NationStates Jolt Archive

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?

I know that in high school there was a strong anti-intellectual and especially what you describe as anti-rational tendency. That just had to do with the teachers (ie figures of authority) wanting you to be intellectual and know stuff, and by not doing so you were a rebel.

Unfortunately even though I left high school more than four years ago, it's still around in some circles. These days we've gotten close to the days when I'll be earning about 20 times what the "cool-due-to-stupidity" kids earn and they sense it, but I'd be lying if I said that there aren't still times when I pretend to know just a little less than I do, or get funny looks if I don't.

Of course, this isn't America, so maybe I'm missing the point.

Americans, and the rest of the world, only seem stupider because technology and globalisation makes them need to be more aware. In reality, everyone is just as stupid as they were 50 years ago.

Elitist. Sure 80% can do something but 20% cannot so all 100% now become stupid. I see the logic there.

Besides remember that other thread we had a while back, where there data actually showed an increase in IQ. It had the whole bell curve, and races,thing, but the general point was but there was a noticable increase(I forget the exact number of percent of people scored that higher).

Considering that, in 1950, Iraq had existed for a grand total of 18 years, not many.

Eighteen years is plenty of time to learn about a new country, especially one that the United States was politically involved in. Much of the eastern Europe nations have existed for less than eighteen years, but most people know of them.

Considering that, in 1950, Iraq had existed for a grand total of 18 years, not many.

In 1994, Russia had existed for a grand total of 1 year, yet nearly every adult American could locate it on the map.

Cold war, gigantic country?

I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events.

tl;dr

;)

I do think attention spans are reducing but I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.

I know that in high school there was a strong anti-intellectual and especially what you describe as anti-rational tendency. That just had to do with the teachers (ie figures of authority) wanting you to be intellectual and know stuff, and by not doing so you were a rebel.

That is a generalization.

People who get bad grades are mocked to no end at my school. People are aiming for good grades and hate to get bad grades, but they just don't like it when people show off their intelligence.

Considering that, in 1950, Iraq had existed for a grand total of 18 years, not many.

In 1994, Russia had existed for a grand total of 1 year, yet nearly every adult American could locate it on the map.

If anyone has seen Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans, we can see just how ignorant most Americans can be. If you don't believe me and think I'm an elitist myself, go check it out. It is also a funny movie.

People who get bad grades are mocked to no end at my school. People are aiming for good grades and hate to get bad grades, but they just don't like it when people show off their intelligence.Perhaps this is it; nobody likes a showoff.

Eighteen years is plenty of time to learn about a new country, especially one that the United States was politically involved in. Much of the eastern Europe nations have existed for less than eighteen years, but most people know of them.

Not really-- you'd be suprised at the number of people who've never heard of Moldova or Georgia (wha--? the Russians are doing what to Georgia?) I attended a very high-caliber high school (one of the best public schools in the nation), when taking a survey, a full half of the kids thought that Canada had 500+ million people. Oops. (This was my senior year, too).

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?

Its the capitalism. The media tells the people that their products will solve all their problems and blatantly tells encourages people to focus on pleasure so people would buy the products. Since people are focusing pleasure and other useless carnal desires they focus less on other things. Also a the more the populace aims low, remains ignorant and gullible the more profit the fat cats get. The businesses are causing this so for profit.

I remember my old science teachers musing about how year by year he has watched his classes (and glasses) get worse and worse, his solution was the discovery channel :)

the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth

clearly it does because you can clearly see the Sun moving across the sky

note: I had a historical re-enactor guy explaining this when I was 12 and it broke me

Actually I agree with her.

Recently I saw the average amount of books read by Americans is 1/2 of a book per year.

I have heard a teenager say the Axis powers were Germany, the USSR and the UK.

My wife studied French and in one class she said there was a question about King Louie's twin brother (as in The man in the Iron Mask movie not even the book!). The teacher said he was not real and the three musketeers were not real. The girl was stunned.

Consider that more people know about the antics of Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton and Britney then they do about events in the world.

Primary Education has all but dropped Art and Music. Basic science is either an elective or an after school day camp and recently I heard PE is on the chopping blocks.

And of course we now teach to the test rather then teach a subject.


Every generation says the next is dumb. This time it is probably true.....

Our society, as a whole, doesn't value certain kinds of knowledge.

To many people it is far more useful to know about Paris Hilton to help you gossip and socialise than it is to know about the history of France to help you if some study comes around to see how stupid you are.

Eighteen years is plenty of time to learn about a new country, especially one that the United States was politically involved in. Much of the eastern Europe nations have existed for less than eighteen years, but most people know of them.

They existed as nations prior to being absorbed by the U.S.S.R. Iraq did not exist prior to Ottoman control.

They existed as nations prior to being absorbed by the U.S.S.R. Iraq did not exist prior to Ottoman control.

It was a mandate for a while. Not an independent country, but still a place people had the opportunity to learn about.

Not really-- you'd be suprised at the number of people who've never heard of Moldova or Georgia (wha--? the Russians are doing what to Georgia?) I attended a very high-caliber high school (one of the best public schools in the nation), when taking a survey, a full half of the kids thought that Canada had 500+ million people. Oops. (This was my senior year, too).

I hate when people still say "Czechoslovakia." That country hasn't existed for over a decade. But people are fucking ignorant.

I hate when people still say "Czechoslovakia." That country hasn't existed for over a decade. But people are fucking ignorant.

Which is not so much a terrible thing as a fact of life.
Not being aware of something is being ignorant of it. Not possessing the knowledge of something is ignorance. I am ignorant of a great many things, this does not in any large way reflect upon my character. Yet people practically sling around the term 'ignorant' like the word 'nazi'.

Which is not so much a terrible thing as a fact of life.
Not being aware of something is being ignorant of it. Not possessing the knowledge of something is ignorance. I am ignorant of a great many things, this does not in any large way reflect upon my character. Yet people practically sling around the term 'ignorant' like the word 'nazi'.

Part of Jacoby's complaint is the pride people seem to take in their ignorance. I haven't seen this, though.

Part of Jacoby's complaint is the pride people seem to take in their ignorance. I haven't seen this, though.

Who now? The one not posting in this thread?

But yea, I haven't seen pride in ignorance either.

Who now? The one not posting in this thread?

But yea, I haven't seen pride in ignorance either.

I meant Susan Jacoby, the sorta subject of this thread.

I meant Susan Jacoby, the sorta subject of this thread.

Oohhhhhh.....
Heh.

Ignorance in action. I'm an American too, figures.

I'm fairly knowledgeable in geography, history, science, mathematics, English grammar, etc. I do notice that the worst shortcoming here in the States is the lack of basic reasoning skills. Logic and Rhetoric are forgotten arts, and now discourse has fallen to:

"<profanity> you!"

"<vulgarity>"

*repeat ad nauseum*

As far as "pride in ignorance" is concerned, the only problem I've seen is black thugs accusing black students of "acting white and dissin' da bruthas by trowin' away dere roots. m*********er." Good thing not all of African descent are crippled by such foolishness, or the KKK might actually get a foothold because the gangstas are fitting themselves right into the racist stereotype mold.

Click Stand;13466724']People can value whatever knowledge they choose, to deem one group of facts better than another just because you know them is elitist.

The Amish have been mourning over the dumbification of America for centuries.

People can value whatever knowledge they choose, to deem one group of facts better than another just because you know them is elitist.

I hate when people still say "Czechoslovakia." That country hasn't existed for over a decade. But people are fucking ignorant.

When I actively studied geography back in my 'skool daze', Czechoslovakia was a country. Now it may not be, but due to the map assignments from then, I know what region is meant by that term. I also have a slightly outdated encyclopedia set that occasionally leads me astray in such matters. Does it make me ignorant? Perhaps. Do I care? Yes, I like to be precise. Does it really matter? Honestly, no. Soon Central and Eastern European nations will matter as little as the States of the Union here in America. It's sad. The EU will crush most of the individuality of the smaller nations. They gave up their sovereignty and surrendered their individuality. Those nations that don't join will suffer as much as those that do because they will be marginalized.

Which is not so much a terrible thing as a fact of life.
Not being aware of something is being ignorant of it. Not possessing the knowledge of something is ignorance. I am ignorant of a great many things, this does not in any large way reflect upon my character. Yet people practically sling around the term 'ignorant' like the word 'nazi'.

There is no sin in ignorance. The problem comes when ignorance is coupled with apathy or pride, or sometimes both. To me, stupidity = ignorance + apathy + pride.

Part of Jacoby's complaint is the pride people seem to take in their ignorance. I haven't seen this, though.

You aren't looking for it, but it isn't hard to find. I worked one summer as an automobile wholesaler's assistant. $300/week in 1995 was decent money for a kid just out of college looking for his first teaching job. The guy I worked for took every opportunity to explain in his great, twisted detail how I was wasting my time going to college to get a degree (nevermind that I needed one to do what I wanted to do for a career, but hey). He proudly trumpeted the fact that he was out-earning people like me with only an eighth-grade education. He reveled in the fact that he was making lots of money without an education, and shoved it in my face at every opportunity.

Whenever I brought a book to read for the long lulls between picking up cars at auction or other locations, he'd look at me like I was a complete idiot, shake his head and go off on his anti-intellectual rant again. And God help me if the book was of the fantasy genre. See, the boss was also a rabid evangelical. He "wondered" (never to himself) how I could "read that crap" and not read the Bible.

Now I don't want to generalize about God-fearing folks, but this guy fit so well into the stereotype that it seemed as though he were greased for it. When, in a fit of exasperation, I pointed out that his love/worship of money and his relentless screwing of the retail dealers to whom he was selling his wholesale cars (he won an auction for a Mitsubishi at $900, sold it to a "really good friend" of a retailer for $1900, and the price on that retailer's window was $2499) were directly in conflict with at least two commandments and a lot of Jesus' teachings, he'd claim I didn't know what I was talking about because I was not a Christian. I don't know what nerd beat this guy up (in some way) at some point, but it was almost as if he didn't believe in thinking for its own sake and didn't trust anyone who made it any further than high school.

So yeah, I've seen it. Far closer to it than I ever want to be again.

*snip*
What I've always felt, though, is that while these people exist, they don't really matter. That probably sound horribly elitist in its own right, but it seems that the poor, the weak, the uneducated, and the ignorant in general are much less powerful than we give them credit for. People often point to stupid leaders, e.g. President Bush, as proof of the power of the dolts, but I think that's more a successful conning of the intelligent. I don't feel their presence is harmful to our culture as a whole.

Click Stand;13466724']People can value whatever knowledge they choose, to deem one group of facts better than another just because you know them is elitist.

Now that is also true. I don't give a flying fuck if my mechanic or contractor or CPA doesn't know world geography. They should know cars, houses and accounting, respectively, and know them well.

Now that is also true. I don't give a flying fuck if my mechanic or contractor or CPA doesn't know world geography. They should know cars, houses and accounting, respectively, and know them well.

I don't know, it would be nice if they were aware of the world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8SuCBHqXtQ&feature=related)

Now that is also true. I don't give a flying fuck if my mechanic or contractor or CPA doesn't know world geography. They should know cars, houses and accounting, respectively, and know them well.

Something Jacoby and others continually ignore is that while people know less of what you were supposed to learn in grade school, they know more of, say, nuclear physics. The Renaissance man could be a success in the Renaissance, but there are very few professional intelligensia around nowadays. They have been replaced by the engineer, the English major, and other specialized professions.

If anyone has seen Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans, we can see just how ignorant most Americans can be. If you don't believe me and think I'm an elitist myself, go check it out. It is also a funny movie.

I have seen it, and as an American I think that it was sadly funny. But I am pretty sure if you did that in almost any country, you would get the same results.

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?

Yah we iz sooo dumb lets see. . .I've known tons of people from other countrries that come here that don't know a thing. I was in CA talking to a gal from Switzerland. She asked where I was from, I said (midwestern state) she said (midwestern state), where's that? I said have you ever heard of the (famous college football team) she said no i said how about (largest city in my state) she said OH! I thought that was a state! I flew through there to get here!. . ..I had a roomate once from cote de Ivorie that was very disappointed to discover that there are no more cowboys and indians, Several indian friends who believed that you could see the ocean from Colorado, and a pakistani couple I met in New york who thought they could drive across america in two days. Poor folks, I had to warn them on that one. And as I sat on the pier in my town overlooking the missouri river, a british guy came up to me, wife and kids in tow, and asked what lake this was, and where could he find the missouri river?O.O Um. . .Look Susan should know better than to base american intelligence on the stupid words of a miss america contender

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.
Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus' uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery—
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy—
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a-gee.
For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

The bigger problem with the growing level of idiocy in America is the ballooning level of irresponsibility. Basically it's being taught that it's "Okay," to lie and not accept responsibility for your actions because someone else is always at fault. That's partly leading to this tread of moronicism.

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
Why should we not find that stat remarkable? Actually remarkable is the wrong one. appalling. This has been basic knowledge for centuries and considering the amount of information about this (earth orbiting sun)commonly held and displayed out there, not just in scientific journals but magazines, movies, comics, cartoons etc the simple fact that 20% of the adult population still believe otherwise is very disturbing. It speaks volumes about the state of interest, capability and intelligence of that large minority.

As for Iraq, it's a matter of relevance. Sure in 1950 probably a greater % of Americans wouldn't have been able to place Iraq on the map. However in 1950 America hadn't invaded Iraq twice in the previous 19 years and Americans hadn't had 19 years of being regularly reminded about Iraq and pretty much in the last 7 years constantly, incessantly, repeatedly told about the damn place. The fact that USA pretty much has news channels and papers devoted to nothing else but Iraq and we're still in a position where a large proportion of Americans still know nothing about the country is also very disturbing.

These findings have important implications - especially in the handling of news. These findings are why we have networks like Fox. They aim at the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately in doing so, they lower that bar even more.

I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
where else can you do something like this? (btw, this is a UK forum)

where else can you do something like this? (btw, this is a UK forum)



While this is a very disturbing thing, it is not just Americans who are stupid. If you did on the street quizzes in places like france or the UK or china things would doubtless be the same.

The article seems to me to be the same old "TECHNOLOGY BAD!" straw man argument.

Jacoby instantly dismisses anything that is technological as useless without even trying to see if they can be used to educate (Which they can) and says that the only way we can learn anything is by reading books and having people talk at you for hours on end and often insert their own beliefs into (Which is also something that Jacoby strangely ignores).

At least, that is what I got out of it.

As far as "pride in ignorance" is concerned, the only problem I've seen is black thugs accusing black students of "acting white and dissin' da bruthas by trowin' away dere roots. m*********er." Good thing not all of African descent are crippled by such foolishness,That's where I've seen it too--in them and those from areas under their influence. Those who manage to retain their sense despite growing up surrounded by such attitudes get out ASAP and move to more enlightened locales.

Also a the more the populace aims low, remains ignorant and gullible the more profit the fat cats get. The businesses are causing this so for profit.As a (small) businessperson, I must dispute that last line. It's true that there's easy profit in the stupidity at times, but I do nothing to *cause* it. In fact, I'd rather have the people be smarter even if it'd then take more than basically "buy this--cuz I said!" to sell certain things. Willful ignorance irritates the hell out of me.

Not only is it irritating on a personal level, but too much customer dumbness is bad for businesses--it causes unnecessary customer service usage and needless returns of goods, both of which eat up profit. "How do I turn the product on/change its mode/shut off some feature?" (Grrrr!! Try the SWITCH! And if you don't see the switch on the front, it's on the back--DUH!) And then there are the idiots who have some minor problem, but would rather send their stuff back than to read the manufacturer's 2-page troubleshooting list. The idiots just go tl;dr, and ship their thing back.

Capitalism on the whole would be better off without the extremely dumb (Jaywalking-worthy) layer of people who can't find an "On" switch by themselves. That bottom 20% or so needs to beta-test a rocket to the Sun.

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?Let's not assume that an international forum based in the UK created by an Australian is anywhere near representative of Americans. There are plenty other forums out there, and NSG is only one of them.

1. It's human nature to take the easy way and what could be easier than not knowing something? Before modern, medieval, or even ancient technology, those who did not gain and keep as much weight as possible basically starved and died. That's why we have overeating and laziness (which leads to ignorance because gaining knowledge takes effort). Evolution isn't very good at turning off instincts.

2. Many people see elitists as snobby, rude, and the enemy. They see the elitists as people who would murder you and your entire family if you can't recite Shakespeare in greek backwards by heart. This would make anyone find knowledge and learning unappealing.

3. In today's society, jack-of-all-trades are a thing of the past. We have heart surgeries, rockets, and nuclear technology. We have computer programming and quantum physics. There are only so many years in a person's life and learning what we know right NOW could take centuries. Then, we'd have to spend more centuries learning what happened in those centuries. People seem more ignorant because there is just so much more things to learn and when you learn one subject, you're not learning another.

once you buy into the notion of hierarchy inheirently good, lack of it, inhierently bad, you've already sold yourself halfway down the river on the rest of it.

couple that with an infotainment media that is an arm of the same corporate mafia that has usurped the political proccess, and that too many people seem to have yet to figure out how indistinguishable this is from a dictatorially controlled state media, well then, mystery mostly pretty much solved.

next question?

=^^=
.../\...

While this is a very disturbing thing, it is not just Americans who are stupid. If you did on the street quizzes in places like france or the UK or china things would doubtless be the same.

Unfortunately stupidity is universal. After all, fully half the population has below average IQ...

As many people in this thread have pointed out, modern society by it's nature forces us to be specialists, there's no way we can know everything. This is not necessarily a bad thing, what we do need to be careful of is wilful ignorance and a lack of critical thinking. I may not know where Moldova is (although I have heard the name before), but I recognise this lack, I do a search on wikipedia, I evaluate the source of my information (it's probably acurate on geography, basic stats, I put less faith in it to give a true representation of political issues on the other hand), and I am better for it. Although a good basis of knowledge is probably important and we are enriched for it, what is most vital in this day and age is how to gain and absorbe new knowledge rather than the exact content of existing knowledge.

Unfortunately neither 'intellectual elitists' (for lack of a better term) or dumbed -down mass media trends support this. The one makes it difficult to admit you are wrong and rails against the very tools which will allow people to gain further knowledge (technology, the internet etc), the other force-feeds shallow knowledge which individuals do not analyise or develop their own opinion on.

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?

With increases in modern technology, life moves faster.
With increases in modern biomedical research, life lasts longer.
With increases in populations of countries, life becomes crowded.

So with Faster, longer and more crowded lives than in the past are people less intelligent?
First you need a definition of intelligence. If you point to IQ i can say, yes but if you repeat that test you can get better, instantly that is a problem.

It's not feasibly possible to know everything, this i think everyone can accept. Yet there are some things that are required to be known when entering a certain social group. You have to share certain norms and values before you can join a certain group, whether this is musical, film, physical activity or books etc. Does this affect your 'intelligence'?

Dumbness refers to muteness, it's sad it now refers to lack of intelligence.
I was considered dumb when i didn't know what certain celebrities did, in e.g. Wrestling, contests or even music (this was in school), even not knowing what a certain character in a film makes you look 'dumb'.
Even not watching a film makes you look 'dumb' however is this due to lack of intelligence or a lack of time? what takes precedance, social group or book knowledge? For most people it's their social group which is more important.

With faster modes of travel, faster methods of information to be recieved (e.g. Computers, phones, TV) increases in bureaucracy, increase in populations, less regular sleeping patterns, worse food diets. These can all affect how much time you have, with less time you cannot learn new information, some people do not have the opportunity to learn as much as others.

Take for example a typical teenager living in America, his father has a routine skilled job as a specialised mechanic, his mother a nurse at a hospital. (let's pretend they've always had these jobs for sake of simplicity) how are they going to care for their child in socialisation of learning?
It's likely the school he goes to is a state or public school. It's likely it'l be a large one, to fit in with friends he'l have to watch TV, films go out with them, and drink or socialise possibly take part in a sport too.
Where in all this does he have a chance to learn about good books, theories of physics, economy, biology, chemistry, Mathematics etc? Where in all this is this Kid going to need to know where Iraq is, fact is he doesn't.
At school, because his parents don't have time to teach him as much as they'd like to, they come in in the evening do they want to teach their kid, or leave that for school? It's likely they'd relax in front of the TV and rest for the next day's work.
This is all under the assumption that this kid doesn't have problems with mental or phsycial activity, that both his parents will stay in their relationship, and that none of his other relations suffer from any issues. Also it would become even more complex should he have brothers or sisters.

With changes in family patterns, changes in technology and people having more jobs now, and moving house more it's obvious why people appear less intelligent.
No wonder people appear less intelligent, but as i said earlier what is intelligence?

Less time=less 'intelligence'.

EDIT:Hey! hello, anyone there? I didn't type this for nothing, well maybe to remind myself but i'd like to think other people at least achknowledge that i've made a point, rather than point black ignore me.

I'd like to quote Carlos Mencia:

"The reason we have so many stupid people around is that there's nothing left to eat them."

We (humans) are the dominant species on this planet, all other creatures exist because we want them to. Now we have a Darwinian nightmare: survival of the non-fittest as well as the fittest.

Unfortunately stupidity is universal. After all, fully half the population has below average IQ...

Well, if you're using the median.

Well, if you're using the median.

Was wondering when someone was going to comment on that.

The way IQ tests are constructed as such that the population mean in 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (or more to the point, scores are standardised as such on a bell curve), but pretty much by definition half of the population (giver or take a percent) is below average intelligence (using median, mode and mean). Which is why when measuring IQ you need to use norms for the correct population/gender/age

Of course IQ tests are very poor measures for accurate measurement of cognitive abilities, but that's a different issue altogether.

Well, if you're using the median.

Shit.

Of all the times I saw the phrase 'half the population are stupider than average' I never realised that.

Guess I know which half I'm in now. :rolleyes:

Was wondering when someone was going to comment on that.

The way IQ tests are constructed as such that the population mean in 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (or more to the point, scores are standardised as such on a bell curve), but pretty much by definition half of the population (giver or take a percent) is below average intelligence (using median, mode and mean). Which is why when measuring IQ you need to use norms for the correct population/gender/age

Of course IQ tests are very poor measures for accurate measurement of cognitive abilities, but that's a different issue altogether.

Ah, a scholar!
I'm happy to have met you. :)

Of course we have an anti-intellectual culture.

Blame Hollywood, and what they indoctrinate kids with.

From the days of Flash Gordon, which guy doesn't get a girl? The smart guy. This is such standard trope that it is part of Hollywood Reality. Of the five kids in "Breakfast Club" you know which one won't be paired off by the end: The smart guy. Works for women too. The smart girl is the one with no social life. The message promoted to kids is, and has been for years: Being smart is weird. Be hot.

And scientists, of course, get kicked around continuously. They are generally shown to be utterly lacking in wisdom and compassion, always shown up by the person who trusts "feelings" over facts, figures, and experiments but is always right in the end. "Eureka" was the extreme, the peak of the anti-intellectual movement. Think about it: a whole TV series, based on the idea that every week, the scientists would have some experiment go horribly wrong, and they would be helpless to stop it without Joe Ordinary Moron coming to the rescue.

If Hollywood had written the story of Louis Pasteur, he would be the villain, making Smallpox either by accident or as part of a sinister government bio-warfare plot, and the anti-intellectual hero would discover the simple, down-home cure, maybe from his wrinkled but wise grandmother, and of course, the answer is really inside you all along!

Of course IQ tests are very poor measures for accurate measurement of cognitive abilities, but that's a different issue altogether.

Everyone says this but it's illogical. How do you know if your clock is slow? The accuracy of any measuring system can only be judged against a standard, measured with a BETTER measuring system. Since we don't have one for general intelligence, saying an IQ test is a poor measure is as meaningful as saying it is an excellent measure.

Everyone says this but it's illogical. How do you know if your clock is slow? The accuracy of any measuring system can only be judged against a standard, measured with a BETTER measuring system. Since we don't have one for general intelligence, saying an IQ test is a poor measure is as meaningful as saying it is an excellent measure.

It is not illogical to say something is a poor measure of what is supposed to be an innate and relatively unchangable trait if it is affected by numerous outside influences including practice, level of education or culture. Although more recent tests have been trying to deal with this, so it's getting better. Also, since you never have an objective 'gold standard' as a measure in psychology (or else we wouldn't still be trying to develop more and more accurate scales), you develop ways based on theoretical principles to consider it's convergent validity (how well it relates to similar constructs), divergent validity (if it doesn't relate to constructs it shouldn't) or predictive validity (how well it predicts theorised outcomes). By these criteria, most traditional IQ measures are very poor, although some of the more recent measures are getting better.

But in truth the main issue with IQ as a measure of generalized intelligence is that current evidence indicates that there is no such thing as a single general intelligence system, merely a number of different, but related systems of cognitive functioning.

We (humans) are the dominant species on this planet, all other creatures exist because we want them to. Now we have a Darwinian nightmare: survival of the non-fittest as well as the fittest.
And I'd like to point out that, at no time in the whole history of life on Earth, has anything's survival hinged on their ability to recite the names of the planets in order, or recall the first 25 words of the Gettysburg Address, or know the name of the 4th Vice President of the United States, or any other of the stupid factoids that is used to prove how ignorant Americans/Damn-Kids-These-Days/whatever are.

Keep in mind that media influences things a lot. Anyone can roughly point to Washington DC (a city of around 600,000 people) is, but how many of you even know what country Surabaya (a city with 3 million people) is in?

Keep in mind that media influences things a lot. Anyone can roughly point to Washington DC (a city of around 600,000 people) is, but how many of you even know what country Surabaya (a city with 3 million people) is in?

Indonesia!

For extra points, the island is the same one on which Djakarta is (I don't remember its name).

No search engines were harmed in the making of this post.

Congrats, you get a brownie! (or would if I cooked browniues...)

And that'd be the island Java (124 million as of 2005).

Indonesia!

For extra points, the island is the same one on which Djakarta is (I don't remember its name).

No search engines were harmed in the making of this post.

You were wrong, the answer is: 2

How many people can name where the city is.

Click Stand;13468257']You were wrong, the answer is: 2

How many people can name where the city is.

well actually three...I just read the post

Even though Washington is a much smaller city which do you feel is more important...So what we have here is people putting their priorities into, what they feel as, more important things as apposed to larger....of course then again I'm going to hazard that fully 60% of the people on these forums are either American or British...I sense a little bias in mine and your experiments....or musings

Congrats, you get a brownie! (or would if I cooked browniues...)

And that'd be the island Java (124 million as of 2005).
Yay! A brownie! (and bah! I think of the programming language first, it's difficult to attach it to islands.)

Click Stand;13468257']You were wrong, the answer is: 2

How many people can name where the city is.

Well, if you want to get technical, the answer is certainly more than 2 because "how many people here" refers, since the internet has no physical location, to how many people in cyberspace know where the city of Surabaya might be found. I'm going to guess it includes most of the internet's Indonesians, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Thailanders etc., along with quite a few people from the more internet-intensive Western nations (US, UK, Canada, Netherlands etc.).

wait, yeah, 2 is probably pretty close in that case.

It is not illogical to say something is a poor measure of what is supposed to be an innate and relatively unchangable trait if it is affected by numerous outside influences including practice, level of education or culture. .

"Poor" implies that better exists, in the same way that "Slow" implies that faster exists. You may claim that IQ tests are poor, but then, what is better? One could divine Intelligence from randomly scattered peanut shells- what do you think about this method? How can we consider things on a continuum that only stretches from Absurd to Poor?

In other words, what do we have that is "Good" to contrast to an IQ test as "Poor"?

Congrats, you get a brownie! (or would if I cooked browniues...)

.

It's not hard. Same way you cook a Pixie or a Leprechaun.

Pan fry in lots of butter.

"Poor" implies that better exists, in the same way that "Slow" implies that faster exists. You may claim that IQ tests are poor, but then, what is better? One could divine Intelligence from randomly scattered peanut shells- what do you think about this method? How can we consider things on a continuum that only stretches from Absurd to Poor?

In other words, what do we have that is "Good" to contrast to an IQ test as "Poor"?

"Poor" can also be taken to mean inadquate or ineffective for the task, in this case gaining a general idea of cognitive functioning which is capable of predicting future performance, in particular in relation to academic or vocational based performance. But that's just semantics.

As for better, well the debate is still raging in the literature, and it's not exactly my area of psychology, but the general consensus is that more accurate measures of specific cognitive ability is achieved through the assessment of specific ability: eg verbal ability, spatial reasoning, problem solving etc... In fact generalised intelligence measures now (yes IQ tests) by default have at least two factors verbal IQ and nonverbal IQ, and it is generally considered to be more valid to use these seperate factors than the single total score.

Because we iz on this forum, according to Susan Jacoby.
Linc (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html)

At least that is part of the reason. According to Jacoby, America is both anti-intellectual (smart people are bad) and anti-rational (not only am I ignorant, I am proud of it.)
I can't disagree more with Jacoby, and most who say Americans are not as smart as they once were. For example, an oft cited statistic is the number of people who cannot find Iraq on a map. I'd be interested to see the statistic of 1950 of people who could even say the region where Iraq was. It is only because four-fifths of people do know that the earth orbits the sun that we find it remarkable one-fifth do not.
I also find it ironic that one of the few places where books, politics, philosophy, and art are discussed almost exclusively are here, on this forum.
What are your thoughts? Are Americans dumber than before, or is Jacoby (as she herself nearly concedes) simply elitist?

Jocaby is making the well-founded claim that anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism have a powerful current in American culture. As she mentions, this is well documents, for example, in Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which was published in early 1963.

I don't see Jacoby making a specific claim that "we" are dumber than the population of the U.S. in 1950. Maybe I missed it. I see her pointing to a lot of threads of evidence of continued anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism in the last 20 years or so.

I find it interesting that while she gives lots of statistics to back up her claim, you don't mention them but rather make up two statistics (knowledge of Iraq, that the earth orbits the sun) out of thin air.

Congrats, you get a brownie! (or would if I cooked browniues...)

It's not hard. Same way you cook a Pixie or a Leprechaun.

Pan fry in lots of butter.

I'd have said the same way you cook a Girl Scout...

On a spit over an open fire :p

where else can you do something like this? (btw, this is a UK forum)
I find it ironic that it occurs on an Internet forum, while the Internet is supposedly making us dumber. The fact that we are not stupid seems to indicate otherwise.

Jocaby is making the well-founded claim that anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism have a powerful current in American culture. As she mentions, this is well documents, for example, in Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," which was published in early 1963.
She mentions that in the article. But as she says,
But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture.

I find it interesting that while she gives lots of statistics to back up her claim, you don't mention them but rather make up two statistics (knowledge of Iraq, that the earth orbits the sun) out of thin air.
Read the article:
The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth)...
According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made.

It's all relative.

Who would you say is smarter, the British, Other Nations or Americans.

*runs after putting match to gunpowder*

While I don't know if we're all DUMBER, I will say the fact that no one reads is damn depressing. My standards for dating used to include "reads interesting books". Was downgraded to "actually reads". I have now stricken it from the list, because it seems that few people I know actually read for pleasure these days.

I have met a lot of people who just defy belief with how dumb they are, in both my major and minor fields of study. (Music production - under the Mass Communications school- and music, respectively.) I've met music majors who have a hard time doing basic algebra- we're talking 2x+5=17 sort of stuff here, no sine or cosine or functions I can't remember from PreCal. I've also met Recording Industry (the school my major is under) students who can barely write a readable paper. I don't expect graduate thesis quality work, but when you're in an upper division class writing a legal brief and you put "Its' ", you should listen to Word when it tells you that is incorrect. (Any time I meet someone who speaks coherently on AIM or writes papers without egregious spelling or grammatical errors, I'm tempted to ask them out. Is this really so hard?)

Maybe it's just easier to find the dumb people when they're all being admitted to your university. :/

She mentions that in the article. But as she says,

You skipped my main point, which is she is not just saying "YOu I5 stupid."

You aren't really addressing her main point.

Read the article:

As to the earth orbiting the sun, I missed that reference in the article. My bad. (Although I do find it shocking that 1 in 5 people have the wrong view of that.)

There is a difference however between knowing where other countries are located and thinking it isn't necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made.

When I actively studied geography back in my 'skool daze', Czechoslovakia was a country. Now it may not be, but due to the map assignments from then, I know what region is meant by that term. I also have a slightly outdated encyclopedia set that occasionally leads me astray in such matters. Does it make me ignorant? Perhaps. Do I care? Yes, I like to be precise. Does it really matter? Honestly, no. Soon Central and Eastern European nations will matter as little as the States of the Union here in America. It's sad. The EU will crush most of the individuality of the smaller nations. They gave up their sovereignty and surrendered their individuality. Those nations that don't join will suffer as much as those that do because they will be marginalized.

I'm talking about people MY age. Czechoslovakia ceased to be a country a few years before we learned world geography. I'm 21, btw.

You skipped my main point, which is she is not just saying "YOu I5 stupid."

You aren't really addressing her main point.
That's very true. I guess this is more my lash out against this criticism in general, that America is falling behind the rest of the world, that we're close-minded and childish.
For some reason, these type of articles make me feel the same way I feel when someone tells me a discriminatory joke. "You'll appreciate this, because you're white," or, "I know you will find this funny because you are male." In fact, even the standard prologue to these jokes ("I'm not a racist/sexist/jerk in general") is paralleled in the article, where Jacoby dismisses potential allegations of her being elitist.



As to the earth orbiting the sun, I missed that reference in the article. My bad. (Although I do find it shocking that 1 in 5 people have the wrong view of that.)
No worries, it's in a parenthesis on the second page.

There is a difference however between knowing where other countries are located and thinking it isn't necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made.
That's true, and I apologize for taking liberties with the statement. That being said, I'm pretty sure I have heard a statistic about how many Americans can identify Iraq on the map, I will try to find a source.
EDIT: Here we go, from National Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html)

I'd like to quote Carlos Mencia:

"The reason we have so many stupid people around is that there's nothing left to eat them."
very funny quote. I wonder who he stole it from.

That's very true. I guess this is more my lash out against this criticism in general, that America is falling behind the rest of the world, that we're close-minded and childish.
For some reason, these type of articles make me feel the same way I feel when someone tells me a discriminatory joke. "You'll appreciate this, because you're white," or, "I know you will find this funny because you are male." In fact, even the standard prologue to these jokes ("I'm not a racist/sexist/jerk in general") is paralleled in the article, where Jacoby dismisses potential allegations of her being elitist.



I grow weary of the "OMG America is teh st00pid!!1!!1!"


Many people from other nations come here for schooling (India, China, etc). There is a reason for that.

Many Americans may be dumb, but lots of people in other countries are dumb.

Nothing more than people looking back on a past that never existed. Americans today are, whether it fits their worldview or not, more intelligent and better informed about the world than at any time in the past. The only reason we can even come to that kind of conclusion is due to the fact that we're actually aware of it; 50 years ago, that wasn't even possible.

Hell, just over 50 years ago segregation was still legal and the Civil Rights Act nothing more than a dream. If that's not a sign of a less rational time, I don't know what is.

Many people from other nations come here for schooling (India, China, etc). There is a reason for that.

Many Americans may be dumb, but lots of people in other countries are dumb.

That's how I see it. Yes, it is a problem that many of us cannot find Iraq on a map. At the same time, a country as dumb as the US supposedly is could not have the educational infrastructure we do.

That's how I see it. Yes, it is a problem that many of us cannot find Iraq on a map. At the same time, a country as dumb as the US supposedly is could not have the educational infrastructure we do.

Well....its our Universities I was refering to. Our public education system is hit or miss.

Well....its our Universities I was refering to. Our public education system is hit or miss.

As was I, but the public education system is not bad. I attended it, and I don't believe I'm stupider than people I know that went to private school.
The problem with public education is that it has to allow everyone to take advantage of it, as it should. But that means the tests from the public schools include kids whose parents didn't make it out of high school, while those from private schools are restricted to families educated enough to afford private school.

The biggest issue I have about the article besides the massive generalization she makes is the fact that the article is basically a defense of elitism. She all but admits it herself in the opening paragraph, and the straw men of "anti-intellectualism" and "anti-rationalism" are used to support that fact, albeit in a fashion that is a total non sequitor.

People have good reason to distrust so-called "intellectuals". These are the class of coordinators that people despise the most because they are the ones who exploit them the most. Any critic of intellectual elitism who is worth their salt notes this. Far from ignoring the power of knowledge, they know it all too well.

The reason why the intellectual is often the villain of modern fiction is because art mirrors reality. Knowledge is power, and intellectual specialists like doctors, lawyers and professionals can use that power in a very manipulative fashion.

In all, the author offers nothing constructive while simultaneously brush away anything that would challenge elitism as mere "anti-intellectualism" and "anti-rationalism".