3 ms·

Prior to 1950, the median adult American did not have a high school education.[1] If your thesis is that modern-day Americans are too uneducated for democracy,

Prior to 1950, the median adult American did not have a high school education.[1] If your thesis is that modern-day Americans are too uneducated for democracy, then you'd have to conclude the same about nearly any point in our history. (Or any other democracy prior to a couple decades ago.) [1] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

geofft 6y ago
Prior to 1950 (and later), the US wasn't a democracy in the modern sense (as the ability of many citizens to vote was restricted either de jure or de facto), and there were plenty of organizations who were appealing to the uneducated fears of the American populace to keep it that way. Some of them even used mob violence and myths about a past era of greatness. So, yes.
bun_at_work 6y ago
Actually, my thesis isn't that Americans are too uneducated for democracy. It's that they are being manipulated by modern technology, which education in the US has failed to keep up with, resulting in the age of misinformation and "fake news." We live in a new era, the most stark difference being mass communication accessibility. This helps smart people become smarter, but it also helps smart people manipulate uneducated people. My personal thesis on the issues the US is facing involves far more than the systemic defunding of education, but also on economic issues, like how our monetary system has exported labor, leading to a larger class divide and the polarization we're seeing, as well as social media companies (and news companies) having an incentive to promote inflammatory content to generate ad revenue.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Your point makes sense but it's not because of lack of education. Education won't change the natural distribution of intellect and education is often a form of indoctrination as well. The entire history of civilization is a few cold blooded psychopaths manipulating gullible people into doing whatever is needed. And if you think one side is better than the other you're on the receiving end too.
- fortytwo79 6y ago
  The primary thing I disagree with here is the thought that we can squelch our way to a more informed public. You clearly believe you can discern truth from lies, as do I. So why should the solution to misinformation be to trust a small group (who we didn't elect) to parse truth from fiction? I'd rather have access to all the information, and be better at discernment. And I reject the idea that we represent a minority of the United States. I think most people are way better at detecting lies than we give them credit for. The problem is, both sides lie. So it's too easy for us to view those who hold opposing views as ignorant fools, because they are on the side of a lie, regardless of if they believe that falsehood or not.

geofft 6y ago

Prior to 1950 (and later), the US wasn't a democracy in the modern sense (as the ability of many citizens to vote was restricted either de jure or de facto), and there were plenty of organizations who were appealing to the uneducated fears of the American populace to keep it that way. Some of them even used mob violence and myths about a past era of greatness. So, yes.

bun_at_work 6y ago

Actually, my thesis isn't that Americans are too uneducated for democracy. It's that they are being manipulated by modern technology, which education in the US has failed to keep up with, resulting in the age of misinformation and "fake news." We live in a new era, the most stark difference being mass communication accessibility. This helps smart people become smarter, but it also helps smart people manipulate uneducated people. My personal thesis on the issues the US is facing involves far more than the systemic defunding of education, but also on economic issues, like how our monetary system has exported labor, leading to a larger class divide and the polarization we're seeing, as well as social media companies (and news companies) having an incentive to promote inflammatory content to generate ad revenue.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
Your point makes sense but it's not because of lack of education. Education won't change the natural distribution of intellect and education is often a form of indoctrination as well. The entire history of civilization is a few cold blooded psychopaths manipulating gullible people into doing whatever is needed. And if you think one side is better than the other you're on the receiving end too.
fortytwo79 6y ago
The primary thing I disagree with here is the thought that we can squelch our way to a more informed public. You clearly believe you can discern truth from lies, as do I. So why should the solution to misinformation be to trust a small group (who we didn't elect) to parse truth from fiction? I'd rather have access to all the information, and be better at discernment. And I reject the idea that we represent a minority of the United States. I think most people are way better at detecting lies than we give them credit for. The problem is, both sides lie. So it's too easy for us to view those who hold opposing views as ignorant fools, because they are on the side of a lie, regardless of if they believe that falsehood or not.