11 ms·

America's Cult of Ignorance (1980) [pdf]

169 points by georgecmu 9y ago

SapphireSun 9y ago
I love Asimov, and he's right that we should educate our population better, but why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it seems completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives? People pay close attention to stuff that they feels significant to them and that they can control. People read the sports section because they can talk about that with their friends and are invested in the outcome. You and I read the politics section for the same reason even though without popular mobilization, we have basically the same effect on outcomes as a sports game. If policies are promoted that people actually like as opposed to barely resent, they'll start reading and talking and you won't hear the end of it.
- carrier_lost 9y ago
  "why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it seems completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives?" Local elections directly affect people. Local boards and councils set tax rates and allocate money to schools, police, fire and other public services. Local elections often are covered extensively by local newspapers. Yet voter turnout often is quite low. Why?
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    I live in Boston and I don't see much local coverage unless I look for it explicitly. Unless I subscribe to a local paper I don't really see much of their reporting. I did see some local papers with great stories in grocery store, but they were positioned poorly. It took me literally years of going to that store before I noticed them. Secondly, I feel powerless as my elected officials are basically doing what I already want them to do. A little while ago, I got a newsletter from my state senator with a photo of her hanging out in a marijuana greenhouse wearing a bunny suit. I didn't know how to respond for a moment and started laughing. It's a pretty dumb thing, and I'm certainly not one of the overly oppressed people in this country, but it felt like a crack in the door where my representatives were pushing for more civic freedom and tamping down on calls for repression and state violence. I think people get more interested if there are ways for them to have an effect on outcomes or if they can see people they know doing things. I'm sort of embarrassed, but I joined an organization pushing for instant runoff voting in MA thanks to a friend convincing me to try it out (and I want it to happen!), but I hadn't heard from them since that introduction. Without a friend there, it's difficult for me to work up the courage to go time and time again as I'm kind of introverted.
    - noobermin 9y ago
      So, in other words, it doesn't quite have more to do with what affects you as you claim in your earlier comment, but it has to do with what is accessible and available? Or some linear combination of the two?
      - SapphireSun 9y ago
        I think it has something to do primarily with things feeling like you can have an effect on them. Accessibility and policy both matter. This is something I'm still figuring out like everyone else, but I think pure disinterest and laziness is not good explanation in light of the energy that can be seen in other political campaigns throughout history, like the new deal.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    People are lazy. I saw firsthand the affect that engagement has. A group of self interested people were going to build a library in a way that was bad for the community. We mobilized a small group of neighbors and were able to get a much better outcome.
    - projektir 9y ago
      Calling people lazy is pretty lazy. :) Generally, there's a reason people don't do things you expect them to do: they may be occupied with something else, don't see the point, etc.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      This (mostly) isn't laziness. Voter turnout is falling because people are increasingly disaffected. As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time. When someone has spent the last 30+ years watching politicians sell their future so so business and the rich can concentrate even more wealth, why should they bother participating in Democracy Theater? Call these people lazy at your own risk. Far too many people are sitting right at the homeless/hungry threshold that can trigger rebellions/uprisings. We are dangerously close a critical mass of people deciding that "The Hamptons are not a defensible position."[3] [1] Actual policy changes correlate well with the preferences of the economic elite[2]. The average citizen's preferences have almost no correlation to the same policy changes. [2] http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
      - jancsika 9y ago
        > As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time. That points to a particularly brittle concept of democracy that needs to change. Voters shouldn't have to gain a national consensus to feel like their party or idea actually matters.
        9y ago
  - ouid 9y ago
    There is an opportunity cost associated with becoming informed about local government. If that is greater than the value of your vote, which it almost certainly is, then it's not rational to keep up with local news. Government is also often as convoluted as possible, artificially increasing the cost. I just don't see how this argument makes sense.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > I just don't see how this argument makes sense. Perhaps in that the alternative is even worse, but then that's not a great argument either, in part because even if people are paying attention, I don't think most people have the intelligence to understand the complexity of the world, especially when the government is lying to them.
  - crdb 9y ago
    > Yet voter turnout often is quite low. Why? The idea is that only the knowledgeable vote. If you do not feel confident that you have a good grasp on political issues, your vote dilutes the signal sent by those less ignorant. Encouraging ignorant voters to vote is often the visible part of the propaganda iceberg, the kind of politics we have increasingly witnessed in most of the Western world in the last two decades and that used to be the preserve of third world dictatorships. You then see elections via mud-slinging and highly visible non-issues taking on most of the mindshare, and the media is captured by interest groups who need it to hijack a larger percentage of the vote. It is harmful to the fabric of society as all sides of the political debate become vote harvesting machines and the citizenry is radicalised and encouraged not to reason about issues [1] [2]. "A free society gives its citizens the right to vote but that right should come with the responsibility to not abuse that right by voting ignorantly." [3] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1qffh9/voting_relationships_between_senators_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1qffh9/vot... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ - "the research [...] found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years. [...] during this same period students’ self-reported narcissism has reached new heights" [3] https://www.quora.com/Is-this-reason-for-not-voting-valid-or-reasonable/answer/Robert-Frost-1 https://www.quora.com/Is-this-reason-for-not-voting-valid-or...
    - ouid 9y ago
      Central to the character of ignorance is the ignorance of it.
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      The mobilization of the ignorant doesn't really matter. If they vote randomly and both sides are equally mobilized, the ignorant votes cancel out and the biased (hopefully knowledgable) participants actually determine policy. This becomes harmful when particular factions are mobilized in isolation.... thus US politics.
      - ew6082 9y ago
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Because as an individual, my vote doesn't matter. I know we like to tell ourselves that our vote counts, and voting is important, but mathematically, it just doesn't (again, as an individual) Elections in cities are never decided by exactly one vote; if they were, they would certainly go to a court and the court would decide anyway. That means that I know whether I choose to go to the polls or not, it won't affect the outcome. Now, of course, if a whole demographic realizes this and doesn't vote, it does swing the election. However, when I am sitting at home deciding whether to vote or not, I am not deciding for a whole demographic; I am just deciding whether I as an individual will vote. I might get downvoted, because the idea that our individual vote doesn't really matter goes against everything we are taught in democracies. We REALLY want to believe our vote matters, and as a whole, it DOES. We want everyone to vote, it allows our democracy to function. So we tell ourselves little lies that our vote AS AN INDIVIDUAL matters. Deep down, though, we know it doesn't, so many people decide to stay home.
    - somethingsimple 9y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't buy it. The problem is that a lot of people think like that, so they don't do anything. It's sort of self-fulfilling. It's like people who say that their individual choices won't help fight climate change, so they won't change their habits. A lot of people do that, then nothing happens and the problem just gets worse.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jdavis703 9y ago
  "People read the sports section because they can talk about that with their friends" Well why not have them read the "Science and Technology" section and talk about that with their friends? How is sports, which has a negligible direct impact on your life, seen as more relevant than reading the "Health" section? And the problem isn't just sports. The crime section is just as guilty, reading about most crimes in no one serves to keep me safe.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Because sports are more accessible and universally entertaining. The population of commenters on Hackernews tends strongly to the extremely curious, people who are always seeking new knowledge and ideas to play with. Not everyone is like that!
    - BWStearns 9y ago
      When I was a kid I asked my dad why people like sports talk radio. He told me it was because it was basically pointless so even without the effort of thinking your opinions were valid and relevant.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - watwut 9y ago
    The sport is to relax and socialize. If you are tired and stressed, it helps. It also helps when you dont know what to say in social situation, have nothing to say but still have that human need to talk and socialize. Health section is about what you should do, about learning that one more of your favorite food is unhealty, about one ml ore expensive healthy food you should buy to cleans yourself. So it is nagging combined with incinsitent half-science.
    - vixen99 9y ago
      Aside from allergies and special cases (lactose intolerance for instance and other problems down to genetics) there are no unhealthy foods in the sense in which you put it. There is the question of a balanced diet whereby some foods should be eaten in very moderate amounts and with attention to one's own body chemistry.
- 0x4d464d48 9y ago
  "If policies are promoted that people actually like as opposed to barely resent, they'll start reading and talking and you won't hear the end of it." I like the sound of that but at the same time it gets tricky when you have a legal system that stands up for the rights of everyone, including people that you, they or I don't like. Look at the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the current LGBT rights movements or the debates about civil rights as they pertain to Muslims. There's a plurality of citizens that would gladly chastise these groups or violate their rights in other ways such as putting them under constant surveillance or restrictions due to their religion, race or sexuality but that is incongruous with a society that holds all individuals are to be treated the same and only held to account when their actions violate a law, not before. I'm a bigger believer that the problem is cultural when, especially in American society, we started to hold that feelings mattered far more than thought. Debate began to get watered down and the winner was not the person who could show their position reflected what was objectively true and morally correct but instead who could virtue signal the loudest and express their grievance in the most emotional manner possible. It's always 'dream this', 'dream that', 'as an American it is your God-given right to' or 'America is the best nation in the world and there's nothing we can't do' but almost never 'here are the facts about issues the Americans are facing and here are some reasonable ideas about what we can do about it. Let's discuss what you think about it'. Politicians are very in-tuned with what people want to hear and they do tell them what they want to hear. Even worse, pundits know what people want to hear and actually have an influence on the opinions of their listeners and they'll be damned if they'll let facts and honesty get in the way of their ratings, wealth and access. America needs to start fostering a culture where they stop equating feelings and sense of self-worth with reality before we can really start discussing how giving primers on good policy will make a difference. Until that happens it's just a waste of oxygen, ink or electricity.
  - projektir 9y ago
    I would turn this around: the people on the intellectual side seem to think that being in touch with the emotions of the people they're addressing is below them, and often even make it worse by treating the people they're addressing poorly (if emotions don't matter, why do this at all?). Emotions matter for most people, including the people who claim they don't, that's just the reality. I don't know why it's fashionable among folk who prefer intellectual pursuits to discard emotions so much.
Kenji 9y ago
> We can all be members of the intellectual elite, and then, only then, will a phrase "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning Come on. We cannot all be members of the intellectual elite. And I'm not being facetious because of a few mentally disabled people. Half the population has an IQ below 100. Let that sink in for a moment. There are (more or less) innate IQ differences and some people excel at intellectual tasks while others do not and actually cannot as a matter of the body they possess. Just ask any school teacher: There are bright kids who get things easily and quickly get ahead and others who cannot progress even if they put in all the hard work and hours they can. This entire piece seems like Asimov is salty because not everyone is an intellectual. Well, too bad, there are people who enjoy a simple life without the sorrows that come with being an intellectual.
- ucarion 9y ago
  In that sentence, Asimov refers to the popular conception of the elite -- a very low standard -- and not some elite that is defined as the top 1% of society by some measure. On this popular conception of the elite, almost anyone can be a member. All you really need to do is regularly read a news publication.
  - paulpauper 9y ago
    yeah just reading the news will make you better-informed than 95% of the population probably
- middleclick 9y ago
  Since IQ was mentioned, another Asimov essay on the topic: "What Is Intelligence, Anyway?" http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > Half the population has an IQ below 100. Not surprising, since the very definition of "IQ 100" is average. As far as most researchers go, it turns out that the "IQ 100" has gotten harder and harder every year for nearly the past 100 years. In effect, a person with "IQ 100" back in 1930s would only have an IQ score of ~70 today. Yes, the _average_ person of the 1930s would be considered borderline retarded (defined as below IQ 70) by today's much higher standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ------------------ The average person is far, far more intelligent today than decades past. There are numerous theories why this is happening (better nutrition? Better technology? Maybe better schooling and teaching?) But regardless, we as a society are significantly improving our "IQ scores" decade after decade.
Koshkin 9y ago
No doubt, there are benefits in being ignorant. As they say, ignorance is bliss! And they are right; especially because truth is almost always confusing, unpleasant, troubling and often downright scary. Knowledge rarely brings happiness...
- paulpauper 9y ago
  I dunno how true that is. What about people who enjoy learning things
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    Well, one might enjoy learning about the six-legged things living under everyone's eyelids, but the knowledge of the fact can hardly make one happy. Learning history can serve as another example.
    - etiam 9y ago
      I find some measure of joy in how remarkable that is. Ignoring the disagreeable parts of reality may be pleasant as long as reality's ignoring you back, but when it presents real dangers, ignorance is a recipe for getting into real trouble more effectively. Of course, being dead is an incredibly effective way of avoiding one's personal inconveniences too, but for some reason we don't seem to lionize that to anywhere near the same extent...
      - Koshkin 9y ago
        > being dead This or, rather, the theory of having never existed in the first place, is, indeed, a very interesting subject, but in the context of the present discussion it can only be taken for what is known as a "strawman argument".
        etiam 9y ago
        > in the context of the present discussion it can only be taken for what is known as a "strawman argument" Not at all. I'm sure if you make a sincere effort you could, for instance, find a way to take it as a (little-needed) reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, with the way you run your discussion here you are hardly in a position to throw stones with regard to disingenious argumentation. You're uncomfortably close to trolling, so if you're seriously making an argument for this position wholesale, which I find doubtful, ease off on the equivocation and cherry-picked examples and keep a civil discussion with the other commenters.
faragon 9y ago
Before that, in 1930, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (two surnames) published "The Revolt of the Masses" book [1], going even further. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses
- axtscz 9y ago
  I think that's the first time I've seen a y (and) added between Spanish last names. Any idea where that practice comes from?
  - dsantiago 9y ago
    Jose Ortega y Gasset was a relative of mine, and I asked this as a kid. What I was told (by my grandmother, his niece) is that it is sometimes done when there's a weirdness in the combination of the two last names that would make it ambiguous, such as someone who has a compound first name like Jose-Maria that makes it harder to tell where a first name/last name breaks, or in this case, where it results in a repeated sound (ga-ga) that feels weird to say. But I have not found any corroboration of this online.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      It has now been officially documented online by your grandmother via you. I'd take her word for it!
    - axtscz 9y ago
      Thanks for answering. As a Spanish speaker this makes sense. My dad is from Mexico and no one in my entire family has this so maybe it's limited more to Spain?
      - faragon 9y ago
        It was until the 19th century, when it was somewhat normalized (census, etc.). Since the 20th century naming in Spain is pretty the same as Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries. All my known relatives names/surnames are without "y".
nomdeplume 9y ago
"It would be easy to give the public information and hope they change behaviour but we know that doesn’t work very satisfactorily. Otherwise none of us would be obese, none of us would smoke and none of us would drive like lunatics." -- Iain Potter of the New Zealand Health Sponsorship Council
anotherevan 9y ago
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” — Isaac Asimov
alphanabla 9y ago
OCRed version. https://womanorgod.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/asimov_1980_cult_of_ignorance-2.pdf https://womanorgod.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/asimov_1980_c...
wyclif 9y ago
The go-to book on this is "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter: http://a.co/aJf0UKt http://a.co/aJf0UKt I'd also highly recommend Sertillanges on the intellectual life: http://a.co/91XX11G http://a.co/91XX11G
13of40 9y ago
"Yes, provided they can read!" I'm (nominally) a professional, and somewhat educated, but I honestly question whether I can actually read. There are plenty of things written in good English that I cannot read. Many articles in The Journal Nature, most prose written before about 1850, technical books written in other than encyclopedic form...
swifting 9y ago
Americans should be allowed to gamble on political races, they would be more invested in the discussion of policy!
- mistermann 9y ago
  This is actually not a bad idea....if they were allowed to gamble on actual individual bills, I can see how it would be worthwhile for some people to become deeply interested in the nuanced content of proposed legislation, the political actors involved and their public words vs actual actions, the public mood, etc.....because I think some people could make money at it. Although, just as politicians are (were?) allowed to insider trade on the stock market, they'd do this (or pass tips to their friends and family) and take everyone's money. I think modern democracy simply doesn't stand a chance against a well organized communist government in China. Long term, the only way China loses is if they make a big mistake, and I just don't see anything compelling on the horizon.
- tannhaeuser 9y ago
  I'm wondering if the current political situation in the US is a consequence of the two-party system above everything else. In a binary system, if you're against a policy or person, you're automatically for the opposing party and its policies. I don't think this binary choice does justice to the wide garmut of political opinion at all. Look at France. Whatever you might think of Macron and his party, I envy the French for their ability to leave decades of a socialist/conservative political dichotomy behind.
losteverything 9y ago
Asimov seems to have been sitting in a room with only TV and newspapers. How can he see anything else? So he wrote this column and i see a ladder to climb (assume effort required) to get the right to know. But today he would spin on a sit n spin with his hands out where a web of bits bury his body. Slowly What would he write now?
partycoder 9y ago
The prospect for America's future is not good. America's golden years were right after WW2, with the creation of the Bretton Woods system. But since the Nixon shock, the US dollar depends on exclusive deals to retain a relative value to other currencies. e.g: convincing oil exporting countries to only sell their oil in dollars and buying US treasury bonds. But as these deals become redundant (e.g: as oil becomes less necessary), the US dollar will lose value, and so will things valued in dollars (e.g: savings, wages, etc). Unless the US finds another way to keep the US dollar afloat, printing more dollars to subsidize the economy will stop helping and the US will lose its privileged position in the world, which this generation takes for granted.

169 points by georgecmu 9y ago

I love Asimov, and he's right that we should educate our population better, but why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it seems completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives? People pay close attention to stuff that they feels significant to them and that they can control. People read the sports section because they can talk about that with their friends and are invested in the outcome. You and I read the politics section for the same reason even though without popular mobilization, we have basically the same effect on outcomes as a sports game. If policies are promoted that people actually like as opposed to barely resent, they'll start reading and talking and you won't hear the end of it.

carrier_lost 9y ago
"why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it seems completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives?" Local elections directly affect people. Local boards and councils set tax rates and allocate money to schools, police, fire and other public services. Local elections often are covered extensively by local newspapers. Yet voter turnout often is quite low. Why?
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  I live in Boston and I don't see much local coverage unless I look for it explicitly. Unless I subscribe to a local paper I don't really see much of their reporting. I did see some local papers with great stories in grocery store, but they were positioned poorly. It took me literally years of going to that store before I noticed them. Secondly, I feel powerless as my elected officials are basically doing what I already want them to do. A little while ago, I got a newsletter from my state senator with a photo of her hanging out in a marijuana greenhouse wearing a bunny suit. I didn't know how to respond for a moment and started laughing. It's a pretty dumb thing, and I'm certainly not one of the overly oppressed people in this country, but it felt like a crack in the door where my representatives were pushing for more civic freedom and tamping down on calls for repression and state violence. I think people get more interested if there are ways for them to have an effect on outcomes or if they can see people they know doing things. I'm sort of embarrassed, but I joined an organization pushing for instant runoff voting in MA thanks to a friend convincing me to try it out (and I want it to happen!), but I hadn't heard from them since that introduction. Without a friend there, it's difficult for me to work up the courage to go time and time again as I'm kind of introverted.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    So, in other words, it doesn't quite have more to do with what affects you as you claim in your earlier comment, but it has to do with what is accessible and available? Or some linear combination of the two?
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      I think it has something to do primarily with things feeling like you can have an effect on them. Accessibility and policy both matter. This is something I'm still figuring out like everyone else, but I think pure disinterest and laziness is not good explanation in light of the energy that can be seen in other political campaigns throughout history, like the new deal.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  People are lazy. I saw firsthand the affect that engagement has. A group of self interested people were going to build a library in a way that was bad for the community. We mobilized a small group of neighbors and were able to get a much better outcome.
  - projektir 9y ago
    Calling people lazy is pretty lazy. :) Generally, there's a reason people don't do things you expect them to do: they may be occupied with something else, don't see the point, etc.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    This (mostly) isn't laziness. Voter turnout is falling because people are increasingly disaffected. As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time. When someone has spent the last 30+ years watching politicians sell their future so so business and the rich can concentrate even more wealth, why should they bother participating in Democracy Theater? Call these people lazy at your own risk. Far too many people are sitting right at the homeless/hungry threshold that can trigger rebellions/uprisings. We are dangerously close a critical mass of people deciding that "The Hamptons are not a defensible position."[3] [1] Actual policy changes correlate well with the preferences of the economic elite[2]. The average citizen's preferences have almost no correlation to the same policy changes. [2] http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
    - jancsika 9y ago
      > As people realize the majority does not rule[1], they are choosing to not waste their time. That points to a particularly brittle concept of democracy that needs to change. Voters shouldn't have to gain a national consensus to feel like their party or idea actually matters.
      - 9y ago
- ouid 9y ago
  There is an opportunity cost associated with becoming informed about local government. If that is greater than the value of your vote, which it almost certainly is, then it's not rational to keep up with local news. Government is also often as convoluted as possible, artificially increasing the cost. I just don't see how this argument makes sense.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > I just don't see how this argument makes sense. Perhaps in that the alternative is even worse, but then that's not a great argument either, in part because even if people are paying attention, I don't think most people have the intelligence to understand the complexity of the world, especially when the government is lying to them.
- crdb 9y ago
  > Yet voter turnout often is quite low. Why? The idea is that only the knowledgeable vote. If you do not feel confident that you have a good grasp on political issues, your vote dilutes the signal sent by those less ignorant. Encouraging ignorant voters to vote is often the visible part of the propaganda iceberg, the kind of politics we have increasingly witnessed in most of the Western world in the last two decades and that used to be the preserve of third world dictatorships. You then see elections via mud-slinging and highly visible non-issues taking on most of the mindshare, and the media is captured by interest groups who need it to hijack a larger percentage of the vote. It is harmful to the fabric of society as all sides of the political debate become vote harvesting machines and the citizenry is radicalised and encouraged not to reason about issues [1] [2]. "A free society gives its citizens the right to vote but that right should come with the responsibility to not abuse that right by voting ignorantly." [3] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1qffh9/voting_relationships_between_senators_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1qffh9/vot... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/ - "the research [...] found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years. [...] during this same period students’ self-reported narcissism has reached new heights" [3] https://www.quora.com/Is-this-reason-for-not-voting-valid-or-reasonable/answer/Robert-Frost-1 https://www.quora.com/Is-this-reason-for-not-voting-valid-or...
  - ouid 9y ago
    Central to the character of ignorance is the ignorance of it.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    The mobilization of the ignorant doesn't really matter. If they vote randomly and both sides are equally mobilized, the ignorant votes cancel out and the biased (hopefully knowledgable) participants actually determine policy. This becomes harmful when particular factions are mobilized in isolation.... thus US politics.
    - ew6082 9y ago
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Because as an individual, my vote doesn't matter. I know we like to tell ourselves that our vote counts, and voting is important, but mathematically, it just doesn't (again, as an individual) Elections in cities are never decided by exactly one vote; if they were, they would certainly go to a court and the court would decide anyway. That means that I know whether I choose to go to the polls or not, it won't affect the outcome. Now, of course, if a whole demographic realizes this and doesn't vote, it does swing the election. However, when I am sitting at home deciding whether to vote or not, I am not deciding for a whole demographic; I am just deciding whether I as an individual will vote. I might get downvoted, because the idea that our individual vote doesn't really matter goes against everything we are taught in democracies. We REALLY want to believe our vote matters, and as a whole, it DOES. We want everyone to vote, it allows our democracy to function. So we tell ourselves little lies that our vote AS AN INDIVIDUAL matters. Deep down, though, we know it doesn't, so many people decide to stay home.
  - somethingsimple 9y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't buy it. The problem is that a lot of people think like that, so they don't do anything. It's sort of self-fulfilling. It's like people who say that their individual choices won't help fight climate change, so they won't change their habits. A lot of people do that, then nothing happens and the problem just gets worse.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdavis703 9y ago
"People read the sports section because they can talk about that with their friends" Well why not have them read the "Science and Technology" section and talk about that with their friends? How is sports, which has a negligible direct impact on your life, seen as more relevant than reading the "Health" section? And the problem isn't just sports. The crime section is just as guilty, reading about most crimes in no one serves to keep me safe.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Because sports are more accessible and universally entertaining. The population of commenters on Hackernews tends strongly to the extremely curious, people who are always seeking new knowledge and ideas to play with. Not everyone is like that!
  - BWStearns 9y ago
    When I was a kid I asked my dad why people like sports talk radio. He told me it was because it was basically pointless so even without the effort of thinking your opinions were valid and relevant.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- watwut 9y ago
  The sport is to relax and socialize. If you are tired and stressed, it helps. It also helps when you dont know what to say in social situation, have nothing to say but still have that human need to talk and socialize. Health section is about what you should do, about learning that one more of your favorite food is unhealty, about one ml ore expensive healthy food you should buy to cleans yourself. So it is nagging combined with incinsitent half-science.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Aside from allergies and special cases (lactose intolerance for instance and other problems down to genetics) there are no unhealthy foods in the sense in which you put it. There is the question of a balanced diet whereby some foods should be eaten in very moderate amounts and with attention to one's own body chemistry.
0x4d464d48 9y ago
"If policies are promoted that people actually like as opposed to barely resent, they'll start reading and talking and you won't hear the end of it." I like the sound of that but at the same time it gets tricky when you have a legal system that stands up for the rights of everyone, including people that you, they or I don't like. Look at the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the current LGBT rights movements or the debates about civil rights as they pertain to Muslims. There's a plurality of citizens that would gladly chastise these groups or violate their rights in other ways such as putting them under constant surveillance or restrictions due to their religion, race or sexuality but that is incongruous with a society that holds all individuals are to be treated the same and only held to account when their actions violate a law, not before. I'm a bigger believer that the problem is cultural when, especially in American society, we started to hold that feelings mattered far more than thought. Debate began to get watered down and the winner was not the person who could show their position reflected what was objectively true and morally correct but instead who could virtue signal the loudest and express their grievance in the most emotional manner possible. It's always 'dream this', 'dream that', 'as an American it is your God-given right to' or 'America is the best nation in the world and there's nothing we can't do' but almost never 'here are the facts about issues the Americans are facing and here are some reasonable ideas about what we can do about it. Let's discuss what you think about it'. Politicians are very in-tuned with what people want to hear and they do tell them what they want to hear. Even worse, pundits know what people want to hear and actually have an influence on the opinions of their listeners and they'll be damned if they'll let facts and honesty get in the way of their ratings, wealth and access. America needs to start fostering a culture where they stop equating feelings and sense of self-worth with reality before we can really start discussing how giving primers on good policy will make a difference. Until that happens it's just a waste of oxygen, ink or electricity.
- projektir 9y ago
  I would turn this around: the people on the intellectual side seem to think that being in touch with the emotions of the people they're addressing is below them, and often even make it worse by treating the people they're addressing poorly (if emotions don't matter, why do this at all?). Emotions matter for most people, including the people who claim they don't, that's just the reality. I don't know why it's fashionable among folk who prefer intellectual pursuits to discard emotions so much.

Kenji 9y ago

> We can all be members of the intellectual elite, and then, only then, will a phrase "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning Come on. We cannot all be members of the intellectual elite. And I'm not being facetious because of a few mentally disabled people. Half the population has an IQ below 100. Let that sink in for a moment. There are (more or less) innate IQ differences and some people excel at intellectual tasks while others do not and actually cannot as a matter of the body they possess. Just ask any school teacher: There are bright kids who get things easily and quickly get ahead and others who cannot progress even if they put in all the hard work and hours they can. This entire piece seems like Asimov is salty because not everyone is an intellectual. Well, too bad, there are people who enjoy a simple life without the sorrows that come with being an intellectual.

ucarion 9y ago
In that sentence, Asimov refers to the popular conception of the elite -- a very low standard -- and not some elite that is defined as the top 1% of society by some measure. On this popular conception of the elite, almost anyone can be a member. All you really need to do is regularly read a news publication.
- paulpauper 9y ago
  yeah just reading the news will make you better-informed than 95% of the population probably
middleclick 9y ago
Since IQ was mentioned, another Asimov essay on the topic: "What Is Intelligence, Anyway?" http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
dragontamer 9y ago
> Half the population has an IQ below 100. Not surprising, since the very definition of "IQ 100" is average. As far as most researchers go, it turns out that the "IQ 100" has gotten harder and harder every year for nearly the past 100 years. In effect, a person with "IQ 100" back in 1930s would only have an IQ score of ~70 today. Yes, the _average_ person of the 1930s would be considered borderline retarded (defined as below IQ 70) by today's much higher standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect ------------------ The average person is far, far more intelligent today than decades past. There are numerous theories why this is happening (better nutrition? Better technology? Maybe better schooling and teaching?) But regardless, we as a society are significantly improving our "IQ scores" decade after decade.

Koshkin 9y ago

No doubt, there are benefits in being ignorant. As they say, ignorance is bliss! And they are right; especially because truth is almost always confusing, unpleasant, troubling and often downright scary. Knowledge rarely brings happiness...

paulpauper 9y ago
I dunno how true that is. What about people who enjoy learning things
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Well, one might enjoy learning about the six-legged things living under everyone's eyelids, but the knowledge of the fact can hardly make one happy. Learning history can serve as another example.
  - etiam 9y ago
    I find some measure of joy in how remarkable that is. Ignoring the disagreeable parts of reality may be pleasant as long as reality's ignoring you back, but when it presents real dangers, ignorance is a recipe for getting into real trouble more effectively. Of course, being dead is an incredibly effective way of avoiding one's personal inconveniences too, but for some reason we don't seem to lionize that to anywhere near the same extent...
    - Koshkin 9y ago
      > being dead This or, rather, the theory of having never existed in the first place, is, indeed, a very interesting subject, but in the context of the present discussion it can only be taken for what is known as a "strawman argument".
      - etiam 9y ago
        > in the context of the present discussion it can only be taken for what is known as a "strawman argument" Not at all. I'm sure if you make a sincere effort you could, for instance, find a way to take it as a (little-needed) reductio ad absurdum. Moreover, with the way you run your discussion here you are hardly in a position to throw stones with regard to disingenious argumentation. You're uncomfortably close to trolling, so if you're seriously making an argument for this position wholesale, which I find doubtful, ease off on the equivocation and cherry-picked examples and keep a civil discussion with the other commenters.

faragon 9y ago

Before that, in 1930, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (two surnames) published "The Revolt of the Masses" book [1], going even further. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses

axtscz 9y ago
I think that's the first time I've seen a y (and) added between Spanish last names. Any idea where that practice comes from?
- dsantiago 9y ago
  Jose Ortega y Gasset was a relative of mine, and I asked this as a kid. What I was told (by my grandmother, his niece) is that it is sometimes done when there's a weirdness in the combination of the two last names that would make it ambiguous, such as someone who has a compound first name like Jose-Maria that makes it harder to tell where a first name/last name breaks, or in this case, where it results in a repeated sound (ga-ga) that feels weird to say. But I have not found any corroboration of this online.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    It has now been officially documented online by your grandmother via you. I'd take her word for it!
  - axtscz 9y ago
    Thanks for answering. As a Spanish speaker this makes sense. My dad is from Mexico and no one in my entire family has this so maybe it's limited more to Spain?
    - faragon 9y ago
      It was until the 19th century, when it was somewhat normalized (census, etc.). Since the 20th century naming in Spain is pretty the same as Mexico and other Spanish speaking countries. All my known relatives names/surnames are without "y".

nomdeplume 9y ago

"It would be easy to give the public information and hope they change behaviour but we know that doesn’t work very satisfactorily. Otherwise none of us would be obese, none of us would smoke and none of us would drive like lunatics." -- Iain Potter of the New Zealand Health Sponsorship Council

anotherevan 9y ago

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” — Isaac Asimov

alphanabla 9y ago

OCRed version. https://womanorgod.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/asimov_1980_cult_of_ignorance-2.pdf https://womanorgod.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/asimov_1980_c...

wyclif 9y ago

The go-to book on this is "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter: http://a.co/aJf0UKt http://a.co/aJf0UKt I'd also highly recommend Sertillanges on the intellectual life: http://a.co/91XX11G http://a.co/91XX11G

13of40 9y ago

"Yes, provided they can read!" I'm (nominally) a professional, and somewhat educated, but I honestly question whether I can actually read. There are plenty of things written in good English that I cannot read. Many articles in The Journal Nature, most prose written before about 1850, technical books written in other than encyclopedic form...

swifting 9y ago

Americans should be allowed to gamble on political races, they would be more invested in the discussion of policy!

mistermann 9y ago
This is actually not a bad idea....if they were allowed to gamble on actual individual bills, I can see how it would be worthwhile for some people to become deeply interested in the nuanced content of proposed legislation, the political actors involved and their public words vs actual actions, the public mood, etc.....because I think some people could make money at it. Although, just as politicians are (were?) allowed to insider trade on the stock market, they'd do this (or pass tips to their friends and family) and take everyone's money. I think modern democracy simply doesn't stand a chance against a well organized communist government in China. Long term, the only way China loses is if they make a big mistake, and I just don't see anything compelling on the horizon.
tannhaeuser 9y ago
I'm wondering if the current political situation in the US is a consequence of the two-party system above everything else. In a binary system, if you're against a policy or person, you're automatically for the opposing party and its policies. I don't think this binary choice does justice to the wide garmut of political opinion at all. Look at France. Whatever you might think of Macron and his party, I envy the French for their ability to leave decades of a socialist/conservative political dichotomy behind.

losteverything 9y ago

Asimov seems to have been sitting in a room with only TV and newspapers. How can he see anything else? So he wrote this column and i see a ladder to climb (assume effort required) to get the right to know. But today he would spin on a sit n spin with his hands out where a web of bits bury his body. Slowly What would he write now?

partycoder 9y ago

The prospect for America's future is not good. America's golden years were right after WW2, with the creation of the Bretton Woods system. But since the Nixon shock, the US dollar depends on exclusive deals to retain a relative value to other currencies. e.g: convincing oil exporting countries to only sell their oil in dollars and buying US treasury bonds. But as these deals become redundant (e.g: as oil becomes less necessary), the US dollar will lose value, and so will things valued in dollars (e.g: savings, wages, etc). Unless the US finds another way to keep the US dollar afloat, printing more dollars to subsidize the economy will stop helping and the US will lose its privileged position in the world, which this generation takes for granted.