6 ms·
America dumbs down: A rising tide of anti-intellectual thinking
- jqm 12y agoEgypt and Iraq were once the centers of world learning. This should give pause to those considering that Boston and London will be bright lights of intellectualism forever.
- tzs 12y agoOverall interesting. Some of the specific examples are questionable, but not enough to invalidate the overall point. Related is this submission [1] from yesterday on how idiotic conspiracy theories are getting alarming traction. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7755572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7755572
- pdonis 12y agoI would say the specific examples are a very mixed bag. IMO the article should have just stuck with the data from national exams and surveys on relatively unproblematic things (like ordering North America, the U.S., California, and Los Angeles by size). That's quite sufficient to make the point; adding the questionable examples actually detracts from that.
- codyb 12y agoThat was a bit depressing. I've had so many arguments in the last few years only to have my jaw drop when I hear this theme repeated over and over to me "But say there was a guy, who was in the situation you described, and say than instead of doing that, he did this..." I mean, it's worse than anecdotal even. People are basing their viewpoints on hypothetical situations with no statistical evidence for their views and arguing against statistics with these hypothetical stories about nothing. That resulted in my favorite tweet I've ever composed "Arguing anecdotally screams religious reverence for ideas not referenced." Boy, it just sounds so well composed (to me. Subjective). And it also resulted in me not arguing with anyone anymore. I just plain don't do it.
- plg 12y agoWhat is the case against natural selection???
- javert 12y agoI'm highly educated (getting a PhD) and I disagree with the author on several points: 1. Climate change isn't very problematic. 2. The best way to counter mass shootings is for more good people to have guns. 3. Obamacare will exacerbate the existing problems because the same cause gives the same result and we've been socializing our healthcare for decades. When self-proclaimed "intellectuals" treat issues that are not settled as dogma---you believe this, or you're stupid---it's no wonder Americans don't like intellectuals. In fact, it is to Americans' credit. That said, I even consider myself to be an intellectual---but I know I have to make rational arguments, not rely on dogma. In closing, presuasion via dogma just gives the anti-eveolution dummies in the South Carolina legislature more excuse not to listen to you when you actually do make a rational argument---e.g. about evolution.
- pdonis 12y agoWish I could upvote this more. You nailed three of the examples that I found most questionable in the article. One thing I would add is that it's not just "self-proclaimed intellectuals" that treat issues that are not settled as dogma. Reputable scientists do it too, and that's a big reason why the average American doesn't trust scientists--not just politicians and the media, but actual scientists--to tell them the truth. I blogged about this some time back: http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.html http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/science-heal-thyself.htm...
- lukevdp 12y agoThe article didn't ask the question of whether people think climate change is problematic, it asked the question of whether people believe it is man made. The relevant quote is: "When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain."
- javert 12y agoIndeed, that is slightly different question. But I have the same opinion of it. 1. We know that climate constantly changes over long periods---Big Ice Age, Little Ice Age, various warm periods with dinosaurs in them, etc. 2. Ask anybody who is old if they've seen perceptible climate change in their particular area. Yes, there's weather, but the climate in NYC, Phoenix, San Francisco, and N for any place, is the same that it was 100 years ago. We also know that any scientist who comes out against climate change is ostracized and that it's career suicide, and we've seen it happen. And we know that climate change is a dogma for the left. That is why I rely on direct perceptual evidence (per 1 and 2) instead of "what scientists say" on this. Actually, I always rely on perceptual evidence---but having nukes and airplanes backs up the physicists, having telescopes backs up the astronomers, and so on. I have no opinion on matters of science for which I have no access to perceptual information (e.g. string theory).
- gnu8 12y agoGun control isn't an intellectually enlightened policy, it's an example of liberal anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism isn't a conservative-liberal issue, but the author is painting it that way.
- pdonis 12y agoYes, this is one of the examples I found highly questionable.
- saosebastiao 12y agoThis is usually what to expect when you see headlines about anti-intellectualism in the US. The extreme end of conservatism is certainly anti-intellectual and anti-science, but so is the extreme end of liberalism, and those examples are always swept under the rug or portrayed as being obvious. Where are the examples of rent control advocates, anti-GMO paranoia, anti-vaciine paranoia, etc.?
- halostatue 12y ago1. Maclean’s is a Canadian magazine, and it's a centre-right magazine (which would be centre-left in the U.S.). 2. The article mentioned anti-vaxxers as part of the overall anti-intellectual “movement” in the U.S. This is someone else in the world observing how broken the U.S. has become over the last thirty years, and you contributing nothing to the discussion by saying it’s the “left ignoring its own problems”.
- halostatue 12y agoMost people in liberal democracies other than the United States would disagree with your assertion about gun control. Given per capita gun deaths in the United States relative to other liberal democracies, it'd be hard to disagree with them.
- peterashford 12y agoI'm quite convinced that pretty much everywhere else in the world, people would disagree with you. As a New Zealander, I can tell you that we think the US attitude towards guns is bordering on bat-shit insane.
- mantrax5 12y agoUgh: "...found that 42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago, and 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years." You know, I wouldn't pile those who are "not too" or have "expressed skepticism" with those who are completely opposed to the idea of evolution & the currently accepted age of Earth. I mean, sure, evolution manifests itself in everything around ourselves, but that aside for a brief moment. If your measure of "dumbness" is "anyone who doesn't unreservedly believe in evolution and the bing bang" then you're turning science into just another brand of religion. I'd much prefer to interact with people who aren't too sure about either religion or about the current scientific viewpoint, rather than zealots on either side. You see, the currently accepted scientific point tends to change over time (one of the benefits of science over religion I suppose). It was not long ago when black holes were described as having infinite density and zero volume. Few discoveries and math formulas later, turns out they far more likely stop collapsing at the size of their Schwarzschild radius. So who is dumb now. The one who "believed" in zero volume black holes, the one who "believed" in no black holes, or the one who had the courage to doubt and seek answers? Talking about zealots: "Has the most powerful nation on Earth lost its mind?" Emphasis mine. Give me a fucking break. The author may need a bit of smarting up on their own, it seems.
- pdonis 12y ago> It was not long ago when black holes were described as having infinite density and zero volume. Few discoveries and math formulas later, turns out they far more likely stop collapsing at the size of their Schwarzschild radius. Reference please? This does not sound like a good description of the current best scientific theory on black holes.
- xname 12y agoAmerica is a great country not because Americans know more science, not at all.
- xname 12y agoWho the hell downvoted my comment? for what reason? Downvoting should require justification.
- Executor 12y agoSo if you disagree with the author, then you're anti-intellectual.