VOY - Gravity

[Riedquat]

Perhaps it's not anti-intellectualism as such, but hostility to the idea that we can make a better future or make progress, however that is defined.

Old-school Trek was notoriously optimistic about the potential of the future, recent Trek has become increasingly pessimistic.

Part of the problem is an arrogant assumption about what a better future actually looks like. Personally I find most supposedly positive visions of the future pretty dystopian, but their adovacates dismiss any criticism as an ignorant desire to live in literal crap. It feels like another case of people looking only at one extreme or the other.

Modern Trek (and entertainment in general) has thrown in to that mix a miserable level of cynicism though that surpasses even mine. For that reason I actually really rather like Lower Decks. Despite the frequent sarcasm it seems the most free of it, and willing to embrace both the good of Trek whilst not pretending that there's no bad, and having a laugh at it all. At least once it got past the first few episodes, where its blatant siding of Mariner and belittling Boimler really could be described as anti-intellectual.

[Fianna]

I think there's inherently a bit of a push-and-pull going on in a franchise centered largely around intelligent, competent characters being made as entertainment, especially when it attempts to widen its appeal. A mainstream audience doesn't find that inspiring, they find it intimidating or condescending

Really? 'Cause that also describes your average police procedural.

[pilight]

I think there's inherently a bit of a push-and-pull going on in a franchise centered largely around intelligent, competent characters being made as entertainment, especially when it attempts to widen its appeal. A mainstream audience doesn't find that inspiring, they find it intimidating or condescending

Really? 'Cause that also describes your average police procedural.

I wouldn't call copaganda shows optimistic. They can most charitably be considered wishful thinking.

[Fianna]

My point is that they're about competent professionals using their brains to solve problems, which clearly has a wide appeal.

[Deledrius]

My point is that they're about competent professionals using their brains to solve problems, which clearly has a wide appeal.

You're right, they do share the description I provided, but I think there are some crucial differences.

The biggest thing that stands out to me is that cop shows are generally considered blue-collar, even when they're clearly not, and in my experience watching them characters tend to be street smart and apathetic toward (actual) science at best (often they fall into the "I'm so bad at math!" kind of mainstream anti-science/intellectual throwaway characterization which perpetuates common perceptions). I'm sure you could find exceptions to this as the police procedural is a very broad genre, but those are the things I think of when I think police procedural. The protagonists are "every man" characters, and that's a large part of the appeal. There was an aspect of this present in TOS that has strongly been absent outside of Miles O'Brien in the TNG-and-later shows.

Some shows like Bones tried to exist in opposition to a lot of that, but it brought its own negative stereotypes of "intelligent, competent" professionals, too. It was mildly successful, but never to the degree of NYPD Blue, Law & Order, Homicide, Criminal Minds and many others. Even if you include the "smarter" shows like Sherlock, all you end up getting are massive doses of blatantly anti-intellectual pseudoscience (which even includes more comedic shows like Psych and Monk), and again negative stereotypes around being intellectual in order to appeal to the mainstream.

My long-winded point is that I think these aspects are the kind of thing that's commonly done to overcome or avoid the intimidating/condescending issue that exists in Star Trek when it comes to mainstream audiences. I don't know that it's the only solution to the problem, but you point out an important counter-example, and I'm sure there are more. It would be interesting to assess which of these could survive a shift into the Star Trek setting. Some of the outright-copaganda shows would struggle against the tone of the franchise (though less-so now that ST:Picard exists).

I think it could be done well.

[clearspira]

My point is that they're about competent professionals using their brains to solve problems, which clearly has a wide appeal.

You're right, they do share the description I provided, but I think there are some crucial differences.

The biggest thing that stands out to me is that cop shows are generally considered blue-collar, even when they're clearly not, and in my experience watching them characters tend to be street smart and apathetic toward (actual) science at best (often they fall into the "I'm so bad at math!" kind of mainstream anti-science/intellectual throwaway characterization which perpetuates common perceptions). I'm sure you could find exceptions to this as the police procedural is a very broad genre, but those are the things I think of when I think police procedural. The protagonists are "every man" characters, and that's a large part of the appeal. There was an aspect of this present in TOS that has strongly been absent outside of Miles O'Brien in the TNG-and-later shows.

Some shows like Bones tried to exist in opposition to a lot of that, but it brought its own negative stereotypes of "intelligent, competent" professionals, too. It was mildly successful, but never to the degree of NYPD Blue, Law & Order, Homicide, Criminal Minds and many others. Even if you include the "smarter" shows like Sherlock, all you end up getting are massive doses of blatantly anti-intellectual pseudoscience (which even includes more comedic shows like Psych and Monk), and again negative stereotypes around being intellectual in order to appeal to the mainstream.

My long-winded point is that I think these aspects are the kind of thing that's commonly done to overcome or avoid the intimidating/condescending issue that exists in Star Trek when it comes to mainstream audiences. I don't know that it's the only solution to the problem, but you point out an important counter-example, and I'm sure there are more. It would be interesting to assess which of these could survive a shift into the Star Trek setting. Some of the outright-copaganda shows would struggle against the tone of the franchise (though less-so now that ST:Picard exists).

I think it could be done well.

What about Big Bang Theory?

[Deledrius]

I don't follow. How does a misogynistic show centered around ridiculing intelligent people by creating strawman socially-maladjusted characters clearly dealing with various behavioral and mental disorders figure into it? I don't think I've seen a more popular show so anti-intellectual at its core.

It's a comedy where nearly every joke is either at the expense of the "smart" characters, or their victims. If anything, it supports exactly my position that mainstream audiences often find presentations of intellect intimidating and/or condescending, which is why the show is structured to provide comedy the way that it does (and why it's so popular doing so); it's defuses that tension by taking down the protagonists.

[Fianna]

I was mainly thinking of the CSI franchise in terms of mega-popular shows about solving problems with science.

[clearspira]

I don't follow. How does a misogynistic show centered around ridiculing intelligent people by creating strawman socially-maladjusted characters clearly dealing with various behavioral and mental disorders figure into it? I don't think I've seen a more popular show so anti-intellectual at its core.

It's a comedy where nearly every joke is either at the expense of the "smart" characters, or their victims. If anything, it supports exactly my position that mainstream audiences often find presentations of intellect intimidating and/or condescending, which is why the show is structured to provide comedy the way that it does (and why it's so popular doing so); it's defuses that tension by taking down the protagonists.

I've met guys like them. They absolutely exist. Stereotypes always exist for a reason even if they aren't universally true.

But I agree with you for what its worth. We live in a world where the Kardashians are billionaires, jock brainless football stars are billionaires, kids screaming on Youtube are millionaires, and the people who are trying to cure cancer barely have two coins to rub together. I think ''hate'' is a strong word but there is certainly a massive distaste for intelligence.

But that's the human race in a nutshell. Only about 10% of us are actually responsible for the wonders of 2022. The other 90% of us are barely at a Victorian level of intelligence in that if society were to fall and those 10% were wiped out, the industrial revolution is probably the most that the rest of us could manage.

BTW, this reminds of of an episode of Sliders where they go to a world where intelligent people are held in the same regard as jocks and celebrities... and its just as corrupt and shitty as our world. They just found new ways to discriminate and hate on each other. That episode always stayed with me because a lot of people seem to think that a lack of intelligence is a cause of all of the problems in our world when it really isn't.

[pilight]

a Victorian level of intelligence

The level of human intelligence hasn't changed appreciably in thousands of years, let alone the less than 200 since the Victorian age. People as far back as forever have had basically the same capacity to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

I was mainly thinking of the CSI franchise in terms of mega-popular shows about solving problems with science.

There are many sites illustrating how ridiculous the scientific aspects of CSI are.