4 ms·

Citation on that last point? The amount of people I know who were the first in their family to attend college, and sometimes even graduate high school, makes me

Citation on that last point? The amount of people I know who were the first in their family to attend college, and sometimes even graduate high school, makes me question that people are measurably less educated.

lordnacho 2y ago
Education + thinking critically and having educational credentials are not the same thing. At least, there needs to be some justification that they are related.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > (Education + thinking critically and having educational credentials are not the same thing. At least, there needs to be some justification that they are related It's ironic how often people criticise the lack of critical thinking in higher education while simultaneously not bothering to examine the hypothesis. Cognitive development is associated with critical thinking [1], and the "number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life" [2]. So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well, as a bonus, not suffering dementia in their later-voting years. (Whether this is a selection effect or product of education is unclear. And it doesn't suggest everyone in academia is an excellent critical thinker.) [1] https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/114/ https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/114/ [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/
  - megous 2y ago
    This is not a valid argument. In a complex system (like the human body), you can't go from A related to B, B related to C, therfore A related to C. It may be true that there's some A-C relationsip, but having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship. > So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well Not based on your argument, no.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship You're making a claim about the world. The evidence points in the opposite direction. If you have a problem with cognitive function relating to critical thinking, put forward some evidence about it. Because the link between those seems much more intuitive than your unsubstantiated hypothesis.
      - megous 2y ago
        A-B - education/cognitive development B-C - cognitive function/critical thinking I don't have problem with either. But you're claiming A-C(education/critical thinking relationship) based on the above two without any justification other than your intuition. B is not even the same thing in the two studies you mentioned. One uses "Lawson CTSR" measure secifically, the other uses nothing in particular, it's just a summary of research in which you didn't point to anything in particular. When it uses something it measures cognitive decline (which is not the same thing as the cognitive development measure in the first study, it's difference between two measures of cognitive development at different times). Even the example table in the study pretty nicely disproves what you're claiming: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/table/table1-1529100620920576/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/table/table... Someone with 22 years of education has cognitive performance of 10 while someone with 10 years has performance of 15 at the same age in that table. Lower educated just decline faster over time, but are still "smarter" in the end. You also cite no numbers for correlations. So if A-B has correlation 0.2 B-C has correlation 0.3, A-C will have correlation 0.06 in general, which is nothing that proves A-C has any meaningful relationship. Again, I'm not saying there's no A-C relationship. If there is it just needs to be studied directly. Pointing to two random studies proves absolutely nothing.
  - e40 2y ago
    42% of eligible Americans did not vote. That's the number I've seen bantered about everywhere in the last months. Whether they went to college or not, I don't know, but I would argue that critical thinking skills in that 42% are pretty much nonexistent. To think, of all cycles of POTUS elections, this is one to sit out is just mind boggling. Note I didn't criticize either group that voted for or against POTUS. That's another discussion.
    - noirbot 2y ago
      Sure, but that number has been pretty consistent for almost 100 years. Almost every US Presidential election sees turnout in the mid-to-high 50% range. I'm not contesting that people should be more engaged, but the "back in the olden days, everyone thought about things better and more than now" doesn't seem backed by data. Hell, 100 years ago we'd only just barely allowed women to vote.
      - e40 2y ago
        I never said "back in the olden days." My point is that if you can't bother to vote now, something is very wrong with your thinking.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
I believe it's more the critical thinking piece that's the problem. And, perhaps there has not been a decline there, but we're just witnessing an unprecedented cultural and technology-fueled abuse of an existing lack of reasoning ability (expansive reach, bot farms, algorithms, conspiracy theories, etc). I mean, any actor—including state adversaries—can essentially run military-grade psyops on our population. In a "stable" environment, an inability to think critically is somewhat buffered and fallout is limited. But, in a hostile information space—intent on manipulating subjects for the destruction of their society—it's catastrophic.
- joquarky 2y ago
  Cambridge Analytica
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    Indeed. https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542?preventIntent=true https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542?preventIntent=true
- noirbot 2y ago
  Sure, but 100 years ago, most cities barely had more than 1 source of news, which was usually controlled by some reach oligarch in their town/the US at large. Most people weren't "thinking critically" about our involvement in WW1 or the development of nuclear weapons. There's a lot of well-preserved documents, debates, and critical discussions from those periods, but most of those are preserved because they were among elites in the academy or political spheres. I find it hard to believe the average person in 1925 was more informed or even able to think critically about national and international politics than someone today. It certainly wasn't as if there weren't powerful people who controlled most of the news and communications back then either.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    My comment was that, irrespective of whether or not our ability to think critically has changed, our infospace is under unprecedented assault from foreign actors and from within. So, the effects of our citizens not being able to reason effectively are more impactful/destructive. You mentioned that 100 years ago, there was one source of news. This underscores my point. Sure, that's not ideal, but even pernicious effects were somewhat self-limiting versus a frequently hostile, 24/7 technology-fueled infospace, featuring hostile actors—known and unknown—who are out to destroy the fabric of our society.
CrossVR 2y ago
The quality of high school educations have fallen, which is the most important to develop critical thinking. This is measurable when the education level of U.S. high school students is compared in global rankings. On top of that social media has put people in echo chambers and force fed them outrage content. People who are outraged and surrounded by peers who are also outraged are less likely to think critically. I personally think that the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism and social media has had a more significant effect on critical thinking than the drop in education quality.
- noirbot 2y ago
  Has the US fallen much in education quality in absolute terms? Or just relative to other countries? And how does that map relative to the percentage of the population being educated at that level? A world where underperforming people are just pushed out of the path of ever attending high school or college, like some of my friends's parents were, may lead to higher statistical education outcomes for high school education while still being worse for the country at large than having those students attend high school even if they don't make amazing grades. You bring up "the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism" as if the term Yellow Journalism wasn't literally used to critique one of the major US newspapers over a century ago. Sensationalism and rabblerousing is, if anything, the normal state of news dating back centuries!
  - CrossVR 2y ago
    > Has the US fallen much in education quality in absolute terms? Or just relative to other countries? And how does that map relative to the percentage of the population being educated at that level? Those are fair questions that I don't have the answers to. I share your suspicion that a larger number of people have received a high school education and that in absolute terms more people are educated than ever. That is why I do not think it is the reason why there's been a decline in critical thinking. > You bring up "the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism" as if the term Yellow Journalism wasn't literally used to critique one of the major US newspapers over a century ago. Correct, and it seems we have regressed back to those days. I do believe the post-war period was an enlightened era in journalism where the press went from a vehicle for propaganda to an independent institution.

lordnacho 2y ago

Education + thinking critically and having educational credentials are not the same thing. At least, there needs to be some justification that they are related.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> (Education + thinking critically and having educational credentials are not the same thing. At least, there needs to be some justification that they are related It's ironic how often people criticise the lack of critical thinking in higher education while simultaneously not bothering to examine the hypothesis. Cognitive development is associated with critical thinking [1], and the "number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life" [2]. So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well, as a bonus, not suffering dementia in their later-voting years. (Whether this is a selection effect or product of education is unclear. And it doesn't suggest everyone in academia is an excellent critical thinker.) [1] https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/114/ https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/114/ [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/
- megous 2y ago
  This is not a valid argument. In a complex system (like the human body), you can't go from A related to B, B related to C, therfore A related to C. It may be true that there's some A-C relationsip, but having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship. > So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well Not based on your argument, no.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship You're making a claim about the world. The evidence points in the opposite direction. If you have a problem with cognitive function relating to critical thinking, put forward some evidence about it. Because the link between those seems much more intuitive than your unsubstantiated hypothesis.
    - megous 2y ago
      A-B - education/cognitive development B-C - cognitive function/critical thinking I don't have problem with either. But you're claiming A-C(education/critical thinking relationship) based on the above two without any justification other than your intuition. B is not even the same thing in the two studies you mentioned. One uses "Lawson CTSR" measure secifically, the other uses nothing in particular, it's just a summary of research in which you didn't point to anything in particular. When it uses something it measures cognitive decline (which is not the same thing as the cognitive development measure in the first study, it's difference between two measures of cognitive development at different times). Even the example table in the study pretty nicely disproves what you're claiming: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/table/table1-1529100620920576/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/table/table... Someone with 22 years of education has cognitive performance of 10 while someone with 10 years has performance of 15 at the same age in that table. Lower educated just decline faster over time, but are still "smarter" in the end. You also cite no numbers for correlations. So if A-B has correlation 0.2 B-C has correlation 0.3, A-C will have correlation 0.06 in general, which is nothing that proves A-C has any meaningful relationship. Again, I'm not saying there's no A-C relationship. If there is it just needs to be studied directly. Pointing to two random studies proves absolutely nothing.
- e40 2y ago
  42% of eligible Americans did not vote. That's the number I've seen bantered about everywhere in the last months. Whether they went to college or not, I don't know, but I would argue that critical thinking skills in that 42% are pretty much nonexistent. To think, of all cycles of POTUS elections, this is one to sit out is just mind boggling. Note I didn't criticize either group that voted for or against POTUS. That's another discussion.
  - noirbot 2y ago
    Sure, but that number has been pretty consistent for almost 100 years. Almost every US Presidential election sees turnout in the mid-to-high 50% range. I'm not contesting that people should be more engaged, but the "back in the olden days, everyone thought about things better and more than now" doesn't seem backed by data. Hell, 100 years ago we'd only just barely allowed women to vote.
    - e40 2y ago
      I never said "back in the olden days." My point is that if you can't bother to vote now, something is very wrong with your thinking.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

I believe it's more the critical thinking piece that's the problem. And, perhaps there has not been a decline there, but we're just witnessing an unprecedented cultural and technology-fueled abuse of an existing lack of reasoning ability (expansive reach, bot farms, algorithms, conspiracy theories, etc). I mean, any actor—including state adversaries—can essentially run military-grade psyops on our population. In a "stable" environment, an inability to think critically is somewhat buffered and fallout is limited. But, in a hostile information space—intent on manipulating subjects for the destruction of their society—it's catastrophic.

joquarky 2y ago
Cambridge Analytica
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  Indeed. https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542?preventIntent=true https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542?preventIntent=true
noirbot 2y ago
Sure, but 100 years ago, most cities barely had more than 1 source of news, which was usually controlled by some reach oligarch in their town/the US at large. Most people weren't "thinking critically" about our involvement in WW1 or the development of nuclear weapons. There's a lot of well-preserved documents, debates, and critical discussions from those periods, but most of those are preserved because they were among elites in the academy or political spheres. I find it hard to believe the average person in 1925 was more informed or even able to think critically about national and international politics than someone today. It certainly wasn't as if there weren't powerful people who controlled most of the news and communications back then either.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  My comment was that, irrespective of whether or not our ability to think critically has changed, our infospace is under unprecedented assault from foreign actors and from within. So, the effects of our citizens not being able to reason effectively are more impactful/destructive. You mentioned that 100 years ago, there was one source of news. This underscores my point. Sure, that's not ideal, but even pernicious effects were somewhat self-limiting versus a frequently hostile, 24/7 technology-fueled infospace, featuring hostile actors—known and unknown—who are out to destroy the fabric of our society.

CrossVR 2y ago

The quality of high school educations have fallen, which is the most important to develop critical thinking. This is measurable when the education level of U.S. high school students is compared in global rankings. On top of that social media has put people in echo chambers and force fed them outrage content. People who are outraged and surrounded by peers who are also outraged are less likely to think critically. I personally think that the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism and social media has had a more significant effect on critical thinking than the drop in education quality.

noirbot 2y ago
Has the US fallen much in education quality in absolute terms? Or just relative to other countries? And how does that map relative to the percentage of the population being educated at that level? A world where underperforming people are just pushed out of the path of ever attending high school or college, like some of my friends's parents were, may lead to higher statistical education outcomes for high school education while still being worse for the country at large than having those students attend high school even if they don't make amazing grades. You bring up "the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism" as if the term Yellow Journalism wasn't literally used to critique one of the major US newspapers over a century ago. Sensationalism and rabblerousing is, if anything, the normal state of news dating back centuries!
- CrossVR 2y ago
  > Has the US fallen much in education quality in absolute terms? Or just relative to other countries? And how does that map relative to the percentage of the population being educated at that level? Those are fair questions that I don't have the answers to. I share your suspicion that a larger number of people have received a high school education and that in absolute terms more people are educated than ever. That is why I do not think it is the reason why there's been a decline in critical thinking. > You bring up "the replacement of newspapers that invite critical thinking by yellow journalism" as if the term Yellow Journalism wasn't literally used to critique one of the major US newspapers over a century ago. Correct, and it seems we have regressed back to those days. I do believe the post-war period was an enlightened era in journalism where the press went from a vehicle for propaganda to an independent institution.