I looked up anti-intellectualism and here is the definition:

>Anti-intellectualism is a profound skepticism or hostility toward science, higher education, and critical thought, often viewing intellectuals as detached elites . Driven by populist politics, religious dogma, and economic anxiety, it manifests as rejection of evidence and scientific consensus. It undermines democratic decision-making by prioritizing emotional narratives over expert analysis

I would say that there is another possibility to this. Experts and Expert opinions are susceptible to the same problem of social media echo-chambers[0].

Where new ideas and thought tend to be rejected because experts tend to rely too strongly in positions established over the course of a carrier.

So the concept of anti-intellectualism is not solely based on emotional responses. But also based on this concept of creating too much absolute certainty about a situation that doesn't always exist. People have a tendency to reject scientific basis of some information because of this echo-chamber as this dilemma tends to ignore other factors that are not well known. Also scientific pursuits have the possibility of being game by bad actors.

[0]: https://truenorthoutreach.com/the-science-of-echo-chambers-h...

> ...It undermines democratic decision-making...

You can tell an intellectual came up with that definition.

The difference between science and this random shower thought you decided to grace this thread with is that science has some sound epistemological basis, typically evidence, whereas you have nothing.

[dead]