Anti-intellectualism in America

[MJC]

Ran across a good article that I thought I'd share. I bolded the parts I thought were interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

The Dumbing Of America
Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces


"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.


This is the last subject that any candidate would dare raise on the long and winding road to the White House. It is almost impossible to talk about the manner in which public ignorance contributes to grave national problems without being labeled an "elitist," one of the most powerful pejoratives that can be applied to anyone aspiring to high office. Instead, our politicians repeatedly assure Americans that they are just "folks," a patronizing term that you will search for in vain in important presidential speeches before 1980. (Just imagine: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.") Such exaltations of ordinariness are among the distinguishing traits of anti-intellectualism in any era.

The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture.

Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.

First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels.

Reading has declined not only among the poorly educated, according to a report last year by the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1982, 82 percent of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later, only 67 percent did. And more than 40 percent of Americans under 44 did not read a single book -- fiction or nonfiction -- over the course of a year. The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games.

Does all this matter? Technophiles pooh-pooh jeremiads about the end of print culture as the navel-gazing of (what else?) elitists. In his book "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," the science writer Steven Johnson assures us that we have nothing to worry about. Sure, parents may see their "vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouths agape, at the screen." But these zombie-like characteristics "are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus." Balderdash. The real question is what toddlers are screening out, not what they are focusing on, while they sit mesmerized by videos they have seen dozens of times.

Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos.

I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events. It is not surprising, for example, that less has been heard from the presidential candidates about the Iraq war in the later stages of the primary campaign than in the earlier ones, simply because there have been fewer video reports of violence in Iraq. Candidates, like voters, emphasize the latest news, not necessarily the most important news.

No wonder negative political ads work. "With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker. "A comparison of two video reports, on the other hand, is cumbersome. Forced to choose between conflicting stories on television, the viewer falls back on hunches, or on what he believed before he started watching."

As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.

The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.

People accustomed to hearing their president explain complicated policy choices by snapping "I'm the decider" may find it almost impossible to imagine the pains that Franklin D. Roosevelt took, in the grim months after Pearl Harbor, to explain why U.S. armed forces were suffering one defeat after another in the Pacific. In February 1942, Roosevelt urged Americans to spread out a map during his radio "fireside chat" so that they might better understand the geography of battle. In stores throughout the country, maps sold out; about 80 percent of American adults tuned in to hear the president. FDR had told his speechwriters that he was certain that if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies had to travel to the armed forces, "they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin."

This is a portrait not only of a different presidency and president but also of a different country and citizenry, one that lacked access to satellite-enhanced Google maps but was far more receptive to learning and complexity than today's public. According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."

That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge. The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place. Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism. The toxic brew of anti-rationalism and ignorance hurts discussions of U.S. public policy on topics from health care to taxation.

There is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism; rote efforts to raise standardized test scores by stuffing students with specific answers to specific questions on specific tests will not do the job. Moreover, the people who exemplify the problem are usually oblivious to it. ("Hardly anyone believes himself to be against thought and culture," Hofstadter noted.) It is past time for a serious national discussion about whether, as a nation, we truly value intellect and rationality. If this indeed turns out to be a "change election," the low level of discourse in a country with a mind taught to aim at low objects ought to be the first item on the change agenda.


So does anybody else besides me (and the author of the article) think anti-intellectualism is a serious problem? I think it has a hugely negative effect on public discourse (as well as policy and some other things).

[Michael P]

Generally, one credits the author and links to the original article, rather than posting the thing whole hog with no reference.

As to the article itself, while anti-intellectualism is certainly a problem, she makes the usual fallacy of placing the blame solely on the shoulders of the new generation and new media. The truth is, Americans above the age she quotes are just as likely to avoid reading and be ignorant of basic geography, world history, and other important subjects. By ignoring this and focusing on the young, she just comes off as another cranky "You damn kids, get off my lawn" pundit.

She also clearly hasn't read "Everything Bad is Good For You."

[BoosterBronze]

Generally, one credits the author and links to the original article, rather than posting the thing whole hog with no reference.

Don't be such an effete intelectual. It's on a screen. Beleive it.

[MJC]

Generally, one credits the author and links to the original article, rather than posting the thing whole hog with no reference.

Sorry, I deleted some stuff trying to get it down to 10000 characters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

The author is Susan Jacoby.

[Michael P]

Sorry, I deleted some stuff trying to get it down to 10000 characters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

The author is Susan Jacoby.

Well, you shouldn't do that, either. That misrepresents the whole thing.

[MJC]

Well, you shouldn't do that, either. That misrepresents the whole thing.


I didn't actually delete any text from within the article. Just stuff like names and titles.

My bad though.

[BoosterBronze]

Well, you shouldn't do that, either. That misrepresents the whole thing.

Stop being such a snob. If you get a chance, summarize the whole thing and post a Twitter message about it for me. :)

[BoosterBronze]

As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.

That's scary. I don't even think you can say one decent sentece in 8 seconds.

(but it does give me the idea that politicians should have to debate while riding bucking bulls)

[Ray R.]

Fallacious, anecdotal, grammatically suspect, full of distracting asides, and eager to jump to unfounded conclusions.

In short, a badly written opinion piece apparently warning against the dangers of not, among other ambiguous boogymen, investing enough time reading badly written opinion pieces.

How ironical.

[BoosterBronze]

Where does America gets its contempt for 'book learning' anyways? People attacked Al Gore for his movie, not necessarily taking issue with the facts and charts he used, but mocking him for using charts and facts. It can't entirely be the fault of videogames. Coudl it have soemthing to do with 1950s Sci-Fi movies, where an ineffectural scientist always made the wrong choices until a square jawed WASP man of action just up and saved the day?

[BoosterBronze]

Fallacious, anecdotal, grammatically suspect, full of distracting asides, and eager to jump to unfounded conclusions.

In short, a badly written opinion piece apparently warning against the dangers of not, among other ambiguous boogymen, investing enough time reading badly written opinion pieces.

So do you disagree that America in general has an anti-intellectual streak, or do you just take issue with this particular piece?

[Agent Helix]

The WASP man of action was almost always a scientist himself in those movies.

[MJC]

What I wasn't aware of was how Roosevelt chose to justify his foreign policy decisions to the American people. I knew about his "fireside chats" but I didn't know he actually asked people to buy maps and explained the geography of the battle over the radio.

Could you see Dubya or any other recent president doing this (granted, we have TVs now, but still...)?

It seems like politicians these days either feel that Americans are too stupid to understand things in detail, or they don't themselves. We mostly get vague catchphrases.

[BoosterBronze]

The WASP man of action was almost always a scientist himself in those movies.

On second thought you're right. But there were also almost always an ineffectual scientist who wanted to hee and haw ane not deal with the problem as well. He usually had a beard.

[Shellhead]

For a few years after high school, I stayed in touch with a couple of my favorite teachers. One was my Spanish teacher (first and third year), a really smart and cynical lady who once loaned me A Canticle for Leibowitz, a great book.

Anyway, she had an interesting theory about declining attention spans. When I was in her class, she noticed that students seemed to have an attention span of less than fifteen minutes, which she thought was probably in synch with the frequency of network tv commericals. A couple of years after I graduated, she was noticing ridiculously short attention spans, which she believed was due to the rising popularity of the tv remote control. Today, internet users have an insane number of "channels" to surf, possibly leading to even shorter attention spans.

But that may not be the whole story. America as a nation may have unusually strong tendencies towards do-it-yourself stuff, as most of our ancestors came here from far away for the freedom and the opportunity to succeed. So we may have innate tendencies towards doing stuff as opposed to sitting around thinking and talking about stuff.

[BoosterBronze]

What I wasn't aware of how Roosevelt chose to justify his foreign policy decisions to the American people. I knew about his "fireside chats" but I didn't know he actually asked people to buy maps and explained the geography of the battle over the radio.

Could you see Dubya or any other recent president doing this (granted, we have TVs now, but still...).

I was 11 at the time, but I remember Ross Perot sitting down with graphs and charts and tryingt to explain complicated fiscal matters.

[MJC]

I was 11 at the time, but I remember Ross Perot sitting down with graphs and charts and tryingt to explain complicated fiscal matters.

I'm too young to remember that, but it sounds pretty cool. It would be nice if our current candidates did something like that. Especially with our current financial issues.

[Ray R.]

When you need to blame, blame "those people."

You know, the ones who can't find the U.S.A. on a map. The idiots who can't walk and chew gum. The morons who defiantly see learning as either a waste of time or indoctrination.

And "those people" play video games, surf the Internet, watch TV, and probably read comics too. And there are tons of 'em, because look how much money is spent.

"Those people" are destroying this country, and not voting or are voting for the wrong people because they're dumb and don't read.

I love generalizations so broad you can drive a truck through them. Things like moderation, balanced thinking, and complex motives just don't show up in the polling results, so let's forge on without 'em.

Here's a generalization: alarmists have a personal financial interest in ringing alarm bells because naysaying is inherently more interesting (and hence more marketable) than acknowledging that most things and people are mediocre no matter what they read, watch or say and thereby sample within the bell curve.

[Agent Helix]

When you need to blame, blame "those people."

You know, the ones who can't find the U.S.A. on a map. The idiots who can't walk and chew gum. The morons who defiantly see learning as either a waste of time or indoctrination.

And "those people" play video games, surf the Internet, watch TV, and probably read comics too. And there are tons of 'em, because look how much money is spent.

"Those people" are destroying this country, and not voting or are voting for the wrong people because they're dumb and don't read.

I love generalizations so broad you can drive a truck through them. Things like moderation, balanced thinking, and complex motives just don't show up in the polling results, so let's forge on without 'em.

Here's a generalization: alarmists have a personal financial interest in ringing alarm bells because naysaying is inherently more interesting (and hence more marketable) than acknowledging that most things and people are mediocre no matter what they read, watch or say and thereby sample within the bell curve.

too long didn't read

[Ray R.]

So do you disagree that America in general has an anti-intellectual streak, or do you just take issue with this particular piece?

They've been talking about America's anti-intellectual streak since the Pilgrims landed. Those were true anti-intellectuals, let me tell you.

Yet, the United States tends to lead or shares the lead with the world in technological innovations, research and development, and information collection and dissemination.

That's a seemingly incongruous achievement if we're populated primarily by fat, lazy morons.

But the bitching goes hand-in-hand with the inherent distrust of egalitarianism (and technology that assists in that) by those who populate the medium that's taking the hit. Boo-hoo for print media. We're all dumber and worse for your slow bleeding to market forces and advertising realignment beyond your control. When elites go hungry, the world comes to an end.

[Ray R.]

too long didn't read

You're one of them, aren't you.

Why do you hate this country?

[Agent Helix]

shut up i am busy reading atlas shrugged

[Ray R.]

shut up i am busy reading atlas shrugged

I think there's an audio version you can listen to in your car. Save yourself the time and effort so you can play more videogames.

[Michael P]

Where does America gets its contempt for 'book learning' anyways? People attacked Al Gore for his movie, not necessarily taking issue with the facts and charts he used, but mocking him for using charts and facts. It can't entirely be the fault of videogames. Coudl it have soemthing to do with 1950s Sci-Fi movies, where an ineffectural scientist always made the wrong choices until a square jawed WASP man of action just up and saved the day?

This kind of anti-intellectualism has been around since the founding of the republic. One of the arguments against ratification of the Constitution was that it was just a bunch of fancy-talking northeastern snobs and lawyers trying to tell ordinary people how to run their lives.

Ray may have a Coke.

[MJC]

They've been talking about America's anti-intellectual streak since the Pilgrims landed. Those were true anti-intellectuals, let me tell you.

Yet, the United States tends to lead or shares the lead with the world in technological innovations, research and development, and information collection and dissemination.

That's a seemingly incongruous achievement if we're populated primarily by fat, lazy morons.

But the bitching goes hand-in-hand with the inherent distrust of egalitarianism (and technology that assists in that) by those who populate the medium that's taking the hit. Boo-hoo for print media. We're all dumber and worse for your slow bleeding to market forces and advertising realignment beyond your control. When elites go hungry, the world comes to an end.

I think it's disingenuous to dismiss a writers opinion because you think they're an "elite" or because you think they're motivated by the decline of their particular medium.

Things like test scores as compared to other countries (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22098380/) and widespread lack of basic geographic knowledge (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/)do seem to indicate that, if the author is wrong, something is going on that may not be good.

[Mike Pothier]

Yeah, well the thing about short attention spans is... hey, cookie!

[Ray R.]

I think it's disingenuous to dismiss a writers opinion because you think they're an "elite" or because you think they're motivated by the decline of their particular medium.

Things like test scores as compared to other countries (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22098380/) and widespread lack of basic geographic knowledge (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/)do seem to indicate that, if the author is wrong, something is going on that may not be good.

And I think it's disingenous for you to ascribe motives to me that go beyond my original take on the article, which is that it's poorly supported, badly written and may or may not be self-serving.

Fallacious, anecdotal, grammatically suspect, full of distracting asides, and eager to jump to unfounded conclusions.

In short, a badly written opinion piece apparently warning against the dangers of not, among other ambiguous boogymen, investing enough time reading badly written opinion pieces.

Again. The irony overflows.

Bush founded No Child Left Behind because of a premium put on "test scores." It's been an unmitigated failure. Not everyone needs to know geography. As long as you're not flying my plane, surveying my real estate, or taking me on a three hour tour, I could give a rat's ass whether you failed geography.

It's a false comparator, and just another example of hopped-up outrage and hang-wringing, signifying nothing.

[Dreadstar]

I think anti-intellectualism tends to be more of a problem to the intelligent people who feel it's beneath them to "dumb down" their interactions with the ordinary Joes. I learned a LONG time ago that I was a chameleon when it came to this particular issue. I was pushed forward in *grade* school and subsequently ostracized by both my age peers and my grade peers. So I simply rolled up that neat little social obstacle and moved back to where I "fit in." No big deal. Further, "dialing it back" to the level of the social situation, or amping it up to meet the challenge became nothing more than shifting gears and moving forward.

I'll tell you what, though: Going intellectual in a pool hall full of steelworkers will get you your ass kicked. Whereas playing the rube to a room full of know-it-alls is a great way to get them to underestimate you to where you can take advantage of them.

So guess which one gets the "default" treatment?

[MJC]

Again. The irony overflows.

Bush founded No Child Left Behind because of a premium put on "test scores." It's been an unmitigated failure. Not everyone needs to know geography. As long as you're not flying my plane, surveying my real estate, or taking me on a three hour tour, I could give a rat's ass whether you failed geography.

It's a false comparator, and just another example of hopped-up outrage and hang-wringing, signifying nothing.

I'm sensing that you just don't agree with me that it's important for the population to be educated and have general knowledge of the world, not just knowledge specific to what their job is, and if thats the case we may just have to agree to disagree. I think an informed populace essential for a healthy democracy.

I don't like, for example, the fact that we're at war someplace that most people here can't find on a map. How can we make informed decisions about how the country is run if most people don't have general knowledge about the world?

And to add to the other point, test scores can be important to an extent (though I agree that No Child Left Behind was a failure). We lag behind in math, and now, US college students are significantly less likely to go into engineering or hard sciences than foreigners. I'm thinking this may affect our ability to be competitive in science and technology fields in the future.

[Paul McEnery]

And I think it's disingenous for you to ascribe motives to me that go beyond my original take on the article, which is that it's poorly supported, badly written and may or may not be self-serving.



Again. The irony overflows.

Bush founded No Child Left Behind because of a premium put on "test scores." It's been an unmitigated failure. Not everyone needs to know geography. As long as you're not flying my plane, surveying my real estate, or taking me on a three hour tour, I could give a rat's ass whether you failed geography.

It's a false comparator, and just another example of hopped-up outrage and hang-wringing, signifying nothing.

Well maybe, but look:

http://www.susanjacoby.com/images/susan_small.gif

She's kinda cute!

[Slam_Bradley]

And to add to the other point, test scores can be important to an extent (though I agree that No Child Left Behind was a failure). We lag behind in math, and now, US college students are significantly less likely to go into engineering or hard sciences than foreigners. I'm thinking this may affect our ability to be competitive in science and technology fields in the future.


Test scores show one thing...that the teachers have taught the children how to take tests.

My older son is consistently in the 95+ percentile on his test scores. However, I recently had to teach him how to actually do long division (he's in sixth grade). He apparently had never been taught to him. Must not have been on the test.

[MJC]

Test scores show one thing...that the teachers have taught the children how to take tests.

My older son is consistently in the 95+ percentile on his test scores. However, I recently had to teach him how to actually do long division (he's in sixth grade). He apparently had never been taught to him. Must not have been on the test.

True.

That said, knowing how to take tests can get you a full-ride to college, and help you get jobs, so I still wouldn't consider them useless. But yeah there are major limits on what a test can tell you.

[Grazzt]

I think anti-intellectualism tends to be more of a problem to the intelligent people who feel it's beneath them to "dumb down" their interactions with the ordinary Joes.

Actually, I think it's a bigger problem to the dumb people who base their actions on a misguided sense of intuition or tradition, rather than appealing to an intellectual authority.

Like those morons who let their kid die of illness while all they did was pray for a healthy recovery.

[Ray R.]

I'm sensing that you just don't agree with me that it's important for the population to be educated and have general knowledge of the world, not just knowledge specific to what their job is, and if thats the case we may just have to agree to disagree. I think an informed populace essential for a healthy democracy.

I don't like, for example, the fact that we're at war someplace that most people here can't find on a map. How can we make informed decisions about how the country is run if most people don't have general knowledge about the world?

And to add to the other point, test scores can be important to an extent (though I agree that No Child Left Behind was a failure). We lag behind in math, and now, US college students are significantly less likely to go into engineering or hard sciences than foreigners. I'm thinking this may affect our ability to be competitive in science and technology fields in the future.

I don't mean to be flippant, but I wish a lot of things, but pragmatically, most of them are not going to come to fruition.

If it's not clear from what I've written, general dispositions regarding general trends and forecasting from that gets a big eyeroll from me.

You need to attack the foundations of the argument here, which is that "something", in this case, technological advancements, has led to a diminishment in "something else." "Something else" here is reading comprehension, attention span, and apparently the belief that knowledge is valuable. I don't buy it, and agree with Michael that it's inherently fallacious.

That's not to say I don't wish everybody was more educated, voted with a global perspective, read more, supported the arts more, and promoted a base curriculum that gave us all a common parlance to talk about ideas and values.

But the realist in me sees that as wishful and not necessarily productive thinking. And it opens the whole hornet's nest of predeterminism, "what's right to know, and what's not," (which invariably leads to personal bias in selecting what's essential), and making judgments as to what an individual HAS to know, versus what they choose to know.

C'est la vie, man. Market forces will fill voids, people who want to succeed will change careers to meet openings or we'll import a labor force for math and science jobs who then decide to stay here, have kids and raise up the test scores again. Worrying about a brain deficit is silly until the United States becomes a net exporter of intelligent people, and I don't see that happening any time in the next hundred years or so.

And to add my own anecdotal experience: I write more and read more because of the Internet, e-mail, word processing software, PDFs, etc. I order more books on-line because so much more is available. I find time to read news sites, blogs, etc. When I just had a typewriter at home, I think I had a lot less opportunity, a lot less options, and a lot less interactive give-and-take. I don't see that diminishing either.

[Dreadstar]

Actually, I think it's a bigger problem to the dumb people who base their actions on a misguided sense of intuition or tradition, rather than appealing to an intellectual authority.

Like those morons who let their kid die of illness while all they did was pray for a healthy recovery.

2 different animals. One is "Anti-intellectualism as a way of life" and the other is "learned anti-intellectualism and social interaction."

I also believe that one of the problems facing us in the next generation will be the huge numbers of kids who blew off education because it wasn't cool to actually use school for its intended purpose. It's so much better to look badass in the back of class and use that rep to get laid. Right up until you find yourself as someone's bitch on Block C, humping a full pack through Bagdad, flipping burgers at McD's, or lying on the stainless steel in the hospital basement.

But, by god, that was their learned social norm so as to not be ostracized by the group they required and/or revered to function "properly" in the social milieu. Right there is a great example of "bas(ing) their actions on a misguided sense of intuition or tradition."

[Radioactive Zombie]

Fallacious, anecdotal, grammatically suspect, full of distracting asides, and eager to jump to unfounded conclusions.

In short, a badly written opinion piece apparently warning against the dangers of not, among other ambiguous boogymen, investing enough time reading badly written opinion pieces.

How ironical.

Seconded.

In before anti-Americans mock us on this. Again.

[Ray R.]

2 different animals. One is "Anti-intellectualism as a way of life" and the other is "learned anti-intellectualism and social interaction."

I also believe that one of the problems facing us in the next generation will be the huge numbers of kids who blew off education because it wasn't cool to actually use school for its intended purpose. It's so much better to look badass in the back of class and use that rep to get laid. Right up until you find yourself as someone's bitch on Block C, humping a full pack through Bagdad, flipping burgers at McD's, or lying on the stainless steel in the hospital basement.

But, by god, that was their learned social norm so as to not be ostracized by the group they required and/or revered to function "properly" in the social milieu. Right there is a great example of "bas(ing) their actions on a misguided sense of intuition or tradition."

To quote the dearly departed Ted Knight:

"The world needs ditch-diggers too!"

[Paul McEnery]

I don't mean to be flippant, but I wish a lot of things, but pragmatically, most of them are not going to come to fruition.

If it's not clear from what I've written, general dispositions regarding general trends and forecasting from that gets a big eyeroll from me.

You need to attack the foundations of the argument here, which is that "something", in this case, technological advancements, has led to a diminishment in "something else." "Something else" here is reading comprehension, attention span, and apparently the belief that knowledge is valuable. I don't buy it, and agree with Michael that it's inherently fallacious.

That's not to say I don't wish everybody was more educated, voted with a global perspective, read more, supported the arts more, and promoted a base curriculum that gave us all a common parlance to talk about ideas and values.

But the realist in me sees that as wishful and not necessarily productive thinking. And it opens the whole hornet's nest of predeterminism, "what's right to know, and what's not," (which invariably leads to personal bias in selecting what's essential), and making judgments as to what an individual HAS to know, versus what they choose to know.

C'est la vie, man. Market forces will fill voids, people who want to succeed will change careers to meet openings or we'll import a labor force for math and science jobs who then decide to stay here, have kids and raise up the test scores again. Worrying about a brain deficit is silly until the United States becomes a net exporter of intelligent people, and I don't see that happening any time in the next hundred years or so.

And to add my own anecdotal experience: I write more and read more because of the Internet, e-mail, word processing software, PDFs, etc. I order more books on-line because so much more is available. I find time to read news sites, blogs, etc. When I just had a typewriter at home, I think I had a lot less opportunity, a lot less options, and a lot less interactive give-and-take. I don't see that diminishing either.

Oh, we're being not flippant now?

Well then.

Jacoby's big steaming problem is the same as all these American liberal hand-wringers. They don't want to take political-economics into account, they don't want to take the demise of the Enlightenment paradigm in to account, and they certainly don't want the hidden injuries of class taken into account.

So there'll be some general hand-wringing because people don't hold middle class values sacred; then the po' folk will be blamed for not being middle class enough; then we'll probably talk about race, because that's an excellent red herring; or maybe gender!; and we'll get a few quotes from luddites just to round the whole thing off.

Or we could look at the concentration of mass media into corporate hands, and the irresponsible way it hammers people with simplistic solutions; our two-tier education system; the two-tier concentration of information technology; the general failure of wealth distribution, not to mention health and nutrution and that indefinable quality, hope; and the fact that there are all sorts of ideological assumptions built into our culture as a way of sustaining a political-economic system with a vested-interest wealthy elite.




Mind, I've just read the blurb on her site. Not too impressive though.

[Royal]

Gotta love neo-luddism.

[Ray R.]

Oh, we're being not flippant now?

Well then.

Jacoby's big steaming problem is the same as all these American liberal hand-wringers. They don't want to take political-economics into account, they don't want to take the demise of the Enlightenment paradigm in to account, and they certainly don't want the hidden injuries of class taken into account.

So there'll be some general hand-wringing because people don't hold middle class values sacred; then the po' folk will be blamed for not being middle class enough; then we'll probably talk about race, because that's an excellent red herring; or maybe gender!; and we'll get a few quotes from luddites just to round the whole thing off.

Or we could look at the concentration of mass media into corporate hands, and the irresponsible way it hammers people with simplistic solutions; our two-tier education system; the two-tier concentration of information technology; the general failure of wealth distribution, not to mention health and nutrution and that indefinable quality, hope; and the fact that there are all sorts of ideological assumptions built into our culture as a way of sustaining a political-economic system with a vested-interest wealthy elite.




Mind, I've just read the blurb on her site. Not too impressive though.

Strangely enough, I don't necessarily disagree with your argument here. I might quibble on a few items, and your socialist overtone at times, but I'm more inclined than not to be more receptive to the idea that class consciousness and social structure has much, much, more of a predictive effect on education and upbringing than just utilizing technology ever will. Technology is just a tool, a means to an ends. And it's a tool constantly being glommed on by smaller and smaller pools containing propagators of corporatism.

[Shellhead]

You need to attack the foundations of the argument here, which is that "something", in this case, technological advancements, has led to a diminishment in "something else." "Something else" here is reading comprehension, attention span, and apparently the belief that knowledge is valuable. I don't buy it, and agree with Michael that it's inherently fallacious.


Technology is absolutely capable of affecting people adversely. Look at the shocking increase in obesity in America, especially in kids. I see a direct connection with the popularity of console games and the internet. Why can't there be a corresponding impact on attention spans, or say, social skills?

[Serik]

See, I dun feel smarter already after reading this here internet thread.

Take Slashdot, home to some of the most pretentious, self-righteous jerkoffs on the internet. But they're pretty damn insightful on any number of scientific/technical subjects. Pre-internet, I'd never have that exposure. And I seriously credit my early academic success to videogames. SimCity, Railroad Tycoon, Civilization, Caesar II. Between them, I had exposure to civic planning, capitalist theory, Roman civilization, sociology, and a loose narrative of human history. DOOM also taught me that in the future, we should be afraid of demons invading research labs on Mars.

Anyway, TIME, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and the rest of 'em should stop producing these "trend" stories and opinions that so heavily rely on huge generalizations and flimsy statistics, as if readers are instantly mesmerized and persuaded by the mere appearance of numbers.

[Royal]

You can get obese just by reading books all day too.

[Ray R.]

Technology is absolutely capable of affecting people adversely. Look at the shocking increase in obesity in America, especially in kids. I see a direct connection with the popularity of console games and the internet. Why can't there be a corresponding impact on attention spans, or say, social skills?

And the increase of cheap fast food options (and cheaper with dollar menus versus rising grocery prices), multitudes of food with increased high fructose corn syrup including Gatorade-like sports drinks, sodas, juices, and the like (usually available in schools), less physical after-school activities due to budgeting cutbacks and liability concerns.....no connection there, right?

It's not like kids haven't been parking their asses in front of the TV for almost sixty years now. Now we get to worry about sedentary lifestyles, attention spans, and social skills and then have a highly visible boogeyman in technology.

Technology is overt, food additives and 100 different names for sugar is often covert. As a parent, I have more control over the overt than the covert most of the time.

Sorry, but I call bullshit.

[Shellhead]

And the increase of cheap fast food options (and cheaper with dollar menus versus rising grocery prices), multitudes of food with increased high fructose corn syrup including Gatorade-like sports drinks, sodas, juices, and the like (usually available in schools), less physical after-school activities due to budgeting cutbacks and liability concerns.....no connection there, right?

It's not like kids haven't been parking their asses in front of the TV for almost sixty years now. Now we get to worry about sedentary lifestyles, attention spans, and social skills and then have a highly visible boogeyman in technology.

Technology is overt, food additives and 100 different names for sugar is often covert. As a parent, I have more control over the overt than the covert most of the time.

Sorry, but I call bullshit.

No connection between technology and food additives? I think that you are going with a narrow definition of technology. I don't find technology to be inherently evil, but I do feel that the rate of modern technological advancement has been faster than our capacity to adapt to it in a healthy manner.

[Serik]

High fructose corn syrup has everything to do with the corn lobby, subsidies, and Congress and nothing to do with technology. Kids need more real sugar considering most of what they drink is loaded with that crap.

[Ray R.]

No connection between technology and food additives? I think that you are going with a narrow definition of technology. I don't find technology to be inherently evil, but I do feel that the rate of modern technological advancement has been faster than our capacity to adapt to it in a healthy manner.

You're moving the goalposts now. Not cool.

You spoke of the direct connection between obesity and the Internet and console games. That's the underlying point of the original article....that this type of activity is making us dumber, and you're arguing it's even worse, that it's making us fatter too.

Now you're expanding the base equation of activity involving individual use of available technology to also include the manufacture and distribution of unhealthy food by corporations like ConAgra? Really?

I don't think so.

[Royal]

No connection between technology and food additives? I think that you are going with a narrow definition of technology. I don't find technology to be inherently evil, but I do feel that the rate of modern technological advancement has been faster than our capacity to adapt to it in a healthy manner.

Yellow Card!

Circular Logic!

[Cyke]

Where does America gets its contempt for 'book learning' anyways? People attacked Al Gore for his movie, not necessarily taking issue with the facts and charts he used, but mocking him for using charts and facts. It can't entirely be the fault of videogames.

I love charts and facts in video games. Final Fantasy taught me Recreational Mathematics! (No, it didn't. But still.)

[Paul McEnery]

Hah! I will now throw in a ringer.

It's all about status versus ding-an-sich in an affluent meritocracy!

[Kid Omega]

For a few years after high school, I stayed in touch with a couple of my favorite teachers. One was my Spanish teacher (first and third year), a really smart and cynical lady who once loaned me A Canticle for Leibowitz, a great book.

Anyway, she had an interesting theory about declining attention spans. When I was in her class, she noticed that students seemed to have an attention span of less than fifteen minutes, which she thought was probably in synch with the frequency of network tv commericals. A couple of years after I graduated, she was noticing ridiculously short attention spans, which she believed was due to the rising popularity of the tv remote control. Today, internet users have an insane number of "channels" to surf, possibly leading to even shorter attention spans.

But that may not be the whole story. America as a nation may have unusually strong tendencies towards do-it-yourself stuff, as most of our ancestors came here from far away for the freedom and the opportunity to succeed. So we may have innate tendencies towards doing stuff as opposed to sitting around thinking and talking about stuff.


I call bullshit. My dad is sventy years old, and can't make it through a sitcom. My ten ytear old niece will read multiplke books in a sitting.

Anecdotal, but I don't buy all this attention span nonsense. It's just an easy excuse to put on kids too young to defend themselves from it.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

When you need to blame, blame "those people."

You know, the ones who can't find the U.S.A. on a map. The idiots who can't walk and chew gum. The morons who defiantly see learning as either a waste of time or indoctrination.

And "those people" play video games, surf the Internet, watch TV, and probably read comics too. And there are tons of 'em, because look how much money is spent.

"Those people" are destroying this country, and not voting or are voting for the wrong people because they're dumb and don't read..
colin powell and bill cosby seem to agree...

[PatrickG]

High fructose corn syrup has everything to do with the corn lobby, subsidies, and Congress and nothing to do with technology. Kids need more real sugar considering most of what they drink is loaded with that crap.

Agreed. And I say this as someone who loves sugar and thinks he is mildly allergic to corn syrup.

[J. Robb]

Passive entertainment is passé. We don't want to just sit and watch/listen/read anymore, we want to get involved.

We want to vote for winners on our TV shows, play our music on fake instruments, posts our opinions on any topic no matter how little we know about it, and celebrate our victory over other online players (not boring old AI players) with a humiliating teabag.

I think education needs to catch up. I couldn't listen to a teacher drone on twenty years ago, and I know I'd hate it even more now with our super-interactive culture. You can't just tell kids, you have to involve them.

[Serik]

That's a good point J. Robb.

My 5th grade teacher, and this was back in 1993 or so, would supplement every history lesson with games played on a huge wall map divided into hexes. My favorite was one about colonizing America in the 17th century. Teams would roll dice to determine how many colonists died from Indian raids, famine, bad weather, etc. Then we'd do some calculations to determine how much taxes we owed to England. The best part was launching attacks against other colonists, usually motivated by petty grudges than any real strategic value :biggrin:

I was always disappointed that more teachers throughout the years didn't use those types of interactive teaching methods.

[J. Robb]

My 5th grade teacher, and this was back in 1993 or so, would supplement every history lesson with games played on a huge wall map divided into hexes. My favorite was one about colonizing America in the 17th century. Teams would roll dice to determine how many colonists died from Indian raids, famine, bad weather, etc. Then we'd do some calculations to determine how much taxes we owed to England. The best part was launching attacks against other colonists, usually motivated by petty grudges than any real strategic value :biggrin:

I was always disappointed that more teachers throughout the years didn't use those types of interactive teaching methods.
That sounds like a great teacher, I wish I had more like that too.

[blackdragon6]

I wish I had more like that too.do i ever..