How do you know you're not brainwashed?

[jay gw]

Brainwashing:

Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.

The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
___

How do you know that your basic beliefs haven't been formed by something besides your conscious choices?

Which ones have and which ones haven't? How do you know?

If this were a courtroom (in Alice in Wonderland) for example, and you were asked to "prove" that your beliefs, values, convictions were the result of your own reasoned, rational, logical decisions ----- could you?

Many times what a persuader will do is first convince you that your ideas aren't the "truth" but lies that have been fed to you. It seems to work for advertisers, cults and dictatorships!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
How do you know that your basic beliefs haven't been formed by something besides your conscious choices?

That leaves open the question of how one make "conscious choices" outside one's "basic beliefs," and assumes that "conscious choices" exist at all.

Originally posted by jay gw
Which ones have and which ones haven't? How do you know?

I've changed almost every one of my "basic beliefs" at least a dozen times, you tell me. I won't make any claims I somehow "chose" or "directed" this process in any way, though.

Originally posted by jay gw
If this were a courtroom (in Alice in Wonderland) for example, and you were asked to "prove" that your beliefs, values, convictions were the result of your own reasoned, rational, logical decisions ----- could you?

Now, probably. Depends on what counts as evidence I guess.

Not that a Wonderland courtroom would care *****-all for reason or logic, though... :D

Originally posted by jay gw
Many times what a persuader will do is first convince you that your ideas aren't the "truth" but lies that have been fed to you. It seems to work for advertisers, cults and dictatorships!

Only when no competing information is allowed or consumed. This is key. Think about that.

[c4ts]

You must know what you know, and what you don't know.

[jay gw]

You must know what you know, and what you don't know.

But why do you know X and not Y?
Why does she over there know Y and not Z?
Why does he over there know Z and not A?

In other words, each group of people are exposed to different messages. Is that brainwashing?

I posted this on another board. Here's the only interesting response so far:

I voted Neutral because I'm not sure I could prove absolutely that my beliefs are as a result of free conscious choice.

Jrefers are a proud (and extremely arrogant) lot and won't admit it, but neither could anyone here.

[Robin]

Originally posted by jay gw
But why do you know X and not Y?
Why does she over there know Y and not Z?
Why does he over there know Z and not A?

In other words, each group of people are exposed to different messages. Is that brainwashing?

I posted this on another board. Here's the only interesting response so far:

I voted Neutral because I'm not sure I could prove absolutely that my beliefs are as a result of free conscious choice.

Jrefers are a proud (and extremely arrogant) lot and won't admit it, but neither could anyone here.
I can't prove I have free conscious choice about anything, beliefs included. In general I try not to have beliefs, but of course it is impossible to get through any days without certain practical beliefs. I believe that eating certain foods won't kill me. I believe the brake on the car will slow me down rather than speed me up etc...

Frequently I find that my brain has just gone ahead and believed something without I had any say in it but once I notice this has happened I try to examine the belief.

But in a court room there are certain moral and ethical beliefs I have that I would be happy to defend - certain mathematical beliefs etc

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by jay gw

How do you know that your basic beliefs haven't been formed by something besides your conscious choices?


You know what, I don't know. I don't even know what it means for my beliefs to be formed by my conscious choices, or without them for that matter. But I don't really care either. I'm more concerned with whether my beliefs are correct or not than where they came from.

To a certain extent your question deals with that issue - if my beliefs are arbitrarily formed by stimulus (for example the advertisements you mention) then I don't have much reason to believe them to be accurate. It's the accuracy that's at issue, not the "concious choice".
I think this is one reason to be careful when judging the practices of other cultures. On the other hand there are ways to objectively judge the accuracy of beliefs. Look at the scientific method.

There may be some beliefs that are not yet testable when it comes to their accuracy, and for myself when it comes to something that I really can't objectively judge, I figure that I'll just take the one that makes me happiest, at least until some decent evidence comes along to help decide. But you know, I can't actually think of any examples that fit in this category at the moment.
For some people God might, but I don't agree.

[Z]

The choices that I and everyone else has ever or will ever make have nothing to do with free will - in the absolute sense. In this sense, we're all, to the last person, brainwashed.

As far as practical free will, careful consideration of available material, etc... my choices are firm. They may or may not be rational; but I can honestly say that not a single belief (as opposed to knowledge, in the sense of observable data) I hold today was fed to me by anyone else.

Well, one. I believe that Catherine the Great of Russia really, really liked horses.

:D

[Genesius]

Originally posted by jay gw
Brainwashing:

.snip.

The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

Sounds like a pretty good definition of child-rearing to me.

To that degree, I think we're all "brainwashed". My question would be: how much of your early indoctrination have you needed to overcome to become the happy skeptic you are today? I was lucky - both parents nonbelievers. They let me work through an early infatuation with woo (Geller & UFOs) which pretty much came crashing down when I saw Randi demolish a "psychic" on TV. Can't remember his name, but he blathered a lot about how his kung fu training allowed him to reach the sixth state of conciousness. . .

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by jay gw
If this were a courtroom (in Alice in Wonderland) for example, and you were asked to "prove" that your beliefs, values, convictions were the result of your own reasoned, rational, logical decisions ----- could you?

Yes, I definitely think so.

I'm open to other ideas, which makes me confident I've not been brainwashed. If someone can offer a strong argument, I'll change my mind.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
In other words, each group of people are exposed to different messages. Is that brainwashing?

It is simple enculturation. "Brainwashing" usually indicates a hostile attempt to override one's existing cultural mores. They way you are attempting to apply the word expands the definition to meaninglessness.

I posted this on another board. Here's the only interesting response so far:

I voted Neutral because I'm not sure I could prove absolutely that my beliefs are as a result of free conscious choice.

Jrefers are a proud (and extremely arrogant) lot and won't admit it, but neither could anyone here.

Me (and a few others) have said that we doubt even the premise of "conscious choice" as you postulated in your OP. This is a lot different from refusing to admit we can't prove our beliefs are a result of free conscious choice.

And I can't speak for everyone, but I know I, and I'm sure ZD and more than a few others as well, have spent most of our lives critically examining our respective beliefs. That doesn't mean we think we "chose" these beliefs.

[jay gw]

I'm more concerned with whether my beliefs are correct or not than where they came from.

How do you know whether they're correct or not? How do you know the information you've used to judge the correctness of your ideas is not from the source for the ideas??

Don't most cultures use multiple reinforcement?

parents---> schools----> media---->government---->parents......

Practical example

Why do 1 billion people think communism or socialism is the greatest human invention and the other 1 billion think it's the worst one? Why are there 1 billion Muslims and 1 billion Christians instead of 2 billion atheists?

Here's a quote from someone on another board on this:

They are, though, based on input that is fed in... it may be a rational decision under the hood but it's still based on inputs which could well be lies.

Very well said. Why do billions of people believe and act as if the world was created by supernatural supreme beings? They have many rational sounding discussions about this.

Google "subliminal learning" and you'll see the studies from this year and last that are showing that the brain picks up information and is using it without you being conscious of it. Freud was a big promoter of the idea that the consciousness everyone lives in is the primary level only and more levels exist. However he never had much empirical data just alot of guesses.

Would it change your opinion to know that the brain is using information and acts on that information without you ever "knowing" anything? That the brain may in fact be a multi dimensional entity with parts that are only vaguely or not aware at all of each other?

If your consciousness is composed of many parts operating semi independently of each other (like almost everything in the natural world is organized) ----- can you say you "know" you've chosen what you think?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
How do you know whether they're correct or not? How do you know the information you've used to judge the correctness of your ideas is not from the source for the ideas??

Don't most cultures use multiple reinforcement?

parents---> schools----> media---->government---->parents......

That's why the first thing a totalitarian regime does is to limit what its citizens may read.

Practical example

Why do 1 billion people think communism or socialism is the greatest human invention and the other 1 billion think it's the worst one? Why are there 1 billion Muslims and 1 billion Christians instead of 2 billion atheists?

Lack of education. They are taught that no other source than their holy text is reliable, thus discounting, or even supressing, competing information.

Are there a billion Communists left? Real ones, not college sophmore dilletants?

Why do billions of people believe and act as if the world was created by supernatural supreme beings? They have many rational sounding discussions about this.

Lack of education. Ignorance of the other possibilities.

My children have lots of rational sounding arguments about the motivations of the Jedi in the last Star Wars movie.

Google "subliminal learning" and you'll see the studies from this year and last that are showing that the brain picks up information and is using it without you being conscious of it. Freud was a big promoter of the idea that the consciousness everyone lives in is the primary level only and more levels exist. However he never had much empirical data just alot of guesses.

There is also the idea that "consciousness" itself is a misleading and erroneous concept. There is a growing body of empirical evidence to support that.

Would it change your opinion to know that the brain is using information and acts on that information without you ever "knowing" anything?

No, I was already well aware of that.

That the brain may in fact be a multi dimensional entity with "minds" of it's own that are only vaguely or not aware at all of each other?

The brain also "may in fact be" a lump of cheese-flavoured tuna paste that is yummy at breakfast, and all effects of "consciousness" are generated in our Pineal Gland. But that's not what the evidence suggests. Read the article about the fiction of "Mind" in the latest issue of "Skeptic."

[jay gw]

That's why the first thing a totalitarian regime does is to limit what its citizens may read.

Why were the socialist and communist parties never able to get more than two congressmen and not a single senator or governor elected in the United States despite the ideology being followed by more than 2 billion people?

By the way, no school in the United States I ever attended presented anything by Karl Marx, Mao, Engels, Robert Owen or Saint-Simon.

[plindboe]

I think most here have considered this seriously before, as it's an important part of being a critical thinker. Though I don't think you're using the word "brainwashing" correct, even according to the definition you present.

[jay gw]

Though I don't think you're using the word "brainwashing" correct, even according to the definition you present.

There is no correct definition.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Why were the socialist and communist parties never able to get more than two congressmen and not a single senator or governor elected in the United States despite the ideology being followed by more than 2 billion people?

Those two billion were not all registered American voters. Duh. And America did allow Communism (despite MacCarthy) be presented as a competing ideology, thus the two congressmen.

How many Republican capitalists were ever on the Politburo in Soviet Russia?

ETA:
Btw, no school in the United States I ever attended presented anything by Karl Marx or Mao.

Mine did, high school and college. So are you bragging about your poor schooling, or your lack of self-education since? Their books are available in a Federally-funded public library near you. If they are not, complain, and buy them from Amazon. You won't be arrested for it.

[jay gw]

How many Republican capitalists were ever on the Politburo in Soviet Russia?

Why are you comparing the evil empire totalitarian Soviet Union to the freedom loving decent people of the US?? I thought those systems were totally different!??

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Why are you comparing the evil empire totalitarian Soviet Union to the freedom loving decent people of the US??

America does not restrict information and had two (by your assertion, I have not so far confirmed that) communist congressmen. The USSR did restrict information, and had no competing ideologies in its government.

The point being, it is the lack of available competing information, or the unwillingness to utilize it, that strengthens enculturation. Thus we find that the most rabid fundamentalists are unsurprisingly the poorest educated. As you seem to evidence.

[jay gw]

The point being, it is the lack of available competing information, or the unwillingness to utilize it, that strengthens enculturation.

I don't agree that what strengthens enculturation is having a book around. What strengthens enculturation is what the people running your life say about that book.

Did Christianity spread by printing bibles and putting them in libraries, or did it spread by the kings of Europe taking it as their own personal religion?

(Constantine became the emperor of Rome in 306, and was the most powerful person in his part of the world. He is best remembered in modern times for the Edict of Milan in 313 and the Council of Nicaea in 325, which fully legalized and then legitimized Christianity in the Empire for the first time.)

Did Islam spread by printing the Koran and putting it into libraries or did it spread by Mohammed and Genghis Khan's conquest of vast parts of the world? Despite being thousands of miles from the mid east, Malaysia is majority Muslim. That's because Islam was spread by Khan.

I just don't think you're taking the role of the people with power very seriously!!

[Donks]

Originally posted by jay gw
Did Islam spread by printing the Koran and putting it into libraries or did it spread by Mohammed and Genghis Khan's conquest of vast parts of the world? Despite being thousands of miles from the mid east, Malaysia is majority Muslim. That's because Islam was spread by Khan.
Genghis Khan? You have a source for that?

[Iacchus]

Do salmon swim up the same stream by which they were spawned? How can they escape that?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
I don't agree that what strengthens enculturation is having a book around.

I'm actually saying the OPPOSITE- that enculturation is challenged by free access to information, it is strengthened by restrictions on free access to information.

Dictators, cult leaders, priests, et al., in varying degrees, restrict information because the better educated a person is, the less powerful the hold enculturation has.

Note that none of that has ass-all to do with any concept of "free will" or "Conscious choice"

[jay gw]

Dictators, cult leaders, priests, et al., in varying degrees, restrict information because the better educated a person is, the less powerful the hold enculturation has.

What you said is that access to information automatically means you're "free" to make your own choices because you're not restricted by lack of information.

I don't think it's the access to information that's the issue it's what the people with power over your life tell you about the information. Just because books about communism are available in the United States doesn't mean anyone reads them. Like I just mentioned before I went through many years of education in America and never was required to look at a single word written by Marx or Engels, Robert Owen or anyone that questioned laissez faire capitalism.

I wonder how many Americans could actually define any of these competing ideologies in a nutshell? Why do all the international tests show Americans to be very ignorant of certain facts about the world?

One of many many examples:

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa111797.htm

The Gallup organization had been hired by the Society to determine how much (or little) Americans knew about locating places when compared to citizens of nine other countries. Respondents were asked to match numbers on a world map with a list of sixteen places. Among 18-24 year olds world-wide, on average, Americans were least able to provide correct answers.

If Americans can't even find the countries on a map, take a guess as to how much they know about much else. That first survey was in 1989.

Let's see......here's one from 2002....years and years later.

Americans scored.....next to last place.

"In a nation called the world's superpower, only 17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map, according to a new worldwide survey released today."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

Is there any reason with all those books everywhere that Americans are so IGNORANT? Wouldn't you assume that if the government school administrators wanted Americans to really be well informed that they would have rushed to present the information?

And yet, there again, in 2002, years and years later....THE EXACT SAME RESULT. Nothing at all had changed. Hmmm

Is there any reason that the government school administrators and the political elites tell Americans they're the "greatest nation ever!!" but when it comes time for an objective measure they're proven beyond doubt to be extremely ignorant?

What accounts for these gigantic discrepancies between what Americans are being told and believe and what the reality is??

Brainwashing doesn't have to be information that's given to you, it can be information thats NOT given.

[Renfield]

How do you know you're not brainwashed?

The master tells me I'm not.

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by jay gw
"In a nation called the world's superpower, only 17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map, according to a new worldwide survey released today."


Just because there is a culture of ignorance in the united states doesn't mean it's impossible for an american citizen to come to objective desicions about things. For instance, if he wanted to find out where afganistan is, he could go the the library and open an atlas, and look it up.

Now if you asked me, how do you know that your beliefs are accurate, I can tell that it's because I did just that - looked up the relevant facts and tried my best to base my conclusions upon them.
I know where afganistan is, and I know how to come by that information. There are some issues which are pretty complex, and some of those I reserve judgment upon, because you're right, sometimes it's hard to see your own bias. But it isn't impossible.

Brainwashing doesn't have to be information that's given to you, it can be information thats NOT given.
Isn't that exactly the point Piscivore was making?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Just because there is a culture of ignorance in the united states doesn't mean it's impossible for an american citizen to come to objective desicions about things. For instance, if he wanted to find out where afganistan is, he could go the the library and open an atlas, and look it up.

Now if you asked me, how do you know that your beliefs are accurate, I can tell that it's because I did just that - looked up the relevant facts and tried my best to base my conclusions upon them.
I know where afganistan is, and I know how to come by that information. There are some issues which are pretty complex, and some of those I reserve judgment upon, because you're right, sometimes it's hard to see your own bias. But it isn't impossible.


Isn't that exactly the point Piscivore was making?

Trying to. :rolleyes:

Thanks.


Originally posted by jay
What you said is that access to information automatically means you're "free" to make your own choices because you're not restricted by lack of information.

No, that isn't what I said. At all. LACK of access to information automatically means you do not have the information. Having access but not using that access means you don't have the information. Relying on an authority to tell you what you are missing may or may not mean you do not have the information.

Guess what the best way to get the information is?


Originally posted by jay
Is there any reason with all those books everywhere that Americans are so IGNORANT?

Yes, but its not that despotic leaders are keeping them out of our hands.


http://lauren.barelyfitz.com/pics/watching-tv.jpg

[Z]

Bingo.

Jay, 'brainwashing' might be the case if, say, I went to my local library to research 'Communism', and all I could find were treatise and government tracts about the evils of the Communist party; if I then went on-line, and found that the only sites that 'Communism' scored a hit on were Government-controlled websites declaring Communism to be evil; etc. etc.

Likewise, with any system.

However, what Americans have is not 'brainwashing' - it is 'apathy'. Frankly, most of us just don't care about Communism or Socialism or any other -ism, because what we have works well enough for most of us, and us fat, ignorant, and largely apathetic Americans are very resistant to change.

Now, I (for one) know that American capitalism may not be the best system in the world. Certainly, it's transforming our nation from 'rule by the people' to 'rule by the corporate board'. But compared to the main examples of Communism we've been offered - mainly, Soviet Russia, Communist Cuba, and Red China - Capitalist America is an absolute paradise. And I'm certainly not saying that the American media has presented the absolute truth about these nations; but the truth is there, for anyone who cares to find it. And, sadly, the truth is - Communism largely failed because it relies on people being honest and fair, which most people simply are not.

It seems like what Jay is getting at is that it is somehow the government's responsibility to cram information down everyone's throat, and if they fail to do so, it is somehow brainwashing. That is simply not the case at all.

As to his pathetic education - in ninth grade, we had to read excerpts from the Communist Manifesto by Marx, 'Mein Kampf' by Hitler, and I recall reading something by Robert Owen, but off the top of my head can't remember what. In my junior year of high school, we were asked to do a comparitive analysis of capitalism versus socialism, as well as a study of how and why communism in theory varied from communism in practice. I quite clearly recall studying, in my senior year Political Science class, how we discussed at great length how America was neither a true Democracy, nor a true Republic, but a unique and volatile corporate state whose future was uncertain.

And I went to a high school that could best be described as 'Hicksville High'. I mean, this school offered five years of auto mechanics and six years of agriculture. Six. They expected students to stay in high school (ninth grade through twelfth grade) for six years.

The mean age of ninth graders in this school was 17. But we were exposed to Marx and to Communism, Socialism, etc. So where did Jay go to school???

Anyway, back to my point: if you want to see a good example of brainwashing, head for your local church or political party headquarters. Americans, by and large, are not brainwashed; we're lazy and apathetic. BIG difference. Apathetic people CAN learn the truth, if they want to. Brainwashed people often cannot.

[jay gw]

It seems like what Jay is getting at is that it is somehow the government's responsibility to cram information down everyone's throat, and if they fail to do so, it is somehow brainwashing.

I expect the government controlled schools to provide Americans with basic facts about the world, for example where countries are located. If Americans can't identify what countries are where, take a guess how much they know about anything else. What exactly IS being taught, anyway??

You've got 2 choices; either certain information is SYSTEMATICALLY not being introduced, or Americans all have Alzheimers disease and can't remember almost anything they learn. Which one of those is the plausible choice?

You know why it's weird? It's weird because it seems not to be a the question of 10 percent knowledge of these particular facts--- oddly enough they're the facts about the outside world--- here and 90 percent there and 50 percent and so on, which would be explained by individual characteristics of course. It's the SYSTEMATIC of it all. Despite the reputation of the "individualism" of America there sure seems to be alot of uniformity to what information is presented and what's not.

You don't need to crudely ban information for it to be the marginalized information and denied to anyone and kept in the shadows where no one sees it. That's for the simple minded. Surely there's no one simple minded enough to think the only way to control publics is book burning!

I think that the powers in the US are like the ones in England or China or anywhere and have an agenda and want to keep themselves in the position they're in. And I also think they need the public not to rock their boats.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
You don't need to crudely ban information for it to be the marginalized information and denied to anyone and kept in the shadows where no one sees it. That's for the simple minded. Surely there's no one simple minded enough to think the only way to control publics is book burning!

I think that the powers in the US are like the ones in England or China or anywhere and have an agenda and want to keep themselves in the position they're in. And I also think they need the public not to rock their boats.

You are right about this. But you are making a mistake in assigning the poor average education of Americans to a conspiracy. The information is out there, and it can be had, and you cannot force anyone to be apathetic. Do you imagine a group of jack-booted thugs pointing automatic weapons at children and ordering them to watch television instead of reading?

American high school students are ignorant not because of some governmental agenda, but because it is easier to turn on the TV than to pick up a book, especially if that is what their parents do. I have raised my kids, my daughter especially, to value reading. She is almost twelve and reads almost at an adult level. Last year in their school reading program she outpaced her peers by a three-to-one margin. She was not censured for this at her school, she was praised, and held as an example.


Originally posted by jay gw
I expect the government controlled schools to provide Americans with basic facts about the world, for example where countries are located.

"You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink."

The information is being presented- I got it, ZD got it, my daughter is getting it, My son is getting it. My children's peers are getting it, but that doesn't mean they will pay attention, or retain it, especially if they are thinking about Jessica Simpson or their Playstation instead of attending the teacher.

Besides that, since when is it the sole responsibility of the schools to educate? You are totally eliminating the parent's role. If I were content to only allow my children's education to be provided by the school, I would consider myself criminally negligent. Yet, that is what a lot of parents do. Apathy isn't only a problem with the children.

Your argument does not fit the evidence.

[jay gw]

Your argument does not fit the evidence.

Well let's test your statement that it doesn't.

Exhibit a

*Americans uniformly attend government controlled schools, around 90 percent or so, maybe up to 95 percent.

exhibit b

*Americans are uniformly ignorant about the same facts.

exhibit c

*Despite the fact that REPEATED testing of Americans by independent bodies like the Geographic Society shows there to be an amazing ignorance, and the stories are humiliatingly and prominently covered in the media, there is no change in the outcomes from year to year. The same set of facts (oddly the ones about the outside world) are being omitted again and again and again and again.

Where exactly does my theory not fit this evidence?

You're theory is 70 million or so American children are all getting these facts but instead of paying attention are "watching tv too much" and "paying attention to pop stars" instead of their teacher......hmmm

I would simply answer you with this: having government control over Americans education is playing with fire. You can overlook and underestimate the dangers but I prefer not to. With the No Child Left Behind Act that Bush enacted, the central control over the education of Americans is nearly complete. There is virtually no way for a school to be independent to any degree from the control of the federal central government.

Maybe you don't care but I find all these trends to be extremely disturbing. Once a system is set up all it needs is the handful of people at the top of the pyramid to run it......

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw
But why do you know X and not Y?
Why does she over there know Y and not Z?
Why does he over there know Z and not A?

Well then, you'll have to start thinking critically, won't you?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Well let's test your statement that it doesn't.

Okay, lets.

Originally posted by jay gw
Exhibit a

*Americans uniformly attend government controlled schools, around 90 percent or so, maybe up to 95 percent.

Do you have a source for this, or are you pulling percentages out of your ass?

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States), "Education in the United States is highly decentralized and varies widely." States control education, not the Federal government, and it certainly isn't tightly controlled.

As for percentages, the same articles says "According to government data, one-tenth of students are enrolled in private schools. However, approximately 85% of students enter the public schools" with another 5% homeschooled. And this is enrolled, it says nothing about attendance. I could not immediatly find any truancy data.

So, your "exhibit a" premise is wrong.

Originally posted by jay gw
exhibit b

*Americans are uniformly ignorant about the same facts.

Again, source?

This is obviously untrue, because I can locate Afganistan on a map, as can my wife, my children and many other people I know. Even going to your linked article, if "17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map" they they are not "uniformly ignorant of the same facts."

I think that the ignorance here is your understanding of the word "uniformly."

Interestingly, the NG article also says that "Young adults worldwide are not markedly more literate about geography than the Americans," meaning this is not a problem endemic to this country.

Your "exhibit b" premise is wrong.

Originally posted by jay gw
exhibit c

*Despite the fact that REPEATED testing of Americans by independent bodies like the Geographic Society shows there to be an amazing ignorance, and the stories are humiliatingly and prominently covered in the media, there is no change in the outcomes from year to year. The same set of facts (oddly the ones about the outside world) are being omitted again and again and again and again.

Sigh. Source?

Your article, again:
"Since the last Geographic-sponsored survey in 1988, said Downs, the percentage of young U.S. citizens who reported taking a geography course in school rose from 30 to 55 percent. And students who had studied geography did better on the current survey. "

Your "exhibit c" premise is wrong.

Originally posted by jay gw
Where exactly does my theory not fit this evidence?

If you can't see that by now, maybe you need to go back to school. ;)

Originally posted by jay gw
You're theory is 70 million or so American children are all getting these facts but instead of paying attention are "watching tv too much" and "paying attention to pop stars" instead of their teacher......hmmm

Again, the NG article you linked to:
"More young U.S. citizens in the study knew that the island featured in last season's TV show "Survivor" is in the South Pacific than could find Israel...

Questions covering current events or practical activities yielded more promising results.

Most young U.S. citizens knew that Africa was most affected by the AIDS epidemic, and about half knew that El Niño caused erratic weather.

"When geography and life intersect, people pay attention," said Nick Boyon, senior vice president for international research at RoperASW, in Manhattan."

Did you even read it? :rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

Who brainwashed you into starting this asinine thread? Was it the same person who brainwashed you into believing you could formulate a good argument? I mean, Jesus, you're being decimated by fugging Piscivore. That's like getting shut out by the 49ers. :p

[Z]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Who brainwashed you into starting this asinine thread? Was it the same person who brainwashed you into believing you could formulate a good argument? I mean, Jesus, you're being decimated by fugging Piscivore. That's like getting shut out by the 49ers. :p

Ouch.

Next, Jay will be trounced by Iacchus. Heh, I'd pay money to see that.

Besides, if I recall correctly, the same kids that couldn't locate foreign countries on the map are probably pretty much the same kids who can't find their own home state or town, who can't tell you who the 39th President was, and who can't recite the Pythagorean Theorum.

As mentioned above, states control the state of education, not the Federal Government. Yes, some states have piss-poor education. Some, on the other hand, have excellent education. But no matter what education is offered to the student, no student is going to perform well if they lack personal interest in that education, and if the parents lack the ability or will to motivate their children to do well.

Since it seems that you lack the ability to read an entire article without jumping to conclusions, I won't ask if the article broke down the results by state and/or city; nor will I bother to ask if the researchers sampled a good selection of inner-city and rural schools, large and small cities, many states, etc. My guess is that if a researcher were to interview students at, say, students in inner-city schools in 25 states, their results would be far worse than if they interviewed students of other schools in the same states, or of home-schoolers, or of private schoolers. It seems - having read material like this before - that they tend to present their results as universal without their research really being universal. It's a simple enough tactic, whatever the motivation.

Not that I'm saying schools don't have room to improve; certainly, they do. But most of the impetus for improving education in America comes straight from the voting taxpayer. Every time an education bill comes up, it seems like voters are looking at their wallets, instead of the quality of their kids' education, and voting against improved school budgets. Every time discussions of teachers' salaries is introduced, the average parent moans and wails about gas prices, the rising costs of education, etc. I think colleges are as much to blame as the government. When you have to save up thousands of dollars for each child to attend college, every little penny they ask of you hurts. But, honestly, does a college NEED to charge over $300 per semester hour for courses, and $60-$200 per book?

Well, that's my own pet peeve.

There's no government conspiracy to keep people from knowing where Bhutan is any more than there's a conspiracy to keep people from knowing where Columbus, Ohio is. All the information is right there, and in most schools I've attended - and that's quite a few (nomadic family) - the information is presented to the students. If they fail to learn - blame pop culture and parents, not the government.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Who brainwashed you into starting this asinine thread? Was it the same person who brainwashed you into believing you could formulate a good argument? I mean, Jesus, you're being decimated by fugging Piscivore. That's like getting shut out by the 49ers. :p

Ouch indeed... I must have stepped in Puss' catbox again. :)

[jay gw]

According to government data, one-tenth of students are enrolled in private schools.

That's what I just said in my previous post.

Even going to your linked article, if "17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map" they they are not "uniformly ignorant of the same facts."

Meaning over 80 percent of Americans can't find the country they're at war with on a map. I said that one too in my previous post.

Your "exhibit c" premise is wrong.

The students that reported taking geography courses rose but does it say HOW MANY they are as a percentage of the total number of Americans in the schools?? There's more to statistics than the face of them. If the school has 1000 students and 3 of them take geography then a rise of 100 percent means a WHOPPING SIX of them are taking it.

Americans are systematically being kept away from certain information. A rise of 25 or 500 percent doesn't change anything at all!! Even 5 years after an embarrassing story about Americans being kept in ignorance about the world around them came out, the average score has never substantially improved. You're making excuses for them.

Again, the NG article you linked to:
"More young U.S. citizens in the study knew that the island featured in last season's TV show "Survivor" is in the South Pacific than could find Israel...

I said that in previous posts.....too. And I see you believe there's nothing wrong with Americans knowing little to nothing about certain subjects, or worse getting it wrong.

You're posting parts of the studies and surveys and they just repeated what I said about Americans being kept away from information about the outside world.

[Dogdoctor]

This is similar to a question that I have spent a bit of time thinking about "What if all of life is an illusion". I think real philosophers have thought about questions like this. My answer is that if you do the best you can to apply yourself then what difference does it make? Simply put you are limited and so is everyone else and if you can't see that you are being fooled then you have still done all you can do.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's what I just said in my previous post.

Which means they are not uniformly subject to the evil gubbment's propaganda, and your estimation of the percentage of students enrolled in public schools was erroneus.


Originally posted by jay gw
Meaning over 80 percent of Americans can't find the country they're at war with on a map. I said that one too in my previous post.

Meaning that they are not "uniformly ignorant of the same facts" as you asserted.


Originally posted by jay gw
The students that reported taking geography courses rose but does it say HOW MANY they are as a percentage of the total number of Americans in the schools?? There's more to statistics than the face of them. If the school has 1000 students and 3 of them take geography then a rise of 100 percent means a WHOPPING SIX of them are taking it.

Do you really think they would go to the expense of creating a geography class for pretense and putting only .3% of the students in it? You said "there is no change in the outcomes from year to year." and the article you quoted said different. Now you want to split hairs about the numbers. Admit you were wrong or come up with some data of your own.

Originally posted by jay gw
Americans are systematically being kept away from certain information.

The only ones being "kept away from certain information" are those too f:Dking lazy or illiterate to go to the library. Prove otherwise. What information do you think is being "kept away" from you? The location of Afganistan? Has the evil gubbment destroyed all maps? Are there no encyclopedia in schools now? Name one piece of data- that might actually exist, no asking for Bigfoot's address or the Roswell autopsy report :)- that cannot be accessed in this country.


Originally posted by jay gw
I said that in previous posts.....too. And I see you believe there's nothing wrong with Americans knowing little to nothing about certain subjects, or worse getting it wrong.

Quite the opposite. I just don't share your paranoid fantasies about the reasons why. Your delusions are defeatist, thus absolving you from trying to solve the problem. I'm afraid I have no such luxury.

Originally posted by jay gw
You're posting parts of the studies and surveys and they just repeated what I said about Americans being kept away from information about the outside world.

Please quote the passage in anything I referenced where it is stated Americans were being denied access to information by anything than their own personal actions.

You are paranoid and delusional, probably as a consequence of your demonstrable illiteracy. Which proves the point I made in my response to your OP.

[jay gw]

Here's a new study from a couple of months ago about the brain and subliminal learning:

May 17, 2005 -- Threatening messages may come through loud and clear in the brain, even if you aren't aware of it.

A new study shows that the brain registers and responds to threatening subliminal messages just as strongly as it responds to consciously read words and messages.

Researchers say the findings indicate that the emotional meaning and impact of words can be processed subliminally.

[....]

Researchers say the findings add to previous evidence that extended stages of word processing occur in the brain even in the absence of consciousness.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/106/108050.htm

Consciousness is not required for the brain to process information.

[Z]

Um... so?

Was this news to you, Jay? I'm pretty sure this is more info we covered in high school biology, as well as in poli-sci.

Where, exactly, in the U.S. did you go to school?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Consciousness is not required for the brain to process information.

Yes, I knew that. No one disputed it, it seems to be new information only to you.

Please quote the passage in anything I referenced where it is stated Americans were being denied access to information by anything than their own personal actions. Or else admit you were incorrect.

[skepHick]

Afghanistan, Schmafghanistan. What I really want to locate is Joaquin Phoenix’s home address and phone number. I most certainly have been denied this information despite numerous attempts at obtaining it. I had previously thought this may merely be an effort on the part of his publicist, and others in his employ, to shield him from bothersome, delusional, and potentially dangerous obsessed fans (which, of course, doesn’t apply to me, as “they� will eventually realize.)

However, it has become apparent to me that this may be part of a vast government conspiracy to deny both my access to said information, and my inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, I now blame the government for not informing the object of my affections that I am the only woman for him, and that I would make him happy like no other. B@stards!

Oh, and about all that other relatively meaningless information, ditto what Pisci says. :clap:

ETA: JP, if "they" let you read this, call me. Please?

[ernon]

Originally posted by jay gw
Brainwashing:How do you know that your basic beliefs haven't been formed by something besides your conscious choices?

I guarantee they were formed for you by your parents and drilled into your brain until you were old enough to think for yourself.

The challange then becomes are you strong willed enough to overcome the programming if you desire to change something that goes against it. Not as easy as it sounds but worthwhile.

[jay gw]

Yes, I knew that

And which information did you use to arrive at that? That means the references.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
And which information did you use to arrive at that? That means the references.

The work of Rodney Brooks in Artificial Intelligence, specifically modeling human intelligence suggests that such conceptual entites as "consiousness" are nothing more that convenient fictions:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf
http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/brains.pdf
http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/group-AAAI-98.pdf

I would also refer you again to the article in the recent issue of Skeptic on this subject, "The concept of 'Mind' a myth?"

ETA:Mercutio can give much better ones than I, I'm sure, and these are just off the cuff.

As if you'd read them anyway.

[Piscivore]

Here's another, a book review by Dennett that summarises things:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/wagnerreview.htm

[jay gw]

The work of Rodney Brooks in Artificial Intelligence, specifically modeling human intelligence suggests that such conceptual entites as "consiousness" are nothing more that convenient fictions:

That's not what those studies are saying, they're dealing with artificial intelligence in trying to build robots that act like people. None of them are saying specifically that there is no such thing as human consciousness. How exactly do you disprove that humans are conscious? It just means awake not sleeping and aware of surroundings, that's the definition I used.

Brainwashing is possible with everyone because information does not have to be consciously taken in for the brain to use it. Anyone wanting to influence a crowd can introduce information and no one would be aware, at all, of it. You're not understanding what my points are.

Please quote the passage in anything I referenced where it is stated Americans were being denied access to information by anything than their own personal actions.

So "personal action" is why almost all Americans don't know the same set of facts about the outside world?

Hmmm

Interesting that actions that are supposed to be "personal" are in reality so......not personal.

Let's see the naked truth of what Piscivore is saying:

Professor Grayhair comes back from lunch. The results of the regression and other analyses are done. There were 5 variables being analyzed for prevalence in a population. The results were:

Variable 1 10 %
Variable 2 19 %
Variable 3 84 %
Variable 4 33 %
Variable 5 21%


Um......so the professor is going to say, "oh well, there's nothing of interest here! Gotta start over!!!"

Err, there's one variable that is present in OVER 80 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLE.

That is not due to random chance, something you don't know about because you wouldn't have said "personal action" was a cause of it. Personal action is the same thing as saying there is no pattern to anything it's all individuals "choosing" not to get the same information over and over and over and over......

Anybody with statistics software could have told you that those numbers and randomness are expected but it always has ranges. Yes it operates according to rules just like everything.

Over 80 percent of a properly chosen population sample sharing the same characteristic is not random. That's exactly like saying that 80 percent of the sample of women in London have breast cancer and it's due to random "personal action". Good grief!!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's not what those studies are saying, they're dealing with artificial intelligence in trying to build robots that act like people.

Right. And the experiments that used a cognitive model of human intelligence failed miserably, while the experiments that used a behavioural model have had some promising results. If you don't know what that means, look it up. You are allowed.

Originally posted by jay gw
None of them are saying specifically that there is no such thing as human consciousness.

Which is why I used the word "suggests." Get a dictionary next.

Originally posted by jay gw
How exactly do you disprove that humans are conscious? It just means awake not sleeping and aware of surroundings, that's the definition I used.

I didn't say I could "disprove that humans are conscious." I said the studies suggest the behaviourist model of human cognition is the correct one, which means that there is no such thing as "consciousness." Don't confuse the terms, even though they have a similar root. It is called "equivocation" and it is a particular peeve of mine.

Originally posted by jay gw
Brainwashing is possible with everyone because information does not have to be consciously taken in for the brain to use it.

While true, this does not mean that this information taken in will override the enculturation already present.

From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing) article on "Brainwashing":

"... experience showed that most people would change under pressure and would change back when the pressure was removed."


Originally posted by jay gw
Anyone wanting to influence a crowd can introduce information and no one would be aware, at all, of it. You're not understanding what my points are.

I do understand what your points are, I'm teling you they are worthless. If such control was possible and practiced, would you be able to even conceive of this conspiracy of yours? Wouldn't the evil gubbment conspiracy as a first step eliminate this specific piece of data?

Originally posted by jay gw
So "personal action" is why almost all Americans don't know the same set of facts about the outside world?

Now you are shifting goalposts. You said that Americans were uniformly ignorant of the same facts. This I showed was not true. I do not dispute that Americans are by and large generally ignorant.

And yes, To be so ignorant in this country- especially into adulthood- where the information is demonstrably available, results mostly from personal choice. Have you been to the library and tried to check out an atlas? Did they refuse you?

Incidentally, I asked my daughter to check something out for me. Her sixth grade Science and Social Studies classroom has 14 globes. All of them, save the two Physical Geography globes, display Afganistan (the girl knows where it is, Iraq also.) All but one of them display a post- Soviet breakup Central Europe, and that one is the teacher's personal globe from the fifties. There are also several atlases, and her textbook contains a current political world map.


Originally posted by jay gw
Hmmm

Interesting that actions that are supposed to be "personal" are in reality so......not personal.

You have failed to demonstrate this, or to provide any sort of support for your statement.


Originally posted by jay gw
Let's see the naked truth of what Piscivore is saying:

Professor Grayhair comes back from lunch. The results of the regression and other analyses are done. There were 5 variables being analyzed for prevalence in a population. The results were:

Variable 1 10 %
Variable 2 19 %
Variable 3 84 %
Variable 4 33 %
Variable 5 21%


Um......so the professor is going to say, "oh well, there's nothing of interest here! Gotta start over!!!"

Err, there's one variable that is present in OVER 80 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLE.

None of these imaginary nubers signify anything whatsoever. Why not stick to the actual numbers regarding the issue we are discussing, as I did?

Originally posted by jay gw
That is not due to random chance, something you don't know about because you wouldn't have said "personal action" was a cause of it.

What is not due to random chance? I didn't say "personal action" was the cause of anything to do with those numbers. And I never said anything was due to "random chance."

Originally posted by jay gw
Personal action is the same thing as saying there is no pattern to anything

No, regarding the actual data, it is saying there is a pattern of Americans choosing not to avail themselves of available resources. Resources it is VERY EASY to show are available.

Originally posted by jay gw
it's all individuals "choosing" not to get the same information over and over and over and over......

Yes.

Originally posted by jay gw
Anybody with statistics software could have told you that those numbers and randomness are expected but it always has ranges. Yes it operates according to rules just like everything.

What nubers, the ones I referenced or the nonsense ones you made up? What has this to do with anything? "Randomness" isn't any part of any argument I made.


Originally posted by jay gw
Over 80 percent of a properly chosen population sample sharing the same characteristic is not random.

I didn't claim they were random.

Originally posted by jay gw
That's exactly like saying that 80 percent of the sample of women in London have breast cancer and it's due to random "personal action". Good grief!!

I never said random. And absent a known cause, your cancer might be due to personal action. The women may have consumed a known carcinogen, or knowingly chose to remain in a hazardous environment. Your hypothetical does not give enough data to determine.

In the case of the subject we are actually discussing, it is very (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/11448/ref=br_bx_c_1_2/103-7798474-5908621) easy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afganistan) to eliminate (http://images.google.com/images?q=afghanistan+map&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en) "the evil gubbment is keeping the information away from Americans" as a causative factor.

[jay gw]

And yes, To be so ignorant in this country- especially into adulthood- where the information is demonstrably available, results mostly from personal choice.

Oh ok, then refresh my memory about what your definition of personal choice and personal action are.

I didn't say "personal action" was the cause of anything to do with those numbers. And I never said anything was due to "random chance."

But if it's not a pattern.... and it's not random..... then what is the phenomena in question? Do tell us.

Resources it is VERY EASY to show are available.

If the resources like books and maps are universally easy to find, then why are over 80 percent of Americans ignorant of the same set of facts?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Oh ok, then refresh my memory about what your definition of personal choice and personal action are.

"Personal choice" is an individual selecting between options. Like watching television vs. reading a book. Fundamentally, this is probably a deterministic event controlled by thousands of influences, but it appears and functions to the individual as "free will."

I refrained from using the word "choice," as you may notice. There are other factors involved than "choice."

ETA: I apologise, I did in fact mistakenly use the word "choice." What I should have said instead was "To be so ignorant in this country- especially into adulthood- where the information is demonstrably available, results mostly from personal action." From behaviours of individuals, not from active supression of information.

Personal action is an individual, um, acting. Doing something. Staying home. Going to the library.


Originally posted by jay gw
But if it's not a pattern.... and it's not random..... then what is the phenomena in question? Do tell us.

There clearly is a pattern. I never claimed there wasn't. I just have a different pattern in mind- which I am supporting- than you do. Which you are not supporting.

Let me be perfectly clear, so you don't get anymore confused than you obviously are. "A non-random pattern of Americans failing to utilise easily available informational resources most likely explains the survey result that shows ~80% of tested American schoolchildren could not locate Afghanistan on a map."

Do you understand that, skippy, or should I use smaller words?

Originally posted by jay gw
If the resources like books and maps are universally easy to find, then why are over 80 percent of Americans ignorant of the same set of facts?

Because they do not use those resources. Poverty, homelesness, substance abuse, and the pervading culture of ignorance are all factors in the "why" question, certainly- but the "how is it" isn't really in question. As I've shown over and over, the notion of anyone actively trying to supress the information is patently foolish.

Again I invite you, if you have any evidence at all that there is any governmental activity aimed at keeping this information out of American hands, I invite you to present it.


ETA: And I never said "universally" easy, either. You keep adding words to what I say. Stop it.

[Soapy Sam]

Can you be brainwashed , and still have a dirty mind?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Can you be brainwashed , and still have a dirty mind?

"I used to view internet pornography all night, but now thanks to new Tide Cranium Formula all my neurons are springtime fresh!" :D

[jay gw]

"Personal choice" is an individual selecting between options. Like watching television vs. reading a book. Fundamentally, this is probably a deterministic event controlled by thousands of influences, but it appears and functions to the individual as "free will."

So in other words over 50 million free willed people are ignorant of the same set of facts about the outside world, and it's the result of them, freely willed as they are, of making the choice to be ignorant of those same facts?


Is that what I should expect from looking at millions of free willed and "personally choosing" people?

If personal choice means selecting between options, what are the options and why are Americans choosing the same one?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
So in other words over 50 million free willed people are ignorant of the same set of facts about the outside world, and it's the result of them, freely willed as they are, of making the choice to be ignorant of those same facts?

There are technical nits to pick there, but essentially, yes.

Do you have evidence otherwise?

Originally posted by jay gw
Is that what I should expect from looking at millions of free willed and "personally choosing" people?

Expectation has ass-all to do with it. That's what the evidence indicates.

Originally posted by jay gw
If personal choice means selecting between options, what are the options and why are Americans choosing the same one?

Being ignorant and being educated.

Lazyness plays a part. It is a lot easier to remain ignorant and opinionated then it is to actually learn something- which is one reason science barely holds its own against religion.

Poverty plays a part. There are school districts that are underfunded and have insufficient materials- but this doesn't excuse the adult. And there would have to be evidence shown that this is something deliberate on the part of the evil gubbment.

Got any?

The biggest reason, in my opinion, is the fact that education is selected against in our culture. If all one's co-workers talk about reality shows and pop stars around the water cooler, or gossip about their personal lives, or argue about sports scores, there is very little social pressure towards acquiring information outside those spheres, and a lot of pressure against it. Eventually the body of necessary cultural literacy within a social system contracts. It has been contracting in most social arena in this country for decades.

[Piscivore]

Here is some documentation for what I said:
http://chronicle.com/free/2004/07/2004070901n.htm
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Research/televisionabstracts.html
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/about/CommonKnowledge/v18III_2005/v18III_2005_Cultural_Illiteracy.htm

[jay gw]

One of your links basically blames television, the other blames multiculturalism for taking out Western classics from schools.

I agree that too much tv means people don't read, but the multiculturalism, anti White Western culture part is dubious.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
One of your links basically blames television, the other blames multiculturalism for taking out Western classics from schools.

I agree that too much tv means people don't read,

So you concede then that it is Americans' actions that are causing their ignorance, not lack of access?

Originally posted by jay gw
but the multiculturalism, anti White Western culture part is dubious.

E.D. Hirsch is noted for his somewhat reactionary position on history, but the point still holds- most Americans' interest and education has become dilitued.

Have you found those documents illustrating the evil gubbment conspiracy yet?

[jay gw]

So you concede then that it is Americans' actions that are causing their ignorance, not lack of access?

You've done nothing but state that over 80 percent of people making the same decision to be ignorant of the same set of facts about the outside world is due to personal choice and there is no other explanation that would fit.

All I've done is state it's a phenomena and that all of these Americans happen to attend to the same government controlled school system. I never used the word 'conspiracy' or anything close to it.

[Z]

If you say it's got scales and gills and fins and swims around a lot, you don't have to name it a fish.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
You've done nothing but state that over 80 percent of people making the same decision to be ignorant of the same set of facts about the outside world is due to personal choice and there is no other explanation that would fit.

No, I said that personal action seems to be the best explanation, not the only one possible. All this time, I've asked you to present evidence to the contrary, but all you do is attempt to twist my statements in a particularly amaturish manner.

Originally posted by jay gw
All I've done is state it's a phenomena and that all of these Americans happen to attend to the same government controlled school system. I never used the word 'conspiracy' or anything close to it.

You've produced no evidence that the ~80% of undereducated American schoolchildren is entirely composed of the 85% that attend public schools. Some of them may come from the 10% that attend private school, or the 5% of those homeschooled.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[jay gw]

No, I said that personal action seems to be the best explanation, not the only one possible.

What are the alternate explanations?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
What are the alternate explanations?

Anything the human imagination can conceive. Aliens in charge of the phone company are dumbing us down. Flouride in the water. An increase in underage drinking. Better medicine is allowing "stupid" people to breed faster than "smart" people. A paranoid government is trying to keep the populous dumb and complacent. The French are doing it as a final expression of their snootyness. There's something in the cheese. LSD use in the 60's caused a error to enter the gene pool. The Illuminati is doing it as part of one of their elaborate plans fnord. Cosmic rays are filtering in through the thinning ozone. Carbon Monoxide pollution. Corporations are trying to turn us into robotic consumers. Major League Baseball doesn't want anyone to care about the world outside the US. Everyone is psychically picking up on the fact that Cthulhu is soon going to rise and devour us all, so there's no point to learning. Sexual mores have become relaxed, so kids are f:Ding instead of studying. The dead from previous centuries are posessing people en masse and they don't understand what they didn't already know. Al Queda agents are sabotaging our education system. Canadian agents are sabotaging our education system. Jessica Simpson is just that compelling an entertainer.

I could go on for days. And we could find evidence to support any of these hypotheses. What we have to look at is the evidence that might disprove any of them.

[jay gw]

So alien invasions and carbon monoxide poisoning have support as alternate explanations for why millions of people are ignorant of facts about the outside world?

[Z]

Originally posted by jay gw
So alien invasions and carbon monoxide poisoning have support as alternate explanations for why millions of people are ignorant of facts about the outside world?

As much support as a huge government conspiracy or deliberate brainwashing plot does.

Fact: Many people are fairly ignorant about events that do not directly influence them.
Fact: Most people, for whatever reason, trust the media to present moderately, if not completely, accurate tellings of current events.
Fact: Most people are too lazy to bother to learn more, unless they have a personal or professional interest in the topic.
Fact: The information is there if people really want to find it. The Internet has certainly made that possible, even if some public libraries maintain biased catalogues (and some do, but not many).
Theory: Just as many people are clueless about events in other STATES as they are about events in other COUNTRIES. Probably nearly as many as are clueless about current scientific theories, the political situation in the Capitol (the in-depth situation), how the economy works, what quantum theory is all about, what scientology is really about, etc. etc.
Question: Were these kids asked in a situation where they had the opportunity to look up the answer, or was it cold-questioning in some set environment? My guess is that a majority of these kids could have come up with the right answer inside of ten minutes if they had internet access, half an hour with a decent school library. That's the nature of modern American society: you don't need to learn by heart what you can look up. No more classes by rote, no more 'knowing' the capitals of the former Soviet Union countries, etc.
In my opinion, if Americans are less knowledgable than other countries, the primary reasons are: a) apathy about things that do not directly concern them; b) indulgence in pop-culture and commercial icons; c) poor parenting; d) having greater access to more information faster than most other countries, thereby requiring us to 'know' less.

As an example, I'm not a mechanic. If you ask me what some gadget is in an engine, you're bound to get back a blank stare. But over the course of the last decade, I've replaced water pumps, air conditioners, radiators, alternators, fuel pumps, and a slew of things I can't remember the names of. All perfectly successfully, and all based entirely on knowledge I didn't have. All I did was find the knowledge and study it for as long as I needed it. If you were to ask me now, for example, how to change a water pump, I couldn't begin to tell you; but if I had to do it, I certainly could.

If you ask a kid on the street to point to a map - marked or unmarked - and identify Afghanistan, no, most can't do it. (I think it's weird that they can't do so on an unmarked map, but I've seen examples of that myself.) But if you tell a kid in a typical modern American classroom to tell you about Afghanistan in one week, I bet more than half can give you pretty good thumbnail reports on the country.

Considering that the human brain only holds a limited amount of knowledge, I'd rather have it that way anyway.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
So alien invasions and carbon monoxide poisoning have support as alternate explanations for why millions of people are ignorant of facts about the outside world?

If one wanted to, one could find facts that appear to support any hypothesis, especially if one ignores contradictory evidence. This is what as known as "cherry picking."

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
d) having greater access to more information faster than most other countries, thereby requiring us to 'know' less.

That's a really good point.

[jay gw]

If one wanted to, one could find facts that appear to support any hypothesis, especially if one ignores contradictory evidence.

You haven't provided any contradictory evidence for my points that Americans are ignorant of the same facts about the outside world and that they attend government controlled schools. The second part of that being that the causes, which I say are not unintentional or accidental or because millions of people make the same choice.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
The second part of that being that the causes, which I say are not unintentional or accidental or because millions of people make the same choice.


And the "second part of that" is exactly the issue under discussion, for which you have provided no support other than your own personal say-so.

At the risk of exposing you to greater ridicule than usual, this is rather akin to your saying

Originally almost posted by jay_gw
You haven't provided any contradictory evidence for my point that American are paying higher prices for their gasoline. The second part of that being that the causes, which I say are millions of trained Al-Qaeda ninja squirrels drinking the gasoline out of the refinery tanks.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
You haven't provided any contradictory evidence for my points that Americans are ignorant of the same facts about the outside world and that they attend government controlled schools.

Well, as you've phrased it differently yet again, let me sum up:
The first time you said that :

"Americans are uniformly ignorant about the same facts," and "Americans uniformly attend government controlled schools, around 90 percent or so, maybe up to 95 percent," Both of which I showed were untrue.

Then you focused on "Meaning over 80 percent of Americans can't find the country they're at war with on a map." which is essentially what the NG article said, and I agreed with. You seem to think, however, that this means these 80% that share the same ignorance of this particular datum implys they are "unifomly ignorant of the same facts," which is not indicated in the article at all. We have no way of knowing from the information presented what facts these students may or may not be ignorant of.

Similarly, there is no data except coincidental percentages linking the poor survey results with public school attendance. From the information presented, there is no way to determine which sort of school the respondants were attending, or if they were attending school at all.

Now you are back to saying "Americans are ignorant of the same facts about the outside world" when all you have presented is data they are ignorant of one fact.

You are leaping at conclusions unsupported by the data like a starving dingo at a nursery school picnic. I don't feel I need any specific point of data to make that more obvious.

Originally posted by jay gw
The second part of that being that the causes, which I say are not unintentional or accidental or because millions of people make the same choice.

As you like to re-word your own statements, you like to re-word mine. I never said anything about "unintentional" or "accidental." And I still never said "random."

You said: "You don't need to crudely ban information for it to be the marginalized information and denied to anyone and kept in the shadows where no one sees it," and I showed you it is not marginalised, it is not denied anyone, and it is right out in the open for anyone who wants it.

And what Dr. K said.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by jay gw


Researchers say the findings add to previous evidence that extended stages of word processing occur in the brain even in the absence of consciousness.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/106/108050.htm

Consciousness is not required for the brain to process information.

I can't resist taking this moment to suggest reading "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, he gives a overview of all the interesting non-consciousness processing that goes on.

The last issue of the Skeptic gave it a glowing review. :)

[jay gw]

Well, as you've phrased it differently yet again, let me sum up:

It's not phrased differently, it all means the same thing, that Americans are ignorant of the same facts and that the students - the majority of them - attend government controlled schools.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
It's not phrased differently, it all means the same thing, that Americans are ignorant of the same facts and that the students - the majority of them - attend government controlled schools.

And, and,... they all breathe oxygen, too! Obviously, oxygen must cause ignorance!

And, and,... they mostly all eat beef! Clearly, eating beef must cause attendance at government-controlled schools! And breathing oxygen! And ignorance! And really lame, ill-thought-out posts!

Hint: Correlation does not imply causation. And you haven't even shown correlation.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
It's not phrased differently, it all means the same thing, that Americans are ignorant of the same facts and that the students - the majority of them - attend government controlled schools.

Originally posted by Piscivore
Now you are back to saying "Americans are ignorant of the same facts about the outside world" when all you have presented is data they are ignorant of one fact.



Can I surmise by your example that all students that attended your school are uniformly illiterate by your lone example? Can I surmise that you are as ignorant of maths as you are of English?

Read my previous post again. Then re-read Dr. K's I'll explain the big words to you if you just ask.

[jay gw]

Hint: Correlation does not imply causation. And you haven't even shown correlation.

Are you talking to me or Piscivore, who said that Americans are "choosing" to be ignorant of the same facts and he knows this because.....they're all Americans!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Are you talking to me or Piscivore, who said that Americans are "choosing" to be ignorant of the same facts and he knows this because.....they're all Americans!

OMFE- are you really that desperate to hang on to this point?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
Are you talking to me or Piscivore?

I'm talking to anyone who believes, states, or suggests that correlation implies causation. If you want to put that shoe on and loudly proclaim that it fits, go ahead. Otherwise, you might want to simply keep quiet.

[jay gw]

Here is my tentative explanation for why Americans are ignorant of the same set of facts

1. They're ignorant of the same facts.
2. Those facts are supposed to be taught in school but haven't been.
3. They go to government controlled schools.
4. There's a pattern of people going to government controlled schools being ignorant of facts about the outside world.

and here's Piscivore's explanation:

1. They're ignorant of the same facts.
2. They're all Americans.
3. They're ignorant from eating chips and watching Jessica Simpson instead of reading books.
4. The end.

You have made no connections whatsoever, except ludicrous and ridiculous ones, between any of the facts, so I'll stick to mine for now.......thanks anyway.

And to boot, I haven't even asked the BOMBSHELL question of Piscivore and the others who see no connections:

Why does a country have a culture of watching television and getting fat instead of getting educated?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
Here is my tentative explanation for why Americans are ignorant of the same set of facts

1. They're ignorant of the same facts.
2. Those facts are supposed to be taught in school but haven't been.
3. They go to government controlled schools.
4. There's a pattern of people going to government controlled schools being ignorant of facts about the outside world.


None of which are established.




You have made no connections whatsoever, except ludicrous and ridiculous ones, between any of the facts, so I'll stick to mine for now.......thanks anyway.

All right, here are some new facts for you to chew on.

1. A survey indicates that a large proportion of Americans are ignorant of a specific fact.
2. There is no evidence that this indicates that Americans are ignorant of facts in general.
3. Demographic data indicates that a large proportion of Americans are educated in government-controlled schools.
4. There is no evidence that suggests that this large proportion contains the same individuals who are ignorant of the specific fact discussed in the first observation.

[jay gw]

1. A survey indicates that a large proportion of Americans are ignorant of a specific fact.

No the information shows they are ignorant of a set of facts, specifically about the outside world.


2. There is no evidence that this indicates that Americans are ignorant of facts in general.

Nobody said they were.

3. Demographic data indicates that a large proportion of Americans are educated in government-controlled schools.

Yes.

4. There is no evidence that suggests that this large proportion contains the same individuals who are ignorant of the specific fact discussed in the first observation.

Since the survey was given to random samples of people in addition to some selected samples, yes it can. The samples are representative of the population at large.

The surveys that have been conducted now for over 5 years on Americans, South Koreans, Swedes and 10 nations or so, are done by going street to street and interviewing them face to face.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/download/RoperSurvey.pdf

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw

Since the survey was given to random samples of people in addition to some selected samples, yes it can. The samples are representative of the population at large.


Tragically, simplistically, and utterly false.

How do you know, for example, that the population doesn't break down as follows:

15% people educated in non-goverment methods, ignorant of the facts under discussion
65% people educated by the government, ignorant of the facts under discussion
20% people educated by the government, knowledgeable of the facts under discussion

This would produce the same distribution, yet it actually shows that people educated by the government are substantially less likely to be ignorant.

[jay gw]

This would produce the same distribution, yet it actually shows that people educated by the government are substantially less likely to be ignorant.

Any way the percentages come out it's still showing that government school educated people are likely to be ignorant of facts about the outside world.

By the way, wouldn't it REALLY be ugly and obvious if the elite school students were much more knowledgable about the world? I bet that's what the data shows too.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by jay gw
Any way the percentages come out it's still showing that government school educated people are likely to be ignorant of facts about the outside world.

By the way, wouldn't it REALLY be ugly and obvious if the elite school students were much more knowledgable about the world? I bet that's what the data shows too. Not to belabor new drkitten's point about correlation and causation, but wouldn't it really be ugly and obvious if the schools which are allowed to recruit students based on prior academic performance, and which are allowed to kick students out if they do not meet their standards, would test better than schools which are required to admit everyone? (of course, we do not know that this is the case, merely that you would bet that it is.)

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by jay gw
Here is my tentative explanation for why Americans are ignorant of the same set of facts

1. They're ignorant of the same facts.
2. Those facts are supposed to be taught in school but haven't been.

You haven't shown that they aren't being taught in government controlled schools. You've stated that people who've been through the public school system are ignorant of those facts, but haven't shown that they are any more ignorant of them than anyone else.
All this says is that if they are being taught they aren't being remembered by the majority of students.
If you gave me a tenth grade math test I'd probably fail it now, but that's not because they didn't teach math in my school, or even that I was a bad math student. I just don't remember half of what was taught.

3. They go to government controlled schools.
4. There's a pattern of people going to government controlled schools being ignorant of facts about the outside world.
There's a pattern of people not going to government controlled schools and being ignorant of those same facts.
There, I just made the same assumptions you are, and came to a completely different conclusion.
By the way, if that conclusion of mine, which is just as well supported by the data as yours, turns out to be true, what does it say about your conclusion that it's the government that's causing this ignorance?

It could mean one of a number of things:
1. This has nothing to do with the government but is a cultural phenomenon with multiple causes.
2. The government as well as private schools are both causing this ignorance for their separate nefarious purposes, the private schools are just better at it.
3. The government is controlling private schools and making sure that they don't teach these facts.
4. Quite a few other explanations.


and here's Piscivore's explanation:

1. They're ignorant of the same facts.
2. They're all Americans.
3. They're ignorant from eating chips and watching Jessica Simpson instead of reading books.
4. The end.

You have made no connections whatsoever, except ludicrous and ridiculous ones, between any of the facts, so I'll stick to mine for now.......thanks anyway.
You've also made no connections except unsupported ones between the "facts" that are really only your own assumptions. I'll stick to "needs more investigation" for now, thanks.

[jay gw]

You've stated that people who've been through the public school system are ignorant of those facts, but haven't shown that they are any more ignorant of them than anyone else.

The test was for students. You need to read the whole study before going on.

but haven't shown that they are any more ignorant of them than anyone else.

It's not relevant to this issue if another group is more ignorant than students are. And the surveys of all Americans show the same results anyway.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
And the surveys of all Americans show the same results anyway.

And of course, you have links and evidence to back this up... Oh, right. :rolleyes:

[jay gw]

Is there any reason why someone's religion can be accurately predicted by their family and geography?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Is there any reason why someone's religion can be accurately predicted by their family and geography?

What has that to do with this discussion?

[jay gw]

What has that to do with this discussion?

Everything. Why can someone's religion be predicted accurately just by knowing their family's religion and what part of the world they live in? It's because of influences.

Are religious influences the only kind of mass influence?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Everything. Why can someone's religion be predicted accurately just by knowing their family's religion and what part of the world they live in? It's because of influences.

Are religious influences the only kind of mass influence?

Are you now trying to claim that religions are trying to keep Americans from knowing where Afghanistan is?

And someone's religion cannot be "predicted accurately" just by knowing their family's religion and what part of the world they live in.

You can make an educated guess, but you do stand a chance- often times a very good chance- of being wrong. The many, many persons on this board who were raised in some faith or another and are now atheist or agnostic are proof of that.

Tell you what- tell me what religion my cousin is. She was born and raised Methodist in Phoenix, AZ. The predominant faiths are Catholicism, Mormonism, and various flavours of Protestantism. Her family was mid- to upper-middle-class. College educated. In her 40's now. Lives in California. I dare you.

Is your whole worldview based on these naive and simplistic assumptions? Why don't you try actually learning something? Outside of Iacchus and Lifegazer I've not conversed with very many people as consistantly and demonstrably wrong as you.

[jay gw]

And someone's religion cannot be "predicted accurately" just by knowing their family's religion and what part of the world they live in.

Then why is Saudi Arabia 99 percent Muslim?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Then why is Saudi Arabia 99 percent Muslim?

It isn't. Officially, it is 100% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia):
Exact religious demographics for Saudi Arabia are difficult to calculate, because the government reports 100% of citizens as Muslim. The exit and entry visa cards ask applicants for their religious affiliation and officially bans entry to atheists, Jews, or anyone with an official stamp from the State of Israel.

ETA: I'd better elaborate, because you are thick. Obviously, you feel that the official figure is incorrect, or you would have parroted the 100% figure, as it better suits your point. Regardless of whether you just guessed at a percentage without doing any research (which is most likely) or if you thought that the offical figure was spurious and you attempted to correct (without having any means of determining the exact percentage, meaning you still just pulled a number out of your ass), going by your wild-ass guesstimate you would still have a 1% chance of being incorrect if you simply said "Saudi citizen = Muslim". It's a good way to bet, but no guarantee of accuracy.

Given that VERY FEW nations have such policies, you CANNOT "determine accurately" an individual's religion based on their country of origin. You do have a better chance of being right in certain countries, but that's a far cry from a universally applicable principle. Anyway:

What has that to do with Americans finding (or not) Afghanistan on a map?

Can you tell me (or not) what my cousin's religion is?

[jay gw]

Other breakdowns from the poll indicate that people who attend church regularly will probably vote Republican by a 2-1 margin (63% to 37%) -- and the reverse is true: those who never do to church likely will vote Democratic by a 2-1 margin (62% to 38%). The director of the Pew survey says that gap is the widest ever between the two major political parties.

In a Knight Ridder News article about the research results, one political scholar says religion is "THE most powerful predictor" of party identification and partisan voting intention.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/12003a.asp

Basically the Republican party is White and Christian. I wonder how that happened?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Other breakdowns from the poll

What poll?

Originally posted by jay gw
indicate that people who attend church regularly will probably vote Republican by a 2-1 margin (63% to 37%) -- and the reverse is true: those who never do to church likely will vote Democratic by a 2-1 margin (62% to 38%).

None of which means you can point at any individual American and determine with certainty his or her political affiliation just by his church attendance.

I'm an atheist- tell my what my voter ID says my party is, and for whom I voted in the last presidential election, which primary I voted in, and for whom.

After that, tell me about my cousin, or admit you are full of Rule 8.

Originally posted by jay gw
The director of the Pew survey says that gap is the widest ever between the two major political parties.

So?

Originally posted by jay gw
In a Knight Ridder News article about the research results, one political scholar says religion is "THE most powerful predictor" of party identification and partisan voting intention.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/afa/12003a.asp

"Powerful predictor." Not unerring determiner. Not unfalible indicator. Answer my question, how do I vote?

Originally posted by jay gw
Basically the Republican party is White and Christian. I wonder how that happened?

I wonder what you think this has to do with 80% of American schoolchildren not finding Afghanistan on a map.

[jay gw]

I wonder what you think this has to do with 80% of American schoolchildren not finding Afghanistan on a map.

Maybe it should have been clearer. It's another illustration of how populations start displaying the same behaviors.

Since you have so many answers: Why aren't Muslims and Buddhists randomly scattered throughout the world?

Here's the difference between Piscivore and my hypothesis as to why:

Piscivore: Religions are not randomly scattered because individuals decided to join the religion and it just so happens they live together.

JayGW: Religions are not randomly scattered because individuals are pressured to adopt identical beliefs and this extends to everything besides religion.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Maybe it should have been clearer. It's another illustration of how populations start displaying the same behaviors.

Since you have so many answers: Why aren't Muslims and Buddhists randomly scattered throughout the world?

Here's the difference between Piscivore and my hypothesis as to why:

Piscivore: Religions are not randomly scattered because individuals decided to join the religion and it just so happens they live together.

JayGW: Religions are not randomly scattered because individuals are pressured to adopt identical beliefs and this extends to everything besides religion.

Why don't you let me answer the question, instead of answering it for me?

Just for starters, the two religions are scattered, but not randomly. There are Buddhists and Muslims in Canada, Mexico, UK, Australia, anywhere in the world you might care to look. The religion goes along with the people who espose it when they emigrate. Were you aware that there was a large population of Buddhist and Confucian people in the western US in the late 19th Century? You seem to have the relationship of people to their religion inversed- people are the carriers of religion, religion does not sort out the people.

Yes, there is some heterogenous clustering when it comes to the religious affiliations of populations, but this has far more to do with the centuries of cultural development during periods wherein the methods of travel and communication were severly limited, and only partialy to do with enforced conformity.

While it is true that there is often social pressure to conform to the status quo, it isn't that often that this pressure is institutionalised, and even when it is, it is often not that effective. There were still Jews in Spain after the Inquisition was over, still Loyalists in the US after the Revolution, still Catholics in Ireland after Cromwell, still Jews in Germany after the "Final Solution," still Communists in America after McCarthy... well, you get the point.

As I've said over and over, this pressure is but a single factor in this very complex equation, and not always the most signifigant one. Are you starting to detect the pattern in the replies you are getting? The world is not a fraction so simple as you seem to want it.

ETA: In any case, even showing that this pressure existed, was prevelant, and was somehow aimed at supressing the location of Afghanistan, the fact that the information is readily available would mean that it just wasn't effective. So you're chasing your point up the wrong tree for no reason. The fact that the information is readily available means that all the hypothesising and reality-twisting you are trying to do to support your idea is worthless, because no matter what agent you come up with as the perpatrator of your alleged supression- it is clearly not working.

And the very fact you cannot tell me what religion my cousin is, or what my voting record is, demonstrates that this latest round of your guesses as to the nature of this malevolent and shadowy "influence" you seek are complete horsesh[Rule 8].

Next.


FETA: Sorry, no easy way to post this in "pirate." Arr.

[jay gw]

While it is true that there is often social pressure to conform to the status quo,

"Often" there is social pressure? Please name the society that never exerts any pressure. Discuss it in detail.

[Piscivore]

Your ineptitude is like candy. :D

Originally posted by jay gw
"Often" there is social pressure? Please name the society that never exerts any pressure. Discuss it in detail.

I didn't say that there exists a society in which there is never ever any sort of social pressure whatsoever, ever. You cannot just pick out a few words from a sentence and construct your own meaning out of them.

Well, obviously you can, but not if you want to maintain any pretense at attempting to communicate.

I said " there is often social pressure to conform to the status quo." I also said "this pressure is but a single factor in this very complex equation, and not always the most signifigant one." There are lots of different social pressures, not just one, in all the colours of the rainbow. And then there are economic and biological and environmental pressures. There are a myriad of influences affecting an organism's behavior, and trying to pick out just one and making it the prime mover in an individual's life is grossly naive and laughably ignorant.

Most of the people still bothering to read this farce would also understand that every member of a society does not experience the same pressures to the same degrees as his fellows, a point that obviously escapes you.

I further said that this pressure rarely comes from institutional sources. Getting back to our original discussion, the social pressure leading a child to watch television instead of reading does not come from jack-booted government thugs with automatic weapons, it comes from the child's peers.

Why don't you actually read the whole post before opening your noise tube next time? Reading comprehension is fun!

[Jorghnassen]

How do I know I'm not brainwashed? Well, my brain is full of dirty thoughts...

/sorry, but I had to say it.