4 ms·

Author here: I thought it got better after the list, not worse. <shrug> Anyway, the claims aren't sourced because they're obvious. Only someone looking for con

Author here: I thought it got better after the list, not worse. <shrug> Anyway, the claims aren't sourced because they're obvious. Only someone looking for conflict is going to ask for the claim that our country is loosing access to quality education. And if you can't make the jump on your own that this leads to more uneducated people, well, then my powers to assist you have reached their limit.

glenra 13y ago
> Only someone looking to scrap is going to ask for a source for someone saying that our country is loosing access to quality education. I am being completely serious here: I don't know what you're talking about when you make your claim of "violently increasing numbers of uneducated people". Here, from Wikipedia, is a plot of educational attainment levels in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Attainment_in... And here is a recent relevant NYT article titled "U.S. Bachelor Degree Rate Passes Milestone": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bachelors-degrees-at-record-level.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bac... Clearly, people have been graduating high school and graduating college in record numbers. For as long as I've been alive people have always been complaining that schools aren't great and "kids these days aren't learning like they used to" but most of that is nostalgic nonsense. There will always be poor schools somewhere. So when you lead off with a claim about "uneducated people", what do you mean? People who don't graduate high school? People who don't graduate college? People who do so but (by your unstated standards) somehow aren't considered "educated"? Nobody would doubt the claim if you had said we had more uneducated people in the 1950s than we do today - THAT claim reflects common sense wisdom. Claiming that it's gotten worse recently is something that needs a clear definition and some supporting evidence.
glenra 13y ago
>I thought it got better after the list, not worse. I meant the list (and logic) got worse after reason #1. For instance, Reason #2 is: >"The upper classes blissfully ignore the fact that human life is being brought into this country every day, by couples who are by most measures children, that has very little chance of happiness." Let's unpack that. Although it's listed as a single "reason", it constitutes several factual assertions glommed together. I parse them as: A) Couples who are "by most measures children" are having more kids. B) The kids described in assertion A have very little chance of happiness C) "the upper classes" "blissfully ignore" A and B. So let's start with assertion A. In 1970 the average age of a first-time mother was about 21; in 2008 it was about 25. As couples have been waiting longer to get married, they also have been (on average) waiting longer to have children. Sure, you might say, but that's just an average. Maybe there's a wider spread. So what about, say, teen pregnancy? Answer: teen pregnancy rates have been dramatically declining throughout the developed world, including the US. Here's a recent news article about that: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s... Quote from that article: "That's a 44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010. There were less teenage mothers in 2010 than any year since 1946." So it's not true that Couples who are "by most measures children" are having more kids. They're having fewer kids. Assertion B is that these kids, of whom there are fewer than ever before, have "little chance of happiness". That seems a little dubious too. I'd be willing to be convinced on that one if there were some evidence given, but I don't see any. Based on set point theory, I think most people are born with a certain propensity to be happy (or not) almost regardless of circumstance. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201304/how-reset-your-happiness-set-point http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/20130... Assertion C is that the "upper classes" "blissfully ignore" this alleged problem. Since the problem doesn't seem to exist, I can't blame them for doing so, even though I have no evidence that they do so. In summary, Reason #2 (of 5) also falls apart upon inspection. Reasons #3 and #4 similarly fall apart - they don't seem to be making testable claims that are true, much less obviously so.

glenra 13y ago

> Only someone looking to scrap is going to ask for a source for someone saying that our country is loosing access to quality education. I am being completely serious here: I don't know what you're talking about when you make your claim of "violently increasing numbers of uneducated people". Here, from Wikipedia, is a plot of educational attainment levels in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_Attainment_in... And here is a recent relevant NYT article titled "U.S. Bachelor Degree Rate Passes Milestone": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bachelors-degrees-at-record-level.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/education/census-finds-bac... Clearly, people have been graduating high school and graduating college in record numbers. For as long as I've been alive people have always been complaining that schools aren't great and "kids these days aren't learning like they used to" but most of that is nostalgic nonsense. There will always be poor schools somewhere. So when you lead off with a claim about "uneducated people", what do you mean? People who don't graduate high school? People who don't graduate college? People who do so but (by your unstated standards) somehow aren't considered "educated"? Nobody would doubt the claim if you had said we had more uneducated people in the 1950s than we do today - THAT claim reflects common sense wisdom. Claiming that it's gotten worse recently is something that needs a clear definition and some supporting evidence.

glenra 13y ago

>I thought it got better after the list, not worse. I meant the list (and logic) got worse after reason #1. For instance, Reason #2 is: >"The upper classes blissfully ignore the fact that human life is being brought into this country every day, by couples who are by most measures children, that has very little chance of happiness." Let's unpack that. Although it's listed as a single "reason", it constitutes several factual assertions glommed together. I parse them as: A) Couples who are "by most measures children" are having more kids. B) The kids described in assertion A have very little chance of happiness C) "the upper classes" "blissfully ignore" A and B. So let's start with assertion A. In 1970 the average age of a first-time mother was about 21; in 2008 it was about 25. As couples have been waiting longer to get married, they also have been (on average) waiting longer to have children. Sure, you might say, but that's just an average. Maybe there's a wider spread. So what about, say, teen pregnancy? Answer: teen pregnancy rates have been dramatically declining throughout the developed world, including the US. Here's a recent news article about that: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s... Quote from that article: "That's a 44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010. There were less teenage mothers in 2010 than any year since 1946." So it's not true that Couples who are "by most measures children" are having more kids. They're having fewer kids. Assertion B is that these kids, of whom there are fewer than ever before, have "little chance of happiness". That seems a little dubious too. I'd be willing to be convinced on that one if there were some evidence given, but I don't see any. Based on set point theory, I think most people are born with a certain propensity to be happy (or not) almost regardless of circumstance. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201304/how-reset-your-happiness-set-point http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/20130... Assertion C is that the "upper classes" "blissfully ignore" this alleged problem. Since the problem doesn't seem to exist, I can't blame them for doing so, even though I have no evidence that they do so. In summary, Reason #2 (of 5) also falls apart upon inspection. Reasons #3 and #4 similarly fall apart - they don't seem to be making testable claims that are true, much less obviously so.