The Age Of Idiots
Are Americans hostile to knowledge? Patricia Cohen writes in The New York Times of a few new books on the subject, including Susan Jacoby's The Age Of Unreason:
Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, (Jacoby) said, but they also don’t think it matters.She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don’t think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
Ms. Jacoby, dressed in a bright red turtleneck with lipstick to match, was sitting, appropriately, in that temple of knowledge, the New York Public Library’s majestic Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue. The author of seven other books, she was a fellow at the library when she first got the idea for this book back in 2001, on 9/11.
Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:
“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.
The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.
At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t expect to revolutionize the nation’s educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off “American Idol” and pick up Schopenhauer. But she would like to start a conversation about why the United States seems particularly vulnerable to such a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism. After all, “the empire of infotainment doesn’t stop at the American border,” she said, yet students in many other countries consistently outperform American students in science, math and reading on comparative tests.
In part, she lays the blame on a failing educational system. “Although people are going to school more and more years, there’s no evidence that they know more,” she said.
Ms. Jacoby also blames religious fundamentalism’s antipathy toward science, as she grieves over surveys that show that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution.
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t leave liberals out of her analysis, mentioning the New Left’s attacks on universities in the 1960s, the decision to consign African-American and women’s studies to an “academic ghetto” instead of integrating them into the core curriculum, ponderous musings on rock music and pop culture courses on everything from sitcoms to fat that trivialize college-level learning.
Avoiding the liberal or conservative label in this particular argument, she prefers to call herself a “cultural conservationist.”
It isn't just the U.S. where a generation of know-nothings are coming up. In blog comments, I think, I recently mentioned Roger Cohen's column on the kids in what was once East Germany who aren't real clear on a funny thing called "communism."
Are things different now than they've ever been? Are we raising a generation of idiots -- "dumb and proud," as one commenter below the New York Times piece wrote? In America, school is free -- what's the problem?
Here's another comment, in full, from somebody else on the NYT piece:
As an American living in Sweden, I occasionally travel back to the U.S. on visits. It never fails to astonish me that what passes for news there is mindless, repetitive and focused primarily on celebrities. When vastly greater swaths of news time are spent on some celebrity's being sent to jail as opposed to informing Americans how our Constitution is being undermined and subverted by the Bush administration, not to mention what's happening of significance elsewhere in the world, it reveals exactly why too many citizens are ignorant of not only the rest of the world but of their own country.With half the people polled in a reputable national poll believing that evolution and natural selection are myths and that "creationism" is worthy of being taught in the nation's schools, it's to be expected that America is becoming dumbed-down under the influence of the irrationality of religion, particularly fundamentalist religion. It boggles the mind that one of your leading Republican candidates for the presidency holds blinkered views like this and is a former fundamentalist preacher in the bargain. Imagine a guy like that in the Oval Office or just a heartbeat way from the presidency.
So why are so many American actually and properly perceived as being hostile to global knowledge, indeed, knowledge essential to a nation's survival? Start by taking an honest look at what purports to be "news" there and at the unhealthy dominance of religion in American life. More could be said on other malign influences, but start with those just mentioned. Prediction: if America continues on its present path, look for it to become a second-or-third rate nation no longer looked to as worthy of emulation.
— dbsweden, Sweden
Oh, by the way, here are a few e-mails I got last night and this morning from a guy who apparently reads my column in the OC Register:
Ya theirs nothing i wouldent do for love. Lol joking well almost . I got a long short story but iam already overexposed and pretty sure embarising someone i love even tho iam not in love wont help plus from what i read u love being condinsendind and cenicle without actualy tring to help people patch things up. Ya iam way beyond your help as our minds more then likely would conflict worse then third world countries tring to bid on the black market.
I wrote back:
Sorry, your e-mail is too hard to understand. Please have somebody help you write it if you want advice. I'm guessing English is your second language. If not, you should consider going back and getting tutoring or your GED.
The person responds:
Thats a nice slap of bullmalarky. I got my diplmoma, i am a natural born citizen and in colage sorta
And then responds again:
Iam actualy PA Harrisburg born and have been a Newport local for over ten years. So if i speak a second language its county redneck. Of course i speak fluent jive as well and alot of others as well just none of the comman second languages or the uncomman ones like elvish lol. I definatly dont speak fruit but i do speak flirt . Iam extreamly paticular with my flirt.
Can you imagine how somebody like this gets through life? I think about all the times I've been able to fix something by being able to communicate in comprehensible English. (The application of reason is always a plus, too.) This past month, for example:
1. I got $25 off on my cable bill from the office of the president of Time-Warner by writing a snarly letter.2. I got the MRI I need for my boobs by exchanging a series of e-mail with my doctor, and refused medicine I knew I didn't need (and turned out to be right).
3. I had a wee mouse problem in my house (sigh) and instead of paying $1,000-plus for pest control, I wrote a snappy e-mail to a reality show that advertised on Craig's list, and got two free house calls from the pros, plus Lucy and I have a rather cute TV appearance out of it, I think.
Oh, wait! The person (a guy, it turns out) just wrote back:
Sorry! Iam no perfectionist. If i wanted i can be a tutor for grammer and spelling. I dont see the necessity in being so. But your right help those who believe in your abilities. I dont know enoufe to. Besides if she and i are going to patch things up in the unlikly event we should do fine on our own as we are both intelectuals.
Yes, I can see he's a regular Harold Bloom.
> she would like to start a
> conversation about why
> the United States seems
> particularly vulnerable to
> such a virulent strain of
> anti-intellectualism.
I'm game! Me first!
Americans distrust intellectuals because they know that intellectuals aren't good for much. All the truly admirable qualities in a human being (courage, honesty, loyalty, enthusiasm etc.) are no more likely to appear in an intellectual than in anyone else. And the people who write snotty books about being smart are usually the ones who think good test scores should get them a free upgrade from Tall to Grande at Starbucks, or some other treat. Some other countries aren't as clear about this as Americans are.
These favorite links have been posted on this topic in earlier days: Nozick and Posner.
Crid at February 17, 2008 1:00 AM
I agree that is appalling what people do not know and worse that they do not care that they do not know, but this is hardly unique to the US. Two UK examples:
Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll
Pupils' 'appalling' history knowledge
I think my all time favorite was some poll just after I graduated that showed 75% of American high schoolers thought Pearl Harbor was *in Japan*.
So I asked some of my friends where Pearl Harbor was and all of them said Japan. I then asked if they knew that it was the bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought us into the war, and they all said "sure".
Just think about the logic of that combination for a second: Japan bombs their own harbor, and the American reaction is to declare war on them and Germany.
Brn at February 17, 2008 1:06 AM
Meh. People have been saying all this stuff about anti-knowledge and how we're all dumb and getting dumber, but as a whole we've got way MORE knowledge nowadays than ever before. Twenty-two years of our life and tons of money are dedicated to learning. We have enormous databases of knowledge online, and nearly all cities have public libraries. For a few cents a day you can get a newspaper delivered to your front door. Not only that, but we have created these insane gadgets that have thousands of parts, that would have been absolutely impossible to make as early in history as two hundred years ago.
Not only is it very easy to FIND knowledge, it's also easy to PUT knowledge out there for everyone to see. This blog, for example, wikipedia for another example, and anyone with a computer can make a website and put whatever they want on it. In just a few seconds I can, say, go find how much 14th century Ming vases cost, or look up the dates of the fifteen decisive battles in the world.
So yeah, not everyone is a genius. But just because someone slept through history class or because we can't debate in Latin any more aren't really reasons to rag on the entire population as being dumb. And besides, the creation stuff was taught as absolute fact a few hundred years ago, the fact we stopped that is significant progress. I guess I don't see why we should go back to "battle over land, then have 1084 days of farming".
By the way, Amy, your emailer's a pet peeve of mine. Deliberately misspelling and not bothering to type when you're capable of it is the height of laziness and rudeness. It's saying "The six seconds I save typing badly is more important than your several minutes of trying to decipher it". It doesn't have to be picture perfect - We all make mistakes and the occasional typo - But honestly, I don't know why so many people lose the ability to spell coherently when they come on the internet. I guess part of it's the "I'm not getting paid for this, so it doesn't count" attitude.
Bad Kitty at February 17, 2008 2:04 AM
Agree. I think it's very rude to write in ALL CAPS, with terrible grammar and spelling, in that u r texting slang. If you want free advice from me, you'd better put a little effort into your e-mail, or I'll send it back to you with a big "Needs Improvement" before I'll answer it.
Amy Alkon at February 17, 2008 2:27 AM
I don't think it so much dumb and proud as ignorant and proud and it's fairly easy to isolate the cause(s):
- For all the books in the country there's a shocking lack of literacy. I'm talking about simply being able to read at an age appropriate level. This stems from lack of parenting (the old "it takes a village" canard) and schools promoting kids that can't perform. If a kid can't read by the age of 7 or 8 then their academic future is over and their future earning potential, outside of sports, is also over. The schools should ensure that every kid can read but it's the parents responsibility to make sure it happens. What sane individual turns their most precious asset over to the State and doesn't periodically check performance?
- The schools have done an abysmal job, particularly in the inner cites, in teaching the basic educational skills necessary to learn. The basic 3 "R's". The schools know that the "seat-warmers" are illiterate, that they'll have a miserable future, so they teach "self-esteem". If you're going to be ignorant and poor then why not be proud about your lack of accomplishment?
- Let's not overlook the interests of the State. "Ignorant and proud" are easily manipulated by the class warfare arguments. Their lack of success has nothing to do with them! No siree! Just ask them, they'll tell you that their skills surpass even the most exacting standards (assuming that you could understand what they said).
Curly Smith at February 17, 2008 6:14 AM
Regarding the 'Pearl Harbor' conversation the author overheard:
For most people, history began the day they were born. The "educational" system doesn't impress upon its young charges the importance of that which came before them in shaping the world in which they now live. Like Curly, I believe that this is intentional, as the ignorant are easily led.
America is not "anti-intellectual". Never has been. What it is, however, is anti-snob. And most of the people bitching about anti-intellectualism are really snobs whose ideas have not found purchase because they aren't terribly intellectual.
brian at February 17, 2008 6:37 AM
The professors have a phrase : "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."
Notice there is a two-part problem : News is not reported and context is not taught.
Interestingly, I read a Russian newsman's complaint a few weeks ago that "we are not allowed to report the news and focus on irrelevancies like celebrity." I think that was in RIA Novosti. It sounds very similar to what you hear about media control in the West.
Opit at February 17, 2008 7:11 AM
Both my wife (a former editor) and I have become horrible snobs about spelling and grammar. We quit seeing another couple because of their insistence on using the non-word "irregardless" in conversation.
COOP at February 17, 2008 7:29 AM
In my professional life I have met many people, from line workers to executives, who refused to learn and adopt better ways of doing things. Some would aggressively defend their right to be ignorant.
All cultures seem to have forces of enlightenment and mediocrity battling each other. Rising above mediocrity requires courageous champions.
DaveG at February 17, 2008 7:56 AM
But honestly, I don't know why so many people lose the ability to spell coherently when they come on the internet.
Because they don't care, they think it doesn't matter, and there is a critical mass of other people doing the same thing. Meanwhile, people such as you and I shudder and look for others with whom to converse. (Or should that be "you and I"? Gah, I rely on "that doesn't sound right" when it comes to "I" vs. "me," but I genuinely can't tell there, and I don't have easy access to my books on grammar and syntax right now.)
When vastly greater swaths of news time are spent on some celebrity's being sent to jail as opposed to informing Americans how our Constitution is being undermined and subverted by the Bush administration
Ah yes - the only reason that Americans haven't risen up against our oppressive, conspiratorial Bushitler dictatorship is that the sheeple are distracted by Britney Spears! This person isn't really angry that Americans aren't "following the news" - he or she is unhappy because Americans haven't been voting his or her way, and is so incapable of seeing why people might think differently that he consigns all those who oppose him to the dustbin of ignorance. That's not true intellectualism, at least not to me.
marion at February 17, 2008 8:29 AM
"Irregardless" makes my teeth hurt.
And (apologies to Crid) but celebrities are an "evolutionarily novel" concept for us, and play on our still-stone-age psychology. It seems we have hard-wired adaptations that lead us to be interested in them (as if they were alpha members of our band).
Amy Alkon at February 17, 2008 8:50 AM
I'm sure little caveboys were mauling the mastodon to the Venus of Willendorf, so I probably wouldn't be so quick on the evo-novelty trigger.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at February 17, 2008 10:26 AM
Youse all is a buncha fuckin' cluckers, thassall. (Maybe excepting Marion, and maybe Kitty.) Sitting around moaning how tragic it is that the little people don't know this or that is worth exactly dick. It gives you zero moral authority and zero broader insight into the movement of the civilization. So the purpose can only be to pretend you're not like those people.
I hate that shit.
Crid at February 17, 2008 10:46 AM
> mauling the mastodon
!!
Crid at February 17, 2008 10:48 AM
Nothing gets my dander up faster than to see the word "free" linked to the word "education." The school district where I teach spends $10K per student, per year. The beneficiaries pay nothing, of course, and therein lies the first problem. A "free" education should have reciprocal agreements like any other contract. It's time taxpayers demanded a genuine effort by the student in exchange for our largesse. Make the grade, kid, or you're out. We shouldn't be in the business of providing subsidized daycare for the lazy and indolent. But then when has anyone ever valued something given them for free? A nominal charge for education might supply some sort of vested interest, if not amongst the kids, then maybe at least by their parents. When nothing is demanded, little is given in return.
The second problem falls into the category of societal decadence. Kids today are spoiled and coddled. They feel themselves entitled to every material thing their hearts desire. Parents are more likely to give in to the demands than listen to the whining, even if it means going into hock to get it. "No!" is a powerful word, and it needs to be enforced. Parents need to be parents, and not their kid's best friend.
The third problem is that today's youth crave entertainment and distraction. As a classroom teacher my evidence is only anecdotal, but I would say that video games are the number one cause for failure in school. I've actually had kids quit so they could stay home and play video games all day. They're working on being lifelong dependents, sealed in their parents' basement, unable or unwilling to hold a job. Why get a life when a virtual life is no much more appealing?
Here's the kicker: "It's okay to be ignorant as long as you get what you want in life." It's not an isolated comment. The attitude is pervasive.
God Save the Republic!
Mark William Paules at February 17, 2008 10:49 AM
I hate to say this, but I will because I can change things in my part of the world, at work.
You may know that I work at Savannah River Site, in radioactive waste processing. Over a period of time, computerization has been offered and accepted as the "solution" for a great many things, not the least of which is the tendency of the workforce to go home at the end of the day without following up on conditions they have noted are awry during their work. There are a number of things which make them do this; let me just say that there is no peer pressure to know what you are doing, or to do anything beyond the bare minimum to avoid losing one's job.
This is dangerous. Those of you familiar with risk analysis know that there are thousands of unsafe acts to every ten injuries, and every serious injury. SRS is among the safest places on Earth to work because the company has been able to impress people with the need for safety, and so I have an avenue of attack: you need to know what you are doing to be "safe".
So I have a short lecture coming up on Wednesday, at which a mix of personnel from all disciplines will hear a few things I can press through the "fog" of what they think they know about working at my facility.
-----
Many Americans are bombarded to the limits of cognition with the distractions of our age, courtesy of advertising and specialty programming designed for immediate satisfaction, not education. Look at the shallowness of any reporting whatsoever: political races, NASCAR races and NFL contests are focused on who will win, not on the mechanics of the contest. The spectator can imagine s/he knows what is going on, when a few questions will reveal that that is not the case; that's when somebody's ego surfaces to identify a "snob".
Snob: someone who actually knows about the subject in conversation. This is resented by the ignorant, but pandering to the common man, accepting his or her ignorance as "normal" or even "OK" demeans everyone. Ego should never be offered as a defense against education, because everyone has something to learn at all times. Since when have learned people been deserving of derision? I suggest it started when media filed to notice that an expert in one field cannot be counted on to comment intelligently in another. That's the source of the classic distinction between "book-larnin'" and other means.
I expected someone to bring up President Bush; he's just the latest, actually, in a long line of people doing things by strictly legal means that other people hate because they're fed the same content-free "information" this post addresses - and as a result, he's the only person they can identify.
Ignorance is dangerous. You can be led to the wrong solution for any problem.You need to learn about goverment, firearms, the law, medicine, etc., starting with basic definitions (you might think you know those - don't count on it) before you can rightly comment on the issues. I know you want to speak and be heard. Let us both know what we are talking about when we speak, and show others that it is necessary.
Radwaste at February 17, 2008 11:04 AM
> Since when have learned
> people been deserving
> of derision?
Since the day that doing well in school was confused with practical wisdom. Fuck 'em.
Crid at February 17, 2008 11:43 AM
I thought Crid was joking the first time, but after seeing his next post, apparently he's serious. Guess what: knowing stuff is useful. So is "wisdom", though it's a bit harder to define. Combine the two, and you have something. Take the wisest person you know, deprive them of knowledge, and they're a waste of protoplasm.
Not knowing history, not knowing science, not having reasonable mathematical skills - these are serious limitations on a person. If you don't understand history, you believe idiotic politicians. If you can't do math, you're likely to believe in that pyramid scheme.
The biggest problem with schools in the USA is political correctness. You can't teach history, because most of the real achievements were driven by Europe and Asia - and you don't want to offend anyone who has roots elsewhere. This is especially true if you look at technological achievements (which are, in the end, what support a decent level of civilization). You get the Greeks, the Romans, a bit from the Middle East, and then almost all the rest is European. One may argue whether a particular invention was discovered first in Italy, Germany of America, but there's never a candidate from Zimbabwe.
Then you get to academic performance. Who can learn algebra? And what do you do with those who can't? Once, there were excellent shop programs that led into apprenticeships in the trades. Now, everyone is expected to be college-track. This is not only destroying academic fields - it has already destroyed the trades. With no apprenticeship programs, anyone can claim to be a carpenter and come work on your house - and it is difficult for qualified tradesmen to distinguish themselves from the incompetents.
bradley13 at February 17, 2008 12:35 PM
Sorry, typo, that should read "Germany or America"
bradley13 at February 17, 2008 12:36 PM
In Europe they have their own Creationism - the almighty "social contract." and the radical church called Communism. Its fortunate that the EU keeps its people in economic shackles and taxes the hell out of anyone who works. Add in rampant moral and cultural relativism and its enough to make a decent person emigrate to the USA.
austin at February 17, 2008 1:44 PM
I actually agree with Curly when he says this, even though it is painful to admit:
"For all the books in the country there's a shocking lack of literacy. I'm talking about simply being able to read at an age appropriate level. This stems from lack of parenting (the old "it takes a village" canard) and schools promoting kids that can't perform. If a kid can't read by the age of 7 or 8 then their academic future is over and their future earning potential, outside of sports, is also over."
You see, the younger of my stepsons reads at a high Kindergarten/low first grade level. In 3rd grade, at nearly 10 years old. His older twin reads at a mid to high 2nd grade level, although his comprehension is around mid 1st grade. Again, in 3rd grade at nearly 10 years old. They have ADHD plus moderate (the older one) to severe (the younger one) learning disabilities. We're not sure that they'll ever catch up. The older one goes to tutoring twice a week. We are trying to get the younger one tested to find out what his learning disability is so that we can figure out how to help him. Unbelievably, we keep being turned away by people who say that they cannot help us. I worry about them continuously. Luckily, if they are unable to do anything else, they will be able to work with my husband in his landscaping company as adults.
I witness how little people know about the world around them on a weekly basis. My physical geography professor has stated that he had to remove a test question in which he asked people to draw and label a diagram of the solar system. 20% of the students placed Earth at the middle. Some were unable to label any body in the solar system besides the sun, the moon, and Earth. When the class was asked how water forms on the outside of a cold glass of water, I was the only person to pipe up with "condensation of water vapor in the air." My teacher was pleasantly surprised and responded that most people thought that the water was pulled through the glass to the outside.
I know (just by going to school and witnessing) that I am an anomaly in that I love to learn. Because I love to learn I take many different kinds of classes and retain quite a bit of the information from each one. I just find it sad that no one seems to care about learning new things.
Kristen at February 17, 2008 1:46 PM
Interesting comment thread.
I truly enjoy people spouting off about this and that because I do it frequently. It's therapeutic. It doesn't alter the course of history or set new ideas in motion. I think of it as birds flocked in a tree chattering at each other. We should not take ourselves so seriously as to think our opinion is the last word in any discussion.
But there is a way to step outside of the chatter and regard the fact of life and our collective consciousness in a different light. Think of the scale of things and their significance to our reality in terms of their relative size; their scale . Is an atom less significant than an entire planet? Their scale is vastly different but is their importance proportional to their size ?
Think then how significant our lives and ideas are in the grand scheme of the vast mystery of life.
WRJ at February 17, 2008 1:47 PM
COOP -
Way back, when we first started dating, my partner and I, were having drinks with a friend and his boyfriend who used that non-word. His boyfriend was a very lose friend of my partner's, so she was trying very hard to be nice to him. But the third time he said it, she finally snapped. We didn't spend much time with the friend, until he split with the idiot BF (it wasn't just that which made him stupid).
Crid -
There is nothing wrong with recognizing that a all too large percentage of the population is woefully ignorant. Especially when it is easy to turn around and find the source of the problem; intellectuals. Whilst there are ignorant morons, on probably every schoolboard in the country, most public schools follow a common pattern, a pattern designed by intellectuals.
Ultimately, the problem is, that over the past few decades, public schools have become sharply focused on college prep, at the cost of dropping everything else. So the current model assumes that kids who are unable to keep up, just need a pat on the back and that they should then be buried further over their heads.
Even thirty years ago, a child who wasn't academically inclined, would still leave school with the basics. They might not have an extensive understanding of social studies, science, math and English, but most had enough to grasp the very basics. At the same time, they would also have left school with enough vocational training to make it in a trade, often more than one. They could expect to make a very decent living, not because they had made it academically, but because in spite of not making it, they still had skills that made them quite valuable.
This also helped those who were on a college track. They might never work in any trade, might never get their hands dirty, a day in their life, but they did have enough understanding to be informed consumers of services.
It may not have been perfect, but it worked far better than the current paradigm. The notion that every child should have the college track education, shoved down their throat, is absurd. A huge percentage of kids are never going to go to college. Of those who do, a huge percentage will never finish a degree. Of those who get a degree, if they chose the wrong "hot" field of study (you know, hot when they started, not so much by the end), they end up trying to pay off student loans, working at Starbucks or worse.
I don't think, as Mr Paules does, that kids that don't fit the college track should get booted. I think they should have the same option that kids like them had, thirty, forty years ago.
Radwaste -
I can't tell you how frustrating it is, to deal with ignorance on the job. I'm a handyman/remodeler. I've worked most of my adult life in the building trades, along the way picking up a lot of safety training. I'm even certified to teach fall safety and work as a site safety man. It is one of the most frustrating jobs I have ever done, trying to teach fall safety and ensure that my people are working safely.
I had the worse, from a guy who falls into the "intellectual" category. He was lucky enough to go to a school that had some decent voc-ed programs (paid for almost in total, by a local business association, spearheaded by DOW). Because of liability, the building trades program was very restricted in their ability to teach any sort of fall safety. They actually learned to roof, roofing panels on the ground. The program was also limited to teaching only basic skills.
So this guy comes onto one of my roofing crews, having won an award, for best in his building class. He also came to the job, with his own, very expensive hand tools (such as a $136 hammer). So it was obvious to him, that he knew everything, or most everything that he needed, to do the job. I mean come on, he got 105% on his written final for the class. He was very put out that I didn't make him a crew leader, instead promoting a guy who was a high school dropout (I was actually a dropout too), who had four years of roofing experience.
He fought tooth and nail, with me and his crew leader, on our system for running jobs. Never mind that the guy who taught us had been doing it for over thirty years, he knew far better than we. He also had this unfortunate tendency to insist on doing things the way that the professionals who did the ladder-work on the exam house, every year. They were not very good examples, but he insisted they must have been right, even after I explained that I was OSHA certified to teach him how to do it right.
The one (non-safety) rule I had with my guys, was that if they were running into a problem wit something, or if it just didn't seem right, they need to stop and let me know - do not keep going. The fifth time we had to go back and fix one of his obvious fuck-ups, I was finally able to get rid of him. He just couldn't comprehend that he couldn't do it all. He especially had problems dealing with people who weren't especially interested in hearing his ideas more than once. I was always willing to listen to someone's ideas. But after hearing it, I either said great idea lets do it, or no, not going to work. Most of my guys managed to have a good idea or two, including him. But he was the only one who would argue about it if I said no - every fucking time.
He hated my "ignorance" and refusal to consider every idea he had as gold. And on one occasion, had the audacity to complain to our boss, about my hating him, because he was soooo smart. I think that was what convinced my boss that I might be right about his continued employment with us.
DuWayne at February 17, 2008 1:53 PM
If you really look at the education arguments about how America is falling behind, they center around Math and Science. What is being argued about in knowing where Pearl Harbor is, or the difference between two, to, and too, is NOT where we are falling behind in education.
Having read Brothers K means exactly squat in terms of writing a computer program, or making cellulosic fiber biofuel economically feasible. Ceasar crossed the Rubicon to get to the other side, and that doesn't help with the explnation of dark matter.
The question about what people know, really resides in what do they NEED to know to live every day. The rest is handy, it's gravy. It makes the well rounded citizen. Instilling the interest in things other than you need everyday, is what helps people know where Pearl Harbor is, and why it was a total blunder for the Japanese. Even MORE important is the knowledge about community that helps people make decisions in a representative democracy.
If there is something to rail against, it is the shortsighted, and self-centered. But how is it different than the class condescension and hubris of insisting that everyone should know the same thing as you?
Yes, we teach many things, but students in the US don't attend school nearly as much as in Japan. So. What. I haven't used differential equations in 17 years, and so? I can't remember how to do them. I could probably learn quickly if needed, but the bottom line is that I DON'T need to know that. Just like I don't really need to know which pre-socratic said you can't step in the same river once. Or was it twice? And what did they mean by same? I learned that long ago, and remember fragments out of curiosity.
Knowing the single tipping point that brought us into WWII is very important, especially in terms of future wars probably being much more ambiguous on this point. Perhaps this points to an idea, that we don't PRIORITIZE what is taught. You are s'posed to just know it all. Perhaps this is a fearful off-shoot of the politization of what is taught in schools, and what people are curious about later.
I didn't do nearly as well in school as my peers that were able to memorize an re-gurgitate information on demand. All these years later, though I am often astounded at how much they have forgotten. I have to believe that they have forgotten the info. by prioritizing it as limited use, while I remember much useless information as a quirk of curiosity and memory. What's the acceleration due to gravity? Do you really need to know it's 9.8 m/s/s? I doubt if the barista at my local starbuck's needs to know that. They just need to know that the coffee falls into the cup.
The bottom line of the question to me isn't about tsking people for what they don't know. It's about helping people to be intellectually curious about stuff. Yes. Stuff. Things, people, places. They will learn, and importantly, continue to learn if they are curious about things from beyond everyday. You can't browbeat people into that. Snotty-intellectualism is all about a setup for feeling good at another's expense. "I know somehting you don't know!" Yeah? Like how to tie your shoes? Do you know how to be happy?
The expectation that people know enough outside their daily routine to perform their civic duty seems reasonable. Perhaps it is the biggest thing we need for a well-rounded citizen. Yet I often run into people who claim high education, who claim to be intellectual, who nonetheless make decisions about laws and politics purely based on emotional belief. They are no better than an illiterate farm-hand, in that respect. Both may well respond to the candidate that says exactly what they want to hear, without wondering how it is possible to fund such a promise, or if a new law might potentially be used to eliminate your ability to travel freely.
Don't wanna be an American Idiot? Fine, open your brain up to everything you DON'T know, and see what you would like to know. If you don't wan't OTHER people to be American Idiots, show them something cool you just figured out, and how they can do that too. Telling them they are bass-ackwards because they like NASCAR is garundamnteed to convince them that your point-of-view is worthless, because you wish to force it on them. Anti-Intellectuallism, is caused by intellectual bullying.
PS> just for grins... irregardless, irregardless, irregardless, irregardless, irregardless, irregardless, irregardless...
from Webster's:
irregardless
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Contotallyfused? Don't be, it's only life, after all.
SwissArmyD at February 17, 2008 2:13 PM
Well, dictionary entry or not, I act just like COOP and his wife and cut off all social contact with people so ignorant as to use that or any other word with negative affixes on both ends, no matter what virtues they might manifest in other aspects of their lives. The proper form is "irregardful."
Axman at February 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Nothing gets my dander up faster than to see the word "free" linked to the word "education." The school district where I teach spends $10K per student, per year. The beneficiaries pay nothing, of course, and therein lies the first problem. A "free" education should have reciprocal agreements like any other contract. It's time taxpayers demanded a genuine effort by the student in exchange for our largesse. Make the grade, kid, or you're out. We shouldn't be in the business of providing subsidized daycare for the lazy and indolent.
As I've said before, I'm of the mind parents should pay for their own damn brats to go to school. Can't afford to school three? Have two, or one, or none. The rest of us do need to pay to school the children of the dirt-poor crackhead types, but there really aren't so many of them.
Amy Alkon at February 17, 2008 4:13 PM
Bradley 13 -
That's what happens when I get distracted while commenting, other people make the same point first.
I also suspect that the reason so many learning "disabilities" have surfaced in recent years, is the lack of voc ed. Where forty years ago, a kid with, say, ADHD, had the outlet of a decent shop class, or several, to help get through the day. Even if it just burned off some of the boring, so they could focus better in academic classes. Kids who just aren't inclined to the academics, could still functionally get a valuable education. They could also get the academics put at a more fundamental level, so they didn't leave school completely ignorant of history, math and science.
I am getting involved with a voc-ed program through the community centers, here in Portland. I actually worked in a program that did much the same thing, shortly after moving here, but it only lasted for three years, I was in on the last one. This one is getting a lot more support than that one, and is really focusing on working with local school districts, so I have some hope that it will make it. They're getting some serious players from the building trades, automotive shops and high tech machinists.
Sill, there is something seriously fucked about having to do this on the side, rather than making it part of the curriculum. There is a cabinet shop that looked into opening it's old facility to the local district, for voc ed classes. Just down the street from one of the high schools, they figured it would be perfect (and a tax write off, which given the realestate market, seemed a good idea). They also had commitments from various businesses to send instructors as volunteers (including several that are doing the community based training). It could have been theirs for little to no cost, but the school just wouldn't go for it. The reasoning was, that they didn't want to detract from any students "real" education.
Of the current education paradigm, I am certainly not fond.
DuWayne at February 17, 2008 5:54 PM
Bradley, darlin', get the fuck out of here.
> If you don't understand history,
> you believe idiotic politicians.
What makes you think so? Do you really think it was your history class that made you doubt David Duke.
> If you can't do math, you're
> likely to believe in that
> pyramid scheme.
People alert to human nature have avoided deception long before calculus.
You're clucking, Bradster, and it's a hideous racket. In more ways than one
Crid at February 17, 2008 6:21 PM
We should have universal mind care.
....um...yeah...(never mind).
Paul at February 17, 2008 6:42 PM
Well, shall we champion ignorance? Will Rogers said it's what we know that ain't so that's the problem. He was right. And Robert Heinlein and Jeff Cooper (http://www.thesconce.com/index.html) have been calling what we see "the crazy years" and "the Age of the Common Man" for fifty years or so.
But that it has gone on for ages doesn't mean it should be acceptable.
Radwaste at February 17, 2008 7:12 PM
> shall we champion ignorance?
Ever read anything from the streets that was more than about a hundred year old? You see all these presumptions in the rhetoric that ignore the real world. Not just the obvious stuff, like germ theory and slavery and women's rights... There are these vast areas of sensitivity and awareness that just haven't come online yet. And so you're always embarrassed for the folks in olden days, who were pissing out these tremendous stupidities with great confidence, as if they were so civilized....
That will happen in our times, too. People will look back at the way that we cluck about edjumication and so forth in the early 21st, and they'll think "Christ, these guys were really fucked in the head...."
PS- LAT says Return to forever is getting back together.
PPS- LAT says Robert Jastrow died, and won't be around to hear them.
Crid at February 17, 2008 7:42 PM
My complaint is the scientific illiteracy of the press. One story that hit the news recently was a "scientific" study of six people who had diabetes. Or the reporter who wanted to use solar cells to power cars. Or the scam that says that hydrogen powered cars would pollute less.
You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time but you can certainly get a lot of them.
Yaakov Watkins at February 17, 2008 11:27 PM
Ragging on religious fundamentalists as a cause of widespread ignorance is a red herring. They have a different view from the rest of us concerning one particular set of facts, but as a group they're no more hostile toward education than everyone else. Probably less so; parochial and other private religious schools perform well compared to public schools.
To be clear, I'm talking about the kind of religious fundamentalists we have in the U.S.: Christian, with rare exceptions. I don't know enough about any other kind to venture an opinion.
Rex Little at February 17, 2008 11:52 PM
What is the connection between this post and the previous one about men shying away from marriage?
There is a connection - when adulthood is no longer the goal, education also suffers.
Older notions of adulthood carried within them the rationales for making oneself educated - from the profit motive to the sense of communal stewardship.
That's been replaced with:
- internalized victimology politics, which creates dependency and severs the link between actions and consequences
- the perpetual adolescent's focus on self-esteem and doing as they wish
- replacement of production with consumption as the perceived cause of fulfillment in life
- disdain for long-term commitment
- disdain for inconveniencing oneself for others - or for any goal.
Correct these - in other words, restore adulthood as a goal - and both students and educators will correct themselves.
Ben-David at February 18, 2008 12:36 AM
I'm with you on shoddy science reporting. Far too much of it.
As for the fundamentalists, religion promotes nonthink: it has to to keep itself alive. People who angrily insist that man was riding around on the dinosaurs (yeeha!) and refer to science and rational thought as dangerous, offensive, and wrong aren't exactly elevating modern learning in our schools. Look at the brouhaha in Pennsylvania. How much time, energy and resources were diverted to promote the idea that schools are teaching crap instead of (the fairy tale crap) that is creationism.
And you gotta love how, right out of Swift, they call it "intelligent design." Except they're serious and THEY are the ones eating the brains of their young.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 12:39 AM
Great conversation!
Ok, when I first read those emails, I thought you were pulling our leg. Nobody could possibly write that bad. Then I remembered my mother telling me about my nephew coming home with a note from his teacher admonishing him for his poor writing skills. She said, “He needs to learn how to write like a forth grader.” I was at work one day and I was editing a report that someone had written about Saddam Husseins rape rooms in the prisoner camps after interviewing someone who had survived one of the camps. The writer confused the spelling of Saddam and Sodom throughout the entire report. First you laugh, then you cry. My mother used to smack me in the head when I said ‘irregardless’, eventually I stopped.
While I’m not surprised to read 75% of high schoolers don’t know about Pearl Harbor, I’m sure they know about global warming. We have our priorities screwed up. Some schools are not even teaching must history at all anymore. I love history and have always been interested in great historical stories. I agree about those not knowing the past being doomed to repeat it. That’s why some people don’t want the ignorant masses to learn it. I believe the idea behind third world dictatorships is, “Keep the masses fed and stupid and they will never rise against you.” Sadly, I’m starting to see growing evidence in our country that our political elitists are pushing this concept.
In America, we always want to throw a politically correct slant on history or not teach it at all. I hate James Camerons movies, Pearl Harbor and Titanic. Here are two of the greatest stories in history and if you went by the Cameron version, the sinking of the Titanic was a love story about Jack and Rose, and oh yeah, a ship sunk. Most of the movie was fiction and with all of the true human stories involved, I found that to be real damned stupid. I actually fell asleep in the theater and starting snoring till my girlfriend hit me. Pearl Harbor was the same way, people didn’t go to Starbucks and drink latte’s then, they drank in the morning, smoked like fiends and screwed themselves silly. There are great life lessons to be learned from these stories. There was a majority of people in the US who did not want to get involved in WWII. It turns out, that it was exactly that attitude that gave Japan and Germany the idea that they could run rampant in the world and not be seriously challenged. It matters what we do in the world and it matters who you vote for. And if someone screws up, it could change the world as we know it in a matter of seconds. We don’t seem to want to accept that anymore. We would rather believe that if we just stay out of everything, (an impossibility I might add) that things will not change for the worse. We don’t want to be reminded that it takes a little knowledge to make intelligent responsible decisions. You don’t have to be an intellectual. I’m not even sure what intellectuals are good for. But you shouldn’t vote for somebody because they are good looking. I notice that there is a shunning of talking politics in America. People are afraid to debate or stand up for what they believe in probably because they don’t know enough to do so.
One more thing and I’ll get off my soapbox. Some have mentioned a need for more Vocational training in this thread, they couldn’t more right. In Europe, not everybody has to go to college, but they’ll send you to trade school in a lot of European countries, and that to me is more useful than struggling with the meaning of cubist art. We need to adopt that concept here in the US. If a student isn’t doing well with college type subjects, teach them to weld, or do woodwork, or the general skills of the construction trade, or how to fix cars. These are important everyday jobs that are needed and pay well. It’s a smart thing to do.
Bikerken at February 18, 2008 1:47 AM
Absolutely. Of course, Pierre D., my favorite retired Parisian master carpenter, last time I was here, was reading Hannah Arendt, and is now reading Todorov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzvetan_Todorov
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 2:18 AM
I don't disagree with those calling for more vocational training in our schools, but the choice needs to be more diverse than academic versus trade school. Too many parents accept whatever school is local because they assume that all schools are equally equipped to handle the individual needs of all students. This is manifestly not the case.
The first step is to get government out of the business of education. Privatization and competition will most assuredly improve education as it does for most services and products. Huge efficiencies will accrue to the "customer" as top heavy bureaucracies are abandoned in favor of local control. Where there is a need the magic of the market will provide: academic institutions for the college bound, trade schools for the working class, special education for the handicapped, and military academies for the criminally inclined.
Where I disagree with our hostess is that society does have an obligation to pay for the education of all students. We have a collective responsibility for the future of this nation. As such, the education of children should be a priority. Parental choice backed with a system of publicly financed vouchers is the answer. Will corporations reap a profit from such a venture? I hope so. Will such a plan result in a bicameral system based on class? Possibly, but so what? Those with means always get the best of everything. Inequality is one of capitalisms drawbacks, but all boats do rise over time.
As things stand now public education is an abyssmal failure. Teacher's unions protect the incompetent while good teachers go undercompensated. Bureaucracies suck in the dollars and give us nothing useful in return. Worst of all is the quality of the product. We see it everyday in a generation that can't read, can't write, can't computate, and can't think. If public education were a corporation, it would long ago have gone bankrupt.
Mark William Paules at February 18, 2008 6:16 AM
PS- LAT says Return to forever is getting back together.
I thought Stanley Clark and Al Demiola were still mad at each other? And when did Chick Correa move from Wesport? o_O
Flynne at February 18, 2008 6:24 AM
As things stand now public education is an abyssmal failure.
Agreed, to a certain extent.
Teacher's unions protect the incompetent while good teachers go undercompensated.
Totally agree.
Bureaucracies suck in the dollars and give us nothing useful in return. Worst of all is the quality of the product. We see it everyday in a generation that can't read, can't write, can't computate, and can't think.
Not so much. The kids in my daughters' schools (public high school and middle school) are pretty damn smart, from what I've seen. I received, in the mail, a test score of Daughter #2's reading ability and comprehension, and she, a 7th grader, scored higher than the 8th grade goal score. And she insists that she "hates to read"! So this means either she's far superior in her reading and comprehension skills than is required, or something is desperately wrong with the scoring system on these tests! Daughter #1 and the majority of her friends are very literate and also score well on tests, from what I've seen. I don't think we're raising a generation that can't read, can't write, can't computate, and can't think.
If public education were a corporation, it would long ago have gone bankrupt.
Yes, agreed.
Flynne at February 18, 2008 6:37 AM
Where I disagree with our hostess is that society does have an obligation to pay for the education of all students. We have a collective responsibility for the future of this nation. As such, the education of children should be a priority. Parental choice backed with a system of publicly financed vouchers is the answer.
Why then do we not have an obligation to clothe and feed these children, and buy them books and Wiis?
I agree with the notion that we need to have an educated populace to have a democracy, but if you choose to bring little bundles of something-or-other into the word, it should be your responsibility to raise them properly into adulthood -- not mine.
Again, I will pay gladly for the dirt-poor. But, again, if you're middle-class and you can't afford to school two, well then have one. And think carefully whether it's prudent to get pregnant at 45, when you may have a baby with disabilities -- well, you will think more carefully if you have to pay for your child's education and it isn't shoved off on the rest of us.
Again, if you come upon hard times, we're not going to let your child starve or make him or her go to work in a sweatshop at 8. But, well, let's just say I'm a "personal responsibilitarian." (A Division of "Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian-ish, Inc.")
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Well, here we go about individual inquisitiveness, too.
I knew what happened to the Titanic; I suggest that most people who went to the movie did. I also knew who was in the movie and what the plot was before I went. I spent the time marveling at the details they got right. Of course, Titanic had one turbine and two reciprocating steam engines driving three shafts; the crew actually built the set from the plans of the original, and filmed engine-room scenes in another vessel of the period, with some camera trickery, of course. Obviously, Cameron's people re-created the sinking by reconstructing events in an expensive research process, and they included film of the wreck itself. So you don't like to watch the high society people trash Jack, or hear about Rose's problems? Go watch the National Geographic special, which has a few more details. You won't be crowded. It remains that the movie is surprisingly accurate.
-----
About reading levels: I wouldn't be impressed with ratings given by school systems. Give your kid a copy of Strunk & White's Elements of Style, a couple of great classics or some of the modern work of C. J. Cherryh and stand back. There is also a series available in used-book stores called "The Life Science Library". Published in the '60s by LIFE magazine, they are an 8 1/2 by 11" delight. Looking like a magazine, but with a hard cover, they are titled by their subject: "Water". "Light and Vision". "Matter". "Energy". Yes, the image of the scene before you is inverted on your retina. Technetium really isn't found on Earth, despite its low atomic number. There really is a temperature at which a mass of water can include solid, liquid and gas. "Temperature" really isn't what you think it is. And it can actually be fun to find these things out!
There really is an amazing world out there, and you and your kids might be missing it, not knowing where to look and depending on some school system to lead you to it. So keep looking.
Ahem. "Computate?" For shame!
Radwaste at February 18, 2008 9:15 AM
It has occurred to me that one of the constants in history has not been acknowledged here.
Those who are educated will control the lives of those who are not. Make a note of it.
Radwaste at February 18, 2008 9:22 AM
Did anyone get around to blaming this problem on all the time wasted by children in front of electronic entertainment?
If not, I will; TV is the devil! It turns childrens brains to mush! Save your kids, turn off the electronic garbage!
Another obvious point about news reporting: news organizations want to make money so they report what people want to read. Reports about celebrity personal problems (preferably with a pic showing lots of clevage) are easier to sell than reports of an interesting compound that increases interaction between soybeans and symbiotic bacteria leading to significant increases in bean yields.
Jim at February 18, 2008 9:22 AM
Ms. Alkon,
The idea that government is entrusted to safeguard the "public good" (also known as the "common weal") is a well-established principle in western, political philosophy. Conservatives believe this role should be limited, but only the most laissez faire radical would insist on no role for government. An educated populace being necessary for a functioning democracy, the common good impels us collectively to provide every citizen with an education. Our future depends on it.
If food and clothing were an issue for the "poor", we would be obliged to provide such basic necessities. But that's no longer the case. When the poor have sufficient income to invest in fashion, society at large is absolved of any further contribution. The same is true for any category where "needs" have been trumped by "wants". We are obliged to provide only basics, not a complete lifestyle.
While I applaud complete self-reliance as a worthy goal in theory, I recognize the need for limited collective responsibility. Universal education, military defense, and a sound currency all come to mind. No man is an island. We are social creatures bound by the needs of community. Maximum liberty and total personal responsibility amount to utopian libertarianism. No more workable than the socialist variant. Life is necessarily a compromise between absolutes.
Mark William Paules at February 18, 2008 9:28 AM
We weren't allowed to watch television as children. I didn't know the names of The Three Stooges until I worked in an ad agency right out of college, and I'd never seen a Honeymooners' episode. I think I'd seen The Brady Bunch a few times, but just in passing.
What was I doing all those years? Reading the entire Farmington Hills public library, except for sports, home-repair, and a few other sections.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 9:39 AM
I believe in a limited role, too - I'd like to limit the money you can suck out of my taxes to pay for the care of children you choose to have. I waited until I was in my 30's to get my first dog so I could be sure I would be able to be home with her much of the time, or take her with me, and take care of any medical expenses she has. If only others would be as responsible about spawning.
Education in our country is what it is because people don't have to pay for it directly. If they had to, they might expect value for their money.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 9:42 AM
Ms. Alkon,
It takes paperwork and a backround check to adopt a pet from the local animal shelter. Yet idiots are allowed to procreate indiscriminately. Maybe we should make it a crime to breed without a license? First offense: mandatory sterilization. Of course, that rubs against my libertarian side. The Fedearal Agency for Procreation and Nurturing. Ew, yuck!
But you can rest easy, sister. I have no children to suck money from anyone's paycheck. Instead, I labor in the halls of learning teaching other people'd kids how to be responsible citizens based on archaic notions about self-discipline and personal responsibility. Reactionary that I am, I suppose someday the administration will catch me at it, and I'll lose my job.
Mark William Paules at February 18, 2008 10:41 AM
Rex Little Says:
Ragging on religious fundamentalists as a cause of widespread ignorance is a red herring. They have a different view from the rest of us concerning one particular set of facts, but as a group they're no more hostile toward education than everyone else
Hey rex ever hear of the dark ages? A 1000 yr streach where civilazaion, architecture, art, science, everything stagnated and went backwards?
Ever notice that during the dark ages the entire western world was under the rule of a church?
Think ther might be SOME correlation there?
lujlp at February 18, 2008 11:27 AM
They are extraordinarily hostile to education, and not just concerning evolution, but literature, the arts, and in other areas. They live in fear that their bible stories as a guideline for life will be challenged, so they try to eliminate any challenges. Also, teaching children to think rationally will put them out of business, no?
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 12:54 PM
There is a phenomenon in the American youth culture against "acting white". "Acting white" to kids, means studying hard and getting good grades; and "acting white" is not "cool" to a lot of kids; even white kids. As long as that attitude prevails, kids will continue to be content to be stupid, in order to "keep it real".
The media (internet, t.v, pop music, magazines) plays along by focusing more attention on idiot millionaire rap/pop stars, and actors- people who make their success in spite of their lack of education; rather than on people making their success by using their brains. The former become role models, while the latter remain unknown to most kids. This has been going on for at least a couple of decades, so we have quite a population of proudly ignorant young adults, who will raise even more under-educated kids.
I'm not saying the media caused the problem; it merely reflects the reality of today's glorification of stupid. But the media does act as enablers.
I'm not sure what caused this negative attitude. Maybe it all goes back to bad parenting. Blame the boomer parents and their laissez-faire parenting- who knows. Whatever the cause, the effect will be disastrous for this country if it doesn't change.
Seen it all at February 18, 2008 12:55 PM
Snots.
Years ago, in an offhand definition of culture, Sagan noted that a core function is exclusion. At least Coop is nakedly indulgent:
> We quit seeing another couple
> because of their insistence
> on using the non-word
> "irregardless"
This is social climbing, not civilization.
Have fun over there.
Crid at February 18, 2008 2:38 PM
Come on...using "irregardless" is not only wrong, it's the height of pretension (by people who pretend to know better).
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 3:23 PM
I keep meeting undergraduate students in their last year who can't write, can't read difficult material, and can't teach themselves. They rarely read the books assigned in class, and so have systematically come to depend upon a teacher to learn things. When they leave school, they have no teacher. They are intellectually helpless without one.
In addition to Harold Bloom, I'd recommend Allan Bloom for a diagnosis of the problem.
Jeff at February 18, 2008 3:58 PM
The Dark Ages are a myth. Instead of being a backward era, there was in fact an explosion of learning in the sciences and arts during the period. Ask any reputable historian about it. The term 'Dark Age' is used only to debunk it.
The relationship between medieval Christianity and science is often misrepresented.
Jeff at February 18, 2008 4:19 PM
American High Schools and Universities are too involved in teaching political correctness to waste time on educational crap such as science, logic, and history.
Truman at February 18, 2008 6:41 PM
Truman, I only wish it were that simple. After dealing with secondary school teachers in mathematics, I have come to much more disturbing conclusion.
By and large, teachers do not know the material they purport to teach. In other words, the teachers are dumb asses. It really is that simple.
Jeff at February 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Whether or not Jeff is correct about the Dark Ages (and I'm not enough of a historian to judge), they happened quite a few years ago. Too many to tell us anything about the attitudes of today's Christian fundamentalists toward education. FWIW, I'm under the impression that where knowledge was preserved and advanced during the Dark Ages, monks were mostly responsible.
They are extraordinarily hostile to education, and not just concerning evolution, but literature, the arts, and in other areas. They live in fear that their bible stories as a guideline for life will be challenged, so they try to eliminate any challenges.
When educators try to impart values to their (the fundamentalists') children which are in conflict with theirs, then yes, they're hostile to that. But I've seen no evidence that they don't want kids to have the kind of education which would enable them to locate Iraq on a map, balance a checkbook, write a clear sentence, and know where Pearl Harbor is and what happened there.
Also, teaching children to think rationally will put them out of business, no?
Well, no. The fundies I'm acquainted with hold the view that reason is on the side of religious belief, and can argue the point quite skillfully.
Rex Little at February 18, 2008 8:42 PM
,i>Well, no. The fundies I'm acquainted with hold the view that reason is on the side of religious belief, and can argue the point quite skillfully.
It's called sophistry, and it's quite a different thing from reason.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 8:44 PM
I can actually live with 'irregardless,' though I don't use it myself. What makes my teeth grind is the use of 'that' when 'who' or 'whom' is meant. Use of plural pronouns such as 'they' or 'their' to refer to individuals also irks the hell out of me.
Achillea at February 18, 2008 9:06 PM
This is bit dodgey. I agree that there is such a thing as sophistry as against philosophy. But sophistry as against reason seems to be a category mistake.
Is your objection to Christian apologetics methodological, or do you judge a priori that reason is incapable of favoring religion?
Jeff at February 18, 2008 10:04 PM
What do we do about the masculine/feminine pronoun problem?
Jeff at February 18, 2008 10:28 PM
Via Wikipedia, I was using it in the first sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
I use "they" or "their" when I need to to make the humor work. Per Elmore Leonard, "If proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go."
(Elmore Leonard's 10 Rules of Writing)
People who believe in god believe because they have faith: irrational belief that god exists...or, per what Daniel Dennett told me, they aren't really silly enough to actually believe, but they "believe in the belief in god," so they say they believe.
Regarding reason being "incapable of favoring religion," please just say what you mean, without all the spaghetti-think, and I'll be happy to answer.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 10:39 PM
The relationship between medieval Christianity and science is often misrepresented
Hey Jeff do you know who Galileo was? Proved the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. He was forced to recant under threat of death, imprisoned for the rest of his life, and all of his works were banned from pubication in dozens of countrys by a church which claims it never had any political powers. It wasnt until 60 yrs AFTER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR that his works were no longer considered heresy. And it wasnt until 1939(nearly THREE HUNNDERED YEARS AFTER Galileos death) that the catholic church issued an apology.
Copernicus who originally theorised the eath revolved around the sun died before the church could get to him but they still "edited" his book.
And quite frankly they were the lucky ones. The church burned men at the stake for claiming the earth was not the center of the universe or that the earth was round
lujlp at February 18, 2008 11:00 PM
Crid -
No, it's not all about exclusion, it's all about having a low tolerance for ignorance. Ignorance that can take many different, sometimes insidious forms.
I'm sorry, but I have no real interest in attempting any real discourse to people who use phrases such as; "I be on my way," or "oooh, you be so wrong." It even gets worse than that, reaching a level of absolutely incoherent word salad.
I also have problems with people who don't know very basic historical facts, basic geography and very basic science. It is not that it is impossible to survive without some foundation in these subjects. Certainly, one can survive the "streets" without them. The problem is that lacking these basics, indicates an individual that has no real interest in being a functional (I have a very low standard for functional) member of society.
With very few exceptions, people that do not have the slightest grasp of these basics, have made a willful decision to say fuck you, to the rest of society. It is not the ignorance that pisses me off, it's the fact that it is all too often quite willful.
DuWayne at February 18, 2008 11:04 PM
We have free public libraries in America, and in L.A., they'll even send a book to the one closest to you, free of charge. It's the most amazing thing. And then, of course, there's the Internet. There used to be people who had a very hard time becoming educated. Now you need only the desire.
Amy Alkon at February 18, 2008 11:39 PM
> No, it's not all about exclusion...
I said "a core function"
> I have no real interest
> in attempting any real
> discourse to people who
> use phrases such
My point in this thread that in a free society such as ours, most people thrive in pursuit of their own best interests without ever engaging you (or any other "intellectual") in "real discourse."
It's a great country.
Crid at February 19, 2008 12:20 AM
Heh. 'Spaghetti-think' is a nice image. Kinda like 'spaghetti-code' from programming. I guess we don't want to use spooky philosophy words in a thread about the decline of education.
Retry: Do you think Christian apologists are sophists for at least one of these reasons: (1) You think their methodology is faulty. For example, they produce illogical arguments. Or, (2) reason itself is incapable of logical conclusions about matters of religion.
(I use 'at least' because I don't want to set up a false dichotomy. And yes, 'dichotomy' has precisely the meaning I want. 8=p)
Jeff at February 19, 2008 7:37 AM
Indeed, I do. I've done a special study of Galileo.
In fact, I know so much about Galileo, that I can confidently tell you he did not live in the Early Middle Ages. You are confusing the Renaissance with the Early Middle Ages.
I find that ironic, given the content of Amy's original post.
Jeff at February 19, 2008 7:43 AM
Whew! What a thread! And what a lot of finger-pointing with nothing really resolved or figured out. Everyone is jumping on board to blame something they consider not their fault -- and everyone has made some valid points but overall nothing seems to have been made. So I might as well be as bad as everyone else and do the same. :)
Let me quote my once-favorite intellectual snob, Paul Simon: "When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all. And my lack of education hasn't hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall." That song was a hit way back in the day when I was just on the verge of graduating high school (if my old fart memory serves around 1975, when I was a junior). I found it true then and still do now.
Basically, it's not the lack of access; it's the over abundance. Through television (a great invention, not the devil), information has become so easily and readily available that we're on overload and somewhat shutting down. Or, at least, that's how it seems to me.
I have a thirst for knowledge, always have and always will. My daughter -- who doesn't and states pretty plainly, much to my frustration, that it's too much to think about -- was just groaning the other day that my grandson is just as bad. My point (and I do have one) is that individual personalities do come into play. My grandson and I eagerly soak up knowledge and it only spurs us to want to know more merely for the sure joy of knowing. I did respond that I know a lot and did little with the knowledge. True and not true. I speak up but it's doubtful you'll find me organizing the picket line. I'll write letters, I'll call but I'll walk in a protest someone else organized but I will cut out the back way if the cops break it up.
We have doers and thinkers and those who are both to varying degrees. I think a lot, do a little (because there's so much risk I'll take on and basically will act when the risk of the action is outweighed by the risk of inaction) but I am definitely not a leader so you won't find me starting a necessary revolution even if I deem it worthy of fighting and would, hence, sign on. We need both to change the world or to keep it from changing for the worse. Neither should be looked down on nor should the in-betweens and there was plenty of looking down in the above thread on all sides.
That seems to be our biggest ignorance these days -- not valuing those not like us. And, yes, we need to. Because, cliche or not, it does take all kinds to make the world. Some keep it running. Some improve it. A very small minority drag it down and like as not there's someone that's a doer trying to turn their sorry ass around.
I had no idea vocation training was so far on the decline and would tend to agree that needs to be brought back. One thing that really bugs me is the attitude that everyone must go to college. No, it's not for everyone. Some like to work with their hands. I never went to college and am constantly complimented on the amount of self-education I have. I not only read, I watch television (and not just entertainment but there's a lot on there that informs and I don't just mean the news which, despite how downhill it's gone, is worth watching for the sake of having some general idea of what's going on in the world), the internet -- mostly blogs like this but I also google anything that grabs my interest and I listen to people, not just when they're talking to me but even if they're waiting at a bus stop with me or in line at the bank, all kinds of people, rich, poor, in-between, those who think like me and those who don't, every ethnic group. I don't dismiss anyone. Well, maybe Jerry Falwell and Dubya. Okay, I do but I pay attention to what even those I consider morons have to say. Let's face it, we all have those we consider morons and we're all considered morons by others and probably often don't even have a clue about some of the people who consider us idiotic or insane. But I listen even to those arguments that I dismiss. I'll process them and say (often to the speaker, getting me in hot water more often than not) that makes no sense but I'll listen.
I think a good deal of the problem (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone; it's human nature) is that we don't think we're being listened to when we don't convince someone. And we're bombarded with so much these days (it's this that has created the one thing we all seem to agree is a problem -- political correctness) that we go into overload and shut down and say we're right, you're wrong and quit discoursing. I think many are just so fed up with hearing all kinds of nonsense from every side that they are just giving up on thinking about it all. Yes, some truly are ignorant and uneducated but I think more are just tired of thinking about it all. 150 years ago think of what your average Joe Citizen had to think about versus what we do today and you begin to comprehend. The answer isn't, of course, to go backwards but to figure out how best to go forward.
Donna at February 19, 2008 8:29 AM
Jeff, I gave you an example of the church murdering scientists, editing and controlling scientific discusion, punishing those who dared to think. And your response is to say I gave you an example from the wrong period?
Are you serious?
lujlp at February 19, 2008 10:00 AM
Jeff at February 19, 2008 10:42 AM
Hmm. I'm not sure why that happened. The last four paragraphs are mine.
Jeff at February 19, 2008 10:43 AM
Crid -
I know what you said, but that is not what this is about. Quite the opposite, many of us are fed up with absolute, willful, rank ignorance.
My point in this thread that in a free society such as ours, most people thrive in pursuit of their own best interests without ever engaging you (or any other "intellectual") in "real discourse."
First, I am not an intellectual, nor do I make the pretense of being one.
Second, no, most people do not thrive, when they are ignorant. Indeed, you and I pay for their ignorance in a variety of ways, not the least being our financial support of the welfare state (not that I have a problem with welfare, excepting how it works in the U.S.). We also pay for it when we are victimized by crime and when we imprison the criminals. We pay for it by rapidly losing our edge in the world market. We pay for it when our kids are sucked into it, because of peer pressure to be just as ignorant as the rest.
Finally, I should have worded it far more directly. I have no interest in employing people who are ignorant morons. Nor do a lot of folks who are in a position to employ people in decent positions, even if the positions are low to moderate skills, labor positions. Positions that actually pay enough to keep people off the dole.
Why do I get pissy about anti-intellectualism? Because I have to deal with the results of it on a daily fucking basis and I am fucking tired of it. When it interferes with my life, I am going to have an attitude.
I ride public trans as absolutely much as possible. If I don't have materials and/or tools to haul around, I prefer to ride the trains. When ignorant fucking morons, who can't even speak english, decide to start fights, it interferes with my life (and the lives of folks who have no other option, than to take public trans). When they decide to sell crack (or, as I have seen a few times, smoke crack) on the trains, in front of my child, it is interfering with my life. When they decide to harass me (or anyone else) for having the audacity to read, instead of giving them change or a smoke, it interferes with my life. It really interferes with my life, when they harass me or others, because we are reading.
When folk allow their very young children to run around in the park without supervision and they interfere with my families enjoyment of the park, it is interfering with my life. When people raise such abysmally horrid little shits, that even at a reasonable age to be out by themselves, they haven't the slightest clue how to actually behave, it interferes with my life.
These people most certainly do not thrive, they barely subsist. I am all for letting them do so, as is their right. I am not however, ok with allowing them to interfere with my life in so doing. I am also not ok with allowing them to interfere with the lives of those who don't have the option or expectation of a life far away from ignorant fucking morons like that.
I am also not ok for footing the bill for them to eat better than I do, have the health care that I could only recently afford, have the cable I don't and have a reasonably spacious apartment. No, I don't actually want them to starve or lack food and healthcare. What I do want, is to see them get support that is far less luxurious and expensive.
DuWayne at February 19, 2008 7:42 PM
> Second, no, most people do not
> thrive, when they are ignorant.
Extra comma, babe. But you look OK to me. So let's not worry about it.
Crid at February 20, 2008 12:02 AM
Right on, DuWayne. Speaking as one of those people who has no other option but public trans.
I read about this program in Mother Jones and it pissed me off big time:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_405.html
Yeah, like it isn't hard enough being a struggling single parent killing yourself to make enough to pay day care, pay the rent and utilities and buy food, they might just put someone who should be in an institution in the apartment across the hall from yours with the small child. Yippy skippy.
Donna at February 20, 2008 10:02 AM
I think people have to be taught critical thinking, how to ask questions and not accept everything they're told.
We have a comedy show, which has a segment called 'Talking to Americans', and the funny aspect is that nobody ever challenges the information presented by the guy asking the questions. I think it's just easier not to think. The last one I saw, it was a 10 year old kid who spoke up when no-one else did, I guess he wasn't too lazy to use his brain yet.
They should teach kids how to process the vast amounts of information we are bombarded with. They should also be taught to be suspicious of what they're told and question everything, but you don't get a malleable public that way, so it would be counterproductive to those in power. It's just way too easy to get people to do what you want through fear-mongering (terrorists!! disease!! etc.)
I went to college and university to learn how to think and how to learn, and I've never stopped learning, because I have an inquiring mind. I also wanted to know how my brain worked and what my strengths were, which I did by taking a broad spectrum of subjects, which included English, Philosophy, Algebra, Statistics, Computer Programming, Economics... I knew a college diploma and a general B.A (Bachelor of Arts) wouldn't do much for me in the working world, but it would improve the quality of my life, so it was worth my time. My tuition was subsidized by the govt & I got some grants, so it wasn't too expensive (Canada!).
When you realize you're smarter and better educated than most of the people you come in contact with, you can use your brain to avoid getting yourself into frustrating situation with people who don't know what you want or what they're doing.
Chrissy at February 20, 2008 6:29 PM
> We have a comedy show, which
> has a segment called 'Talking
> to Americans'
There's a fabulous new series on NBC called "Don't bother talking to Canadians because if they had interesting things to say, they'd probably have moved down here like Shatner and Jennings and J. Fox and Ackroyd and the game show guy."
...Not really, because again, nobody here cares enough about other countries to bother mocking them, even when it's a slam dunk, eh?
P.J. O'Rourke once put it like this, paraphrased because I can't find it on Google (and even now I'm too unenthused about quibbling with a Canadian to bother going to the other room to look it up):
'The United States is an entrancingly beautiful twenty-year-old girl. And the rest of the world is a hopelessly-in-love fourteen year old boy whom she doesn't even know is alive.'
Canadians by happenstance live under the shelter of the American military umbrella, nuclear and otherwise. Knowing that their ticket's already been punched no matter what, they've not troubled themselves to produce a meaningful defensive force for several decades. (Steyn had some fun with this back in the day.)
Like so many adolescent children, the world's lesser nations mock their family seniors because they know they'll never face harsh retribution.
Furthermore, the problems with pollsters and other pop-media inquisitions were discussed in the comments of this post. The transparency of your phrase "critical thinking" is also considered.
> I have an inquiring mind.
Good teeth, a nice rack, orderly accounts and supportive friends, too. Right? We can tell, Kitten... We can tell.
Chrissy, I just don't like you very much.
Crid at February 21, 2008 12:52 AM
Crid -
So I'm a little obsessed with punctuation, shoot me why don't you? Seriously though, you should see the things I write, before I edit out commas. Not sure exactly why I do it. Like my obsessive whistling, it just happens.
Donna -
I actually have a lot of mixed feelings about the pathways program. I strongly support the idea of it, but the fact that they do put some rather questionable people into buildings with vulnerable populations really bothers me. I think it is a great idea to get the mentally ill off the street and most of them are perfectly harmless. However, there are also those interspersed among them, who can be a danger to themselves and others.
Too, it is quite likely that some in the program, will be used by drug dealers. They put drug addicts into the program, something I am supportive of. The problem is that the resident could then let a drug dealer use their apartment to sell out of, in exchange for drugs.
All in all though, I think the problems could be ironed out of it. I do have trouble with simply leaving folks out on the street. One of my homeless friends, probably hits on the high end of their cost to the state estimates, if not far past it. The last time I called the police, to come pick him up, I talked to the officer who came to get him. He spends more than a third of his time in detox. He also spends an inordinate amount of time in the ER. He is bipolar and has not taken his meds in three years. It has been nearly five years, since he last lived anywhere he had any privacy. He is only thirty-three, yet he appears to be in his mid- to late fifties.
Chrissy -
The problem is not nearly so much, that we're not taught how to think (not to say that this isn't also a serious problem). It's that the education system is based on a one size fit's all mentality, that is patently absurd. The fact of the matter is, that there are people who are never going to use a fair amount of what the schools insist on teaching them.
Once they have gotten a sampling of various subjects, "the basics" as it were, they should move on to learn about things that interest them. After the foundation is laid, we need to let kids explore. Accept that many of them are not going to choose college, or they will choose to pick it up later.
By providing marketable skills, education could retain relevance for students who would give up altogether, in college prep classes. When the foundation includes the "habit" of learning, we can strike a solid blow to ignorance. When the foundation also includes learning how to teach oneself, we create a paradigm of lifelong learning.
You are stepping into Sagan's core value of exclusion, via Crid, at the end there. More than anything else, my distaste for ignorance, ultimately boils down to the waste. I end up in frustrating situations, not because I couldn't figure out how to avoid them. Rather, I choose not to. I am not going to insulate myself from certain segments of society, simply because a small minority in that segment are hellbent on making life hell for everyone they can. It is precisely because I disagree with principled exclusion, that I argue against ignorance.
It irritates me to no end, the generalized assumptions that people on the "intellectual" side of this discussion make. It is no different than the anti-intellectual side,excepting the irony that some people who bemoan the ignorance of others, are victim to pervasive ignorance of their own.
Life is not black and white. Reality doesn't fit into the absurd dichotomies that so many of us try to split it into.
DuWayne at February 21, 2008 10:47 AM
See Crid comment just above DuWayne's. It got eaten as spam, and just posted above. (Just got home and woke up to a car alarm, and checked my e-mail.)
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2008 11:52 PM
> shoot me why don't you?
My point exactly, DuWayne: It doesn't fuckin' matter. We should all be patient.
Crid at February 21, 2008 11:56 PM
Thanks for the fix Amy, and welcome back
Crid at February 22, 2008 12:22 AM
Amy, I just discovered what we have in common - no TV as children. In my cold, cruel childhood my dad forbade any CRT to darken our door. To make up for it we had bookcases in every room in the house. I did end up with a love of history and I know exactly when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor (I also like frat-boy movies!)
Mike S at February 22, 2008 7:32 AM
Yay for your parents. In my parents' house, my college-age delinquency involved my stealing and restealing my mother's copy of Beowolf to Beatles and taking it back to my dorm.
I've since bought it used, and now there's an update:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0023953802?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0023953802
Amy Alkon at February 22, 2008 8:14 AM
Crid-
My point exactly, DuWayne: It doesn't fuckin' matter. We should all be patient.
Can we sing Kum Ba Ya too? Fucking hippie.
Seriously though, it is not about being patient, patience I have in spades. It's the whole; "fuck you, I don't care to learn that shit," that pisses me off. I have worked with guys that put in a ten hour day with me, then turn around and go to night school.
I have very little patience for willful ignorance. Largely, because it so often interferes with my life. I am simply not going to be terribly patient with people who insist on making my life difficult. I am also not going to be patient with people who insist on making the lives of people around me difficult.
By and by, I didn't care for the Chrissy either. She reminds me of this women I used to know, who got off on having an exceptionally high IQ. This women was so very full of herself, that she would actually ask people their IQs. If they refused to answer or had an IQ under 160, they were simply not worth her time. She and I didn't get along real well.
DuWayne at February 22, 2008 12:00 PM
Free societies, by definition, don't let enforcement-minded third parties tell them what to think about.
Crid at February 22, 2008 4:09 PM
Crid -
It's not about forcing people to think about this or that, it's about making sure that they get some sort of basic education. If it were merely a problem that inflicted only the willfully ignorant, I would be fine with it. The problem is that it costs everyone else too.
I am also not suggesting locking them up for being ignorant. I am defending my very reasonable right to mock them for it and explain why I have a problem with that sort of ignorance.
DuWayne at February 22, 2008 6:17 PM
> It's not about forcing people
> to think about this or that,
> it's about making sure that
> they get some sort of basic
> education.
Well, what wegot here is a verge where OK intentions can drift into absolutely horrible ones, and I don't trust you. Don't take it personally. I don't trust Hillary Clinton, either.
Crid at February 23, 2008 8:51 AM
Crid -
You are seriously misunderstanding me here. We already force kids to go to school, something that I am totally supportive of. I am not interested in changing the laws surrounding primary education. Rather, I would like to see significant changes made to the public education systems in this country.
To whit, I would like to see a major move away from all college prep, all the time and the one size fits all mentality. More voc ed and more of the basics with real world applications.
I would also like to see schools recognize that not all kid learn the same. A huge part of the problem, is that a lot of kids just don't pick things up the same. A big part of why so many kids fail and rapidly lose interest in their education, is that they literally cannot learn the material the way it is presented.
So no, I am not interested in passing any sorts of laws that would make enforced education any more draconian.
Don't take it personally. I don't trust Hillary Clinton, either.
This is supposed to make me feel better?!? I can honestly say that while there are things that I wouldn't trust about your positions, I do trust you more than I would trust Hillary. That hurt man, that hurt.
DuWayne at February 23, 2008 4:11 PM
Well, you should trust me more than Hillary!
Dude, do what you want to the schools. Being raised on a college campus gave me the proctologist's perspective of academic life, and having no kids, I just don't care enough about education to try and change things much.
All I'm saying is, in a free society we don't get to pass decisive judgment on when other people are using their brains enough, or for the right things. Free people will listen to our critiques and then tell us to go fuck ourselves, often for good reason.
OT- This weekend in her speeches, Hillary is scolding Obama for misrepresenting her positions. My hatred for that woman may be somewhat aggressive, but does anyone in the world think she can get elected by carrying herself like a hectoring schoolmarm? Hell, does anyone think Obama needs to misrepresent her at this point?
Crid at February 24, 2008 3:17 AM
Wow. First Paula goes and now Simon is on his way out. I wonder what's going to happen to American Idol. I wonder if it will still be as popular without Simon. I think he is a very big part of what made the show successful.
auto insurance company ratings at January 12, 2010 8:55 AM
Hola, he estado mirando por el blog y no encuentro una forma de ponerme en contacto contigo. Me podrías decir una forma, por favor? Muchas gracias.
Dana Dolese at April 15, 2011 5:41 AM
Leave a comment