Interesting question. Your answer—that when it comes to culture, where we each have a dog in the fight, so to speak—has some practical implications for those of us who study and write about culture. Perhaps we can better communicate if we pick a side and write in a self-aware voice vs being neutral or being an actual fighter.
More clear winning criteria -> higher status analyst
Less clear -> higher status fighter
When it is unclear what counts or should count as winning, analysts can only talk particulars, and in that sense are no good as the practitioners, the fighter. Sure the rules are clear what counts as winning an election, but rhetorical politics or cultural conflicts have underspecified winning criteria.
One piece of supporting evidence for this is that the analysis of elections (where winning is clearer) is one part of political analysis that people like and follow more.
> Yet our most prestigious intellectuals today are public intellectuals, whose main activity, and the reason most like them so much, is that they fight to push culture in preferred directions.
Is it really true that public intellectuals fighting to push culture are "our most prestigious intellectuals"? Are you basing that on some poll? But, the poll you linked contradicts you.
I don't think there's any way to objectively talk about who is "most prestigious." It really depends on who you talk to and what their world view is. I'd say that mathematicians are the most prestigious intellectuals, because it requires more analytic IQ to be a mathematician than to be anything else. They tackle the deepest, purest concepts, that almost everyone else literally cannot understand without decades of study, and that's due to the inherent nature of what they study rather than any obscurantism. Their work is also measured against an objective standard of whether the proof works or not, so there's no room for bullshitting like there is in some other fields.
Public intellectuals that push their cultural views are mostly known for how they present ideas rather than for any original research. This to me is much less prestigious. Also, the ideas they talk about can usually be understood by any educated person; they are not privy to any "gnostic mysteries" like mathematicians are.
Are respect and likability being conflated here? This seems particularly an issue when polling on the word “prestige”, which some can interpret as class-association, some as respect, and some as likability.
Interesting question. Your answer—that when it comes to culture, where we each have a dog in the fight, so to speak—has some practical implications for those of us who study and write about culture. Perhaps we can better communicate if we pick a side and write in a self-aware voice vs being neutral or being an actual fighter.
Some fights have clearer winning criteria.
More clear winning criteria -> higher status analyst
Less clear -> higher status fighter
When it is unclear what counts or should count as winning, analysts can only talk particulars, and in that sense are no good as the practitioners, the fighter. Sure the rules are clear what counts as winning an election, but rhetorical politics or cultural conflicts have underspecified winning criteria.
One piece of supporting evidence for this is that the analysis of elections (where winning is clearer) is one part of political analysis that people like and follow more.
Sports have clear winning criteria, and pro athletes have higher status than sports analysts.
Not even the most gifted analyst wins the fight; the fighter wins the fight, by fighting. Status is granted accordingly.
> Yet our most prestigious intellectuals today are public intellectuals, whose main activity, and the reason most like them so much, is that they fight to push culture in preferred directions.
Is it really true that public intellectuals fighting to push culture are "our most prestigious intellectuals"? Are you basing that on some poll? But, the poll you linked contradicts you.
I don't think there's any way to objectively talk about who is "most prestigious." It really depends on who you talk to and what their world view is. I'd say that mathematicians are the most prestigious intellectuals, because it requires more analytic IQ to be a mathematician than to be anything else. They tackle the deepest, purest concepts, that almost everyone else literally cannot understand without decades of study, and that's due to the inherent nature of what they study rather than any obscurantism. Their work is also measured against an objective standard of whether the proof works or not, so there's no room for bullshitting like there is in some other fields.
Public intellectuals that push their cultural views are mostly known for how they present ideas rather than for any original research. This to me is much less prestigious. Also, the ideas they talk about can usually be understood by any educated person; they are not privy to any "gnostic mysteries" like mathematicians are.
Are respect and likability being conflated here? This seems particularly an issue when polling on the word “prestige”, which some can interpret as class-association, some as respect, and some as likability.
What is the reason for using the word "fight" instead of the more straightforward and less surprising "compete" in this article?
Right?! Competition is a much better, clearer (and also non-violent) concept that could easily replace "fight" and "contest".