Outrage content, anti-intellectualism, and your digital currency

In the wake of anti-intellectualism in America (again), there has been a huge increase of outrage content over the last 5+ years. The goal is for you to react emotionally and not do any research or logical reasoning about what you've seen. What people gain from you is digital currency in the form of likes, shares, comments, etc. They make money off of your outrage. They purposely make content, publish comments, or even say and do things with the intention that is will rile a specific audience up.

This also very prevalent with political pundits who use social media to do their bidding. This is the glass ceiling of anti-intellectualism. They receive their talking points and key words to use in order to keep the outrage farming constant. If you track the things they all say, there is a distinct pattern to them. In fact, there are youtube videos of interviews with previous political pundits who tell of this exact scenario. Whether they believe the nonsense they say (usually not) doesn't matter. The outcome of any situation that could be used for political engagement doesn't matter because they've already decided the perceived outcome.

These pundits often change sides quickly if the money or other currency stops flowing. Political pundits can also be political figures. Political parties win elections by sowing division and creating an us vs them mentality. If you do not have strong media literacy and discernment, you will fall victim to this narrative.

This is all a part of troll farms and trolling behavior. You continue to give them your attention (your digital currency), and they continue to get rich. It then massively backfires for society because people believe nonsense as word of law.

Anti-intellectualism is cyclical. It comes and goes. We are at another extinction burst of it in society. Here is a historic example:

Below is a brief history of anti-intellectualist movements in America:

The Jacksonian Era (1820s–1840s)

Context: Andrew Jackson’s presidency (1829–1837) symbolized a shift toward greater political power for the “common man.”
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Skepticism of centralized authority and formal education—particularly institutions seen as elitist or Eastern.
Emphasis on “practical knowledge” and frontier virtues rather than the learned pursuits of universities.
Outcome: A populist brand of democracy that sometimes viewed established intellectuals and professionals with suspicion.

The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism (Late 19th–Early 20th Century)

Context: Rapid urbanization, immigration, and scientific advancements (e.g., Darwin’s theory of evolution) spurred reactions among conservative religious groups.
Scopes Trial (1925): A flashpoint illustrating anti-intellectual sentiment around evolution and science.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Distrust of modern science and higher criticism of the Bible.
Emphasis on biblical literalism and a rejection of academic experts who contradicted fundamentalist interpretations.

The First Red Scare & Interwar Populism (1917–1930s)

Context: After World War I and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, fear of radicalism grew in the U.S.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Intellectuals, particularly those with leftist leanings or international perspectives, were sometimes branded as subversive.
Populist movements, like those among agricultural and labor groups, could be ambivalent toward intellectual elites, perceiving them as detached from working-class realities.

The McCarthy Era (1950s)

Context: The Second Red Scare, shaped by tensions of the Cold War, heightened suspicion of communism within the U.S.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hearings targeted academics, Hollywood writers, and other “intellectual” circles suspected of un-American activities.
Many scholars and artists faced blacklisting or persecution for real or alleged leftist sympathies.
Effect: A climate of fear that discouraged open intellectual debate, especially about politics or foreign policy.

Backlash Against the 1960s Counterculture (Late 1960s–1970s)

Context: Social upheavals—civil rights, anti-war protests, and youth counterculture—were often associated with university campuses.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Conservative segments labeled professors and student activists as out-of-touch radicals, fueling distrust in universities.
Politicians sometimes capitalized on the divide by portraying the “campus elite” as a threat to traditional American values.

The Late 20th Century & Culture Wars (1980s–1990s)

Context: The Reagan era and beyond saw increasing polarization over issues like evolution, climate science, and educational curricula.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Continued distrust of academic experts and “coastal elites.”
Disputes over school textbooks (e.g., evolution vs. creationism) and funding for the arts and humanities.
Outcomes: Heightened media-driven polarization, with certain talk radio and TV commentators championing populist skepticism of “ivory tower” intellectuals.

The Early 21st Century

Context: Rapid technological change, 24-hour news cycles, social media echo chambers, and political polarization.
Expression of Anti-Intellectualism:
Questions of expertise around climate change, vaccines, and other scientific issues.
The internet’s democratization of information, which can foster both greater knowledge sharing and the spread of misinformation.
Populist political rhetoric that casts doubt on the motives of “experts” or “the establishment.”
Why Anti-Intellectualism Surfaces
Populist Movements: Emphasize the wisdom of ordinary people over credentialed elites.
Religious Revivals: May conflict with scientific or academic viewpoints perceived as threatening core beliefs.
Rapid Social or Technological Change: Heightens anxiety, leading some to blame or mistrust intellectuals and experts.
Fear of Subversion: Periods of war or ideological tension (e.g., Cold War) often breed suspicion of dissenting academic voices.

What causes each period above to cool off?

Jacksonian Era: Lost urgency as national attention shifted to industrial expansion, rising public education, and eventually the Civil War.

Religious Fundamentalism (Scopes Trial Era): Waned after the public backlash to the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” the onset of the Great Depression, and then WWII, which refocused national concerns.

First Red Scare (1917–1920s): Gradually diminished once the early 1920s push for “normalcy” took hold and the economic boom (Roaring Twenties) redirected attention away from constant fear of radicalism.

McCarthy Era (1950s): Rapidly declined after the televised Army–McCarthy Hearings exposed McCarthy’s overreach, leading to Senate censure and a collapse of his credibility.

1960s Counterculture Backlash: Faded as the Vietnam War ended and economic troubles of the 1970s (oil crises, recession) took precedence, making campus radicalism less of a central public concern.

Late 20th-Century Culture Wars: Eased off in intensity with the end of the Cold War and the shift toward global economic competition and technology booms, which increased appreciation for scientific and technical expertise.

Early 21st Century: Though not fully resolved, waves of distrust have often dipped when major crises (e.g., pandemics) underscored the practical need for expert knowledge, or when demagogic figures lost credibility.

What the goal of a healthy society?

Make Knowledge Accessible
-Experts should communicate clearly and relate research to everyday life.
Encourage public lectures, community outreach, and user-friendly media coverage.

Strengthen Critical Thinking
-Teach reasoning, media literacy, and debate skills early on.
-Promote lifelong learning through accessible adult education programs.

Build Trust and Transparency
-Institutions should openly share data, confront conflicts of interest, and uphold ethical standards.
-Show how policies or research decisions are made (e.g., open panels, citizen input).

Promote Civil Discourse
-Create spaces for respectful discussion that values constructive dialogue and empathy.
-Humanize experts by highlighting their personal motivations and collaborative efforts.

Invest in Public Goods
-Fund public education, libraries, and community centers that democratize reliable information.
-Foster local initiatives linking universities or researchers with real-world community problems.

Adopt Evidence-Based Policy
-Include independent expert panels in policy-making.
-Use measurable data to evaluate outcomes, rewarding learning and adaptation over inflexibility.

Overarching Goal:
Cultivate a culture that prizes curiosity, trust, and evidence; where expertise is transparent, inclusive, and tied to tangible improvements in people’s lives.

What can you do as an average citizen?

Stay Curious: Make learning a lifelong habit—read broadly, explore reputable sources, and ask questions about topics you don’t understand.

Evaluate Information: Practice media literacy—check the credibility of news outlets, compare multiple perspectives, and beware of sensational or clickbait headlines.

Discuss Respectfully: Share ideas and disagree with civility, focusing on evidence and logic rather than personal attacks.

Support Public Knowledge: Advocate for well-funded schools, libraries, and community programs that promote education and access to information.

Hold Experts Accountable: Expect honesty and transparency from leaders, academics, and professionals—but remain open to their expertise when backed by solid evidence.

What happens after anti-intellectualism dampens?

Renewed Emphasis on Expertise
-Public attitudes shift to appreciate specialized knowledge (e.g., funding for research, emphasis on higher education).
-Universities, science, and engineering often see a boost in enrollment or resources.

Institutional Reforms
-Agencies and universities introduce transparency or ethics measures to rebuild trust.
-Peer-review processes and grant oversight become more rigorous.

Broader Public Engagement
-Popular science writing, museum programs, and community events flourish.
-Media outlets invest in clearer coverage, helping close the gap between experts and the general public.

New Tensions Emerge
-As society evolves, fresh social or political conflicts can spark the next wave of anti-intellectualism.
-Rapid technological changes expand access to information but also facilitate misinformation.

Partial “Information Age”
-Periods of intense appreciation for expertise do occur, but skepticism resurfaces over time.
-American history tends to cycle between embracing knowledge and questioning the motives of “elites.”