Rob's House Posted July 24, 2015 Author Posted July 24, 2015 People who seek higher degrees at top schools are seeking to become acknowledged experts in a given field. "More intelligent" and "have greater aptitude" doesn't mean they know **** from shinola outside their specialty. It's a common fallacy...thinking that "educated in one thing" means knowing everything. Much more prevalent among people who are beholden to authoritarian viewpoints and beliefs. I'd even take this a step further and say that one highly educated in a particular field may be wholly ignorant of vast areas of his own field of study that fall outside his particular specialty. For example, I wouldn't want to consult my dermatologist on my spinal condition, and I wouldn't want my DUI lawyer to advise me on a corporate merger. But people tend to put a lot of faith in the opinions of those with broad credentials.
birdog1960 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I'd even take this a step further and say that one highly educated in a particular field may be wholly ignorant of vast areas of his own field of study that fall outside his particular specialty. For example, I wouldn't want to consult my dermatologist on my spinal condition, and I wouldn't want my DUI lawyer to advise me on a corporate merger. But people tend to put a lot of faith in the opinions of those with broad credentials. would you want your dermatologist to be self taught? to practice to standards of his own making? your neurosurgeon? your lawyer? would you be pleased if any of them never attended college? do you think their professional training would have been successful without a broader base of knowledge gained by more fundamental tiers of broader formal education?
IDBillzFan Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 firstly, he's been taught and has taught others how to examine data and information by a systematic method, found over the centuries to be effective. he knows the classics which are called that for a reason. he's travelled extensively so that he's seen alternative cultural norms and customs. he knows history. he knows scientific method. he knows how to read and write well. he understands math well enough to understand basic physics. he's studied logic. as far as media, i suspect he uses a wide variety of sources but i've never asked. he seems to know and understand opposing viewpoints to his own. You could almost put this nonsense in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Oh, wait. They already did.
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 firstly, he's been taught and has taught others how to examine data and information by a systematic method, found over the centuries to be effective. he knows the classics which are called that for a reason. he's travelled extensively so that he's seen alternative cultural norms and customs. he knows history. he knows scientific method. he knows how to read and write well. he understands math well enough to understand basic physics. he's studied logic. as far as media, i suspect he uses a wide variety of sources but i've never asked. he seems to know and understand opposing viewpoints to his own. A good portion of that has little if anything to do with politics and government. So he's read the classics. Explain how reading Mobey Dick gives him the knowledge to know and understand a good candidate for President.
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 firstly, he's been taught and has taught others how to examine data and information by a systematic method, found over the centuries to be effective. he knows the classics which are called that for a reason. he's travelled extensively so that he's seen alternative cultural norms and customs. he knows history. he knows scientific method. he knows how to read and write well. he understands math well enough to understand basic physics. he's studied logic. as far as media, i suspect he uses a wide variety of sources but i've never asked. he seems to know and understand opposing viewpoints to his own. Sounds a lot like me. Now defer to my authority and shut the !@#$ up.
Azalin Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Explain how reading Mobey Dick gives him the knowledge to know and understand a good candidate for President. It makes you mistrustful of the white ones.
Rob's House Posted July 24, 2015 Author Posted July 24, 2015 would you want your dermatologist to be self taught? to practice to standards of his own making? your neurosurgeon? your lawyer? would you be pleased if any of them never attended college? do you think their professional training would have been successful without a broader base of knowledge gained by more fundamental tiers of broader formal education? I'm sorry, I thought you said you were going to use logic. Are we not doing that anymore? Or are we pretending that all A are B = all B are A?
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 It makes you mistrustful of the white ones. Really, "read the classics" has to be the dumbest rationale for trusting someone's judgement. "Yeah, he's the smartest person I know. He can read, and successfully acquired a library card."
birdog1960 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Sounds a lot like me. Now defer to my authority and shut the !@#$ up. in referencew to this discussion, the question is then if la feels you are "low information" or is that condition removed by your education.
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 in referencew to this discussion, the question is then if la feels you are "low information" or is that condition removed by your education. No, that's not the question. The question is, does education automatically confer "high information?" The answer to that should be obvious...but I know you'll miss it.
birdog1960 Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 No, that's not the question. The question is, does education automatically confer "high information?" The answer to that should be obvious...but I know you'll miss it. it is the question. i put forth an example of a voter that would not be considered "low information" because he would be considered highly educated by reasonable people. barring development of dementia, delerium, or isolation from current information sources, highly educated and low informatiuon states are unlikely to coexist.
Ozymandius Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 and you probably criticized clinton for wondering what the definition of is is. there's a commonly understood and accepted definition of intelligence or "smartness". it involves having a knowledge base and the ability to problem solve and apply that knowledge base among other skills. throughout the history of man it has become clear that formal education is the most effective way for most people to develop those attributes and skills. there are exceptions but they are just that. Let me repeat. There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for, say, Harvard graduates to be very intelligent but largely foolish about very important things? Another example. Appeasement. Given this question: "Will providing 150 billion dollars, weapons, and the nuclear bomb to Iran transform the country to moderate itself and cease its funding of terrorism and its pugilistic attitude towards its neighbors in the region?" For the answer to that question, I would trust the working class whites in flyover country to give the better answer than your Harvard graduates.
IDBillzFan Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 in referencew to this discussion, the question is then if la feels you are "low information" or is that condition removed by your education. There is no other question: we both agree that earning a degree does not mean your are smart. That is the only point I was raising. Whatever mess you're untangling in your paperlaced mind beyond that is just you struggling to sound smart.
Alaska Darin Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 who said sanders voters would be "low information".? what do you base that on? that's what began this debate. the word "smart" or intelligent" wasn't brought up until the word "faculty" was attacked. it does go to a foundation of the separation of contemporary right and left politics, however: respect for classic learning versus contempt of it. The vast majority of voters on both sides of the aisle fall into the "low information" category and socialists are a consistent and shining example. Surely even you aren't dumb enough to dispute that. The fact that you brought ONE person as an example to the contrary is nothing more than your standard folly. The fact that you can't correlate your hypocrisy on elitism is an indictment of who you are, which could be good for you should you be introspective enough to face it. But you aren't, as evidenced by your inability to face the history of your politics. And you're correct: I have serious contempt for "classic" learning and the results over the last couple of decades are all the proof I need that you have nary a clue what you're talking about. Your "classic" learning and inability to adapt gives us the same tired problems and the same failed solutions.
Ozymandius Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 There is no other question: we both agree that earning a degree does not mean your are smart. That is the only point I was raising. Whatever mess you're untangling in your paperlaced mind beyond that is just you struggling to sound smart. This dude took a class about education in college and now wants to impress us, lol My example from upthread: "Is gender fluid and sexual orientation firm?" Again, I'll take the answer from the white plumbers and carpenters in flyover country than the one the Harvard graduates will give us.
Azalin Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Really, "read the classics" has to be the dumbest rationale for trusting someone's judgement. "Yeah, he's the smartest person I know. He can read, and successfully acquired a library card." I was thinking how I've read many of the 'classics', but I doubt he thinks I'm very smart despite having done so. Edited July 24, 2015 by Azalin
Ozymandius Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I can go all day with examples. "Whites and Asians are largely successful in the USA, but blacks are not. Is it because whites are racist but have a soft spot for Koreans and Indians, the latter of which are sometimes much darker and funky looking than blacks? Or should blacks try to adopt the cultural norms of the whites and Asians in order to have better success? Or should we call them Uncle Toms if they try to do so?" Once again, flyover country will have the better answer than the Harvard graduates. "Studies show that 1 in 5 women are raped in college. Do you believe it?" Once again, flyover wins.
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 in referencew to this discussion, the question is then if la feels you are "low information" or is that condition removed by your education. Someone could have all the knowledge in the world but still not know jack **** about politics and who would be the best at running the government. So let me ask again. How does having read Moby Dick and being good at math make someone a "high information" voter?
Ozymandius Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 "Pronounce Marine Corps." lol, I can't believe that idiot Obama is the CIC
Chef Jim Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 it is the question. i put forth an example of a voter that would not be considered "low information" because he would be considered highly educated by reasonable people. barring development of dementia, delerium, or isolation from current information sources, highly educated and low informatiuon states are unlikely to coexist. So what your saying is you have no idea what low information voter means. Got it.
Recommended Posts