Third type, maybe I would expand that a little and include engineers, those in the hard sciences and math, and some in the social sciences who deal in the real world as it is, not what they wish it to be, e.g. Abigail Thernstrom(sp?) or Samuel Huntington. The vast majority who spout the party line in the social sciences strike me as poseurs.
BTW, the author David Brooks is a conservative who used to work at the Weekly Standard.
I thought he turned a while back.
No matter his political views, from this article (and others I've seen from his pen) he is certainly a phony and almost unquestionably a pr*ck, hence a dildo by definition.
''Intellectual elite'', my great aunt Sadie. For membership in this soi-sidant ''elite'', all one has to do is to talk frequently enough with some number of the similarly self-anointed, to the point where one is granted ''elite'' status by the other dildoes and dildettes.
''Oooohhh, I read avant-garde 'literature' with no plot, no cohesion, no characters...I'm of the ''elite'', dontchasee?''
''Well, the notion that a person must produce in order to consume is just a bourgeois misconception left over from a century ago. The purpose of society, as any intellectual will tell you, is to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.'' (...borrowed freely from Rand, this is)
''Property? How can there be private property when there is need? Does your ''property right'' to a piece of land outweigh the ABSOLUTE right of some other person to eat? Yes, absolute. Even if his right requires the sacrifice of your property.''
How does that old saying go (I won't get it right, sorry)?
''It's only an intellectual who can say such stupid things.''
And Brooks and his fellow dildoes qualify...in spades.