I sometimes use the term: culture of poverty. When I say this, I am not referring to a particular culture, rather to cultural characteristics that tend to lead to poverty. I am of the opinion that this, rather than circumstances of birth, chance, or oppression, is the leading cause of poverty worldwide. For example, if your culture does not value and encourage hard work, planning for the future, or education, you are very likely to be poor, but if your culture values and encourages all three, it considerably less likely.
But there are many kinds of poverty, material poverty being only one of them. Many years ago, being single and spending very little time at home, I decided to rent an apartment in a poor suburb of Tel Aviv. The people who lived there were indeed weak in the values mentioned above. Nevertheless, they led spiritually rich lives – they just had fewer things. The typical home was made of cinderblocks, and had a tin roof. Of course, there was no central heating, and the furniture was ragged and worn. But life was good. People were open and honest, and had friends nearby whom they cared about. Families were tight. While probably over 95% were below the US poverty line, I think they led better lives than the average American. One of the things that confuses Americans about the nature of poverty, is that in the US material and spiritual poverty are almost invariably seen together. Being poor in the US really is horrible, not because of material want, but because being poor means living in a crime-ridden drug-infested neighborhood, and the only way to get out is to have money.
I’ve been thinking lately about intellectuals, wondering how so many smart people can be so wrong. Bunker Mulligan has been thinking about it too. I really do believe that the IQ of the average intellectual is way above average, why then is their WQ (wisdom quotient) usually so much lower than average? It occurs to me that they must be handicapped by a culture of intellectual poverty. What are the characteristics of this culture? Here’s my first attempt:
1. Fear of failure (lack of courage)
2. Belief that life is a zero-sum game (one person’s gain is another’s loss)
3. Belief that they can learn nothing from their “inferiors”
4. Unwillingness to empirically test their hypotheses
5. Unwillingness to intellectually confront their detractors
6. Willingness to lie for a “good reason”
7. Belief that ultimately, life is meaningless
UPDATE: John Ray writes, "I think it's simpler than that: Success leads to arrogance and it takes a strong character to resist that."
Posted by David Boxenhorn at October 5, 2004 01:41 PMIMHO, that is why the Jews are so envied. They are always spiritually rich.
Posted by: jinnderella at October 5, 2004 08:31 PM PermalinkOh! I should have said "culturally rich"! Or are they the same thing?
Posted by: jinnderella at October 5, 2004 08:34 PM PermalinkMy neighborhood in Beersheva is similar to the one you describe in Tel Aviv. From what I've seen, religion and family seem to be the major factors at work here. Definately the Sephardi brand of Judaism practiced here is the major uniting force in the community, and contributes greatly to the general tranquility.
Posted by: benjamin at October 6, 2004 09:38 AM PermalinkWhen a simple man has simple ideas, they are usually obviously right or wrong, or it can be easily shown.
But an intelligent man likes to think he has complex ideas, which are built of many simple ideas. In science and physics these collections of simple ideas are rigourously tested, so that generally we can be more certain of the validity of the complex chain of ideas.
In the social sciences, however, the chain of ideas is not so rigourously tested. If each idea in a chain of ten has an 80 percent liklyhood of being valid, nevertheless the conlusion is likely to be false. Thus the conlusions of the educated are more often incorrect than the conlusions of average men.