I thought you were implying that intellectual people are somehow have a greater, uhm, "emotional spectrum". I think actually, on the contrary, people with a "broader vision" who analyze "society" are distanced from the actual problems at the process; especially considering the fact no one has experience with the actuality of this long lost romantic "past" where everyone was at harmony in nature and wrote eternal poetry while harvesting the fields and heroically marching to battle with the glorious leader. Maybe someone who is an "intellectual" will feel something that others don't, seeing as he possess knowledge others don't (say, you know about the Matrix ...); and it takes some intellect to appreciate complex art; but it does not mean the feelings are any more genuine. I sometimes think infoterror is doing a huge attempt at trolling, because he speaks so synthetically of all those eternal values he preaches, and I really doubt whether he believes in them. Dostoevsky observed that those who are "smart", but not true genius, who have no ideas of their own are usually the most frustrated and I wholeheartedly agree; so it becomes very easy to blame everything and everyone and retreat into separate intellectual environments. It is easy, likewise - and I think that's where you are pointing at - to be frustrated with the "slightly" intellectual. It is a well known fact that leaders can't be much smarter than those led because at this point there's a communication breakdown. They need to speak the same "language", if you get me - perhaps "they have the same metaphysics" would be a more appropriate term.
Within that framework, perhaps recognized as "inferior", they can settle things well, not realizing they're still trapped in the same box. If you attempt to write, I'm sure you get this feeling when you see crap praised, and honestly, I perhaps secretly do, too. It could be jealousy and it could be a recognition that something is really wrong. But really, though I dislike attempts at pop psychology, ideologies are very, very often mere masks to actual primal feelings which most certainly are not any "nobler" than anyone's, perhaps even worse. Now to go back to Dostoevsky, and there's little question he's a genius, and likewise almost every other great writer I can think of, they all worship, actually, the simplest of all. And I really think sometimes that the more complex it gets the more it attempts to return to basics. Trouble is that you sometimes cannot tell if that's innocence and stupidity that leads to harmony or perhaps something that lies beyond others' perception - through Anna Karenina, I was surprised Levin did not raise this question himself - but I guess all that's left to do is hope. (that sounds cliche but I think it's true)
