What is the solution of the dilemma between serious intellectual work and gaining attention?

[noname223]

I mean you in order to change the world you need attention for your ideas. But there is also the stigma in the science community of popular science. Due to the fact it is so simplified and often superficial. But I am not only talking about science I also think about art/literature.

There are interesting and different solutions to it. Like Banksy and his statements against capitalism. But doesn't it sometimes make it even worse? There is the hype about the renegade. But this makes him again to an icon. There are probably a lot of paradoxes in it.

David Foster Wallace thought a lot about it. And I think he even made his literature more difficult to access because of it. The books and their pleasures had to be earned with hard work. There are some stories which are easier to read and these are also the most popular ones.

I already made threads about public intellectuals. Many serious scientists laugh at them. Because they seem to be attention seeking, arrogant and self-centred. There is probably truth in that - however I am not really in the position to judge that. I think there are better and worse public intellectuals. I read an interesting article about German intellectuals. it is a shame which philiosphers are currently popular in my country. When we think about intellectuals like Adorno, Marx or Habermas. I think in this instance it is the German demise.

I think I read articles that Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the world. I am not sure whether this is true. But I think we can say he is probably not the best intellectual in the world. It is like Elon Musk. Despite the fact he was the riches in the world this does not mean he really earned it.

I like Noam Chomsky. But people told me he is also too opinionated on topics he is no expert on. I think I fall too fast for public intellectuals. But I become more careful towards them.

I think one example which is a solution of this dilemma is winning the noble prize. However in order to win that you often have to be popular in the first place. So it is no real solution.

It is difficult to address an audience which is used to entertainment and the speed of a globalized and digital world. The pace increased, you have to become more and more edgy to stick out of the mass. However I am no pessimist in this instance. I don't think we are in meritocracy but this world was already pretty messy decades and centuries ago.

What do you think abouit it? Is this a real dilemma? And what is your solution?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's all to do with character- some people want public recognition more than others. It probably does mean that their ideas (even if they are weaker) get seen by more people.

However- for those few who are exceptionally talented but shy- I don't think it necessarily means that their ideas get lost. If they are that good- they will likely be exploited and their ideas born to fruition anyway- it's just they may not get much of the credit for them.

I think genius level people- whether they be scientists, inventors or artists all have that drive to do what they do. Most people need to make money and ideally- they want to do it doing what they love. I think therefore- their ideas will come forward- whether they be promoting them themselves, or through a company.

Their ideas may not be as widely known as an influencial figure but within the circle they are working, I expect they will be respected. Put it this way- in a few decades- who is likely to still be remembered and talked about? The very shy Alan Turing (who broke the enigma code) or, Jordan Peterson?

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I think the interconnectedness of the modern world has distorted our views somewhat. Not everyone doing meaningful intellectual work gets the world's attention, and not every public intellectual is doing meaningful intellectual work. In fact, I'd argue that applies to most people on both groups. Public intellectuals often stop contributing to their fields soon after they attain notoriety—Chomsky, Dawkins, Tyson, etc. For an extreme example we have Michio Kaku, who actually did meaningful work in physics and now spends his time talking nonsense in futurism podcasts and TV shows.

I'd say that many public intellectuals get a little too much attention compared to their contributions. Science communication is important, but not every science communicator can be Carl Sagan. Most of them end up becoming celebrities, selling books and giving talks. If your goal is "serious intellectual work", gaining too much attention quickly turns into an obstacle.

Not sure if the situation requires a solution, however. Public intellectuals need someone to do the heavy lifting of producing knowledge so they can bring it to the public, and the "serious intellectual workers" don't normally have the time, skills, or inclination to engage with the public and get their research out there. It's a bit of a symbiotic relationship. What I think is important is to keep in mind that public intellectuals have limitations and aren't experts in everything.