In at least the one narrow area of their lives where they make a living, maybe. And that's assuming that they are the kind of intellectuals that run empirical tests on things and not the kind of intellectuals who invent elaborate networks of concepts with little relations to the real world (post-modernists, non-empirical sociologists, feminist philosophers, and literary critics - I'm looking at you).
I see no evidence that intellectuals are less prone to human biases than the rest of us (well, I suppose I qualify as an intellectual, but the rhetorical point stands).
If you disagree with popular beliefs in academic social networks, you can be shunned by your peers as quickly as a high school student that doesn't follow the latest fashions. Human nature is universal.
I didn't say they were completely rational, of course humans are humans, but intellectuals are more objective and rational than non intellectuals, which is all I said; I stand by my assertion. They're also more precise with words, and tend to actually mean what they say rather than what you think they implied.
> but intellectuals are more objective and rational than non intellectuals
I've spent too much time around intellectuals to take that seriously.
> They're also more precise with words, and tend to actually mean what they say rather than what you think they implied.
Actually, they're far more likely to play word games and set word traps. It's how they preen. It's just like body-builders flexing, not that there's anything wrong with that.
