# Idiocracy - A Real Phenomenon?



## tdc

This thread is inspired by some things I've been thinking, watching and reading lately. For one the movie _Idiocracy_ - basically about the dumbing down of society. It is a pretty silly and comical movie, but also very thought provoking. Secondly I've been reading the book _Weapons of Mass Instruction_by John Taylor Gatto, also a very thought provoking book. This book is kind of like _Idiocracy_ but backed up by facts. Lastly this post I just came across by member science:

"_At 8, I wouldn't have had a chance with The Sword in the Stone. I tried to read it with some 8th graders last year, and it was too much for them. (Oddly to me, they loved The Shipping News.)_"

Here are some fun facts (considering 8th graders are typically around 12 or 13 years old):

-America's first admiral David Farragut was 12 years old when he took command of a captured British ship off the coast of Peru in the war of 1812 - and sailed it to Boston.

-George Washington was 12 when he dropped out of schooling.

-At the age of 12 Thomas Jefferson began to manage a large plantation and 250 employees in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson never graduated.

-129 years ago many 5th graders in the United States (before modern educational reforms) were reading: William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Sir Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Olivier Wendell Holmes, John Bunyan, Daniel Webster, Samuel Johnson, Lewis Caroll, Thomas Jefferson, Emerson and others while today in the U.S. children of the same age are not expected to be able to spell the following words correctly:

back,big,call,came,can,day,did,dog,down,get,good,have, he,home,if,in,is,it,like,little,man,morning,mother (etc. many more words like this running A-Z)

A little concerning?

- Here is a fun fact that may be hard to swallow - *The current educational system used in the U.S. (and most countries in the modern world today) is not designed to create intelligent or self sufficient people*. It is designed to keep people in a perpetual state of childhood as these are people that are easy to mold. An intelligent and self sufficient general population is not compatible with modern capitalism. Self-sufficiency leads to decreased consumption which leads to over-production. As crazy as it sounds this is our current reality, and anyone who wishes to learn more about this should read Gatto's book as it is where I have extracted all of these 'fun facts'.

Here is one last 'fun fact' for now:

-Our current model of education was planned for over 400 years by various wealthy families and is based on the Prussian model, and championed by two of America's leading Industrialists - Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Two extremely wealthy men both of which never graduated.

Thoughts?


----------



## Curiosity

I think there's some truth to it. I dropped out of education when I was 11 years of age yet am far more intelligent in many respects than others who came from similar circumstances (i.e. poverty) yet attended school. If anything I'd say that school stunted my development.


----------



## Wicked_one

Talking about educational systems:

Romania, compared to any other non-Balcanic countries or even the US, has an outdated educational system by 50 years or even more. You know what happened this year when students had to take their "SAT's"? (the final exam after graduating high school has another name around here). 56% failed. Numerous high schools with not one single student that passed the exams. And they were grown ups (almost): 18 years of age. I don't even want to think about the 12 year old kid who doesn't even know what a stick is anymore.

And as George Carlin pointed out and this applies to most countries with a so called educational system: " not only they want us to think the same, they want us to dress the same and wear a uniform". Another stupid thing.

Being 12 in these times means that you MUST have a PC with all the games and socializing programs, the latest phone on the market cause he needs to help his narcissistic side by taking pictures every 10 minutes and post them on Facebook or who knows where. Books are overrated, nobody reads a book anymore, and let's not even go in the classical music part. All this because most of them parents are stupid and blind and idiots (I'm talking especially by these parents I know and see around here) and the kids, instead of thinking for themselves, they let their parents do that for them.

Sometimes I think that all this lovely technology takes us back to prehistoric times when no one knew how to talk or when we had no skills in a given domain.


----------



## Ravellian

_Sometimes I think that all this lovely technology takes us back to prehistoric times when no one knew how to talk or when we had no skills in a given domain. _

And we're also about 500% fatter than we were back then.


----------



## Ukko

Curiosity said:


> I think there's some truth to it. I dropped out of education when I was 11 years of age yet am far more intelligent in many respects than others who came from similar circumstances (i.e. poverty) yet attended school. If anything I'd say that school stunted my development.


Intelligence is not a product of education. You ought to have picked up on that by now.


----------



## Wicked_one

Ravellian said:


> _Sometimes I think that all this lovely technology takes us back to prehistoric times when no one knew how to talk or when we had no skills in a given domain. _
> 
> And we're also about 500% fatter than we were back then.


Back then you had to go hunt if you wanted to eat, to fight if you wanted to live and you had your girl/girls. Nowadays, if someone does your stuff or you just sit and press a button and of course , you have money, you have them ladies.

Whoopty doo!


----------



## Philip

thinking that "everything was better back in the days" is sometimes a symptom of getting old...


----------



## Wicked_one

Philip said:


> thinking that "everything was better back in the days" is sometimes a symptom of getting old...


Symptom of getting old, but realistic as well, I'd say.


----------



## Ukko

Wicked_one said:


> Back then you had to go hunt if you wanted to eat, to fight if you wanted to live and you had your girl/girls. Nowadays, if someone does your stuff or you just sit and press a button and of course , you have money, you have them ladies.
> 
> Whoopty doo!


:lol:

You kind of skip over the advent of agriculture, but go right to the crux - 'them ladies'.

Almost makes me want to kick back and watch 'Les Troyens'.


----------



## Polednice

Philip said:


> thinking that "everything was better back in the days" is sometimes a symptom of getting old...


And has been for the past few thousand years at least.

Still, knowing full well that there is usually more reason to be optimistic than I initially think, I believe that the single worst thing happening in the education system is illiteracy. I don't mean it just in the strict sense of whether or not people can read if they had a gun to their heads, but I mean recognising different registers in speech and writing; being able to communicate coherently in speech and writing; but, most of all, actually having the desire to read.

I'm 21 and I have four siblings. My older brother, 22, has _literally never read a book in his life_. He reluctantly skimmed the necessary Biff & Chip in primary school, but otherwise nothing. Never a newspaper, never a magazine, never a picture book. My sister, 16, is much the same, except that she actually bothered to read the few pieces necessary for her high school exams. Otherwise, she has no interest at all. My brother of 13 is also - surprise, surprise - totally uninterested. [The other sibling is too young to be relevant].

Somehow, I am a freak in that, with the same upbringing, I am doing a degree in medieval English. But the problem is that not one of my siblings can write properly - they can't use simple homophones like 'their', 'there' and 'they're' correctly, let alone spell more complex words.

However, I think an even greater problem than that is that reading - whether it's Shakespeare or Harry Potter - opens your mind and widens your horizons. It needn't even be an intellectual exercise - students would benefit from it just as a source of entertainment, but the gripping immediacy of games and films make books seem dull.


----------



## kv466

Production and consumption definte our hollow lives


----------



## science

We have our own 12-year-old geniuses. 

This comment is not meant as a defense of the US educational system, or our attitudes about education. If I had kids, I would strongly consider home school.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> We have our own 12-year-old geniuses.
> 
> This comment is not meant as a defense of the US educational system, or our attitudes about education. If I had kids, I would strongly consider home school.


"Home school" can can be socially isolating. I'd approve of it if your home school included kids from two other families, one of them below the 'poverty line'.


----------



## science

In Korea, there are things known as "hagwons." Most kids don't go home after school - they go to a hagwon, where they study or practice things like math, English, Chinese, Tae Kwon Do, paduk (go), violin, art, soccer, and so on. My wife and I hae discussed that we would probably home school our kids and send them to hagwons for about 5 hours a day (which seems to be about normal). 

Can't be sure that it'd work, but it's a fair shot. 

As for your approval....


----------



## Meaghan

Polednice said:


> I'm 21 and I have four siblings. My older brother, 22, has _literally never read a book in his life_. He reluctantly skimmed the necessary Biff & Chip in primary school, but otherwise nothing. Never a newspaper, never a magazine, never a picture book. My sister, 16, is much the same, except that she actually bothered to read the few pieces necessary for her high school exams. Otherwise, she has no interest at all. My brother of 13 is also - surprise, surprise - totally uninterested. [The other sibling is too young to be relevant].
> 
> Somehow, I am a freak in that, with the same upbringing, I am doing a degree in medieval English. But the problem is that not one of my siblings can write properly - they can't use simple homophones like 'their', 'there' and 'they're' correctly, let alone spell more complex words.


How did you... _happen?_ The fact that I am in college is totally uninteresting, considering that both my parents are teachers and read to me all the time when I was little and expected me to go to college (and graduate school) like they did. But I always think it's interesting when people pursue very different educational opportunities from the rest of their family, and I'm always curious about where they get the drive to do so.


----------



## Polednice

Meaghan said:


> How did you... _happen?_ The fact that I am in college is totally uninteresting, considering that both my parents are teachers and read to me all the time when I was little and expected me to go to college (and graduate school) like they did. But I always think it's interesting when people pursue very different educational opportunities from the rest of their family, and I'm always curious about where they get the drive to do so.


I ask the same question of myself very often, and others joke that I'm probably adopted.  Neither of my parents are in any way academic or intellectual; they didn't even encourage me to read when I was young - I just kind of fell into it. I have no idea whatsoever where my drive comes from, but it sets me apart from the rest of my family as a bit of a freak!


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> In Korea, there are things known as "hagwons." Most kids don't go home after school - they go to a hagwon, where they study or practice things like math, English, Chinese, Tae Kwon Do, paduk (go), violin, art, soccer, and so on. My wife and I hae discussed that we would probably home school our kids and send them to hagwons for about 5 hours a day (which seems to be about normal).
> 
> Can't be sure that it'd work, but it's a fair shot.
> 
> As for your approval....


So... your plan is semi-home schooling. Hedging your bet. You have my conditional approval.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Home school" can can be socially isolating. I'd approve of it if your home school included kids from two other families, one of them below the 'poverty line'.


Being homeschooled myself I would say that this is rather rare, far less common, I would say, than the likelihood of a kid being bullied at school. Also, in the US at least there are things like Homeschool Co-ops and Alternative Schools that are designed for homeschoolers. I think that the social interaction at school is actually makes kids more insecure because they tend to rely on peers rather than on their parents.


----------



## Almaviva

I almost hesitate in participating because my recent pessimistic stretch has been earning me some trouble - when I say what I think I tend to **** people off.

Speaking from the standpoint of the USA: I entirely agree with the OP. We are definitely dumbing down. In my field I mentor, teach, and supervise graduate students, and the quality of their cultural exposure and general understanding of the world is steadily dropping over the years. Sure, they achieve good specialized expertise - that's what our educational system is good for - but less and less awareness.

I don't think at all that I'm saying this as a symptom of getting older - like someone said above, the good old times. I'm talking about direct comparison. About having had interesting conversations with my students in the past, regarding philosophy, classical music, geopolitics - and collecting a puzzled huh? if I try to spark the same conversations these days (with honorable exceptions, of course). About the age of 12 quoted above, at that age I had read many of the classics. At 11 I was reading Dostoyevsky, and at 13 Sigmund Freud. Today I have highly specialized and competent graduate students in their mid-twenties who haven't heard of either.

Without trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it seems quite obvious that highly proficient specialists who can't think outside of their narrow fields of knowledge are ideal employees in the fact that they faithfully perform well their duties, but don't question very much what is asked of them. It's an ideal form of social control. Meanwhile, the mass culture of low quality pop music, blockbuster movies, and sports is pushed down their throats to keep them happy.

The old Romans had their _Panis et Circensis_. We have our hamburger/hotdog and football/baseball/basketball/Justin Bieber/Lady Gaga/Hollywood movies. This works just as well for our corporations as it used to work for the Romans.

Besides, it's not just the ultra-specialization, but also, the general primitive societal beliefs that are taking more and more hold and seem to signal a trip back to the Middle Ages. I mean, who in the 21st Century doesn't believe in evolution? You guessed right. Americans, that's who.

By the way, intelligence is in the genes. What education can provide is information, not intelligence. Still, critical thinking can be learned, and putting someone's intelligence to good use can be a product of good education. It's happening less and less.


----------



## tdc

I 'liked' Alma's post because it was a good post and I agree with most of it, except I would like to make the disclaimer that I believe in the periodic bursts of evolution model modern science supports, not the Darwinian model. As far as 'intelligence being in the genes', this may be partially true, but I believe every (or at least the vast majority) of human beings have an infinite capacity to expand intelligence, I also believe that _genius is as common as dirt_. That is a direct quote from the Gatto book I can't take credit for, but I believe its true. Its suppressing the genius that has proved to be the difficult task.


----------



## Almaviva

Thanks, tdc. It may very well be again my pessimistic stretch, but I would question the "infinite capacity" to expand intelligence. It's been shown that IQ can be raised by a few points with things like being bilingual from a young age (it raises the verbal component of the IQ), and having appropriate stimulation. Also, nutrition rich in omega-3 fatty acids from a young age can result in a couple of points more. But all these things considered can raise someone's IQ by 2 to 5 points. The bulk of it is genetically determined. Everything else is training. You can train different areas of the brain and increase someone's performance IQ (meaning how much of one's capacity is being used) but you can't dramatically change one's IQ; much less, to an infinite degree. 

About genius being as common as dirt, it defies statistical logic. If this were to be true, then it would be the new norm, and true genius would still be above it. Nope, unfortunately, an IQ of 100 is median. Only a small percentage of humans have an IQ greater than 140 (and also a small percentage have it below 60). So as attractive and uplifting as this author's theory may sound, it doesn't hold water.

It all of course depends on your definition of genius. I'm using the strictly psychological / statistical definition. If you're using this concept meaning something like "the free, creative human spirit" then yes, most people would be able to do a lot more with the proper training, education, and encouragement to express themselves to their fullest potential - but that's not what our society wants of us; like you said it actually rather aims at suppressing this drive to learn, explore, and question. But strictly speaking from the standpoint of the concept of intellectual quotient, no, there's a reason why 100 is the median, it's because it was conceived this way - you test thousands of people, find out what's the average and what's the point that separates half of the people having it higher than that and half halving it lower, and you call that point 100. So if by genius you mean the psychological definition of those with IQ of 140 and higher, then no, it's not as common as dirt, it's actually rare.


----------



## Wicked_one

Hilltroll72 said:


> :lol:
> 
> You kind of skip over the advent of agriculture, but go right to the crux - 'them ladies'.


I was referring to those prehistoric times, when we'd still throw rocks and spears to kill the big, fluffy mammoth.

@Almaviva Interesting enough is that scientists have proven that in order to get to be a genius you have to have practiced over 10 000 hours, let's say on an instrument or in whatever domain one fancies. 10 000 hours of hard work and direction and motivation and you can get up there with the greats. Think about Liszt: 12 hours a day of practicing; or the way Pablo de Sarasate put it:
_For 37 years I've practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius _

The whole idea it seems "genetic" because some people are more motivated and they don't procrastinate as much.

Then again, the right environment is needed as well and the way parents help you develop from a very early age.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> Here is a fun fact that may be hard to swallow - *The current educational system used in the U.S. (and most countries in the modern world today) is not designed to create intelligent or self sufficient people*. It is designed to keep people in a perpetual state of childhood as these are people that are easy to mold. An intelligent and self sufficient general population is not compatible with modern capitalism.


I don't buy/swallow it. Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace. The educational system hasn't made the populace dumb, the populace have demanded a dumber educational system. Intelligence simply isn't valued by American and many other societies. Wealth, glamour, and fame are. Intellectuals are viewed with suspicion, and smart kids are ridiculed and mocked by dumb kids. Presidential candidates often come from strong educational backgrounds, with ivy-school postgrad degrees, during the campaign they must downplay that and show that they can relate to and understand "everyday" (ie. f*cking stupid) Americans. Hard work, not matter how intellectually-deprived it is, is valued over genius. This change in values won't come about with a simple change in educational system, and definitely not homeschooling, where stupid uneducated parents are now free to produce stupid uneducated children in their footsteps, or unschooling, where you teach your kids by not teaching them anything.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> ...all these things considered can raise someone's IQ by 2 to 5 points. The bulk of it is genetically determined.


Hoping this doesn't veer the thread too much off-topic- but...

it seems that there's regrettably more elasticity in the reverse direction than there is in the forward direction. Some life observations have left me with the impression that substance abuse, for one, can do permanent harm to a person's intelligence. I also believe that failure to employ one's mind to at least a moderate extent can degrade one's problem-solving ability. I don't think the effect is as dramatic as muscle-atrophy, but I believe it to be there, nonetheless. I have the following (admittedly anecdotal) example:

I know a person- absolutely prodigious as a youngster. I don't doubt that, in any classroom up to the entry into college, the individual was likely the smartest person in the room. This student scored high enough on standardized tests to be eligible for "breveting" into Mensa. Anyway, the person took the path of least resistance at all times, never pushed to the extent of the abilities present, and (quite without substance abuse or any other obvious external biological factors) seemed to have problem-solving ability diminish to the point that in most situations, _I_'d feel *much* more comfortable about my problem-solving ability than the problem-solving ability that remained with this individual... (and I ain't no genius).

Guess that's the lot of much that's involved with the mortal coil- a small, limited, measured ability to improve- and a disproportionate capacity to decline to to a much greater extent.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

tdc said:


> Here is a fun fact that may be hard to swallow - The current educational system used in the U.S. (and most countries in the modern world today) is not designed to create intelligent or self sufficient people. It is designed to keep people in a perpetual state of childhood as these are people that are easy to mold. An intelligent and self sufficient general population is not compatible with modern capitalism.
> 
> 
> Couchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy/swallow it. Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace.
Click to expand...

I think here we should employ the teachings of "Hanlon's Razor:"

_"Avoid attributing to malice that which can be fully explained through stupidity."_


----------



## Couchie

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I think here we should employ the teachings of "Hanlon's Razor:"
> 
> _"Avoid attributing to malice that which can be fully explained through stupidity."_


I concur, sir.


----------



## science

When malice and stupidity come to the same result, they should be treated equivalently. 

I'm thinking, for instance, of the undeniably intentional and systematic lies forced on public school students by conservative Texans who essentially dictate textbooks with a brazenly political and pro-corporate agenda.

Texas will probably be a purple state in 15 years, and the conservative movement as we've known it will probably be dead. If so, the question isn't whether the corporate control will lose power along with its white Evangelical allies, but what new shills will be found.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> [...]
> About genius being as common as dirt, it defies statistical logic. If this were to be true, then it would be the new norm, and true genius would still be above it. Nope, unfortunately, an IQ of 100 is median. Only a small percentage of humans have an IQ greater than 140 (and also a small percentage have it below 60). So as attractive and uplifting as this author's theory may sound, it doesn't hold water.
> [...]


I didn't want to quote _Almaviva_'s entire post (ahem), so I picked a representative paragraph.

I am dismayed to learn that the Stanford-Binet IQ test, or a modified equivalent, is still in use. Whatever that thing measures it ain't intelligence. Way back when I was 14, and scored ~140 on it, I certainly hoped that it was the, um, cat's meow. Many winters have gone since then , and it has been amply demonstrated to me that intelligence, considered as the ability to understand the surrounding world, and make productive decisions based on that understanding, is only very loosely related to IQ test results. Just about all I have (except for English vocabulary) that my 100 IQ friends don't have, is 'expanse of curiosity'. Big deal; the neighbor's cat has that.


----------



## violadude

Oh man, there are so many things I could say about this subject...but I think it would drive me crazy talking about all my classmates that can't type/speak properly. One of the most pathetic moments in my high school career was impressing a guy that sat next to me just because I knew that Hitler killed himself in 1945, the same year WWII ended...which should be fairly common knowledge, but I guess not, sadly. I think one of the problems is the grading system used by a lot of the schools. With all the cheating, half-assed work and copying that goes on in high school these days, you can easily get an A in a class and still not know jack about anything. About the virtues of reading, I don't doubt they exist by any means, but I didn't read very much at all growing up and somehow I still came out fairly intelligent/literate I would say. The thing that I thought was frustrating in schools growing up was they actually discouraged reading non-fiction for whatever damn reason. All I really wanted to read when I was growing up and also in high school were non-fiction books, but every time I tried to read a non-fiction book in class during "silent reading hours" or whatever my school at any given part of my life called it, they said I couldn't and referred me to some book about fairies, and trolls or a book about some obnoxious teenager going through rough times. Not to bash any ones taste in books.  but I found that rather odd and discouraging.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> The thing that I thought was frustrating in schools growing up was they actually discouraged reading non-fiction for whatever damn reason. All I really wanted to read when I was growing up and also in high school were non-fiction books, but every time I tried to read a non-fiction book in class during "silent reading hours" or whatever my school at any given part of my life called it, they said I couldn't and referred me to some book about fairies, and trolls or a book about some obnoxious teenager going through rough times. Not to bash any ones taste in books.  but I found that rather odd and discouraging.


As Mr. Johnson used to say, "Veddy, veddy interesting". One can only speculate. Perhaps the 'justification' was that reading non-fiction doesn't stimulate one's imagination? Perhaps the practical reason was that the non-fiction books might (hell, I'm sure they did) contain data that contradicted what the textbooks had to say?

Educators among us care to comment?

For a possibly revelatory (certainly unfavorable) _non-fiction book_ about history textbooks, I recommend James W. Loewen's "*Lies My Teacher Told Me*". It's in it's 2nd edition; the 1st edition won the American Book Award.


----------



## tdc

@Alma - Its been pretty well documented that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence, or if they do they only measure a very narrow field of intelligence. IQ tests are as outdated as Darwin's theory of evolution.

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq02.htm

Also you are applying the logic that since I claimed 'genius is as common as dirt' that IQ tests would show this. Well you are forgetting that I'm also claiming there has been a widespread effort to lower intelligence, therefore a more accurate way to gauge natural intelligence is to look at the population _before modern schooling practices - not after_. Considering IQ tests weren't even standardized before this, they are non-relevant to this discussion. Even if they were - again they don't even measure intelligence accurately.

@Couchie and Chi_town - whether modern schooling practices were done through stupidity or malice, like science stated - it doesn't change the effect. Secondly I personally think its a little naive to consider the folks who have been running the United States during our lives as 'stupid'. Maybe they're stupid - yet they control so much about how our lives play out? Then how dumb does that make us?
If we are having a difficult time defining intelligence, how do we define stupid?
I think its also important to distinguish between intelligence and wisdom.

But all this being said - I don't necessarily think that all these people who planned modern education were 'malicious'. Maybe greedy, short-sighted and selfish are all better terms to use than malicious or stupid.

Here is a snippet of a Woodrow Wilson speech in 1909:

"We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

Sounds here to me that these people knew very much what they were doing, its not like 'oops, silly us, a side effect of our greed was the dumbing down of the population.' It sounds like a planned and coordinated effort that was than carried out.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> @Alma - Its been pretty well documented that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence, or if they do they only measure a very narrow field of intelligence. IQ tests are as outdated as Darwin's theory of evolution.


You made your point about not 'believing' in Darwinian evolution earlier - when it was relevant - but there's no need to start bringing it up randomly. It's very contentious (and very peculiar) and I for one may not be able to resist having an argument about it, which is something I'd really rather not do. Let's play nice and say no more about it!


----------



## Almaviva

Wicked_one said:


> I was referring to those prehistoric times, when we'd still throw rocks and spears to kill the big, fluffy mammoth.
> 
> @Almaviva Interesting enough is that scientists have proven that in order to get to be a genius you have to have practiced over 10 000 hours, let's say on an instrument or in whatever domain one fancies. 10 000 hours of hard work and direction and motivation and you can get up there with the greats. Think about Liszt: 12 hours a day of practicing; or the way Pablo de Sarasate put it:
> _For 37 years I've practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius _
> 
> The whole idea it seems "genetic" because some people are more motivated and they don't procrastinate as much.
> 
> Then again, the right environment is needed as well and the way parents help you develop from a very early age.


We're using different definitions of "genius." 10,000 hours of musical practice can make someone proficient in music and a virtuoso in an instrument but can't raise that person's IQ (at least not more than by a couple of points). Yes, pure intelligence is genetic. The rest is training.


----------



## Almaviva

Couchie said:


> I don't buy/swallow it. *Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace.* The educational system hasn't made the populace dumb, the populace have demanded a dumber educational system. Intelligence simply isn't valued by American and many other societies. Wealth, glamour, and fame are. Intellectuals are viewed with suspicion, and smart kids are ridiculed and mocked by dumb kids. Presidential candidates often come from strong educational backgrounds, with ivy-school postgrad degrees, during the campaign they must downplay that and show that they can relate to and understand "everyday" (ie. f*cking stupid) Americans. *Hard work, not matter how intellectually-deprived it is, is valued over genius.* This change in values won't come about with a simple change in educational system, and definitely not homeschooling, where stupid uneducated parents are now free to produce stupid uneducated children in their footsteps, or unschooling, where you teach your kids by not teaching them anything.


The first line of your post that I have highlighted is not how it is done. The second one is.


----------



## Almaviva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Hoping this doesn't veer the thread too much off-topic- but...
> 
> it seems that there's regrettably more elasticity in the reverse direction than there is in the forward direction. Some life observations have left me with the impression that substance abuse, for one, can do permanent harm to a person's intelligence. I also believe that failure to employ one's mind to at least a moderate extent can degrade one's problem-solving ability. I don't think the effect is as dramatic as muscle-atrophy, but I believe it to be there, nonetheless. I have the following (admittedly anecdotal) example:
> 
> I know a person- absolutely prodigious as a youngster. I don't doubt that, in any classroom up to the entry into college, the individual was likely the smartest person in the room. This student scored high enough on standardized tests to be eligible for "breveting" into Mensa. Anyway, the person took the path of least resistance at all times, never pushed to the extent of the abilities present, and (quite without substance abuse or any other obvious external biological factors) seemed to have problem-solving ability diminish to the point that in most situations, _I_'d feel *much* more comfortable about my problem-solving ability than the problem-solving ability that remained with this individual... (and I ain't no genius).
> 
> Guess that's the lot of much that's involved with the mortal coil- a small, limited, measured ability to improve- and a disproportionate capacity to decline to to a much greater extent.


IQ peaks at age 25. Decline in cognitive abilities kicks in from a young age (but it's counteracted by expansion of neuronal mass and maturing of mielinization so the peak is at age 25). Many factors explain a slow, age-related decline (oxidants, vascular disease, certain nutritional and metabolic deficits, even the slightest head traumas, substance abuse) and some steep declines are more related to pathology (the various causes of non-age related dementia). Use-it-or-lose it is also valid to a certain degree, since intellectually active people preserve their IQs for longer.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> I didn't want to quote _Almaviva_'s entire post (ahem), so I picked a representative paragraph.
> 
> I am dismayed to learn that the Stanford-Binet IQ test, or a modified equivalent, is still in use. Whatever that thing measures it ain't intelligence. Way back when I was 14, and scored ~140 on it, I certainly hoped that it was the, um, cat's meow. Many winters have gone since then , and it has been amply demonstrated to me that intelligence, considered as the ability to understand the surrounding world, and make productive decisions based on that understanding, is only very loosely related to IQ test results. Just about all I have (except for English vocabulary) that my 100 IQ friends don't have, is 'expanse of curiosity'. Big deal; the neighbor's cat has that.


I disagree. While not perfect (notoriously, with standardization problems) the Stanford-Binet test does measure intelligence (and that's precisely why it's still in use) or at the very least certain aspects of it. You have scored 140 = chances are that you're a highly intelligent person. If you can't see this in comparison to your peers' performance and achievements, it's likely to not be due to IQs but rather to opportunity, motivation, percentage of use of one's assets, etc.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Polednice said:


> You made your point about not 'believing' in Darwinian evolution earlier - when it was relevant - but there's no need to start bringing it up randomly. It's very contentious (and very peculiar) and I for one may not be able to resist having an argument about it, which is something I'd really rather not do. Let's play nice and say no more about it!


We could start up a separate thread to discuss it...


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> You made your point about not 'believing' in Darwinian evolution earlier - when it was relevant - but there's no need to start bringing it up randomly. It's very contentious (and very peculiar) and I for one may not be able to resist having an argument about it, which is something I'd really rather not do. Let's play nice and say no more about it!


Well, I do want to play nice, and don't take anything I say about Darwin personally. But that being said I don't think its that contentious or peculiar. Look up the Cambrian explosion, how does Darwin's random mutations over millions of years explain that? The fact is that you may as well get used to seeing his theory getting questioned. The reason I don't like the theory is it has so often been used to reinforce elitist ideas of survival of the fittest bull s*it. This mentality is often used to justify atrocious behavior, why do you think its taught so adamantly in schools? If the elites are so much better and smarter, why do they have to artificially change the playing field to stay in power? Its because genius is very common. Darwin was their wet dream for schools, but unfortunately not accurate.


----------



## clavichorder

Klavierspieler said:


> We could start up a separate thread to discuss it...


Separate thread!

This idiocracy topic makes me want to go and be an off the grid kind of guy more than anything else.


----------



## tdc

Almaviva said:


> I disagree. While not perfect (notoriously, with standardization problems) the Stanford-Binet test does measure intelligence (and that's precisely why it's still in use) or at the very least certain aspects of it. You have scored 140 = chances are that you're a highly intelligent person. If you can't see this in comparison to your peers' performance and achievements, it's likely to not be due to IQs but rather to opportunity, motivation, percentage of use of one's assets, etc.


The problem here is you are using conventional wisdom taught in schools, (which have been proven to not increase intelligence), to measure intelligence.


----------



## starthrower

Couchie said:


> I don't buy/swallow it. Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace.


Maybe not in so many words, but educators have most certainly allowed a huge corporate influence into the schools in exchange for the funding it provides. Yes, corporations are busy at work training young children to be good consumers of their products, and they're using the public schools to accomplish their goals.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> Well, I do want to play nice, and don't take anything I say about Darwin personally. But that being said I don't think its that contentious or peculiar. Look up the Cambrian explosion, how does Darwin's random mutations over millions of years explain that? The fact is that you may as well get used to seeing his theory getting questioned. The reason I don't like the theory is it has so often been used to reinforce elitist ideas of survival of the fittest bull s*it. This mentality is often used to justify atrocious behavior, why do you think its taught so adamantly in schools? If the elites are so much better and smarter, why do they have to artificially change the playing field to stay in power? Its because genius is very common. Darwin was their wet dream for schools, but unfortunately not accurate.


It takes very, very little scientific awareness to know that 'Social Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution and the attachment of his name is just a smear. I was going to compare it to Wagner getting a bad (/worse) name because of how Hitler used his music, but it's even more idiotic and nonsensical than that. I mean, just completely irrelevant really. No bearing on the science whatsoever. Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that or I might just shoot myself in the head before the night is out.


----------



## GoneBaroque

tdc said:


> I personally think its a little naive to consider the folks who have been running the United States during our lives as 'stupid'. Maybe they're stupid - yet they control so much about how our lives play out? Then how dumb does that make us?
> If we are having a difficult time defining intelligence, how do we define stupid?
> I think its also important to distinguish between intelligence and wisdom.
> Here is a snippet of a Woodrow Wilson speech in 1909:
> 
> "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
> 
> Sounds here to me that these people knew very much what they were doing, its not like 'oops, silly us, a side effect of our greed was the dumbing down of the population.' It sounds like a planned and coordinated effort that was than carried out.


From its inception one of the principle objectives of the so-called "Progressive" movement has been the inception of Class Warfare; whether it be rich against poor, race against race, nationality against nationality, religion against religion or political belief against political belief. It seems they are succeeding admirably.


----------



## Polednice

GoneBaroque said:


> From its inception one of the principle objectives of the so-called "Progressive" movement has been the inception of Class Warfare; whether it be rich against poor, race against race, nationality against nationality, religion against religion or political belief against political belief. It seems they are succeeding admirably.


Am I reading "progressive" in the right sense? After all, you've just described die-hard conservatives.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

This thread can go in a number of different directions. I also suppose that it was destined not to take long for political axes to be ground in one direction or another. At this point, I guess I could call _credo_ and state what I believe-

a) I believe that average intelligence [in America] is going gradually down- 
some say we're losing an IQ point a generation, on average.

b) I believe that (for the most part), the American education system is in decline, 
and has been for over half-a-century.

Whether this decline is due to malign corporate influence, malign radical influence (I expect Evelyn Waugh [and Tom Wolfe!] would have some observations that could incline one into thinking the latter) or a sort of meandering "path-of-least-resistance" that is, like the road to perdition, broad and crooked (a viewpoint with which I have considerable sympathy) is an issue where we could all raise our perspective views, and utterly fail in persuading one another of altering our preconceptions.

Whatever else does or doesn't work, can we ALL agree that dumping dollars into the current system is something that manifestly _doesn't_ work?!


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> It takes very, very little scientific awareness to know that 'Social Darwinism' has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution and the attachment of his name is just a smear. I was going to compare it to Wagner getting a bad (/worse) name because of how Hitler used his music, but it's even more idiotic and nonsensical than that. I mean, just completely irrelevant really. No bearing on the science whatsoever. Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that or I might just shoot myself in the head before the night is out.


Well, my qualms with Darwin really were over his science - specifically his theory of evolution. I made no reference to the person. Its true that if the theory wasn't ever used in the context of _Social Darwinism_, it might not be as much of an issue for many, but the fact is it has been used that way at times. But whether or not that is true, doesn't change the fact I think his theory needs to be upgraded (the same thing has happened with many other brilliant scientist's theories - its nothing against Darwin). Again I made no reference to the person Darwin being good or bad or whether or not some of his other ideas still have use - which is possible. Just taking issue with his theory of evolution and how its been used. So you are kind of beating up a strawman here, as opposed to addressing the science - The Cambrian explosion. But if you don't want to bother debating all of that, I completely understand, as I don't really either, and I certainly hope you don't shoot yourself.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Whatever else does or doesn't work, can we ALL agree that dumping dollars into the current system is something that manifestly _doesn't_ work?!


On this at least I agree with you.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> Well, my qualms with Darwin really were over his science - specifically his theory of evolution. I made no reference to the person. Its true that if the theory wasn't ever used in the context of _Social Darwinism_, it might not be as much of an issue for many, but the fact is it has been used that way at times. But whether or not that is true, doesn't change the fact I think his theory needs to be upgraded (the same thing has happened with many other brilliant scientist's theories - its nothing against Darwin). Again I made no reference to the person Darwin being good or bad or whether or not some of his other ideas still have use - which is possible. Just taking issue with his theory of evolution and how its been used. So you are kind of beating up a strawman here, as opposed to addressing the science - The Cambrian explosion. But if you don't want to bother debating all of that, I completely understand, as I don't really either, and I certainly hope you don't shoot yourself.


I'll put the gun down and step away from the debate.  I didn't mean to sound like I was beating anything up - strawman or otherwise - I just think it's always entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Darwin or evolution for social Darwinism to be brought up.


----------



## tdc

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Whatever else does or doesn't work, can we ALL agree that dumping dollars into the current system is something that manifestly _doesn't_ work?!


I can kind of agree with this, as at least it has some good sense, and your post has an anti-inflammatory vibe that I like. However, I think the whole mindset of dumping dollars here or dumping dollars there will never fix the problem as it is a smoke screen. Modern Capitalism, and our current education system are completely inter linked.


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> I'll put the gun down and step away from the debate.  I didn't mean to sound like I was beating anything up - strawman or otherwise - I just think it's always entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Darwin or evolution for social Darwinism to be brought up.


Fair enough. :tiphat:


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> I 'liked' Alma's post because it was a good post and I agree with most of it, except I would like to make the disclaimer that I believe in the periodic bursts of evolution model modern science supports, not the Darwinian model.


Do you mean punctuated equilibrium? There is no "Darwinian model" - its a strawman invented by Creationists ignorant of the 150 years of progress in the field since Darwin, and as Polednice pointed out, usually part of a play where they go on to conflate evolution with Social Darwinism.


----------



## Ukko

Punctuated equilibrium is a concept that has been further strengthened by (relatively) recent theories regarding recurring widespread environmental catastrophes. They result in isolated, concentrated 'oasis' zones, which are conducive to survival of mutations both beneficial and mildly not so much. I still think that there are gradual 'drifts' in genetic make-up, such as the sub-Saharan blood modification combating Sleeping Sickness.

Objectors to the drift of this post (i.e whippersnappers) should be aware that I am one of the Old Farts.


----------



## science

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Whatever else does or doesn't work, can we ALL agree that dumping dollars into the current system is something that manifestly _doesn't_ work?!


I don't know what you mean so I can't agree or disagree.

But I can say for sure that defunding education won't work - and that of course is the goal behind this line of thinking.

Look, you need literate employees. You have to fund the education of the lower class. It's not about redistribution - that's just a lie meant to keep them relatively content with their station in life. It's about providing workers.

Further, if you do manage to de-fund public education and further cut taxes for the rich (I'll assume you're at least somewhat rich, since you're conservative and probably not ill-informed enough to be conservative and poor), you'll either create resentment which will lead to the revival of genuine socialism - not the bogeyman stuff that is called socialism for rhetorical purposes but the genuine article - or you'll have to find some other way to placate the masses.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can find a cheaper way, and maybe you don't need literate employees any longer. Beats me. Best of luck.


----------



## Ukko

Ah jeez, _Chi_, this is what it's come to, you see. I have to digress here - not really a digression, but it may seem like it:

I was very much the kid brother of my generation. My siblings were much older, and grew up during the depths of the Great Depression - in rural Vermont. All of them who lived to grow up got eight years of education. All of them could read, write and cipher. There was a free library five miles up the river road, all they had to do was get there and back.

I guess that history has no relevance now, or if it has you have to study on why it does. Just thought I'd put it in front of you.


----------



## science

It's interesting - way off topic but interesting - that when I chat with folks on the internet for some reason my default assumption is that they are basically like me - about my age, about in the same class and same educational level. Then it turns out some of you lived through the Great Depression and others of you are teenagers, and so on. I'll have to find a way to assume less about the people I interact with online. 

In person, probably, the shortest glance tells us all kinds of things about each other and we adjust our dialogue accordingly.


----------



## Meaghan

science said:


> It's interesting - way off topic but interesting - that when I chat with folks on the internet for some reason my default assumption is that they are basically like me - about my age, about in the same class and same educational level. Then it turns out some of you lived through the Great Depression and others of you are teenagers, and so on. I'll have to find a way to assume less about the people I interact with online.
> 
> In person, probably, the shortest glance tells us all kinds of things about each other and we adjust our dialogue accordingly.


It _is_ interesting (to continue your digression) that age does not play its usual role as a source of status in TC interactions. I enjoy seeing teenagers having discussions with 60-somethings and seeing how they talk to (/argue with) each other like peers.


----------



## Almaviva

tdc said:


> The problem here is you are using conventional wisdom taught in schools, (which have been proven to not increase intelligence), to measure intelligence.


No, while the WAIS is heavier in components that do get influenced by cognitive concepts (such as similarities, vocabulary, and even information), the Stanford-Binet is more abstract. The WAIS also has abstract components (matrix reasoning, spacial reasoning, inductive reasoning, visual puzzles, block design, picture completion, etc.). All these tests are imperfect but they do measure 'something' which strongly correlates with intelligence. Better proof, you go to the field and redo the testing for subsequent editions and validations (like the WAIS 5) and you *still* get a bell-shapped distribution curve. They may not measure all aspects of intelligence and may be influenced by other factors, but the bottom line is, if you get someone who scores 50 and you compare that person's ability to reason and solve new problems with original solutions to the same ability in someone who scores 150, chances are that you'll find out that the person who has scored 150 is indeed more intelligent than the person who has scored 50.

About intelligence tests only testing abilities learned in school - there are IQ tests for infants, much before they learn anything in schools, and the results do correlate well with subsequent testing later in life.

Sorry buddy, I wish genius could be found everywhere, as common as dirt. But it just can't. We're not all born with the same abilities, and some human beings *are* blessed with more of those than others. To state the contrary may be romantically beautiful and appealing - who likes to acknowledge that others may be brighter than oneself? - just look at the negative connotations of the word "elite" - but unfortunately it does not correspond to reality.


----------



## Almaviva

tdc said:


> Well, my qualms with Darwin really were over his science - specifically his theory of evolution. I made no reference to the person. Its true that if the theory wasn't ever used in the context of _Social Darwinism_, it might not be as much of an issue for many, but the fact is it has been used that way at times. But whether or not that is true, doesn't change the fact I think his theory needs to be upgraded (the same thing has happened with many other brilliant scientist's theories - its nothing against Darwin). Again I made no reference to the person Darwin being good or bad or whether or not some of his other ideas still have use - which is possible. Just taking issue with his theory of evolution and how its been used. So you are kind of beating up a strawman here, as opposed to addressing the science - The Cambrian explosion. But if you don't want to bother debating all of that, I completely understand, as I don't really either, and I certainly hope you don't shoot yourself.


The fact that a scientific theory is used socially in ways that you don't approve of has no bearing on the scientific validity of such theory. One example - physics of atomic structure and energy emission resulting from the breakdown of those structures can be used to build atomic bombs and decimate entire populations. If you don't approve of the latter, it doesn't mean that the science of physics got the understanding of atomic structure wrong.


----------



## tdc

Almaviva said:


> The fact that a scientific theory is used socially in ways that you don't approve of has no bearing on the scientific validity of such theory. One example - physics of atomic structure and energy emission resulting from the breakdown of those structures can be used to build atomic bombs and decimate entire populations. If you don't approve of the latter, it doesn't mean that the science of physics got the understanding of atomic structure wrong.


This is precisely correct, but again you are arguing something I never stated. I stated I think Darwin's theory is outdated because of modern science ie - the Cambrian explosion. I stated that some have used the theory to promote ideals I didn't agree with ie - Social Darwinism. Never once did I say that Social Darwinism is what makes the theory outdated.


----------



## tdc

Almaviva said:


> Sorry buddy, I wish genius could be found everywhere, as common as dirt. But it just can't. We're not all born with the same abilities, and some human beings *are* blessed with more of those than others. To state the contrary may be romantically beautiful and appealing - who likes to acknowledge that others may be brighter than oneself? - just look at the negative connotations of the word "elite" - but unfortunately it does not correspond to reality.


I may have used the quote _genius is as common as dirt_, but that doesn't mean I think were all born with the same abilities. The latter idea is a big part of what makes school quite ineffective. Its a one size fits all solution, for a population of very different individuals, with differing interests, and intelligences/strengths in different areas. etc.


----------



## Ukko

Meaghan said:


> It _is_ interesting (to continue your digression) that age does not play its usual role as a source of status in TC interactions. I enjoy seeing teenagers having discussions with 60-somethings and seeing how they talk to (/argue with) each other like peers.


If teenagers choose to act as the adults that nature says they are, it's fine with me. We are all in this together.


----------



## Ralfy

Part of the problem might also be mass commercial entertainment.


----------



## Polednice

Ralfy said:


> Part of the problem might also be mass commercial entertainment.


I think particularly that the most popular, attention-stealing forms of entertainment are ones that don't appeal to or in any way develop curiosity and knowledge.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Well... I was gonna kind'a let this go... but as long as this thread remains alive...


science said:


> (I'll assume you're at least somewhat rich, since you're conservative and probably not ill-informed enough to be conservative and poor)...


I guess that on the one hand, it's flattering to to have someone presume that I'm rich (or "somewhat rich," whatever that means). On the other hand, I view with a bit more skepticism the apparent premise that if a person's conservative and poor, then the general conclusion is that the person is "ill-informed."

*This assertion says more about your ingrained preconceptions (dare I say misconceptions) than it does about conservatism.*

If the term "working class" has any meaning (and in fairness, it probably carries no more precision than the phrase "somewhat rich"), then I've been working class most of my adult working life, like my father before me. Nowadays, I believe I can reasonably be called "middle class."

Beyond that, the issue(s) of my socio-economic status and life experiences and how they might have has some affect on my political outlook is probably best left to Private Messages, if anyone remains curious. However, it's clear that I might confound the die-cut templates of some folks- so I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Ukko

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Beyond that, the issue(s) of my socio-economic status and life experiences and how they might have has some affect on my political outlook is probably best left to Private Messages, if anyone remains curious. However, it's clear that I might confound the die-cut templates of some folks- so I won't hold my breath.


Members should keep in mind that *conservatives are people too.*



ps. By US standards I am a liberal. By northern European standards, I am a moderate conservative. So... given the presence of northern Europeans in our membership, I ask for consideration of my bolded statement above.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Members should keep in mind that *conservatives are people too.*
> 
> 
> 
> ps. By US standards I am a liberal. By northern European standards, I am a moderate conservative. So... given the presence of northern Europeans in our membership, I ask for consideration of my bolded statement above.


Don't worry, I've only lost a _tiny_ bit of respect for you.


----------



## Ravellian

_I don't buy/swallow it. Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace. The educational system hasn't made the populace dumb, the populace have demanded a dumber educational system. Intelligence simply isn't valued by American and many other societies. Wealth, glamour, and fame are. _

You forgot two things: Parties, and having a big ****. I'm completely serious. When I was a few years younger, every other conversation turned into something about **** size. *sigh*

Which is why I remained relatively isolated throughout college, simply because I don't like to party and get rediculously drunk and high all the time.


----------



## Ukko

Ravellian said:


> _I don't buy/swallow it. Somehow I doubt business executives and state educators collude in an annual conference to discuss how they can further dumb down the populace. The educational system hasn't made the populace dumb, the populace have demanded a dumber educational system. Intelligence simply isn't valued by American and many other societies. Wealth, glamour, and fame are. _
> 
> You forgot two things: Parties, and having a big ****. I'm completely serious. When I was a few years younger, every other conversation turned into something about **** size. *sigh*
> 
> Which is why I remained relatively isolated throughout college, simply because I don't like to party and get rediculously drunk and high all the time.


I'd like to think that, if I'd had the opportunity to go to college, I would have buckled down and studied. I'd _like to think that._ As it was, I joined the Air Force and spent a significant portion of my off time drunk.

We spent very little time discussing **** size, except for noting how many 2nd 'Lutes' were _all_ ****.


----------



## Polednice

Ravellian said:


> Which is why I remained relatively isolated throughout college, simply because I don't like to party and get rediculously drunk and high all the time.


I knew it would be bad, but even I was surprised at how central drink - more specifically, being drunk - was/is at university. I just can't function in situations like that, which led me to being a loner for 95% of my time spent there.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

The reason why your average student appears dumber decade by decade is because the sample pool has been changing since the inception of [modern] higher education. What has been reserved for the most intelligent - roughly 3-5% of the population - has progressively become reality for 9-12% of the population (about 50 years ago) and of 40-60% of the population nowadays.

The reason for this change stems from two things - both trivial. First, universities need money. Be it tuition or government funding (or both) - either way, it is, usually, based on the number of students (Polish government plans to change this and base funding on merit; we'll see how it goes). The other factor is the attitude. Nowadays people go to university to get their diploma, not because they want to educate themselves and widen their horizons (there are, of course, few exceptions, but this seems to be the rule here).

Normal distribution doesn't lie. The higher percentage of the population goes to university, the lower the standards have to be:










What has to be done is - we have to encourage change in the attitude. Unfortunately this seems like a lost cause. These days everyone wants to be a CEO or a chairman and do completely nothing. People don't want to work because they think the government should provide them with all the goods they "need" (read: want).

http://www.aei.org/docLib/07-EduO-Aug-2010g.pdf


----------



## Polednice

@KaerbEmEvig, those statistics don't at all surprise me, though, speaking from my own perspective as a student at a particularly elite university - rather than simply a student of the entire education system - I still find the drink culture surprising (even among students who you'd label as hard-working and genuinely interested in their subject). Either it's a problem with the UK and it's particular issue with binge drinking, or I'm just an old, hardened man inside, destined to hate anything my peers do.


----------



## Ravellian

Polednice;191916I said:


> still find the drink culture surprising (even among students who you'd label as hard-working and genuinely interested in their subject). Either it's a problem with the UK and it's particular issue with binge drinking, or I'm just an old, hardened man inside, destined to hate anything my peers do.


Believe me, it's just as bad in the US, even in high-class universities like Loyola or MICA.


----------



## Guest

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well... I was gonna kind'a let this go... but as long as this thread remains alive...I guess that on the one hand, it's flattering to to have someone presume that I'm rich (or "somewhat rich," whatever that means). On the other hand, I view with a bit more skepticism the apparent premise that if a person's conservative and poor, then the general conclusion is that the person is "ill-informed."
> 
> *This assertion says more about your ingrained preconceptions (dare I say misconceptions) than it does about conservatism.*
> 
> If the term "working class" has any meaning (and in fairness, it probably carries no more precision than the phrase "somewhat rich"), then I've been working class most of my adult working life, like my father before me. Nowadays, I believe I can reasonably be called "middle class."
> 
> Beyond that, the issue(s) of my socio-economic status and life experiences and how they might have has some affect on my political outlook is probably best left to Private Messages, if anyone remains curious. However, it's clear that I might confound the die-cut templates of some folks- so I won't hold my breath.


CTP - I too don't fit into standard conventional characterizations. How about this for you - middle class, not particularly rich, politically very conservative, always voted Republican, very religious - and a scientist.

Regarding this interesting discussion about alcohol consumption and college:
I have never consumed alcohol in my life (well, one time by accident, in Germany, I ordered a Schwarzwald Becher at an ice cream shop, being new in the country and not knowing that most things with Schwarzwald in the name would probably contain Kirsch). Religious reasons. Never went to any drinking parties in high school. Went to what is commonly described as one of the most boring schools in the U.S., with a sobriety rate ranking right up there with the U.S. Air Force Academy - Brigham Young University. I was never too impressed with stories from friends in high school of the party they went to where so-and-so got so drunk that he puked all over so-and-so's car. In grad school, I went with some friends a couple of times to bars, just to hang out - but inevitably (and I don't know if this is the rule, or just the way they were) the conversation turned to different kinds of drinks, who like what; all terribly interesting to the one guy not drinking.

It was nice going to school where none of that was an issue. Now, whether BYU students are smarter than other places - probably not. It is no Ivy League school (although, after having met Harvard grads, I'm not as impressed as I used to be) - but I got a good education.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> In grad school, I went with some friends a couple of times to bars, just to hang out - but inevitably (and I don't know if this is the rule, or just the way they were) the conversation turned to different kinds of drinks, who like what; all terribly interesting to the one guy not drinking.
> [...]


Hey, if they were chemistry guys... that could be just part of the training.

I have an experience involving LDS missionaries that could entertain you. PM only though.


----------



## science

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well... I was gonna kind'a let this go... but as long as this thread remains alive...I guess that on the one hand, it's flattering to to have someone presume that I'm rich (or "somewhat rich," whatever that means). On the other hand, I view with a bit more skepticism the apparent premise that if a person's conservative and poor, then the general conclusion is that the person is "ill-informed."
> 
> *This assertion says more about your ingrained preconceptions (dare I say misconceptions) than it does about conservatism.*
> 
> If the term "working class" has any meaning (and in fairness, it probably carries no more precision than the phrase "somewhat rich"), then I've been working class most of my adult working life, like my father before me. Nowadays, I believe I can reasonably be called "middle class."
> 
> Beyond that, the issue(s) of my socio-economic status and life experiences and how they might have has some affect on my political outlook is probably best left to Private Messages, if anyone remains curious. However, it's clear that I might confound the die-cut templates of some folks- so I won't hold my breath.


"Not holding your breath" means that you want me to PM you about your socioeconomic status? If you want me to know, feel free to PM me.

Whether my assertion is a misconception or not is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> "Not holding your breath" means that you want me to PM you about your socioeconomic status? If you want me to know, feel free to PM me.
> 
> Whether my assertion is a misconception or not is a matter of opinion.


Neither 'poor' nor 'conservative' are strictly, narrowly defined. If you two actually want to 'get your **** together', you need to talk. PMs are probably the best way to do that, you being to far apart geographically to meet at a bench in a park. So... embarrass yourself and initiate the process.

[Some humanists work in mysterious ways]


----------



## science

It's not like ChiTownPhilly is going to be the first conservative I've ever met. I grew up fairly poor and very conservative, so I already know the scene from the inside.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> It's not like ChiTownPhilly is going to be the first conservative I've ever met. I grew up fairly poor and very conservative, so I already know the scene from the inside.


You know* a* scene close-up. _Chi_ may be able to show you another one. Worth investigating?

BTW I know I know conservative poor - close-up rural New England version - 1st hand. But its from over half a century ago, and not germane to the discussion you two ought to be having.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> You know* a* scene close-up. _Chi_ may be able to show you another one. Worth investigating?
> 
> BTW I know I know conservative poor - close-up rural New England version - 1st hand. But its from over half a century ago, and not germane to the discussion you two ought to be having.


"Ought?" Where are you getting that?

I know Christian fundamentalist conservatism, the kind that has enabled oil/defense conservatism to dominate the US since about 1980.

Edit: Also, there is a fallacy afoot: one need not be personally inside a movement to have a well-informed opinion on it. I am more well-aware than most people of the conservatism of peasants, the alliance between poor whites and rich whites so that white supremacy (flattering poor whites) would ensure the power of slavery (enriching rich whites) - an arrangement that has only been slightly modified today, the power of religion to motivate acceptance or sometimes even active participation in systems that harm the believers from a material point of view (this is true not just of most or all the forms of Christianity that have flourished since Constantine, but of most or perhaps all forms of Buddhism, most or all forms of Hinduism, most or all forms of Islam, and so on of any religion that has been politically successful).

I am not primarily extrapolating from my own experience; I am studying history.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> "Ought?" Where are you getting that?
> 
> I know Christian fundamentalist conservatism, the kind that has enabled oil/defense conservatism to dominate the US since about 1980.
> 
> Edit: Also, there is a fallacy afoot: one need not be personally inside a movement to have a well-informed opinion on it. I am more well-aware than most people of the conservatism of peasants, the alliance between poor whites and rich whites so that white supremacy (flattering poor whites) would ensure the power of slavery (enriching rich whites) - an arrangement that has only been slightly modified today, the power of religion to motivate acceptance or sometimes even active participation in systems that harm the believers from a material point of view (this is true not just of most or all the forms of Christianity that have flourished since Constantine, but of most or perhaps all forms of Buddhism, most or all forms of Hinduism, most or all forms of Islam, and so on of any religion that has been politically successful).
> 
> I am not primarily extrapolating from my own experience; I am studying history.


Just in case you didn't notice, your 'edit' is a polemic. Yes, you ought to that 'ought'. Once one inhales deeply of the fumes of distorted 'history', a mental state (a sort of inflammation) occurs that closes the mind. It exists as commonly in 'liberals' as it does in 'conservatives'. The only remedy I know of is extended inquiry.


----------



## Almaviva

To tell you all the truth, I find this conversation rather weird.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> "Ought?" Where are you getting that?
> 
> I know Christian fundamentalist conservatism, the kind that has enabled oil/defense conservatism to dominate the US since about 1980.
> 
> Edit: Also, there is a fallacy afoot: one need not be personally inside a movement to have a well-informed opinion on it. I am more well-aware than most people of the conservatism of peasants, the alliance between poor whites and rich whites so that white supremacy (flattering poor whites) would ensure the power of slavery (enriching rich whites) - an arrangement that has only been slightly modified today, the power of religion to motivate acceptance or sometimes even active participation in systems that harm the believers from a material point of view (this is true not just of most or all the forms of Christianity that have flourished since Constantine, but of most or perhaps all forms of Buddhism, most or all forms of Hinduism, most or all forms of Islam, and so on of any religion that has been politically successful).
> 
> I am not primarily extrapolating from my own experience; I am studying history.


Yes, you are right, you don't have to be within a movement to be informed about it. That being said, though, there is only so much you can truly learn as an outsider looking in. And the level of assertions that you like to make about conservatives, and how certain you are in your infallibility in those assertions, is really quite laughable. We have had these debates in numerous threads - your endlessly ascribing racist motivations to conservatives. You have formulated your hypothesis, which you believe infallible, and project it on the group as a whole. You may well have once been conservative, but that does not grant you some superhuman insight into the hearts and minds of those who today call themselves conservatives.

You say you study history - history is the past. I study history as well. The history that I studied points to the Democratic party as that of racists - they were the party of the secessionists. They were the party that wanted to maintain slavery in the South. They were the party of Jim Crow. They were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws. Woodrow Wilson was a fan of the racist "Birth of a Nation" movie, and had it privately screened at the White House. That is history. But you know what? I know that the Democratic party of today is not that party. Times and people change.

You like to demonize conservatives. It isn't enough that you merely disagree with us politically. Our disagreements with you must have some evil hidden motive in your mind. You have to ascribe motives like racism. Why? Can you actually prove any of it? Or is it just your pet theory? Because you assert it with a rather bold and cavalier attitude - to the point that it really makes most conservatives here not want to give you the time of day, and I wouldn't say it is their fault. Do you truly want to alienate people with your pet theory and need to demonize those with which you have political disagreements? There is all this talk of needing to compromise - but people with your line of thinking make that impossible. I don't want to compromise with a person who calls me racist because I disagree with him. I want to defeat that person.

So really - are your postings truly necessary? And I am speaking specifically to these political comments of yours, not any other comments on this forum.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Just in case you didn't notice, your 'edit' is a polemic. Yes, you ought to that 'ought'. Once one inhales deeply of the fumes of distorted 'history', a mental state (a sort of inflammation) occurs that closes the mind. It exists as commonly in 'liberals' as it does in 'conservatives'. The only remedy I know of is extended inquiry.


I don't share your diagnosis of my condition, nor acknowledge your authority to instruct me.



DrMike said:


> Yes, you are right, you don't have to be within a movement to be informed about it. That being said, though, there is only so much you can truly learn as an outsider looking in. And the level of assertions that you like to make about conservatives, and how certain you are in your infallibility in those assertions, is really quite laughable. We have had these debates in numerous threads - your endlessly ascribing racist motivations to conservatives. You have formulated your hypothesis, which you believe infallible, and project it on the group as a whole. You may well have once been conservative, but that does not grant you some superhuman insight into the hearts and minds of those who today call themselves conservatives.
> 
> You say you study history - history is the past. I study history as well. The history that I studied points to the Democratic party as that of racists - they were the party of the secessionists. They were the party that wanted to maintain slavery in the South. They were the party of Jim Crow. They were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws. Woodrow Wilson was a fan of the racist "Birth of a Nation" movie, and had it privately screened at the White House. That is history. But you know what? I know that the Democratic party of today is not that party. Times and people change.
> 
> You like to demonize conservatives. It isn't enough that you merely disagree with us politically. Our disagreements with you must have some evil hidden motive in your mind. You have to ascribe motives like racism. Why? Can you actually prove any of it? Or is it just your pet theory? Because you assert it with a rather bold and cavalier attitude - to the point that it really makes most conservatives here not want to give you the time of day, and I wouldn't say it is their fault. Do you truly want to alienate people with your pet theory and need to demonize those with which you have political disagreements? There is all this talk of needing to compromise - but people with your line of thinking make that impossible. I don't want to compromise with a person who calls me racist because I disagree with him. I want to defeat that person.
> 
> So really - are your postings truly necessary? And I am speaking specifically to these political comments of yours, not any other comments on this forum.


This is essentially a long straw man. You take things I've actually said, eliminate all the qualifiers, conditionals, and exceptions, and then you argue that there are qualifiers, conditionals and exceptions.

Or you just make stuff up to slander me: as when you imply that I've called you racist.

As you know, no posts by anyone on any topic are "necessary." So why ask? Obviously you're trying to get me to stop posting. Good luck with that.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I don't share your diagnosis of my condition, nor acknowledge your authority to instruct me.
> [...]


Your illness conceals your condition from you. Other than that, you got me, _Science_.

:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

This thread is entertaining.
You guys are getting more and more sophisticated at subtly insulting each other.
Maybe you could collaborate (for a change) in an article with multiple authors to be published in some sort of academic magazine focusing on new media - "How to be insulting to your opponent in Internet debates without attracting the ire of moderators."

:lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> This thread is entertaining.
> You guys are getting more and more sophisticated at subtly insulting each other.
> Maybe you could collaborate (for a change) in an article with multiple authors to be published in some sort of academic magazine focusing on new media - "How to be insulting to your opponent in Internet debates without attracting the ire of moderators."
> 
> :lol:
> 
> :tiphat:


A collaboration seems unlikely. _DrMike_ is too far to my right, _Science_ is too far to my left. And as you may have noticed, neither of them heed the voice of *Reason*.

On the insult front, the subtlety consists of avoiding obscenities and exclamation points, combined with elaborations/restatements of one's position. Multi-syllabic words are good. too. The moderators probably understand them, but they tend to add smoke to the 'fire'.



ps. I have noticed that the software converts common obscenities to asterisks. Not only is that amusing, it holds down the flames.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> The moderators probably understand them, but they tend to add smoke to the 'fire'.


 Sometimes the moderators wish they weren't moderators and could add fire to the fire.


----------



## Aramis

Almaviva said:


> Sometimes the moderators wish they weren't moderators and could add fire to the fire.


I'll be glad to take your watch and change you.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> neither of them heed the voice of *Reason*.


Reason - is that the name you have claimed for yourself over in the "what would your new name be . . ." thread?

Unfortunately for you all, and for the moderators, I am the literal embodiment of this wonderful quote from John Adams, second President of the United States:


> Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sometimes the moderators wish they weren't moderators and could add fire to the fire.


Jump on in, Alma! The water is fine.:devil:


----------



## Almaviva

Aramis said:


> I'll be glad to take your watch and change you.


 We usually don't let the fox take care of the hens.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> This thread is entertaining.
> You guys are getting more and more sophisticated at subtly insulting each other.
> Maybe you could collaborate (for a change) in an article with multiple authors to be published in some sort of academic magazine focusing on new media - "How to be insulting to your opponent in Internet debates without attracting the ire of moderators."
> 
> :lol:
> 
> :tiphat:


Nah, Alma - you know that I have no skills in the art of subtlety! I like to use an axe where a scalpel is warranted. If I want to insult, I do it outright. And speaking of Anna . . .:devil:


----------



## Aramis

Almaviva said:


> We usually don't let the fox take care of the hens.


Yes - replied wise man - but you must also remember, my son, that the throat of a goat never finds it's master in loose woman's bone.


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


> Yes - replied wise man - but you must also remember, my son, that the throat of a goat never finds it's master in loose woman's bone.


Yeah, damn straight!


----------



## Almaviva

Aramis said:


> Yes - replied wise man - but you must also remember, *my son*, that the throat of a goat never finds it's master in loose woman's bone.


 Sure, Dad.


----------



## science

I was fully conscious of the "don't draw the ire of the mods" aspect of the discussion. It's like rhetorical aikido: defending oneself without using force.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I was fully conscious of the "don't draw the ire of the mods" aspect of the discussion. It's like rhetorical aikido: defending oneself without using force.


Or, in your case, reliable information.


----------



## science

Ah, clever guy. Down am I cast, rebuked, and lost in a valley of just condemnation.


----------



## ozradio

I have not read the book you quote so perhaps the author has some strong historical statistics and data to back up his claims. I do have a problem with using exceptions as a rule. The quote mentions 3 individuals who did impressive things at 12 years old. Do we really believe there are absolutely no 12-year-olds in this entire nation who could not command a ship or run a plantation? Or that every 12 year old at that time could do what they did? I sure don't. Perhaps these events are remembered because they were exceptional then just as they would be today.

What sources does he cite for the claims of 5th grade reading knowledge and modern spelling expectations? Those are broad sweeping statements; hopefully they're not based on a handful of anecdotal students or schools.

I'm not even sure how we can compare 1890 Iowa farm boy to a 2011 suburban Des Moines student. Their skills sets would be so different it's pretty much apples and oranges. If I was hiring a new employee for my business tomorrow, I can't imagine choosing the first of those two who very probably had never been out of the county where he was born or encountered anything powered by electricity.

I think there is more than a small correlation between the increase in universal education over the last 100 years and our growth into the wealthiest and most industrially and technologically advanced nation in the world.



tdc said:


> This thread is inspired by some things I've been thinking, watching and reading lately. For one the movie _Idiocracy_ - basically about the dumbing down of society. It is a pretty silly and comical movie, but also very thought provoking. Secondly I've been reading the book _Weapons of Mass Instruction_by John Taylor Gatto, also a very thought provoking book. This book is kind of like _Idiocracy_ but backed up by facts. Lastly this post I just came across by member science:
> 
> "_At 8, I wouldn't have had a chance with The Sword in the Stone. I tried to read it with some 8th graders last year, and it was too much for them. (Oddly to me, they loved The Shipping News.)_"
> 
> Here are some fun facts (considering 8th graders are typically around 12 or 13 years old):
> 
> -America's first admiral David Farragut was 12 years old when he took command of a captured British ship off the coast of Peru in the war of 1812 - and sailed it to Boston.
> 
> -George Washington was 12 when he dropped out of schooling.
> 
> -At the age of 12 Thomas Jefferson began to manage a large plantation and 250 employees in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson never graduated.
> 
> -129 years ago many 5th graders in the United States (before modern educational reforms) were reading: William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Sir Walter Scott, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Olivier Wendell Holmes, John Bunyan, Daniel Webster, Samuel Johnson, Lewis Caroll, Thomas Jefferson, Emerson and others while today in the U.S. children of the same age are not expected to be able to spell the following words correctly:
> 
> back,big,call,came,can,day,did,dog,down,get,good,have, he,home,if,in,is,it,like,little,man,morning,mother (etc. many more words like this running A-Z)
> 
> A little concerning?
> 
> - Here is a fun fact that may be hard to swallow - *The current educational system used in the U.S. (and most countries in the modern world today) is not designed to create intelligent or self sufficient people*. It is designed to keep people in a perpetual state of childhood as these are people that are easy to mold. An intelligent and self sufficient general population is not compatible with modern capitalism. Self-sufficiency leads to decreased consumption which leads to over-production. As crazy as it sounds this is our current reality, and anyone who wishes to learn more about this should read Gatto's book as it is where I have extracted all of these 'fun facts'.
> 
> Here is one last 'fun fact' for now:
> 
> -Our current model of education was planned for over 400 years by various wealthy families and is based on the Prussian model, and championed by two of America's leading Industrialists - Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Two extremely wealthy men both of which never graduated.
> 
> Thoughts?


----------



## science

ozradio said:


> I have not read the book you quote so perhaps the author has some strong historical statistics and data to back up his claims. I do have a problem with using exceptions as a rule. The quote mentions 3 individuals who did impressive things at 12 years old. Do we really believe there are absolutely no 12-year-olds in this entire nation who could not command a ship or run a plantation? Or that every 12 year old at that time could do what they did? I sure don't. Perhaps these events are remembered because they were exceptional then just as they would be today.
> 
> What sources does he cite for the claims of 5th grade reading knowledge and modern spelling expectations? Those are broad sweeping statements; hopefully they're not based on a handful of anecdotal students or schools.
> 
> I'm not even sure how we can compare 1890 Iowa farm boy to a 2011 suburban Des Moines student. Their skills sets would be so different it's pretty much apples and oranges. If I was hiring a new employee for my business tomorrow, I can't imagine choosing the first of those two who very probably had never been out of the county where he was born or encountered anything powered by electricity.
> 
> *I think there is more than a small correlation between the increase in universal education over the last 100 years and our growth into the wealthiest and most industrially and technologically advanced nation in the world.*


That is a great point. It's also worth noting that the other strong, advanced economies of Europe and Asia all have strong public education systems and strong pro-educational values.

I would grant conservatives that there may be decreasing returns on investment at some point, though.

But really, that's not what it's about. If we dismantle public education, allowing the poor to remain uneducated if they can't find a way to educate themselves, then the fundamental class structure of our society will be laid just a little more bare. We can't have that. Now I speak as a conservative. We need to keep the lower classes at least somewhat in the dark about their condition. The myth of meritocracy is essential. We need some Horatio Alger stories, fact or fiction, to be believed, so that the poor will blame themselves for their condition, rightly or wrongly. In the first place, that discourages class warfare, and in the second, it encourages at least some of them to work harder.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> But really, that's not what it's about. If we dismantle public education, allowing the poor to remain uneducated if they can't find a way to educate themselves, then the fundamental class structure of our society will be laid just a little more bare. We can't have that. Now I speak as a conservative. We need to keep the lower classes at least somewhat in the dark about their condition. The myth of meritocracy is essential. We need some Horatio Alger stories, fact or fiction, to be believed, so that the poor will blame themselves for their condition, rightly or wrongly. In the first place, that discourages class warfare, and in the second, it encourages at least some of them to work harder.


This got me thinking about conservatives. What do they want to conserve, after all? There is no way to conserve anything forever - for a time, maybe, but it won't ever last. Society will always be evolving. When you try to hold things down for too long, you get explosions of (at times, misguided) vitality - like we're seeing in London.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> This got me thinking about conservatives. What do they want to conserve, after all? There is no way to conserve anything forever - for a time, maybe, but it won't ever last. Society will always be evolving. When you try to hold things down for too long, you get explosions of (at times, misguided) vitality - like we're seeing in London.


Of course it is possible to change too quickly too.

A hypothesis: the "liberal" and "conservative" personality types are in every society, because that has been adaptive, because every society needs both. It is probably good to have some people who are eager to change, to try new things and look for better ways of doing things, and to work with outsiders, as well as other people who prefer to conserve the traditional ways and symbols, and are more wary of outsiders and more concerned with group solidarity, loyalty, and defense.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> Ah, clever guy. Down am I cast, rebuked, and lost in a valley of just condemnation.


I was concerned when I read this, but forum posts indicate that you have made a full recovery. Keep your head up; makes it easier to see the truth coming.


----------



## World Violist

Having just read this (yes, sospiro, poetic justice has been distributed)--the OP, anyway--I feel like I ought to say something, independent of the other posts because I'm too lazy to read through 6 pages of vitriolic banter over socio-political junk. (and, um, proving the OP's point)

Yes, the education system is junk, but I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular. I think it sucks because it exists as it does, and children must attend. That's the real problem. If kids want to learn to read, they're going to learn to read, and school has made children not want to learn to read. It's all about two things in school: useless little numbers (grades) and brainwashing our children into thinking that college is necessary to get anywhere in life. The first is unimportant, the second is a blatant lie that makes students think they must waste tens of thousands of dollars every year in order to get a diploma--NOT an education. No, the education is secondary.

And that's the whole story of education in America. They don't bother teaching us anything because that's not the end goal. The end goal is not to be smart, but to possess a college degree, even though you don't know what the hell to do with it. Because, of course, having a college degree gives you more money, despite all the time and money you wasted getting the degree in the first place.

Let's consider what the public school education system does _not_ teach: how to _actually_ read, that is, how to read something and interpret it for its real worth (I wasn't taught to do this until my last couple of years of high school, in advanced placement courses.); how to write stuff that actually matters to us in a non-conformist way (which is so backward that I intentionally broke all the rules in my high school portfolio and still got a "distinguished." What the hell is that???); _how to think for oneself._ That's the big one. No school system I've ever heard of actually teaches its students to think for themselves. They teach the books because they're paid to teach them, they have dorky little drawings of snowmen and suns with smiley faces littering the corkboards, and they don't let the students ask the simple question "Why?" "Why are we learning this stuff?" "Why are you teaching this stuff?" "Who gave you the authority?" "Why is this question in the test when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand?" In fact, if you do anything in the slightest removed from the authority figure's (teacher's, principal's, doesn't matter) vision of how good children ought to act, you're shut down. You're told not to fight, so you don't. And you never do ever again. And you never think for yourself, so you never do anything unless the school tells you to, you never read anything except what the school tells you to, and you never perform except just at the level necessary for the school to pass you.

And that last one is why people keep getting stupider. If kids keep performing at the lowest level possible, the schools must drop the standard every once in a while to keep up, so as to not "hurt the child's self-esteem." By doing what, giving them bad grades? None of it makes any sense at all. It's just some adult's fantasy world of controlling children to do exactly what they want, when they want, not caring in the least that the child will grow up a mindless clone, going through his motions. And people wonder why so many teenagers turn to alcohol and cigarettes and other drugs? BS.


----------



## Polednice

World Violist said:


> Let's consider what the public school education system does _not_ teach: how to _actually_ read, that is, how to read something and interpret it for its real worth (I wasn't taught to do this until my last couple of years of high school, in advanced placement courses.)


That reminded me of an interview with Philip Pullman that I saw recently, given for a British Humanist Association conference. He said even when kids reach the stage of being taught how to read properly, the endless probing of a text is still a bad thing. He said that if someone has a really intense experience with a book, then they're bound to want to keep that to themselves - such a personal experience is not something you want to share with a class. So he said in effect that classes should be made informal - kids should just be taught the _joy_ of reading. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare or Wordsworth - just let them read something they'll find fun, and which they can talk about afterwards.

I saw a similar thing with Peter Maxwell Davies who was also pushing for a bigger sense of engagement with music, saying that, at its heart, music education needs to be about kids working with each other and actually composing music themselves.

The education system is far too heavily focused on receiving things, analysing things, remembering things - unless you already have the spark in you and you run with it on your own terms, there is very little encouragement of creativity and originality, which is what you really need if you want to develop intelligent young people. Sadly, even though politicians meet with the likes of Pullman and Davies or their peers to discuss these things, they never bloody listen, and so it never ends up as policy.


----------



## Ukko

_Re the @WorldViolist post_

I 'like' this post. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with all of it, but I do agree with its general sentiment, and it is articulately presented. I do feel the need to say that the system isn't making people _stupider_. It's that the brains don't get exercise, so they don't develop either strength or flexibility - remarkably like the bodies.

At least the jocks get _something_ exercised; and if they _study_ their games, their brains get work too. Too compartmentalized maybe, but maybe not.


----------



## World Violist

Hilltroll72 said:


> I do feel the need to say that the system isn't making people _stupider_. It's that the brains don't get exercise, so they don't develop either strength or flexibility - remarkably like the bodies.


That's a more tactful way of presenting it, yes.


----------



## Ukko

World Violist said:


> That's a more tactful way of presenting it, yes.


 'Tactful' isn't my forte (you may have noticed). I was going for precision. "Stupid" is one of those loaded words that kind of means more than it means. There are a lot of people, who rank from 90-100 on _Alma_'s favorite intelligence scale, who know very well what they know and do very well what they do. An individual's knowledge of carpentry, the Red Sox, and the history of our town may be first-rate. About paleontology, maybe not so much. He managed a 'straight C-' in high school, mainly by not falling asleep in class.

I feel it necessary to apologize for harping on this subject. It's just that the assumed superiority of the intelligentsia tends to annoy me. I am afflicted with the impression that many of these 'superior' people are drones in the lap of society. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?)


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> 'Tactful' isn't my forte (you may have noticed). I was going for precision. "Stupid" is one of those loaded words that kind of means more than it means. There are a lot of people, who rank from 90-100 on _Alma_'s favorite intelligence scale, who know very well what they know and do very well what they do. An individual's knowledge of carpentry, the Red Sox, and the history of our town may be first-rate. About paleontology, maybe not so much. He managed a 'straight C-' in high school, mainly by not falling asleep in class.
> 
> I feel it necessary to apologize for harping on this subject. It's just that the assumed superiority of the intelligentsia tends to annoy me. I am afflicted with the impression that many of these 'superior' people are drones in the lap of society. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?)


My take on this is purely scientific and statistical. It is possible for less intelligent people to be very happy and less tortured. There is no judgment of value in what I said about intelligence. But to pretend that these differences of intellectual quotient are not valid or do not exist defies logic and reality. And to call the acknowledgment that these differences do exist "elitism" is absurd.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> My take on this is purely scientific and statistical. It is possible for less intelligent people to be very happy and less tortured. There is no judgment of value in what I said about intelligence. But to pretend that these differences of intellectual quotient are not valid or do not exist defies logic and reality. And to call the acknowledgment that these differences do exist "elitism" is absurd.


 "It is possible for less intelligent people to be very happy and less tortured."

This looks a lot like the "Happy *****" propaganda from back in the day. Other than that, I don't recognize my 'position' in your 'defies logic...absurd' statements. Who you talkin' to, man?


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> Who you talkin' to, man?


 Not specifically to you or exclusively to you, but also, in part, to you.
This thread had statements such as IQ tests don't test for anything, that genius is as common as dirt, and I took your statement about "Alma's favorite intelligence scale" as sarcastic; if it wasn't, my apologies. What irks me sometimes is that some sort of politically correct speech would pretend that differences in intelligence are not important or even don't exist.
My comment about the value of intelligence for a specific individual's happiness did not have the intention of bringing about Happy *****; if you think it did, then you're misinterpreting me just as much as I may have misinterpreted you. Sometimes I envy people who are oblivious to the conflicting thoughts and to the awareness of some upsetting trends that tend to plague the more inquisitive minds. That's all that I meant by it.


----------



## Sid James

I have waded through about half this thread, interesting topic. Re the debate about IQ, I think (whatever it's merits) we have to consider Emotional Intelligence as well. & things like Gardner's "multiple intelligences" (he has some good ideas/theories, a bit controversial as well, but worth considering?). & Edward de Bono's "lateral thinking." There is more to intelligence of any kinds than just "IQ."



Almaviva said:


> Without trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist,* it seems quite obvious that highly proficient specialists who can't think outside of their narrow fields of knowledge are ideal employees in the fact that they faithfully perform well their duties, but don't question very much what is asked of them.* It's an ideal form of social control. Meanwhile, the mass culture of low quality pop music, blockbuster movies, and sports is pushed down their throats to keep them happy.


I think this is a problem today, people not knowing certain "basics" (eg. like one of you above said a classmate didn't know that Hitler committed suicide). Talking to, say, recent Australian Prime Ministers (& I'm not referring to their politics) - the current crop are by far not as interested in culture or history in general compared to some of our former PM's. The last PM we had who took an interest in things outside of the "hard" issues (economics/politics, etc.) was Paul Keating (was in office 1991-1996). Since then, the move has been toward the "dries" dominating the discourse. I'm not a huge fan of anyone, incl. Keating, but one must give him credit for having apparent interests outside of reading _The Financial Review_ or _The Wall Street Journal._ Not that there's any problem with that, but one prefers some wider knowledge than just the "hard facts" for people not only at "the top," but also in all parts of society.



> The old Romans had their _Panis et Circensis_. We have our hamburger/hotdog and football/baseball/basketball/Justin Bieber/Lady Gaga/Hollywood movies. This works just as well for our corporations as it used to work for the Romans.


Yes, the old "bread and circuses" smoke-screens work every time!



> By the way, intelligence is in the genes. What education can provide is information, not intelligence. Still, critical thinking can be learned, and putting someone's intelligence to good use can be a product of good education. It's happening less and less.


I think critical thinking is related to developing different types of intelligence and questioning/evaluating information skills (see above, start of my post). The problem here in Australia has been a move in education towards the "three R's" - reading, writing & arithmetic - esp. pushed by various "hard" conservative agendas. Of course, the "basics" are important, but it is desirable to develop more complex skills than those. For one thing, in this "information age," one cannot easily get by with just those skills and not have critical evaluation skills as well. Educators here are aiming for a "mixed" system, with the "three R's" as well as the more complex critical thinking skills. The problem is the ideologies at extreme ends, esp. with "hard" conservatives who want to maintain the ascendancy of the "three R's" to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Standardised tests are kind of like a result of this push. But on the other hand, the governments here are investing more and more in things like computers in schools and laptops for every student. Our last PM, the dumped Kevin Rudd, had an "Education Revolution" agenda that has been much sidelined since the recent financial crises, but aspects of it are going ahead...


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> Not specifically to you or exclusively to you, but also, in part, to you.
> This thread had statements such as IQ tests don't test for anything, that genius is as common as dirt, and I took your statement about "Alma's favorite intelligence scale" as sarcastic; if it wasn't, my apologies. What irks me sometimes is that some sort of politically correct speech would pretend that differences in intelligence are not important or even don't exist.
> My comment about the value of intelligence for a specific individual's happiness did not have the intention of bringing about Happy *****; if you think it did, then you're misinterpreting me just as much as I may have misinterpreted you. Sometimes I envy people who are oblivious to the conflicting thoughts and to the awareness of some upsetting trends that tend to plague the more inquisitive minds. That's all that I meant by it.


Our difference in opinion re the importance of differences in intelligence is not absolute, but a matter of degree. For instance: To the degree that political science has become a hard science, and spin doctoring a well understood 'art', the ability to withstand the onslaught of 'pseudo-facts' with questions and research (the internet must be a nightmare for demagogues) seems to be directly related to 'IQ'.

The 'Happy *****' comment was a pointer to an unfortunate choice of words. I had a low level of confidence that you meant them in the way that they resonated with me. And I too have noticed that the more intelligent among my friends tend to be more concerned about things that do not directly and immediately affect their lives.

So... I believe that we have come to an understanding. I really dislike arguing with moderators anyway.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> This got me thinking about conservatives. What do they want to conserve, after all? There is no way to conserve anything forever - for a time, maybe, but it won't ever last. Society will always be evolving. When you try to hold things down for too long, you get explosions of (at times, misguided) vitality - like we're seeing in London.


It is a bit of a misnomer, kind of like calling Democrats liberal. The terms have been skewed over time. The modern-day conservatives are actually the descendants of classical liberalism, whereas what we call liberal today is the progressivism of the start of the last century.

But to phrase it in terms of the word conservative, this is what we want to conserve: the original intent of the Constitution; the protection of the states' rights enshrined in the 10th amendment of the Constitution; the liberty of the people and protection from intrusions by the state.

Modern-day liberals espouse the ideals of the progressives: using the power of the state to improve the lives of everybody; a greater centralization of power to make things more efficient; focusing the means of governing into a relatively small group of experts who can better plan for the needs of the people and direct the economy for good.

Conservatives view government as necessary, just as liberals. But we believe that it is something that should be limited and forced to work within the strict constraints of the Constitution, so as to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. Liberals see government as a potential instrument for doing good, and thus it needs sufficient power to do what needs to be done to correct the wrongs that society has perpetuated. It runs best when controlled by a group of intellectuals who can bring to bear the latest science and technology to plan out the course the country should follow.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Conservatives view government as necessary, just as liberals. But we believe that it is something that should be limited and forced to work within the strict constraints of the Constitution, so as to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. Liberals see government as a potential instrument for doing good, and thus it needs sufficient power to do what needs to be done to correct the wrongs that society has perpetuated. It runs best when controlled by a group of intellectuals who can bring to bear the latest science and technology to plan out the course the country should follow.


I'd call myself a progressive under those definitions, but, sadly, it's never the right 'intellectuals' who are in charge.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I'd call myself a progressive under those definitions, but, sadly, it's never the right 'intellectuals' who are in charge.


Using _DrMike_'s definitions, neither conservatives, nor liberals nor progressives are 'in charge'. In the US at least the plutocrats are in power.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I'd call myself a progressive under those definitions, but, sadly, it's never the right 'intellectuals' who are in charge.


One of the biggest complaints of my side against progressivism. And consider, also, that when you put the power into fewer and fewer peoples' hands, and allow them to do so much of the planning, then you are going to feel the changes a whole lot more - and if it isn't your group in power, that can be a problem. The way our system was designed was to diffuse the power, not centralize it. Gridlock is actually not that bad a thing. Currently, Republicans don't like what Democrats were able to put in place when they controlled Congress and the White House. And from 2001 to 2007, when the Republicans lost Congress to Democrats, Democrats really didn't like what Republicans did when they controlled Congress and the White House.

That is one of the reasons conservatives (or classical liberals) don't like giving more power to government - the more power a government exercises, the more liberties have to take a back seat. We understand that there are certain key functions of government, and don't begrudge it that - so it is pointless to generate these straw men about how conservatives want to just do away with all government and all regulations. But we object to more and more of our money and liberty being forcibly taken by government in order to heap more power upon itself and that select group of "intellectuals" at the top who think they know what is best for us. Yes, there are definite risks with more liberty - people are more likely to fall hard without all those safety nets - but I would rather err on the side of individual liberty than on the side of increased government control. Generally in history, the bigger problems have arisen from governments that had too much power, not too little.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> One of the biggest complaints of my side against progressivism. And consider, also, that when you put the power into fewer and fewer peoples' hands, and allow them to do so much of the planning, then you are going to feel the changes a whole lot more - and if it isn't your group in power, that can be a problem. The way our system was designed was to diffuse the power, not centralize it. Gridlock is actually not that bad a thing. Currently, Republicans don't like what Democrats were able to put in place when they controlled Congress and the White House. And from 2001 to 2007, when the Republicans lost Congress to Democrats, Democrats really didn't like what Republicans did when they controlled Congress and the White House.
> 
> That is one of the reasons conservatives (or classical liberals) don't like giving more power to government - the more power a government exercises, the more liberties have to take a back seat. We understand that there are certain key functions of government, and don't begrudge it that - so it is pointless to generate these straw men about how conservatives want to just do away with all government and all regulations. But we object to more and more of our money and liberty being forcibly taken by government in order to heap more power upon itself and that select group of "intellectuals" at the top who think they know what is best for us. Yes, there are definite risks with more liberty - people are more likely to fall hard without all those safety nets - but I would rather err on the side of individual liberty than on the side of increased government control. Generally in history, the bigger problems have arisen from governments that had too much power, not too little.


Now you see, all of these things are reasonable objections to a progressive idea of government, or at least the progressive failure to establish its ideal. And it's arguments like this that it show that lefties and righties are all good people striving towards to same end, _i.e._ a better life for everyone.

However, when you leave the realm of theoretical politics and look at the actual people we have to vote for, conservative parties are always filled with many people against things like same-sex marriage, abortion, and other LGBT/woman/ethnic/other minorities rights. I know it can't be said that these are conservative ideas themselves, but because it's generally conservative parties that have them, I could just never vote for one. The biggest hypocrisy, I feel, is that their major goal is supposed to be individual freedom, and yet they care so much about what other people do in private.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Now you see, all of these things are reasonable objections to a progressive idea of government, or at least the progressive failure to establish its ideal. And it's arguments like this that it show that lefties and righties are all good people striving towards to same end, _i.e._ a better life for everyone.
> 
> However, when you leave the realm of theoretical politics and look at the actual people we have to vote for, conservative parties are always filled with many people against things like same-sex marriage, abortion, and other LGBT/woman/ethnic/other minorities rights. I know it can't be said that these are conservative ideas themselves, but because it's generally conservative parties that have them, I could just never vote for one. The biggest hypocrisy, I feel, is that their major goal is supposed to be individual freedom, and yet they care so much about what other people do in private.


Because we are classical liberals, not libertines. I won't get into all the arguments for and against these issues you have addressed, because, honestly, they get tiring, and there will be plenty of it once the election season gets into full swing, and NOBODY ever changes their minds.

I can understand if those are sticking points for you and that would be your litmus test for supporting a candidate. But have you found your ideal party that supports everything you do and nothing you don't? I know you are across the pond, and wouldn't be participating in American elections, but is there really a party that is 100% ideologically in line with your thinking? If so, then congratulations - you truly are perfectly represented. The rest of us have to go with best fits.

For me, I find it hard to ever vote for Democrats/progressives, not only based on the moral issues that come into play, but because I don't subscribe to their solutions to problems. I don't think that increased revenues need to be the first thing we look to when deficits loom large. I think government overspends, and far too often, that overspending is going to pet projects that ensure the re-election of politicians that I don't like. I don't like the progressive mindset of putting defense at the top of the list of projects to cut. I don't like the concept of more of my choices being subsumed by the government, including how, when, and where I buy my health insurance. I like having more freedom to make my own choices. I don't like government legislating everything under the sun - recently, a little girl faced federal charges for rescuing a bird from her cat. The reason? She had violated some federal migratory bird act by picking up the bird.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/05/overcriminalization-victimizes-animal-loving-11-year-old-and-her-mother/

That is what comes of a government that has grown too large and feels it isn't working properly if it isn't incessantly coming up with new laws and regulations. All of the bureaucrats and lawmakers feel they have to justify their existence, so they look for new things to control through legislation.

Through the history of the world, how many atrocities have been committed by governments described as "having a limited government answerable to the citizens?"

I understand your thinking, though, as I would also have a very difficult time voting for someone that was supportive of same-sex marriage and keeping abortion legal for anything other than rape, incest, and serious health risk to the mother. As to the other rights you reference, well, that is another can of worms, as I don't subscribe to the premise behind them (that being that their natural rights are being violated). But that is an argument best left for elsewhere.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... I believe that we have come to an understanding. *I really dislike arguing with moderators anyway*.


Now I'm shocked. I don't think I've ever used my position as a moderator to my advantage in debates. When I'm participating in a debate with my personal opinions, I'm here as a member, not as a moderator. As a matter of fact, much the opposite, when someone attacks *me*, the member, I tend to be *more* lenient regarding a possible violation of Terms of Service, because it would be seen as acting with a vested interest or bias. Just recently a member said I lack erudition and have low standards (I probably do, LOL). Usually this would be a violation of Terms of Services (attacks on the person of the debater rather than on the idea being discussed), but I let go because of the vested interest part. Had the attack been aimed at you or anybody else, I'd have acted. The above is one example among many. As a matter of fact, the only time when someone here got penalized for attacking me, happened before I became a moderator.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> [...]
> I understand your thinking, though, as I would also have a very difficult time voting for someone that was supportive of same-sex marriage and keeping abortion legal for anything other than rape, incest, and serious health risk to the mother. As to the other rights you reference, well, that is another can of worms, as I don't subscribe to the premise behind them (that being that their natural rights are being violated). But that is an argument best left for elsewhere.


All of those things you mention are _religious_ issues, not _governing_ issues. Separation of Church and State never even got off the starting line, did it?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I can understand if those are sticking points for you and that would be your litmus test for supporting a candidate. But have you found your ideal party that supports everything you do and nothing you don't? I know you are across the pond, and wouldn't be participating in American elections, but is there really a party that is 100% ideologically in line with your thinking? If so, then congratulations - you truly are perfectly represented. The rest of us have to go with best fits.


Oh no, of course I haven't found a party that represents my ideal. There are parties that come close, but I know that they will never have enough voters to gain power, so, like most people, I just end up having to vote for the lesser of two (rather horrible) evils.



DrMike said:


> I understand your thinking, though, as I would also have a very difficult time voting for someone that was supportive of same-sex marriage and keeping abortion legal for anything other than rape, incest, and serious health risk to the mother. As to the other rights you reference, well, that is another can of worms, as I don't subscribe to the premise behind them (that being that their natural rights are being violated). But that is an argument best left for elsewhere.


Like you, I won't go into arguments on these particular points. We both know that we disagree with each other, and there's no need for us to get angry about it. However, as Hilltroll suggested, my main problem with this is that these are _moral_ issues, and I feel that such issues should automatically be legislated with the maximum possible freedom for as many people as possible, assuming it causes no harm to anyone.

I'm not clued into economics enough to understand the different fiscal plans on either side of the political spectrum, but I recognise those contentions as matters of governance. But deciding who marries who and which acts must result in forced pregnancies? I can't understand why people can't just let others have _choice_. Not everyone is a Christian, or a Muslim, or of a religion that prohibits these things and, as such, they shouldn't be prohibited by _others'_ religious ideas. And, seeing as there is no evidence that same-sex marriage or legalised abortion is harmful - in fact, there is a substantial body of evidence to the contrary - then surely everybody should just be given choice.

In situations like this, I just cannot understand how people can't agree with Wanda Sykes (and you can insert any issue here instead of marrige): "If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry anyone of the same-sex."


----------



## GoneBaroque

I do not know who said this offhand but it seems appropriate at this time. Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine seems to be can identify the source.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## Polednice

GoneBaroque said:


> I do not know who said this offhand but it seems appropriate at this time. Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine seems to be can identify the source.
> 
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


Google says: Evelyn Beatrice Hall.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Google says: Evelyn Beatrice Hall.


Hah. My image of 'taking up sword and shield' is somewhat deflated.


----------



## World Violist

GoneBaroque said:


> I do not know who said this offhand but it seems appropriate at this time. Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine seems to be can identify the source.
> 
> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


It's supposed to be Voltaire, but yes, Google says it was misattributed and that Ms. Hall was the real sayer of the words.


----------



## Jupiter

I've been a high school teacher for the last 15 years. I work in Australia, so it's the usual Anglo/American Western European educational model. 

This sounds awful, but I despair. Some of you will be saying "Then get out of education, leave it to young enthusiastic teachers to make a difference." You might have a point.

I despair because of the dumbing down of everything (eg: the BBC, and our own public broadcaster ABC, have seen fit to lump "Entertainment" in with "Arts". Check out websites of these institutions if you don't believe it. "Entertainment" is now the opium of the people), because of the celebration of the mediocre and the ordinary, because of the welfare mentality infecting what once was noble working class communities (no night-school for these folk, no brass bands or community music events, nothing except hand-outs), because of library funding getting slashed (as if the internet is somehow a substantial replacement for books, as if surfing the net is synonymous with browsing library shelves), etc, etc.

Sorry to rant, but I really really despair


----------



## Polednice

Jupiter said:


> I despair because of the dumbing down of everything (eg: the BBC, and our own public broadcaster ABC, have seen fit to lump "Entertainment" in with "Arts". Check out websites of these institutions if you don't believe it. "Entertainment" is now the opium of the people), because of the celebration of the mediocre and the ordinary, because of the welfare mentality infecting what once was noble working class communities (no night-school for these folk, no brass bands or community music events, nothing except hand-outs), because of library funding getting slashed (as if the internet is somehow a substantial replacement for books, as if surfing the net is synonymous with browsing library shelves), etc, etc.


I can completely understand your despair.

On the topic of the dumbing down of television, I was talking to someone earlier about remakes of classical documentaries (such as _Civilisation_, _The Human Body_, and, coming soon, _Cosmos_). It is obviously the case that, these documentaries having been made some decades ago, the TV people are trying to re-engage a new generation with these areas of interest - perhaps even update now-out-of-tune scientific theory. And yet, if you actually disregard the sometimes-annoying flashiness of the graphics in these new programmes, the _actual content_ - the discussion, the arguments, the knowledge - is so diminished.

Documentaries now speak _down_ to people, assuming they are stupid and so perpetuating their stupidity, instead of doing what they used to do and speaking _up_ to people, assuming they had a basic knowledge on which the documentary would build. That's why, although there are some thankful exceptions (I cherish the BBC's _Horizon_ series), few nature programmes are delivered by zoologists; few physics programmes narrated by physicists; few geology programmes written by geologers. Instead - perhaps because people in TV think that people worthy of lectureships don't 'resonate with the target audience' - we get celebrities-cum-journalists. Essentially people who the makers of the programme assume to have _as little knowledge_ as the audience. The desire is clearly to make the audience feel that they can 'empathise' with another novice, and follow their journey and learn just as much as them, but it doesn't work. It reduces science and critical inquiry to 'how things go BANG'. TV has such enormous potential to teach, and yet people learn less and less from it every year, and we constantly traverse this downward spiral which will only ever reinforce public naivete at best, stupidity at worst.

I'm sad now.


----------



## Jupiter

Me too 

You know, I often read of people worrying about whether young people can be attracted to classical music. Me, I don't care if they are atttracted or not. As long as my cd player works and my cds don't rot, I'm happy. Is that selfish?


----------



## Polednice

Jupiter said:


> Me too
> 
> You know, I often read of people worrying about whether young people can be attracted to classical music. Me, I don't care if they are atttracted or not. As long as my cd player works and my cds don't rot, I'm happy. Is that selfish?


I suppose it could be called selfish, but selfishness isn't always a bad thing and I don't blame you. I would always hope that young people are attracted to it, whether or not I had a part in it. Thankfully, I think classical music can inspire such awe in young people - regardless of their upbringing - that we don't always need to have people actively encouraging it. After all, my life was devoid of _any_ music at all until I was 13, and then I randomly discovered Mozart and fell in love. 

What's more important is ensuring that music education in general is good, but then we end up back at your despair for teaching.


----------



## Almaviva

This thread veered off topic with numerous posts about abortion and gay marriage therefore I moved those posts to a new thread, hoping that the educational debate will resume here.


----------



## Ukko

Jupiter said:


> I've been a high school teacher for the last 15 years. I work in Australia, so it's the usual Anglo/American Western European educational model.
> 
> This sounds awful, but I despair. Some of you will be saying "Then get out of education, leave it to young enthusiastic teachers to make a difference." You might have a point.
> 
> I despair because of the dumbing down of everything (eg: the BBC, and our own public broadcaster ABC, have seen fit to lump "Entertainment" in with "Arts". Check out websites of these institutions if you don't believe it. "Entertainment" is now the opium of the people), because of the celebration of the mediocre and the ordinary, because of the welfare mentality infecting what once was noble working class communities (no night-school for these folk, no brass bands or community music events, nothing except hand-outs), because of library funding getting slashed (as if the internet is somehow a substantial replacement for books, as if surfing the net is synonymous with browsing library shelves), etc, etc.
> 
> Sorry to rant, but I really really despair


I've been reading what amounts to an exposé of high school American history textbooks -*Lies My Teacher Told Me* - _Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong_. It's my 'breakfast book', so I've been reading it for awhile. What I'm wondering is if the quality of secondary school textbooks in general, in the US and other 'western' countries, suffers from deficiencies similar to these history texts. If so, the fault lies with school boards, not with teachers.

:scold:


----------



## Polednice

Perhaps it would be interesting to hear about our members' education. If old enough to comment, what is your highest attained education level (college/university/masters _etc._)? If too young, what education level do you hope to achieve?

Personally, I'm a university student working towards a BA, but I have plans to continue with an MA and PhD, eventually residing in the lofty world of academia.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Perhaps it would be interesting to hear about our members' education. If old enough to comment, what is your highest attained education level (college/university/masters _etc._)? If too young, what education level do you hope to achieve?
> 
> Personally, I'm a university student working towards a BA, but I have plans to continue with an MA and PhD, eventually residing in the lofty world of academia.


**** and Ph.D. in Microbiology with minors in History and Chemistry.


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> Perhaps it would be interesting to hear about our members' education. If old enough to comment, what is your highest attained education level (college/university/masters _etc._)? If too young, what education level do you hope to achieve?
> 
> Personally, I'm a university student working towards a BA, but I have plans to continue with an MA and PhD, eventually residing in the lofty world of academia.


I hold two doctorate degrees and a couple of specializations.


----------



## Igneous01

I agree to some extent with the OP.

Coming from Canada, the education system here has been dropping admission standards and upping tuition costs to the point where it makes one wonder what the value was in attending a university. What really worries me are these new "business schools" that are run as a company, offering courses for diplomas and certificates that will supposedly get you that job doing nothing and making big bucks. I have a sneaking suspicion by the courses they offer that the teachers are not qualified, and that all they teach you is how to do nothing in a business environment.

It looks to me, that the true evolution of education in Canada, is one of corporatism, with little attention to mental development.

And I apologize for going slightly off topic here with this next bit, but I feel it ties in with our idiocracy topic.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Perhaps it would be interesting to hear about our members' education. If old enough to comment, what is your highest attained education level (college/university/masters _etc._)? If too young, what education level do you hope to achieve?
> 
> Personally, I'm a university student working towards a BA, but I have plans to continue with an MA and PhD, eventually residing in the lofty world of academia.


I got nothin'.


----------



## tdc

I dropped out of college, and I feel quite liberated to say I don't plan on going back!


----------



## science

I'll watch your videos later, but I don't have time now. Anyway, I want to share this.


----------



## Sid James

I think it may well be less of a matter of "idiocracy" as a kind of "corporatocracy." I'm no conspiracy theorist (in fact, I have little time for that kind of thing), but however I look at it, a lot of things that were there have vanished (eg. budget cuts) & this ideology of "small government" attached to "outcomes" that can only be measured in dollars & cents, leads to a lot of short-term thinking. Of course, the education system is not immune to harm from these kinds of ideologies. I'm not against big business, but there needs to be more balance in some ways. The two main political parties here are funded by a heap of corporations, so they have what we call "conflicts of interest." The Greens Party has suggested for many years of ending corporate funding to political parties, or at least fully disclosing what is "donated," but to no avail, of course, the "mainstream" parties aren't going to cut the branch of the tree they are sitting on...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I'll watch your videos later, but I don't have time now. Anyway, I want to share this.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Ah, the Koch Brothers. The latest boogeyman on which the liberals are trying to tie the ills of this nation. So now they are trying to kill public education, huh? Why, because they supported Scott Walker's curtailment of union powers in Wisconsin (whose policies were just vindicated as Democrats in the state failed to take the 3 seats necessary to earn a majority in the State Senate in recall elections)?

I guess they needed someone to play the scary monster in the closet once Dick Cheney was no longer in office.


----------



## Ukko

:lol: [one is enough]
Policies vindicated? Trying to stir up "vituperation" and "ad hominem attacks" are you?

Go get 'em, _DrMike_! I'm not sure how closely the young 'intellectual elite radicals' followed the Wisconsin brouhaha though; you may have to pick something else.

Let's see. The Texas Board of Education? The role of militant Islam in France? (Wow, I must be reaching now.) Guess I'm not of much help, sir.

This thread is rapidly going South, I think.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> :lol: [one is enough]
> Policies vindicated? Trying to stir up "vituperation" and "ad hominem attacks" are you?
> 
> Go get 'em, _DrMike_! I'm not sure how closely the young 'intellectual elite radicals' followed the Wisconsin brouhaha though; you may have to pick something else.
> 
> Let's see. The Texas Board of Education? The role of militant Islam in France? (Wow, I must be reaching now.) Guess I'm not of much help, sir.
> 
> This thread is rapidly going South, I think.


You are going to have to clarify what your point is in this post, as it isn't self-evident to me. Probably my fault, but I can't formulate a response if I'm not quite sure what the central point in your post is.

I would not want to stir up vituperation or elicit ad hominem attacks. I prefer these debates without them - just good-natured arguing about the issues.

The video in question looks to be so much sour grapes - come on, two of the people they interview and who express their dismay over the political donations of the Koch Brothers are two candidates for the school board that lost to candidates backed by the Koch Brothers. Then the obviously biased slant of the video? Did they even bother asking anybody on the other side of the issue, because clearly there were more people that voted for the school board members backed by the Kochs than those who voted for the other side - yet their positions are represented only by images of clouds rolling in and the storm hitting, along with the emotional appeals of the two dancers and the kid with the yearbook. Furthermore, it seems that the Koch brothers went about their support for their position in a peaceful manner, while the opposition was less so, resulting in arrests, but they are portrayed as long-suffering, while the Koch brothers are portrayed as Jim Crow incarnate. That video was demagoguic and not even remotely attempting to be fair in its portrayal.

Is this same group also looking to expose all the money that leftist George Soros has been dumping into politics to defeat Republicans around the country? Or are big donations only evil and corrupt when they come from Republicans and Libertarians?


----------



## Ukko

Buying elections screws up the democratic process, no matter which 'side' does it. Folks that ain't got the money tend to resort to whatever else they can do.

I sort of wish you hadn't mentioned Soros. He's doing his best to buy civil disarmament legislation. Besides being a 'hilltroll', I am an NRA member. The outfit is seriously polarized, but it's the best I can do.


----------



## Guest

Regarding the situation in Wake County, NC, I totally can see another side to the issue other than the talking points of "resegregation" and "racism" being thrown about.

When my wife and I moved recently, with our first child very close to starting school, we absolutely took school district into account. We looked all around, asked friends, and made a housing choice that results in me spending 1 1/2-2 hours each day commuting, but puts us in a great school district. I would be absolutely pissed off if, after going through all that trouble, the school board decides that, in the interests of "fairness" they are going to forcibly bus my kid to some other school that might not be as good as the one that I chose for my child. I understand all the points from the other side, but I'm sorry - my child is not available for your social engineering experiments. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Christie, and even Barack Obama have all essentially said the same thing. Pres. Obama - rather than putting his daughters in the appropriate public school based on the school district they live in, sends them to a private school with a great reputation. Do I accuse him of hypocrisy? No. Because politics end where my kids begin.


----------



## science

Are you saying the Wake County schools weren't good schools?


----------



## samurai

@ DrMike, I take it from your pro Scott Walker points that you are against the rights of collective bargaining for unions, which for so long have been a hallmark of this country?


----------



## Ukko

samurai said:


> @ DrMike, I take it from your pro Scott Walker points that you are against the rights of collective bargaining for unions, which for so long have been a hallmark of this country?


I (obviously, hah) can't speak for _DrMike_. *My* stance is that unions and government jobs don't mix. Non-government service and manufacturing jobs are a different thing, and unions that operate under the same concept - enlightened self interest - as management ought to operate under, are often of benefit to both workers and society.


----------



## science

What is it about employment by the state that makes it so fundamentally different than employment in the private sector? In both cases the employer is motivated to spend as little as possible on the wages, insurance, benefits, and safety of the employees, and the employees have to look out for themselves without any bargaining power as individuals.

I'm not speaking in favor of unions here, I'm just inquiring into the reasons for your belief.


----------



## Sid James

A friend of mine said that a basic thing is that countries without a strong union movement tend to not have a strong democracy or civil society. Here in Australia, in the late c19th, a strong union movement developed which was to underpin our politics after Federation (the seperate states coming together to form a nation, it happened as a result of an act of parliament) in 1901. The Australian Labor Party emerged from the union movement, a number of our first Labor prime ministers had been workers. Basically, unions are like a "watch-dog" on not only worker's rights, but what they do impact on society as a whole. Countries were there was little or no union movement, or where it was supressed (eg. Eastern Europe, Soviet Communism put paid to the formation & continuance of independent unions), have tended to have a poor record overall with regards to the development of strong democratic processes (this is what my friend says, and I tend to agree with him on the whole)...


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Are you saying the Wake County schools weren't good schools?


I have no clue what they were like - and their quality was irrelevant to my point. My point is that parents often will base their choice on where to live on the quality of the school district they will be a part of. I may sacrifice and buy a little more house than I wanted, and go a little more into debt, if it means my kids will get a better education. If the local government then pulls the rug out from under me and sends my kid to some other school, I'm probably going to be irate. Kind of like paying for a first class seat on an airplane, and then being told I have to sit in economy. I have nothing wrong with economy, per se (I actually have never flown first class), but if I paid for first class, then I want first class.

The video does not address any of the motivations for the other side - they just imply the whole thing was some plan for the Koch Brothers to come in and buy up elections.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> @ DrMike, I take it from your pro Scott Walker points that you are against the rights of collective bargaining for unions, which for so long have been a hallmark of this country?


What does "hallmark of this country" mean, exactly? That it simply has been so for a long time? Since when is that justification?

I am not against unionization and collective bargaining, per se. I do believe that there was a time when they were very important and useful in obtaining basic rights for workers. But somewhere along the line, things went south in a great many cases. When union contracts are strangling the budgets of states, then I think there needs to be some fundamental changes. When you have the government being pro-union, and then going and "negotiating" contracts with unions, there is a problem. When you have politicians pandering to unions and promising sweetheart deals to them in exchange for votes, then we have a problem. For public sector unions, so many laws have been enacted since the early part of the 20th century that many of the rights they once fought for have now been ensconced in our pantheon of laws.


----------



## violadude

The thing about schools getting more funding is that a lot of schools waste their money like crazy. Instead of using it for something like better payment for hardworking teachers they spend it on some crap like a "smart board." Things like that, while impressive, are unnecessary in order to teach and buying them is especially irresponsible for schools that are suffering from the recession. Actually, buying them *during* a recession is irresponsible in and of itself.

In my opinion, all you *need* for teaching is a good old text book, black (or white) board and a teacher.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> What is it about employment by the state that makes it so fundamentally different than employment in the private sector? In both cases the employer is motivated to spend as little as possible on the wages, insurance, benefits, and safety of the employees, and the employees have to look out for themselves without any bargaining power as individuals.
> 
> I'm not speaking in favor of unions here, I'm just inquiring into the reasons for your belief.


First, the logically 'cute' response. If you regard in-government unions as groups-of-people, union demands and actions are made _against themselves_.

Second, and of some practical significance, I don't want a union to have direct power to shut down government.

Third, government workers, being in most cases citizens, can exert influence on management using citizens' methods.

I was a union worker in private industry for ~15 years (before I became 'salaried', which opens another can of squirmy little beasties). I witnessed my union function well in opposing a 'recalcitrant' management, and eventually dysfunction badly - because of its failure to embrace the principle of enlightened self interest.

:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> What does "hallmark of this country" mean, exactly? That it simply has been so for a long time? Since when is that justification?


In the case of marriage, apparently!  Sorry, I won't derail any more...


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Regarding the situation in Wake County, NC, I totally can see another side to the issue other than the talking points of "resegregation" and "racism" being thrown about.
> 
> When my wife and I moved recently, with our first child very close to starting school, we absolutely took school district into account. We looked all around, asked friends, and made a housing choice that results in me spending 1 1/2-2 hours each day commuting, but puts us in a great school district. I would be absolutely pissed off if, after going through all that trouble, the school board decides that, in the interests of "fairness" they are going to forcibly bus my kid to some other school that might not be as good as the one that I chose for my child. I understand all the points from the other side, but I'm sorry - my child is not available for your social engineering experiments. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Christie, and even Barack Obama have all essentially said the same thing. Pres. Obama - rather than putting his daughters in the appropriate public school based on the school district they live in, sends them to a private school with a great reputation. Do I accuse him of hypocrisy? No. Because politics end where my kids begin.


Hear, hear, folks! Ring those bells! Here is an issue on which I agree with Dr.Mike!!!

One of my best friends, maybe just plain *best* friend period, happens to have a child who attends a Wake County school. She is a liberal, and very much in tune with social issues. She is not a racist at all. She works hard and earns a high salary, which enabled her to buy a house in a golf-course country-club style neighborhood in Raleigh, NC, with an excellent public school, maintained by her sky-high property taxes and those of her neighbors. Oh well, here comes the Board of Education and buses her kid to a school on the other side of Wake County, like one-hour bus trip each way. The kid was cranky, unhappy, and regretting the loss of his friends he used to have in the original school. His grades went down. She was livid! I mean, I've rarely seen someone this pissed off! Her words, exactly: "No social experiment with *my* kid! That's where I draw the line!!!"

So, I actually can understand these parents' side.


----------



## Almaviva

True story, I swear. A friend just told me. This goes to show the state of our educational system.
Her 14-year-old kid is very bright. He is part of a gifted track in his elite public school in a fancy neighborhood, and has been selected by a local university for special attention due to his intelligence. He is not a shy and sheltered kid either, he plays instruments, is popular, etc.

Here is an exchange he had yesterday with his mother.

Mother, showing a bunny in the backyard to the kid's sister: Look at the cute little bunny, he came out of his nest.
14-year-old boy, high school freshman: Hmm... so, he hatched out of his egg?
Mother, shocked: Son, bunnies are mammals, not birds. They are born alive out of their mother's belly. Bunnies don't lay eggs.
Boy, shocked: What are you talking about, mom? If you were right, how come the Easter Bunny brings eggs?


----------



## Ukko

Why blame 'the educational system'? The boy shouldn't be learning about baby bunnies in school. Most of the info on how life works is available outside the classroom. He would get some of the details wrong...


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Why blame 'the educational system'? The boy shouldn't be learning about baby bunnies in school. Most of the info on how life works is available outside the classroom. He would get some of the details wrong...


Yeah, I don't want kids learning about any kind of sex! It's all disgusting! Teach them about animal procreation and they'll end up getting into bestiality. Repress them all, I say.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> Why blame 'the educational system'? The boy shouldn't be learning about baby bunnies in school. Most of the info on how life works is available outside the classroom. He would get some of the details wrong...


Hehehe...
But I was blaming the school system because I though a bright high school freshman (I'm serious, he *is* bright, I know the kid) by now should know that bunnies are mammals. The humor of the situation apart, I'm really amazed at how in the hell this happened. I have encouraged my friend to call the principal and ask him what the hell are they teaching in their science classes that a 14-year-old still thinks that bunnies hatch out of eggs. She won't call, though. She's too ashamed of admitting that her kid was that ignorant of basic biology.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> Hehehe...
> But I was blaming the school system because I though a bright high school freshman (I'm serious, he *is* bright, I know the kid) by now should now that bunnies are mammals. The humor of the situation apart, I'm really amazed at how in the hell this happened. I have encouraged my friend to call the principal and ask him what the hell are they teaching in their science classes that a 14-year-old still thinks that bunnies hatch out of eggs. She won't call, though. She's too ashamed of admitting that her kid was that ignorant of basic biology.


I have no clue about when schoolkids get biology nowadays. Seems like I had that class as a freshman - but I'm saying that even if this kid hasn't been exposed to Linnaeus yet, so maybe doesn't know how to differentiate between mammal and marsupial, he ought to be able to avoid such confusion. Hey, if he were an Aussie he could maybe expand the platypus concept... nah, even that doesn't work. I doubt that even Aussies get _that_ confused.


----------



## violadude

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/senior_year

I thought this comic was somewhat relevant haha.


----------



## science

Teaching biology is hell. I teach _history_ and I'm nervous when the subject of evolution comes up. I can't imagine teaching biology. Biology teachers have my respect.

I can only imagine teaching, say, classification when a kid asks how it relates to Genesis. Good luck keeping your job in that situation.

However: I do address whatever subjects come up in class discussion, and my classes are discussion oriented. If they ask, we will discuss how Darwin and Wallace gathered their data and reached their conclusions; if they ask, we will discuss the variety of Christian reactions to it; if they ask, we will discuss the whole history of biology as well as I know it.

Which isn't bad, because there is a lot of social history tied to it - scientific racism, eugenics, vaccinations, painkillers, antibiotics, the rise of industrial chemistry, the convergence of quantum physics and chemistry, how quantum physics and relativity interacted with other strains of modernist thought and culture, and so on.

But it does make me nervous...


----------



## Theophrastus

science said:


> Teaching biology is hell. I teach _history_ and I'm nervous when the subject of evolution comes up. I can't imagine teaching biology. Biology teachers have my respect.
> 
> I can only imagine teaching, say, classification when a kid asks how it relates to Genesis. Good luck keeping your job in that situation.
> 
> However: I do address whatever subjects come up in class discussion, and my classes are discussion oriented. If they ask, we will discuss how Darwin and Wallace gathered their data and reached their conclusions; if they ask, we will discuss the variety of Christian reactions to it; if they ask, we will discuss the whole history of biology as well as I know it.
> 
> Which isn't bad, because there is a lot of social history tied to it - scientific racism, eugenics, vaccinations, painkillers, antibiotics, the rise of industrial chemistry, the convergence of quantum physics and chemistry, how quantum physics and relativity interacted with other strains of modernist thought and culture, and so on.
> 
> But it does make me nervous...


Can I join your class?


----------



## science

Theophrastus said:


> Can I join your class?


LOL - are you preparing for an AP test?

Your sig is great. Reminds of Holden Caufield, calling someone, but "Nobody kept answering." One of my favorite sentences in English literature.


----------



## Almaviva

@violadude - awesome! I loved the last one about sex ed.

Here is another one that is relevant:


----------



## Polednice

English National Opera on idiotic adverts and brand culture:


----------



## lou

violadude said:


> http://theoatmeal.com/comics/senior_year
> 
> I thought this comic was somewhat relevant haha.


My favorite was the PE teacher!


----------



## Shamit

Education has become some form of commodity in the present, although the number of college graduates is higher than any point in history most are interested in finding a high paying occupation instead of doing something creative. I think this is due to modern civilization needing more workers to certain itself than it needs thinkers. Modern society fails to appreciate the value of creativity. 300 years ago people were listening to Bach and Vivaldi, now well it just that silly excuse for music they call pop. Paintings have been reduced to house decoration. Intellectual devolution of the human race may be a very real possibility.


----------



## graaf

> I think this is due to modern civilization needing more workers to certain itself than it needs thinkers.


true, but it's not modern civilization as much as it is oligarchy.


> 300 years ago people were listening to Bach and Vivaldi, now well it just that silly excuse for music they call pop.


Bach and Vivaldi were not accessible to everyone, I'd say that percentage of general population that listened to Bach/Vivaldi was even smaller than today. Majority of people listened to simple folk tunes and danced to them, just like now they listen easy pop tunes and dance to those. Truth be told, folk tunes were probably better than pop, but still, they didn't had a chance to hear Vivaldi anyway...


----------



## PetrB

Wicked_one said:


> I was referring to those prehistoric times, when we'd still throw rocks and spears to kill the big, fluffy mammoth.
> 
> @Almaviva Interesting enough is that scientists have proven that in order to get to be a genius you have to have practiced over 10 000 hours, let's say on an instrument or in whatever domain one fancies. 10 000 hours of hard work and direction and motivation and you can get up there with the greats. Think about Liszt: 12 hours a day of practicing; or the way Pablo de Sarasate put it:
> _For 37 years I've practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius _
> 
> The whole idea it seems "genetic" because some people are more motivated and they don't procrastinate as much.
> 
> Then again, the right environment is needed as well and the way parents help you develop from a very early age.


Sorry, that is as much a lie as 'anyone can grow up to become the president.'

!0,000 hours, PLUS NATIVE TALENT AND GENIUS is where you start seeing those results. Those without native talent and genius can put in the same ten thousand hours, with far lesser results.

It is not fair: it is not 'democratic': it IS genetic.


----------

