Eric S. Raymond has a good post on the categories of anti-intellectualism.
Of the five he lists, I’ll gladly cop to the first three (anti-intelligentsianism, traditionalism, and epistemic-skepticism). What’s interesting, however, is the relative weightings of the first three. Of these three, I’d say I fit mostly into the traditionalist school. I adhere to the Chestertonian note that you should never attempt to change an institution you do not understand—if something seems silly, quaint, archaic, or vestigial to you, it is entirely possible that you simply don’t understand the problem well enough. I would argue that this blends very easily into epistemic-skepticism, though I’d imagine that a strong enough anarcho-libertarian (like, say, Raymond) would want to keep them separated as much as possible (as he notes) as opposed to an Anglosphere conservative, who sees them as going hand-in-hand. Hayek was an Old Whig, as the saying goes. I was searching back through our archives for something else and found that I have brought this up in essay form before. I have no beef today with what I wrote then.
The anti-intelligentsianism aspect is one I don’t think much about. It’s not that I don’t believe it—after all, I’ve railed before about self-interested scientists writing papers for the money, or economists pretending to be soothsayers in order to boost their prestige and pad their pocketbooks. It’s one of the weaker arguments in my mind, at least in comparison to the other two, but it’s still plenty strong.