> And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

I think somewhat. Historically, intellectuals tended to be part of the privileged class, and though they often challenged certain norms, they just as often served to justify the forms of power of their era.

I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

> Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage. With misinformation so rampant and many of the people posting being either hired by corporations to serve their agenda or simply automated bots, it's likely not the best use of time.

In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

> I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings even when it contradicts our ability to reason. That's the defining characteristic of a consumer, and I think it takes a somewhat exceptional individual to overcome that. The sciences have more and more been about controlling populations, and the methods being employed on us are extremely effective. That's what I suspect is happening, and why we can see it getting worse over our lifetimes as new methods are developed and perfected.

> Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>".

I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness. We are certainly trained, from childhood on, to feel like we can't have any impact on the world. It's one thing to speculate about the future and another thing entirely to work towards that. This is a major problem I've seen in movements that want to change society for the better, and probably one of the major reasons why we've gone through such a long period without serious rebellion or revolution to the current conditions. At the same time, though, I'm seeing this less and less among younger people, so there might be a time soon that there is once again active resistance to worsening conditions.