3 ms·

The electorate is much better educated today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It was common to drop out in 8th grade when my grandparents were kids. In their p

The electorate is much better educated today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. It was common to drop out in 8th grade when my grandparents were kids. In their parents time dropping out at 5th grade was common. Do you think farming better prepares you to elect competent candidates than public education? Average performance on IQ tests has steadily increased since we've measured it. There is no objective measurement that would lead to the conclusion that we are less educated today.

sokoloff 9y ago
> Do you think farming better prepares you to elect competent candidates than public education? In some ways, yes. Running a farming business or working in a coal mine or steel mill teaches you a lot about hard work, no-BS, and the farm business teaches you math and economics. I believe that leaves the electorate less susceptible to magical thinking, less lazy, and less inclined to expect the government to fix their lives and less willing to have the government run their lives. (Most of the modern ag-business giveaways came about after the time period in question.)
- learc83 9y ago
  The majority of farmers weren't running a farming business--they we're sharecroppers who grew 1 or 2 crops and took the price they could get. >I believe that leaves the electorate less susceptible to magical thinking, less lazy This part is just romanticizing the past and fetishizing hard labor. You really think our current electorate is more prone to magical thinking than it was 100 years ago? Chain gang convicts from a century ago should be fantastic at picking leaders right? >and less inclined to expect the government to fix their lives and less willing to have the government run their lives. And this part is just demonstrably wrong. The New Deal was very popular among farmers and coal miners--they were most definitely calling for the government to fix their lives in a way we haven't seen in decades.
- loceng 9y ago
  My mother's from France. Growing up her family's business was agriculture. They didn't have smartphones, TVs. This meant they'd spend a lot of their time talking with others, especially people older than you - and that's how you learn critical thinking. I recently saw a video interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hUOUNZrbBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hUOUNZrbBg - with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton commented he doesn't know how people do it these days with all the distractions for consuming and not engagement - and that he learned his thinking skills heavily through family dinner every night.
  - learc83 9y ago
    People have said the exact thing about novels, comic books, television, and telephones. Socrates even complained about writing. Scientific American published a screed against the negative effects of chess in the 1850s. The devices and distractions of every new generation are the harbingers of the apocalypse for the previous one.
    - loceng 9y ago
      Well, that's interesting. All of those do present different levels of engagement though. The phone - only voice and no facial or body queues. Novels - obviously no audio and no opportunity to engage, and comic books - less use of imagination required than a novel. Television being the most like real-life, most stimulating as actually watching something in the real-world ... designed to be more engaging visually and with sound than stimulating with interesting thought (most of time - entertainment vs educational/learning). Writing too, perhaps if people you learned the most from and listened to the most from were very well-spoken - and perhaps Socrates understood the value of the listeners/readers being present for engagement, whereby if someone doesn't understand a point or wants to challenge it, they can instantly. It does seem like all of these evolutions and innovations of humanity and language, communication, are making the natural world a less healthy place.

sokoloff 9y ago

> Do you think farming better prepares you to elect competent candidates than public education? In some ways, yes. Running a farming business or working in a coal mine or steel mill teaches you a lot about hard work, no-BS, and the farm business teaches you math and economics. I believe that leaves the electorate less susceptible to magical thinking, less lazy, and less inclined to expect the government to fix their lives and less willing to have the government run their lives. (Most of the modern ag-business giveaways came about after the time period in question.)

learc83 9y ago
The majority of farmers weren't running a farming business--they we're sharecroppers who grew 1 or 2 crops and took the price they could get. >I believe that leaves the electorate less susceptible to magical thinking, less lazy This part is just romanticizing the past and fetishizing hard labor. You really think our current electorate is more prone to magical thinking than it was 100 years ago? Chain gang convicts from a century ago should be fantastic at picking leaders right? >and less inclined to expect the government to fix their lives and less willing to have the government run their lives. And this part is just demonstrably wrong. The New Deal was very popular among farmers and coal miners--they were most definitely calling for the government to fix their lives in a way we haven't seen in decades.
loceng 9y ago
My mother's from France. Growing up her family's business was agriculture. They didn't have smartphones, TVs. This meant they'd spend a lot of their time talking with others, especially people older than you - and that's how you learn critical thinking. I recently saw a video interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hUOUNZrbBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hUOUNZrbBg - with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton commented he doesn't know how people do it these days with all the distractions for consuming and not engagement - and that he learned his thinking skills heavily through family dinner every night.
- learc83 9y ago
  People have said the exact thing about novels, comic books, television, and telephones. Socrates even complained about writing. Scientific American published a screed against the negative effects of chess in the 1850s. The devices and distractions of every new generation are the harbingers of the apocalypse for the previous one.
  - loceng 9y ago
    Well, that's interesting. All of those do present different levels of engagement though. The phone - only voice and no facial or body queues. Novels - obviously no audio and no opportunity to engage, and comic books - less use of imagination required than a novel. Television being the most like real-life, most stimulating as actually watching something in the real-world ... designed to be more engaging visually and with sound than stimulating with interesting thought (most of time - entertainment vs educational/learning). Writing too, perhaps if people you learned the most from and listened to the most from were very well-spoken - and perhaps Socrates understood the value of the listeners/readers being present for engagement, whereby if someone doesn't understand a point or wants to challenge it, they can instantly. It does seem like all of these evolutions and innovations of humanity and language, communication, are making the natural world a less healthy place.