Dumbing down - people getting dumber and dumber

[jaxson50]

A personal observation which struck me in recent years

 

From a UK perspective....how fundamental to 'the good life' was the availability of clean fresh water

 

There seemed to be a technological boom in the mid-late 19th century during Queen Victoria's reign

 

Most of the reservoirs operating today were 'built'

 

And seemed to 'cure' at a stroke the widespread diseases of the big cities...London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow etc.

 

V

 

Clean air is nice too...and sewage treatment...it wasn't that long ago that most rivers in Europe and the US were used as sewers, even today NYC uses the east river as a solid waste dumping ground...

[EVOL!]

Are we not men?

 

I was waiting for someome to say that.

[EVOL!]

Clean air is nice too...and sewage treatment...it wasn't that long ago that most rivers in Europe and the US were used as sewers, even today NYC uses the east river as a solid waste dumping ground...

 

Not long ago it was "the solution to polution is dilution"

[jaxson50]

And it is that very waste problem that should be turned into energy...oh wait! We do that now...

http://waste360.com/news/waste_bmw_methane_power

[fortyearspickn]

Just stumbled across this... read entire thread. Really Great! (Interesting how civil we can be on this forum when we aren't discussing which strings to use on a J45.)

My point, however, from the perspective of a Boomer... I offer a hypothesis disguised as a cliche: "The more formal education a person acquires,- the less common sense they have left." We've all come across individuals who were book smart and brain stupid. Has this happened to our societies?

While it is impossible be correct and generalize (a generalization that might vaguely apply to the US would not to the UK)- I think we have become more "techy" at the risk of being whatever the OP would define as 'smart'. So - yes, I definitely believe we are becoming dumber.

Greed is not an issue - it is part of our make-up, a subset of The Survival Instinct. I can guarantee that every generation decries the fact that we worship the almighty dollar. Individual greed is collectively organized: Businesses, governments, unions, fund raising soccer moms will all mobilize to make money - tempered by whatever morals or values they might have picked up as individuals when young. Or by laws made by those same governments - enter the 'conflict of interest' and Stimulus Packages.

We have become 'smarter' thanks to Oprah, Dr.Phil and History Channel. But, like rubber neckers at an accident scene - the News Entertainment Media Complex will profer/prefer sensationalism and yellow journalism to 'voter education' or investigations that aren't politically motivated. We eat up Reality TV, so no wonder. So, we get peppered with subtle messages embedded in everything we see or hear. Some are obvious - commercials and infomercials. But because we are smart and sensitive - we pay those who can't read and have 5 kids while never even attending a birth - to have more kids. I don't think 'The Greatest Generation" would believe their children could get so dumb so fast as to pay the poor and uneducated to have more children and out vote those who subscribe to the theory "I will work for food."

[milod]

Forty...

 

You're younger than I if you're technically a boomer, but I do find it interesting that the "challenger" mentality fits quite well for both of us on this type of thing.

 

I think a lot of our late 19th and 20th century idealism ran a wide range of social liberalism regardless of otherwise conservatism. It has brought us a world with double the population in roughly half a century following WWII. That, to me, is something we have yet to grapple with in terms of ethics, economics and practical function of a workable society.

 

"We" made a decision long ago that "root hog, or die," would not be the ethical foundation of any "modern" society. The consequences of that decision without limits is what we deal with today and what brought the video and these responses.

 

But now "we" have some additional decisions to make whether we can survive as societies without turning ourselves into anthills where all survive simply as parts of a machine for a degree of group survival.

 

It will be an interesting time over the next century to see how much less freedom and opportunity the younger generations will allow the productive while seeking to emphasize social behaviors (including the environment, business, agriculture) and providing bread and circuses to the mass populations that are not productive.

 

m

[jaxson50]

Good post Milod..

To the arm chair politico who learn fiscal policy and political history from talk radio and pop culture driven "reality TV" (which has nothing to do with reality)...politicians are responsible for all economic activity...if the markets go up when their party is in power it is because of great political leadership...never mind the demographics..

Politic logic....things went good when president X was in office...therefore his policy was right...never considering other factors...

Of course politicians want us to believe this logic, and sadly, many teachers reinforce it..critical thought is considered sacrilege, and the sinner is shouted down...

No leader knows where he will lead us...not with any certainty...in the letters exchanged between Adams and Jefferson during their twilight years when they reconciled their lost friendship and healed wounds inflicted in political arguments that had driven a stake between these two great minds, they say as much..

I don't think any other two men could be a better personification of liberal and conservative thought, their intertwined lives and the shared love / hate, nearly father and son relationship so well parallels the left-right political fighting that has gone on since day one..They had the brains to know that without a common enemy the two political personalities of man can not coexist. We have forgotten this lesson.

So until some challenge endangers all of us and overshadows our pettiness we will self destruct.

[milod]

Jax...

 

I think you brought up a great point in reference to Jefferson and Adams that might well be a point of study for those who ain't gotten into it.

 

Let's add one more point about "politics." A lot has to do with individuals and how they feel about those with whom they disagree. Jefferson and Adams might be a good example. The Congressional turnover in '94 is another when smug GOP members ousted equally smug Dems from choice offices and it got personal rather than political. Ditto in the White House with various accusations as the Clintons left that residence and office complex.

 

If "we" are dumbing down as a world culture, it's a matter of personal feelings overcoming logic and courtesy in times of major changes - collapse if you will - of many of "our" foundational beliefs in terms of what's "good" for society.

 

When it gets personal (some readers might wish to check the meaning of "argumentum ad huminem"), "we" have an increasing tendency even if unspoken to retaliate personally against those with whom we do not agree - even if it might bring a logically bad result.

 

The "news media" tendency to seek opinion over fact, ("What did it feel like when your house fell down in the flood?" as opposed to asking for figures on how many houses were destroyed or damaged from official sources) feeds an opinionated culture rather than a rational and responsible culture.

 

m

[dc3c46]

This has to be one of the most interesting threads I've ever come across. From what I've read, there are still some very intellegent people left on this planet. We may not have to worry about the stupid taking over. Cheers everyone!

+ 1

[zigzag]

If "we" are dumbing down as a world culture, it's a matter of personal feelings overcoming logic and courtesy in times of major changes - collapse if you will - of many of "our" foundational beliefs in terms of what's "good" for society.

 

The "news media" tendency to seek opinion over fact, ("What did it feel like when your house fell down in the flood?" as opposed to asking for figures on how many houses were destroyed or damaged from official sources) feeds an opinionated culture rather than a rational and responsible culture.

 

The fundamental role of our government is always at the core of any political debate or ideology. The so called libertarians and conservatives value the individual over the collective and visa versa for the liberals. I believe that the reality is that consideration needs to be given to both perspectives, the role of the individual within a society, not apart from it. The problem with the media is their non-objectivity, their need to sell their agenda, but also, their lack of civility and respect for the opposing point of view and the way this influences our discourse.

 

In this debate, we seem to be moving away from the OP. This discussion has moved more toward the issue of ignorance and away from the issue of cultural stupidity. I believe that stupidity is not only related to a person's ability to learn, but also, their ability to process information. I think creativity is related to intellegence and is part of information processing.

[milod]

Ziggy...

 

I think it's overly simplistic to think of "media" as hitting the opinion side rather than the fact and process side because of "agenda."

 

What's hit me in some 46 years at it myself is that "opinion pages" of various media aren't the difficulty, nor even considerations whether this or that media reflects "agenda" in supposed "news" coverage, but rather that quotes from people affected by something have taken precedence over reportage of fact and process.

 

For example, there's the matter of a disaster hits, so the media runs to get opinion of how those affected feel rather than a more significant bit about how various formal and informal agencies are going about recovery. The recent hurricane and flooding on the east coast is to me an excellent example. "Gee, that bridge never washed away before" doesn't tell us what is being done, and how, it will be replaced, for example.

 

That's not a matter of "agenda" in a political sense, although it can be used as such. However, media accused of being both "right" and "left" are doing the same thing. The rationale is that more people read/watch it.

 

It also does have an effect on "dumbing down" as you said, of people's ability to make informed decisions and feeds a habit of more emotional rather than reasoned response.

 

I've said before that my criticism of current "education" is that it is more a matter of teaching "stuff" as opposed to critical thinking and background that was part of a more traditional and especially a more "classical" education. That spills over into everything from fine arts to engineering. I wonder, for example, how many civil engineers and architects have read Vitruvius, let alone Caesar's explanation how his army built bridges.

 

I doubt that the bell curve of intellectual capacity will go into a retrograde in the foreseeable future since there one is speaking of genetics, and that's a shaky subject. I do consider that we're already seeing a retrograde trend in cultural philosophy and education more reminiscent of ancient Rome than in what we've come to expect in the years since roughly 1600 through the 1970s.

 

Petronius may not be reading one should recommend to the younger set for a number of reasons, but one indirect point perhaps might be that the middle and emerging wealthier folks certainly had gaps in their education about which they were blissfully unaware. Argument whether teachers or parents are at fault may sound familiar.

 

m

[zigzag]

Yep. And now we've come full circle.

[ShredAstaire]

The other side of this is the people that think they are smarter than others but maybe are not...

 

Discuss. :)

[milod]

The difficulty with the term "smarter" is that people think differently. Nikola Tesla, for example not only was a genius as an electrical engineer, but he just plain perceived almost everything differently, perhaps as far as to perceive black and white printed words with letters in different colors...

 

IQ may or may not be attached to "culture" in testing - so that might be an interesting variable in this discussion as well.

 

In my history/philosophy forum there's been an interesting byplay on how differently engineers might perceive and think in comparison to how those more naturally into various fine arts - including allegory and metaphor, bridges and electrical circuits.

 

That leads us to epistemology - how do we know what we think we know... and ontology, which is more or less a listing of that which "is," and how one might group such things. For example epistemology leads us to "know" that there is such a thing as "guitar," and ontology leads us to categorize guitars in ways such as electric, acoustic, classical, etc.

 

Since each of us perceives differently, there will necessarily be a matter of question as to what perceptions might be "true beliefs" or not; and also whether analysis of those perceptions become part of an individual's knowledge base and how it might be utilized. The so-called idiot savant might be able to do incredible math problems in his or her head, or to play marvelous music, but not to be able to function in "daily life."

 

So... Who is "smart?" What is "smart?" Discussion isn't going to be at all enlightening without a significantly more concise definition of "smart."

 

m

[ShredAstaire]

Or a concise definition of 'dumb'...which is my point.

 

No one thinks they are dumb, do they? Well maybe SOME people but the vast majority probably think they are of decent intelligence...maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. Do we go by IQ? Or they way they converse with people? I dunno!

[zigzag]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Duende]

Or a concise definition of 'dumb'...which is my point.

 

No one thinks they are dumb, do they? Well maybe SOME people but the vast majority probably think they are of decent intelligence...maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. Do we go by IQ? Or they way they converse with people? I dunno!

 

My use and understanding of the word 'dumb' as in the phrase 'dumbing down' is to to describe people who commit intellectual suicide in their choices through life. Through their bad attitude, that encompass' lazy - ness, inconsideration towards others, greed and a 'can't be bothered' attitude towards things, they shut doors in the mind and hence commit a type of suicide in their intellect. A type of inverted snobbery is created where people who speak well are regarded as idiots to them, as in their eyes they are not (speaking properly), a film with more talking than action is dismissed as boring and things of culture are regarded as worthless.

 

This is quite different to say someone who may have learning difficulties and through no fault of their own struggles to grasp concepts.

 

As a teacher, I am the most patient person in the world if someone is very slow at grasping something and enjoy the challenge of helping them realise their potential. On the other side of the coin, I do not suffer fools gladly; i.e people who have the brains and abilities to be more, yet do not work and focus I take a very dim view of.

 

Matt

[zigzag]

Edited out by zz.

[milod]

Matt...

 

I know exactly what you mean from having taught a number of psychophysical skills.

 

It's a great challenge to realize different people learn differently, and may have difficulty perceiving something simple in one sort of learning and yet catch onto incredibly complex material in another subject.

 

Yup, it's the anti-learning smug thing that bothers me - but I will admit that I think sometimes that the attitude may be a defense mechanism for one's brain working one way and feeling that society expects one might easily learn what is difficult. Then, of course, there simply are those who wish for bread and circuses as in the old Roman days.

 

m

[cam011235]

haha this thread is so funny it is getting huge..what are we talking about ?? how dumb people are getting..haha some definite interest here and this isnt a troll thread? just venting or something .. or maybe clinical concern

[Duende]

Matt...

 

I know exactly what you mean from having taught a number of psychophysical skills.

 

It's a great challenge to realize different people learn differently, and may have difficulty perceiving something simple in one sort of learning and yet catch onto incredibly complex material in another subject.

 

Yup, it's the anti-learning smug thing that bothers me - but I will admit that I think sometimes that the attitude may be a defense mechanism for one's brain working one way and feeling that society expects one might easily learn what is difficult. Then, of course, there simply are those who wish for bread and circuses as in the old Roman days.

m

[/quote

 

I am very concerned with what I see as a contradiction - In the U.K (my friend Logan says it is the same in the States) every year there is a new record of people achieving A grades in GCSE and A Level examinations. That is of course at first seemingly excellent news! What worries me is that from all my research I have done into this, the older papers do seem harder and harder, the further back you go - i.e I don't think people are actually evolving into these breed of cleverer people like the results imply, but these exams have just been 'dumbed down' to make the respective country look good. I think it is cheapening true critical thinking from students and also potentially very dangerous for morale to pump people up with a kind of false hope.

 

In my own subject music, twenty years ago, without access to a piano keyboard you had to work out figured bass from your head in the theoretical component of the A Level music, it was very hard and you had to really put in many hours of work to 'hear' what you were composing in your mind; making sure it was accurate etc, Now you have a piano keyboard to check it sounds right.

 

Another example is it used to be that you had to be a Grade 5 standard to be able to get an A grade at GCSE music, now you can be grade 1 and get an A. There are loads more examples, these are just two that come to mind...

 

It worries me because eventually there comes a point i.e degree level, that things aren't watered down and the student unprepared for rigorous study (and also being criticised so intensely) are more likely to give up. Drop out rates at university a pretty high and regardless of that anyway, I think humans actually thrive on things being difficult and the challenge of 'fighting' with a subject to attain a real beneficial and worth while grasp of it.

 

Matt

[zigzag]

I heard a news report that SAT (which are college entrance exams in the US) scores have dropped despite being made easier over the years. The explanation is that more students are taking the test, which tends to bring scores down. More people are applying to colleges and all the while many more students are dropping out.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/opinion/bennett-education/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

 

An interesting book came out several years ago called The Bell Curve. The following is a synopsis and critique of the book:

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml

 

"Inequality of endowments, including intelligence, is a reality. Trying to pretend that inequality does not really exist has led to disaster. Trying to eradicate inequality with artificially manufactured outcomes has led to disaster. It is time for America once again to try living with inequality, as life is lived: understanding that each human being has strengths and weaknesses, qualities we admire and qualities we do not admire, competencies and incompetencies, assets and debits; that the success of each human life is not measured externally but internally; that all of the rewards we can confer on each other, the most precious is a place as a valued fellow citizen."

[Duende]

I heard a news report that SAT (which are college entrance exams in the US) scores have dropped despite being made easier over the years. The explanation is that more students are taking the test, which tends to bring scores down. More people are applying to colleges and all the while many more students are dropping out.

 

hmmm interesting

[Searcy]

Hello so is lack of education proof of lack of intelligence?

[zigzag]

I don't think anyone is saying that.