![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Can we just admit that the difference between most academics and most informed cranks is mostly specialization and credentials? The former really does matter, but also means that we listen to academics only in VERY narrow fields. The latter is pretty much a legal fiction.
I only say this because of the number of academics I see spewing b.s. that would not even rise to the level of crankery when those academics speak outside of their specialization.
Furthermore, a lot of cranks actually do keep up with multiple fields of work, and while they don't have institutional support and tend to make wild over-claims, often their track records are better than scholars outside of the scholars' niche.
I only say this because of the number of academics I see spewing b.s. that would not even rise to the level of crankery when those academics speak outside of their specialization.
Furthermore, a lot of cranks actually do keep up with multiple fields of work, and while they don't have institutional support and tend to make wild over-claims, often their track records are better than scholars outside of the scholars' niche.
no subject
Date: 2022-04-26 03:26 pm (UTC)From:Most people wouldn't guess it, but I have no formal degree in anything.
But I do have a very good understanding and more-than-average knowledge in politics, partly economical principles, media and entertainment stuff (even stuff that I don't want to have an idea about...), languages and, - screamingly! - psychology.
Especially in psychology, I think, a lot of people who study it lack the very important skill to analyze and to try to get into someone's head. To get an inner map about that person's very essence of its personality and its character - which IS much, much needed if you're working in an occupation to help people with psychological problems.
I might not know every diagnostical corner of the psychological field (due to the lack of not having formally studied it), but instead of that I'm very good at locating connections and contexts at the very basic/deep level. - As long as the information I've been given is true and authentic.
So to say, I notice I'm very able to tell people more indepth where their problems are and what they're a result of.
Languages is also a bit of crazy... 2 languages I'm decently capable of speaking (that's more than some people can achieve), French from high school I find better reanimatable than expected, and then I keep acquiring skills in other languages too still - which nobody formally pushes me to learn, I just acquire the skills and knowledge all by myself because either I want to understand something as the direct quote it is, or because my brain seems somewhat "bored" in a way. The latter type included/includes me even having to learn other writing systems.
- I think that's WAY more than most people ever get to in their lives in terms of understanding language(s).
Okay, admittedly, I could learn things quicker in these - too many interests and things on my list prevent me from finding the time to go further on purpose in what I already gathered as knowledge.
But still... for someone who didn't see orgaized and formal language classes anymore since high school, I think that's not to be regarded too marginal.
...And so it is that I'd rate myself as a generally fairly educated person, which doesn't have to hide behind the bushes of shame just because I have no expensive formal credentials. (I do notice lacks resulting from that and it pisses me off myself, but I think this doesn't negate my base intelligence and the knowledge I have without university education.)