well, it's not that they differ that is the problem
it's that they spew bullshit -- and that when they differ it's not because it makes sense, but because they feel like they must differ -- even at the cost of spewing crap.
That puts them on a sort of heroic pedestal, as it were, and provides an ersatz self-actualization, thus giving them a sense of self-respect (that they apparently are unable to achieve otherwise.)
You see, educated -- and therefore articulate -- people, when stuck in some idiotic college job teaching some crap like sociology, making shit in pay, and wondering why the hell they worked so hard to get there, sometimes feel frustrated (understandably.)
Such ppl can cause a great harm: because of their articulateness, the junk they spew looks superficially plausible, smooth, and coherent to those they direct it at, young students that is, who are mostly unable to see through the trick (at least, due to lack of life experience.) So you end up with spreading cults where these spurious professors (who do nothing of value -- teaching sociology in college?) strive for, and frequently achieve quite a bit of social standing based on bullshit alone.
I wonder how this danger can be alleviated. On one hand, you could limit formal educational opportunities (coz what do you then do with hordes of educated good-for-nothings); otoh, you could somehow try to get them employed in a way that is, if not productive, then at least harmless. A very difficult dilemma, I think.
The core of the problem, I think, lies in the way the formal education system is set up in general. Sometimes I wonder if it weren't better if formal education was scaled back, while informal opportunities expanded, so that ppl could study when and what they want to study, w/o being forced into any kind of formal programs and w/o expecting to be gainful employed as an unconditional perk at graduation. Ppl would get a formal training for their profession, and then, having obtained a means to make a living, would continue their education in two possible directions: either improving their professional skills (that therefore, compensated for their efforts on the professional side), or simply out of general curiosity (which would be its own reward, so to say.)
That would decrease the number of unemployed and unemployable (and therefore frustrated) PhDs -- who as of now tend to be driven by their unfulfilled "man's search of meaning" (and social environment) into the swelling ranks of "liberal" ("progressive", etc.) squawkers and cacklers, while perhaps increasing the overall population's educational level. Which, btw, would be very good for democracy.
Of should we just let them cackle? Well, it'd be fine, but if left alone, in some historical situations, they're known to produce Great Revolutions, and those tend to be hugely disastrous. Of course, the said revolutions also tend to physically wipe out the cacklers that started them in the first place... but at what cost to society? There must be a better way, I think.
Something like that. What do you think?