Can’t say I have ever seen it play out any different, so I would assume that “quite often” to be exceptionally rare.
People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down.
I would also argue that it makes them smart, not pro stupidity or anti intellectual.
Let me try and use a tech analogy to explain it.
Say you repeatedly see junior admins putting unsecured databases on the internet which subsequently get compromised. How many times do you need to see the beginnings of that event chain before you start intervening?
Also there is nothing intellectual about entertaining the same argument over and over.
Or do you also think we should seriously consider the flat earth argument every time someone brings it up.
> People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down.
Yeah, I can buy that. So now please scroll to the top of the thread and see the topic - the question why some people don't want to discuss politics at work. Exactly because of that - because it very predictably leads to nothing good.
But unlike the anti-intellectual position we're discussing in this corner of the thread, opposing political topics at work because of their inflammatory nature is a rational, consistent, and smart position. Nobody is telling a particular political position is wrong - just that work is not a right place for off-topic, highly emotional discussions. "Don't discuss politics at work" is the equivalent of "don't let junior admins manage public-facing databases with sensitive data without supervision".
And as for the anti-intellectuals, the reason they like to do the "don't do/don't want to" -> "can't do" substitution is because without it, if viewed calmly and rationally, they would reveal themselves to be similar to anti-vaxxers, in terms of pushing positions unsubstantiated by evidence but emotionally appealing.
In this particular case it’s not just politics that could be equally right either way.
It’s politics where one of the options is wrong and science should be able to reveal which one.
And in that case challenging the popular opinion better come with actual scientific research, not lunch time napkin math pulled out of thin air.
People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down.
I would also argue that it makes them smart, not pro stupidity or anti intellectual. Let me try and use a tech analogy to explain it. Say you repeatedly see junior admins putting unsecured databases on the internet which subsequently get compromised. How many times do you need to see the beginnings of that event chain before you start intervening?
Also there is nothing intellectual about entertaining the same argument over and over. Or do you also think we should seriously consider the flat earth argument every time someone brings it up.