Liberals call Republicans anti-intellectuals because they find it entertaining. And, that’s why they read the New York Times, watch Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, and get bent out of shape when Rick Santorum cuts loose with comments about Obama being a snob or that higher education is part of Satan’s plan to overtake America. It’s entertaining to them to think about such things.
The reality is we all consume news media for entertainment purposes. New, compared to old, information is entertaining. That’s why it’s called the “news.” No one would tune in for Headline Olds.
News spreads widely only if entertaining at some level, even if satisfying some intellectual curiosity. From social psychology we know we don’t read about politics (or anything) to neutrally store information, but to assign positive or negative meaning reinforcing our perceptions of individuals and groups. Our brains work by associating new information with currently stored categories of data. When we encounter “news” about a political party or politician, we selectively seek information confirming current perceptions and ignore, distort, or forget information which doesn’t fit within our mental schemas for that category. We feel good when we find new information that agrees with us, going in the same direction we were headed.
No one is immune to these processes.
When a family member tells you to remember to take the trash out and you forget, it’s not only because you don’t care, but because that information did not fit with what you were thinking about at the time. It wasn’t where you were going. If the family member could associate taking out the trash with something more instrumental, such as placing it in front of the door, you wouldn’t forget. Of course, if that’s the case said family member may as well take out the trash herself. Problem solved. But, I digress.
When we encounter news about Rick Santorum we automatically, involuntarily associate this information with previously stored data. Information is easier to assimilate if it fits with preconceptions. New(s) data that do not fit pre-existing mental schema require a new category in our brains and, quite frankly, most of us just aren’t willing to work that hard. We are bombarded with “news” so we take mental shortcuts to manage all the inputs. If you group Republicans, conservatives, Christianity, and anti-intellectualism together, then any news about Rick Santorum goes in that pot. If you associate Democrats, liberals, and Islam, with political correctness, then any news about Obama is quickly filed accordingly.
To acknowledge or dare say accept that someone representing an ideology different from your own possesses any positive qualities requires some heavy mental lifting. You must create another category in your mind admitting the possibility that Obama or Santorum is capable of something good. Doing so creates such mental tension the vast majority of us will have nothing of it.
Santorum is crucified for saying Satan is involved in universities, politics, and our lives by those who have little reference point for understanding what he’s talking about. Any such news is immediately filed in the lunatic, religious-right, anti-intellectual compartment. But, for those who know the devil as alive and perhaps not so well, statements by Santorum are received differently. Suggesting Satan has his sights set on the United States of America by attacking the great institutions of America (including academia) comes as no surprise. Satan is always on attack and no respecter of persons or institutions. That he’s had such good luck at the university level is a topic we can pursue at another time. But perhaps it’s no different than the progress he’s made in media, politics, entertainment, and the church.
You respond to the news of Santorum and Satan by categorizing it with the olds, what you’ve always thought. To consider the possibility Satan is actively involved at an institutional or even a personal level would require a challenging intellectual endeavor by non-believers. By the time people reach adulthood, mental schemas are so deeply embedded little flexibility is left to incorporate or adopt disparate beliefs. That’s why studies show over 75% of religious conversions occur before age 18.
The truth is we are all anti-intellectuals. We oppose new information we can’t readily assimilate. To seriously consider the alternative wouldn’t make us feel good. We might be wrong and that would only be entertaining to those who are right.
Deep Questions 
There is a good reason for those “brain buckets” or categories; just as there’s a reason that the right is painted as anti-intellectual, because it so often has painted itself that way!
College kids leave church for a while, but many eventually find their way back. http://www.gallup.com/poll/6124/religiosity-cycle.aspx
The interesting thing is that people who DON’T go to college are actually leaving their church ties faster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/church-attendance-falling_n_930036.html
Good article, though! I like the psychology involved.
Good little blog that pertains to this discussion:
Interesting (and very long) blog that spells out the nature of social psychology. Now that I think of it, Sherif is one of the more cited authors in this area. Need to double-check for same guy.