptions of course, I'm merely speaking about general trends.

[MarkBastable]

I don't understand why people are so loathe to admit that there is a clear division between people with sharp intelligent minds and people without.

Perhaps it's because we lack the necessary sharp intelligent minds.

[Darcy88]

Perhaps it's because we lack the necessary sharp intelligent minds.

No. Your mind is evidently sharp and intelligent, as are those of the others who have been debating me on this topic. I really think I'm just using the term "intelligence" in a focused and specific way that you and the others regard as too limited and exclusive.

[jajdude]

Is all this discussion some type of snobbery about books or something? I'm not sure that well-read people are necessarily intelligent, though maybe they can sound like it and probably have a good vocabulary. Some people are full of knowledge, other people's ideas, and some you can't tell the difference between what is their own or another person's thoughts. I recall a few university profs who were like this, arrogant and so on, believing themselves to be brilliant scholars or whatever. It's a nice delusion I guess. Of course they were awful to talk to and quick to disregard something they disagreed with. Fortunately they were more the exception among the general down to earth ones. Maybe it's possible to have read too much and have your thoughts clouded by what others have said. Clear intelligent thinking, I would guess, doesn't depend on having your head full of ideas from others.

[JuniperWoolf]

I really think I'm just using the term "intelligence" in a focused and specific way that you and the others regard as too limited and exclusive.

I think that this is exactly true. Intelligence is very complicated. I've met cognitive scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to sorting it out, different forms of intelligence, whether it changes over time, whether one form is related to another, ect. It's too complex for a topic of forum discussion.

[KCurtis]

*throws in hat*

I'm really not as you described, because I only read library books (except for when I can weasel other people into buying books for me), I read things that snobs scoff at just to be contrary and also I can think of several movies that are better than the book. The Shining for example - has anyone here ever actually read that book? It's crap. Lolita too (yeah, that's right).


But that is your opinion. While I can see an argument for the Shining, I cannot for Lolita.
I think that the Shining may be better as a movie, I've read the book too. Lolita is a beautifully written book, a very disturbing story. I read it once, and when I attempted to read it again I couldn't- I had started to work at a middle school, and the students I had were 12 and 13 year old girls; I had to put the book down.


I think that this is exactly true. Intelligence is very complicated. I've met cognitive scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to sorting it out, different forms of intelligence, whether it changes over time, whether one form is related to another, ect. It's too complex for a topic of forum discussion.

I agree. And intelligence is so complex that measuring it with I.Q. tests is inaccurate. My son (who has a cognitive and mental disability) has had numerous I.Q. tests, which did change over time, depending on how the test was given. He has a love of literature and language, and was read to every night until age 16, because he reads at a 3rd grade level, but when he had someone read to him his comprehension was right up there. His intelligence is a mystery.

[Darcy88]

I think that this is exactly true. Intelligence is very complicated. I've met cognitive scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to sorting it out, different forms of intelligence, whether it changes over time, whether one form is related to another, ect. It's too complex for a topic of forum discussion.

True enough. I did originally say that "people who never read are likely to be ignorant, intellectually speaking," meaning they are likely to be ignorant of intellectual things. This statement is bullet-proof, my latter one about intelligence and aliteracy much less so, though still arguable.

[Paulclem]

I always find holding preconceptions about people is unhelpful. Rather than stand by an intellectualised opinion, let them reveal themselves to you. The difference is that preconceptions cloud our judgements, and we might miss their value, and, if we hold such preconceptions, it does reveal itself in our attitudes. People are sensitive to this and respond accordingly to labelling.

I mention it because you seem to have retreated into a cast iron castle of opinion.