>>I know we like to be all anti-intellectual here at HN, but Rachel's claim that "having a PhD" correlates strongly with "lacking the ability for independence of thought or action" is pretty ridiculous.
In considering the entire sentence, it seems that the argument is:
PhD !== inability for "independence of thought or action", which is a sign of anti-intellectualism on HN (presumably because having a PhD has some sort of implied relationship with intellectualism.) The holding of a PhD is the object of criticism in OP's eyes, the criticism being an expression of anti-intellectualism here.
I certainly agree with OP that both PhD holders or non-PhD holders can be intellectuals or can be "non-intellectuals," but I was merely pointing out my impression that having PhD doesn't imply anything other than fulfilling the criteria to obtain a PhD.
Acting and planning have nothing to do with being an intellectual in my opinion. Those are organizational skills. Intellectualism is more a love of ideas and exploring those ideas, in my obviously not so humble opinion. I've met PhDs that were incredibly erudite about their specific field but completely disinterested in anything outside it, which I would consider "non-intellectualism."
Achieving a PhD is about learning and understanding the world around you via science and reason, even if only a small part. In that sense, by the very definition of a PhD, it's holders are almost surely intellectuals. holders are intellectuals. Here is google's definition:
in·tel·lec·tu·al·ism
Noun
1. The exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions.
2. The theory that knowledge is wholly or mainly derived from pure reason; rationalism.
It might be more accurate to make the hypothesis that there is an anti-phd and anti-education sentiment here on HN rather than an anti-intellectualism sentiment.
Your post is a good example of this. First you set up your own definition of 'intellectualism' in a way that most PhDs fail. Namely, you imply that intellectualism involves breadth of knowledge. Then, you go on to claim that most PhDs are not intellectuals, but of course you and presumably your non-PhD social group are intellectuals. Why do this? I've seen others here setup different sorts of scenarios to try to claim PhD holders are somehow inferior.
A common one that has been put forth several times here on HN involves a hiring manager setting up a situation where they underpay prospective PhD hires by a huge margin. So much so that they pay them less than non-PhD hires. Naturally, being so at odds with actual market rate for CS PhDs, this results in only the very worst possible candidates: those who didn't get a professor position and further didn't get into one of the many high paying jobs. They heroically conclude that in their experience all PhDs are useless.
This is really not a nice part of HN.
Let's go back to the original comment about "having a PhD" correlating with a lack of independent thought. Again, one of the very requirements of a PhD is that it must be produced from independent thought. It must be your own work, not that of your advisers, and even more so, it must be novel, not something you might have learned from others.
You can argue with the effectiveness of enforcing this, but in my experience it really is something that is thought of during PhD defences. Claiming that the reality of the situation is the complete opposite of this is an extreme claim that Rachel didn't back up in the slightest.
In considering the entire sentence, it seems that the argument is:
PhD !== inability for "independence of thought or action", which is a sign of anti-intellectualism on HN (presumably because having a PhD has some sort of implied relationship with intellectualism.) The holding of a PhD is the object of criticism in OP's eyes, the criticism being an expression of anti-intellectualism here.
I certainly agree with OP that both PhD holders or non-PhD holders can be intellectuals or can be "non-intellectuals," but I was merely pointing out my impression that having PhD doesn't imply anything other than fulfilling the criteria to obtain a PhD.
Acting and planning have nothing to do with being an intellectual in my opinion. Those are organizational skills. Intellectualism is more a love of ideas and exploring those ideas, in my obviously not so humble opinion. I've met PhDs that were incredibly erudite about their specific field but completely disinterested in anything outside it, which I would consider "non-intellectualism."