>>24537425
I believe that when intellectuals use the term "anti-intellectual," they do so out of frustration that laymen don't see the value of their work. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of layman motivation. When we watch a movie, we want to be entertained. When we learn a concept, we want it to be useful. And when we hear an idea, we want to easily determine whether it's true or false. Academics have different motivations: they listen to ideas in order to come up with new ones. For this reason, they often don't care about the immediate truth or usefulness of an idea or theory, as long as it could be true or useful in the future.

As an analogy, if you gave picrel to a car enthusiast or mechanic, he'd be able to get it running. But if you gave it to a layman, he'd see it as useless, since he can't fix it. This is why laymen aren't interested in ideas and writings considered "intellectual"—and why they grow cynical when such things are presented as brilliant. Until you've got the car running, the job's not done.