Chuckles has sent this along:
One segment of the population that I’m actually quite fond of, and whose interests I try to advocate and work towards is the group I’ll call Smart Rednecks.
This group tends to be in the same IQ range as the ‘Second Sigma’—i.e., between around 115 to 130—but generally tends to be stronger in mathematics and spatial relationships (especially) than verbal IQ. They very frequently work as techs, contractors, or highly skilled trades. An associates degree is the most common level of education for them, followed by a high school diploma.
There appears to be a strong thread of independence in this group—one friend of mine who fits into this category tells me he has NEVER had anyone who he called ‘boss’, just customer. They tend to know a LOT of useful skills, often including things like flying helicopters and airplanes.
I honestly see a lot more actual intellectual curiousity from them than I see from the Second Sigma types. They almost always have a fair set of real interests where they have read a lot and where applicable, actually practiced. They tend to often be interested in meaningful discourse with you, but only if you can demonstrate that what you’re talking about can be used to make good predictions or actual useful products. They’ve got little use for studies.
Read the rest of that at the end of the link. One demographic they tend not to like is the academic. Having known academics of various hues, I’d agree on the new academic – someone post 70s – and much of that comes down to political factors. Higher education is crawling with leftists at this time.
A girl came up to me at university a few years back and asked if I could explain a text – might have been Bloom’s Taxonomy, can’t remember. I looked at her required reading pages [she wasn't my student], then answered: “No.” I explained that I would but I couldn’t. It was total BS [though I didn’t put it in those words.
To say that immediately labels me as non-academic and non-intellectual among that lot. Sorry but I’m just as academic as them in my foundations of education work – it’s just that I don’t adopt the esoteric BS to make myself appear beyond question. “OK,” I said to the girl, “let me have it again and I’ll translate it into English.”
“But it is in English.”
“Sorry but it’s not. It’s in a weird language clear thinkers call Gobbledegook – many writers, especially academics, adopt it.” So I gritted the teeth, set to it and translated one page and it was heavy going, I can tell you. At the end of that, I explained the fourfold concept he’d been going on about and she asked: “Why couldn’t he have just written that?”
“To make life near-impossible for the student, “I replied. “A noble cause.”
She looked at me strangely. “But you’re sometimes incomprehensible to me too.”
“Yes, I suffer the disease too but I’m seeking a cure.”
On the other hand, the philosophers have had their place and the thinktanks of today often have too – Adam Smith and American Thinker, for example but not the CFR or Institute for Policy Studies and so there’s a situation of having to separate the wheat from the chaff, from the tares. Difficult to do unless you waste an hour of your life trying to work it out.
What would be nice is if the ideas of the people Chuckles mentions are able to to be put into print form for people to follow. True millions of little blogs out there do that but they are, of course, largely unknown. This blog attempts to do that in its own modest way.
Needs a major publication though to get it to more people.