CDZ Information

[320 Years of History]

Mostly though, as Westwall stated, it's the intentional "dumbing down" of the populace.

Yes, about that...I haven't looked yet to find out if the global populace is indeed getting dumber rather than more knowledgeable. Have you? About the only thing I have any degree of confidence about re: his assertion to that effect is that Westwall didn't get it from Wiki. (See the first bullet in the red section.)

On a global level, I have not looked either, I was referring back to the original intent of the OP, here in the U.S. And yes we are getting dumber.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/01/were-colonial-americans-more-literate-than-americans-today/
Literacy Rates in Early America

A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.
-- James Madison​

Interesting article/blog post.

There's one critical difference between the electorate in Thomas Paine's day and that of today. Back then, the only folks who were accorded the right to vote were the people who were comparatively wealthy, in other words landowners, which essentially means wealthy folks given that our nation and economy was back then heavily agrarian. Then as now, wealthy folks were also, in general, well educated and informed about the world in which they lived (to the extent it was possible to be so) and the political matters of the day. And just how much of the country could vote in George Washington's day? Approximately six percent of Americans were eligible to vote.

Truly, were we to have some way to keep under/ill informed folks from voting, I'd be quite content. Sadly, I'm not aware of any good way to implement that sort of qualifying constraint on the right to vote. Frankly, I don't care what someone or many ones think or do if they don't have the ability to influence my life by joining with a cabal of like minded nincompoops and voting as a bloc based on the ill/under informed ideas that fester in their heads. It's only folks who can vote that I give a damn what they have to say and what they know, don't know, how strong be their critical reasoning skills, etc.

The thing is that the standard for being well/accurately/fully informed is quite different and lower than that for being a strong critical thinker. One must learn to be a strong critical thinker, an adept analyst of information. In contrast, being well informed requires only that one seek and obtain information. (see my signature line quote) And, yes, as someone (was it you?) noted earlier in the thread, I think it does come down to just being lazy. Strangely, however, the torpidity in play is cognitive rather than physical. That's the aspect that befuddles me. I mean, really...it's just not that exerting to sit at a computer and find information.

(click the image to access the related study)​

The table above illustrates what I'm getting at, and the types of things asked about and addressed in the corresponding study are very basic details/facts. God only knows what folks know about substantive topics that actually matter.

Several members of the New York State Senate reported last week that they had received dozens of calls from constituents with urgent advice on how they should vote on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
-- New York Times
​

P.S.
I suspect many folks who read my posts don't often read the related and linked content. I strongly suggest reading the content at the last link above. It's a chapter excerpted from this book: Communicating Politics: Engaging the Public in Democratic Life.

 

[OldLady]

Just a few thoughts on this thread.

My old buddy Pope said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring," but also, "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read With loads of learned lumber in his head."

"One must learn to be a strong critical thinker, an adept analyst of information...I think it does come down to just being lazy."
I think there is a lot more to it than that. You might find this interesting:
http://www.ilearnincambodia.net/uploads/3/1/0/9/31096741/synthct.pdf

And then there is the Eastern view, that true enlightenment is the disciplined emptying of the mind of all facts and the ego. Enlightenment, the understanding of Truth, is the absence of linear thinking.

I'm glad you're getting a better handle on how the other half thinks; discovering new things is always an interesting journey, yes?

 

[320 Years of History]

My old buddy Pope said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring," but also, "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read With loads of learned lumber in his head."

Wow! You are far older a lady than I'd ever imagined. LOL

 

[320 Years of History]

You might find this interesting:
http://www.ilearnincambodia.net/uploads/3/1/0/9/31096741/synthct.pdf

The second highlighted point is one that my participation on USMB has made clear to me.

I was well aware that the young folks whom I have mentored over the years didn't, when I first took on aiding them, exercise strong critical thinking skills. I knew their parents didn't either. But they are people who live in the most disadvantaged circumstances one can readily find in the U.S., or at least in D.C., I wasn't surprised to find they weren't adroit analysts of the larger world in which we all exist and of the processes -- physical, social, economic, psychological, etc. -- that drive it.

What has taken me by surprise is the lack of pervasiveness of strong critical thinking ability and application among our citizenry. Now it's fair to say that my thinking in that regard is based purely on my observations of the discourse here on USMB. I realize that is something of a specious basis because USMB's membership is a little shy of 38K self-selected individuals (I have no idea how many of the 38K are routine participants in USMB discussions) who've mostly deemed it necessary to discuss politics, and the U.S. is a country of some 250M or so adults. That said, there's no denying that daily one can readily find examples of folks on USMB who by their participation here consider it important to discuss politics and the political ramifications of non-political decision alternatives, yet they show they have very little (and sometimes none of note) knowledge about the core subject under discussion -- be it economics, hard science, history, jurisprudence, psychology, sociology, business management, etc.

Over the preceding 40 years of my life, however, I have found myself more often at the other end of the "information spectrum." For example when I attended or listened to a lecture on a topic that interests me.

• Council on Foreign Relations
• Ted Talks
• Mises Institute Economics Lecture Series
• The World Bank
• Events Calendar - Georgetown
• Economics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials -- This is literally free course content from MIT. I've listed the econ department's offering, but it's hardly the only department offering free content.

The point, as it has been from the start of this thread, is that the information is "out there." It's freely available. One need only give enough of a damn to just obtain it and consume it. Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed. That wouldn't bother me much were it also so that those folks be prohibited from voting. But they aren't.

 

[oldsoul]

Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed.

Well put, and quite accurate in my experience as well. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

 

[320 Years of History]

Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed.

Well put, and quite accurate in my experience as well. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

I guess it is. I wish that weren't such a plausible conclusion, but it is.

So right now, when you’re—when you go online, you never have to encounter anything that is different from your own worldview because it’s coming into your newsfeed. So you’re not—like in the old says with looking through a newspaper, you would encounter headlines that would make you go, huh, I didn’t know that; or, isn’t that interesting; or, I don’t agree with that. But now you don’t have to ever encounter anything that you don’t agree with to start with.
-- Susan Goldberg​

 

[oldsoul]

Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed.

Well put, and quite accurate in my experience as well. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

I guess it is. I wish that weren't such a plausible conclusion, but it is.

So right now, when you’re—when you go online, you never have to encounter anything that is different from your own worldview because it’s coming into your newsfeed. So you’re not—like in the old says with looking through a newspaper, you would encounter headlines that would make you go, huh, I didn’t know that; or, isn’t that interesting; or, I don’t agree with that. But now you don’t have to ever encounter anything that you don’t agree with to start with.
-- Susan Goldberg​

And the truth shall set you free!!!!

 

[OldLady]

You might find this interesting:
http://www.ilearnincambodia.net/uploads/3/1/0/9/31096741/synthct.pdf

The second highlighted point is one that my participation on USMB has made clear to me.

I was well aware that the young folks whom I have mentored over the years didn't, when I first took on aiding them, exercise strong critical thinking skills. I knew their parents didn't either. But they are people who live in the most disadvantaged circumstances one can readily find in the U.S., or at least in D.C., I wasn't surprised to find they weren't adroit analysts of the larger world in which we all exist and of the processes -- physical, social, economic, psychological, etc. -- that drive it.

What has taken me by surprise is the lack of pervasiveness of strong critical thinking ability and application among our citizenry. Now it's fair to say that my thinking in that regard is based purely on my observations of the discourse here on USMB. I realize that is something of a specious basis because USMB's membership is a little shy of 38K self-selected individuals (I have no idea how many of the 38K are routine participants in USMB discussions) who've mostly deemed it necessary to discuss politics, and the U.S. is a country of some 250M or so adults. That said, there's no denying that daily one can readily find examples of folks on USMB who by their participation here consider it important to discuss politics and the political ramifications of non-political decision alternatives, yet they show they have very little (and sometimes none of note) knowledge about the core subject under discussion -- be it economics, hard science, history, jurisprudence, psychology, sociology, business management, etc.

Over the preceding 40 years of my life, however, I have found myself more often at the other end of the "information spectrum." For example when I attended or listened to a lecture on a topic that interests me.

• Council on Foreign Relations
• Ted Talks
• Mises Institute Economics Lecture Series
• The World Bank
• Events Calendar - Georgetown
• Economics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials -- This is literally free course content from MIT. I've listed the econ department's offering, but it's hardly the only department offering free content.

The point, as it has been from the start of this thread, is that the information is "out there." It's freely available. One need only give enough of a damn to just obtain it and consume it. Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed. That wouldn't bother me much were it also so that those folks be prohibited from voting. But they aren't.

I knew, at heart, this was about a tangle with a Trumpster.

IMO, it's not necessary to be well informed to vote; voting only requires that you be affected by the decisions the candidate will make. If it affects you, you have a say in it. Period. Folks choose the candidate they think is best, using their own values--be that good character, policy they like, or the political party they trust to make the hard decisions for them. Whoever runs this country and makes our laws affects our daily lives. I for one have no wish to take away anyone's right to choose who those leaders will be.
Rather than hold onto the completely unrealistic expectation that every adult American will spend countless hours becoming a walking encyclopedia before entering the voting booth, just tell people your perspective. It's all you can do, and it's all you should expect.

 

[320 Years of History]

Quite simply, there is no excuse for anyone to be under-/misinformed about much of anything these days. Yet many people just are, and they are, as far as I can tell, for no other reason than that they just don't care about being well informed.

Well put, and quite accurate in my experience as well. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

I guess it is. I wish that weren't such a plausible conclusion, but it is.

So right now, when you’re—when you go online, you never have to encounter anything that is different from your own worldview because it’s coming into your newsfeed. So you’re not—like in the old says with looking through a newspaper, you would encounter headlines that would make you go, huh, I didn’t know that; or, isn’t that interesting; or, I don’t agree with that. But now you don’t have to ever encounter anything that you don’t agree with to start with.
-- Susan Goldberg​

And the truth shall set you free!!!!

Well, yes, but apparently only if it lands serendipitously in one's lap. (see my sig line quote)

 

[320 Years of History]

IMO, it's not necessary to be well informed to vote; voting only requires that you be affected by the decisions the candidate will make....Whoever runs this country and makes our laws affects our daily lives.

Okay, that's what you think, and legally speaking, you are 100% correct; one need only be 18. I'm not entirely sure one need even be sane, let alone well informed, so long as one is 18. I think if one has a decent share of integrity, one would refrain from voting when one is not well informed on the critical matters about which the folks whom one may elect will make the decisions affecting everyone's lives.

Rather than hold onto the completely unrealistic expectation that every adult American will spend countless hours becoming a walking encyclopedia before entering the voting booth, just tell people your perspective.

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient. I've long felt that the vast majority, if not all, of what one really needs to know -- know in the sense that by knowing it, one knows when and how one must/should delve further into a matter of importance upon which one is called in some way to opine -- one can learn in high school. The problem as I see it is that too damn many people just don't learn it in high school and they don't matriculate to college to pick it up there.

Just for the sake of trying to quantity as best I can and so that readers can tell pretty well what I mean what I mean by "knowledge one can pick up in high school" and that a reasonably high performing high school student will have mastered, take a look at the following exams that correspond to courses offered to high school students in the U.S. Nothing covered in the materials below rises to the level of making one be an expert, or even near expert.

• Math
• Biology
• Macroeconomics
• Physics
• American History
• European History (see also: Peterson's AP European History Review. It has a great discussion of the scoring and course/knowledge content for this particular exam.)
• English Language and Composition
  • Sample test
  • Sample text with actual student responses and the scores they received
  • Class content and prep materials from an actual class

It's worth noting that while the level of mastery commensurate with scoring 4+ on the exams listed above indicates a student's preparedness for more advanced knowledge gathering and analysis, the sort they'd undertake in college, I don't mind at all that some students may not opt to go to college. What is required, as far as I'm concerned, is that all students be sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable to do so if they want to, and even if they don't, they at least possess the cognitive skills and content to make sound choices in life, as well as in the voting booth.

I think the level of knowledge covered by the exams listed above is quite sufficient for pretty much anyone, except folks who actually want to be experts in a given discipline, to be in a position to make well informed choices about (or well informed decisions to seek additional information where needed) pretty much everything. Why do I think that? Because the level of thinking acuity and raw knowledge covered by the content above is enough for one to know when what one hears from politicians does indeed pass what many call a "sanity check"....The point being not whether anyone can perform what they deem a "sanity check" -- anyone can indeed do that much -- but whether there's any cognitive rigor or merit to the sanity check they perform.

In closing, you, perhaps others, may consider the above as my advocating for the bar being raised in a variety of ways. Well, you'd be right. The bar needs to be raised from what it was some 50+ years ago because the world has become a more complex place and it's become a more competitive place. The primary basis of the competition has shifted from physical productivity to intellectual productivity. That means people need to be better informed, more willing to be better informed, and just smarter in general. Judging by what I observe from discussions on USMB, that's not what's happening among America's citizenry.

(I don't care as much whether it's happening outside of America, other than insofar as where/when it is, it makes things more difficult for Americans. That said, in the U.S., we have some element of control over the development of our country and countrymen, but we don't have much control at all over how other nations advance and develop their people.)

 

[OldLady]

IMO, it's not necessary to be well informed to vote; voting only requires that you be affected by the decisions the candidate will make....Whoever runs this country and makes our laws affects our daily lives.

Okay, that's what you think, and legally speaking, you are 100% correct; one need only be 18. I'm not entirely sure one need even be sane, let alone well informed, so long as one is 18. I think if one has a decent share of integrity, one would refrain from voting when one is not well informed on the critical matters about which the folks whom one may elect will make the decisions affecting everyone's lives.

Rather than hold onto the completely unrealistic expectation that every adult American will spend countless hours becoming a walking encyclopedia before entering the voting booth, just tell people your perspective.

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient. I've long felt that the vast majority, if not all, of what one really needs to know -- know in the sense that by knowing it, one knows when and how one must/should delve further into a matter of importance upon which one is called in some way to opine -- one can learn in high school. The problem as I see it is that too damn many people just don't learn it in high school and they don't matriculate to college to pick it up there.

Just for the sake of trying to quantity as best I can and so that readers can tell pretty well what I mean what I mean by "knowledge one can pick up in high school" and that a reasonably high performing high school student will have mastered, take a look at the following exams that correspond to courses offered to high school students in the U.S. Nothing covered in the materials below rises to the level of making one be an expert, or even near expert.

• Math
• Biology
• Macroeconomics
• Physics
• American History
• European History (see also: Peterson's AP European History Review. It has a great discussion of the scoring and course/knowledge content for this particular exam.)
• English Language and Composition
  • Sample test
  • Sample text with actual student responses and the scores they received
  • Class content and prep materials from an actual class

It's worth noting that while the level of mastery commensurate with scoring 4+ on the exams listed above indicates a student's preparedness for more advanced knowledge gathering and analysis, the sort they'd undertake in college, I don't mind at all that some students may not opt to go to college. What is required, as far as I'm concerned, is that all students be sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable to do so if they want to, and even if they don't, they at least possess the cognitive skills and content to make sound choices in life, as well as in the voting booth.

I think the level of knowledge covered by the exams listed above is quite sufficient for pretty much anyone, except folks who actually want to be experts in a given discipline, to be in a position to make well informed choices about (or well informed decisions to seek additional information where needed) pretty much everything. Why do I think that? Because the level of thinking acuity and raw knowledge covered by the content above is enough for one to know when what one hears from politicians does indeed pass what many call a "sanity check"....The point being not whether anyone can perform what they deem a "sanity check" -- anyone can indeed do that much -- but whether there's any cognitive rigor or merit to the sanity check they perform.

In closing, you, perhaps others, may consider the above as my advocating for the bar being raised in a variety of ways. Well, you'd be right. The bar needs to be raised from what it was some 50+ years ago because the world has become a more complex place and it's become a more competitive place. The primary basis of the competition has shifted from physical productivity to intellectual productivity. That means people need to be better informed, more willing to be better informed, and just smarter in general. Judging by what I observe from discussions on USMB, that's not what's happening among America's citizenry.

(I don't care as much whether it's happening outside of America, other than insofar as where/when it is, it makes things more difficult for Americans. That said, in the U.S., we have some element of control over the development of our country and countrymen, but we don't have much control at all over how other nations advance and develop their people.)

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient.
The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing. This makes sense. Otherwise, you are just "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read With loads of learned lumber in his head."

The "sanity check" you think is so simple is NOT. The plan outlined by Trump last night for helping families with childcare expenses and paid maternity leave sounds lovely, but what would cause the average high school student to question the realistic success of his funding sources? What about his push for "deregulation" of industry and the general belief among conservatives that Global Warming is a hoax? What average high school student knows enough details of these arguments to question the claims they hear pro or con?

American voters with busy lives and frequently no love for bookish pursuits will leave those details to the "experts" -- which is why voters so often vote for the candidate they intuitively trust to be a "good" or "honest" person who shares their values.

And by the way, old Al was a HOOT! Too bad you couldn't have met him.

 

[320 Years of History]

IMO, it's not necessary to be well informed to vote; voting only requires that you be affected by the decisions the candidate will make....Whoever runs this country and makes our laws affects our daily lives.

Okay, that's what you think, and legally speaking, you are 100% correct; one need only be 18. I'm not entirely sure one need even be sane, let alone well informed, so long as one is 18. I think if one has a decent share of integrity, one would refrain from voting when one is not well informed on the critical matters about which the folks whom one may elect will make the decisions affecting everyone's lives.

Rather than hold onto the completely unrealistic expectation that every adult American will spend countless hours becoming a walking encyclopedia before entering the voting booth, just tell people your perspective.

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient. I've long felt that the vast majority, if not all, of what one really needs to know -- know in the sense that by knowing it, one knows when and how one must/should delve further into a matter of importance upon which one is called in some way to opine -- one can learn in high school. The problem as I see it is that too damn many people just don't learn it in high school and they don't matriculate to college to pick it up there.

Just for the sake of trying to quantity as best I can and so that readers can tell pretty well what I mean what I mean by "knowledge one can pick up in high school" and that a reasonably high performing high school student will have mastered, take a look at the following exams that correspond to courses offered to high school students in the U.S. Nothing covered in the materials below rises to the level of making one be an expert, or even near expert.

• Math
• Biology
• Macroeconomics
• Physics
• American History
• European History (see also: Peterson's AP European History Review. It has a great discussion of the scoring and course/knowledge content for this particular exam.)
• English Language and Composition
  • Sample test
  • Sample text with actual student responses and the scores they received
  • Class content and prep materials from an actual class

It's worth noting that while the level of mastery commensurate with scoring 4+ on the exams listed above indicates a student's preparedness for more advanced knowledge gathering and analysis, the sort they'd undertake in college, I don't mind at all that some students may not opt to go to college. What is required, as far as I'm concerned, is that all students be sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable to do so if they want to, and even if they don't, they at least possess the cognitive skills and content to make sound choices in life, as well as in the voting booth.

I think the level of knowledge covered by the exams listed above is quite sufficient for pretty much anyone, except folks who actually want to be experts in a given discipline, to be in a position to make well informed choices about (or well informed decisions to seek additional information where needed) pretty much everything. Why do I think that? Because the level of thinking acuity and raw knowledge covered by the content above is enough for one to know when what one hears from politicians does indeed pass what many call a "sanity check"....The point being not whether anyone can perform what they deem a "sanity check" -- anyone can indeed do that much -- but whether there's any cognitive rigor or merit to the sanity check they perform.

In closing, you, perhaps others, may consider the above as my advocating for the bar being raised in a variety of ways. Well, you'd be right. The bar needs to be raised from what it was some 50+ years ago because the world has become a more complex place and it's become a more competitive place. The primary basis of the competition has shifted from physical productivity to intellectual productivity. That means people need to be better informed, more willing to be better informed, and just smarter in general. Judging by what I observe from discussions on USMB, that's not what's happening among America's citizenry.

(I don't care as much whether it's happening outside of America, other than insofar as where/when it is, it makes things more difficult for Americans. That said, in the U.S., we have some element of control over the development of our country and countrymen, but we don't have much control at all over how other nations advance and develop their people.)

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient.
The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing. This makes sense. Otherwise, you are just "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read With loads of learned lumber in his head."

The "sanity check" you think is so simple is NOT. The plan outlined by Trump last night for helping families with childcare expenses and paid maternity leave sounds lovely, but what would cause the average high school student to question the realistic success of his funding sources? What about his push for "deregulation" of industry and the general belief among conservatives that Global Warming is a hoax? What average high school student knows enough details of these arguments to question the claims they hear pro or con?

American voters with busy lives and frequently no love for bookish pursuits will leave those details to the "experts" -- which is why voters so often vote for the candidate they intuitively trust to be a "good" or "honest" person who shares their values.

And by the way, old Al was a HOOT! Too bad you couldn't have met him.

Red:
I guess I confused you. I don't mean that high school students themselves should or would question those things. I meant only that the knowledge and skills one needs to do so effectively, and to know whether one needs to do so, are knowledge and skills one can and rightly should acquire in high school.

What, for example, might that entail?

Well, simply hearing the argument put forth and saying to oneself, "Wait a minute. What 'so and so' said doesn't align with what I learned in [insert relevant class]. Maybe something has changed since I was in school? Maybe it hasn't? Either way, I see an incongruity and I should at least check it out before concurring with 'so and so.'" Upon going to check into it, one will likely learn more than one knew coming out of high school, but so long as one mastered those basics in high school, one is in a good position to know when something does fit with them.​

Why is it that mastering high school level material, such as that covered at the links I shared earlier, enough?

It's enough because rarely does anything mentioned in political campaigns go so deeply into a topic that more than a very solid understanding of fundamentals is needed to know initially that what one is hearing doesn't pass the "sanity test." When something doesn't pass the "sanity test," all that's left to do is investigate enough to credibly find out whether it's one's own recollection that's errant or whether the speaker is just spouting BS because it sounds good and s/he presumes most folks won't/don't know any better.

It's also enough because the material, the knowledge is offered in high school.
​

My point is that adults, not high schoolers, who have a strong high school foundation, even if they didn't go to college or become experts in some or several disciplines, have the knowledge they need to know to and to know how to tell when and whether to rely on what political aspirants say. To my mind, that's enough because having that much awareness alone will lead one to ask the right questions and seek accurate and complete answers to them, or least it is enough if one just has a modicum of intellectual integrity, i.e, concern for determining what is so and what is not before one settles on a conclusion.

 

[OldLady]

IMO, it's not necessary to be well informed to vote; voting only requires that you be affected by the decisions the candidate will make....Whoever runs this country and makes our laws affects our daily lives.

Okay, that's what you think, and legally speaking, you are 100% correct; one need only be 18. I'm not entirely sure one need even be sane, let alone well informed, so long as one is 18. I think if one has a decent share of integrity, one would refrain from voting when one is not well informed on the critical matters about which the folks whom one may elect will make the decisions affecting everyone's lives.

Rather than hold onto the completely unrealistic expectation that every adult American will spend countless hours becoming a walking encyclopedia before entering the voting booth, just tell people your perspective.

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient. I've long felt that the vast majority, if not all, of what one really needs to know -- know in the sense that by knowing it, one knows when and how one must/should delve further into a matter of importance upon which one is called in some way to opine -- one can learn in high school. The problem as I see it is that too damn many people just don't learn it in high school and they don't matriculate to college to pick it up there.

Just for the sake of trying to quantity as best I can and so that readers can tell pretty well what I mean what I mean by "knowledge one can pick up in high school" and that a reasonably high performing high school student will have mastered, take a look at the following exams that correspond to courses offered to high school students in the U.S. Nothing covered in the materials below rises to the level of making one be an expert, or even near expert.

• Math
• Biology
• Macroeconomics
• Physics
• American History
• European History (see also: Peterson's AP European History Review. It has a great discussion of the scoring and course/knowledge content for this particular exam.)
• English Language and Composition
  • Sample test
  • Sample text with actual student responses and the scores they received
  • Class content and prep materials from an actual class

It's worth noting that while the level of mastery commensurate with scoring 4+ on the exams listed above indicates a student's preparedness for more advanced knowledge gathering and analysis, the sort they'd undertake in college, I don't mind at all that some students may not opt to go to college. What is required, as far as I'm concerned, is that all students be sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable to do so if they want to, and even if they don't, they at least possess the cognitive skills and content to make sound choices in life, as well as in the voting booth.

I think the level of knowledge covered by the exams listed above is quite sufficient for pretty much anyone, except folks who actually want to be experts in a given discipline, to be in a position to make well informed choices about (or well informed decisions to seek additional information where needed) pretty much everything. Why do I think that? Because the level of thinking acuity and raw knowledge covered by the content above is enough for one to know when what one hears from politicians does indeed pass what many call a "sanity check"....The point being not whether anyone can perform what they deem a "sanity check" -- anyone can indeed do that much -- but whether there's any cognitive rigor or merit to the sanity check they perform.

In closing, you, perhaps others, may consider the above as my advocating for the bar being raised in a variety of ways. Well, you'd be right. The bar needs to be raised from what it was some 50+ years ago because the world has become a more complex place and it's become a more competitive place. The primary basis of the competition has shifted from physical productivity to intellectual productivity. That means people need to be better informed, more willing to be better informed, and just smarter in general. Judging by what I observe from discussions on USMB, that's not what's happening among America's citizenry.

(I don't care as much whether it's happening outside of America, other than insofar as where/when it is, it makes things more difficult for Americans. That said, in the U.S., we have some element of control over the development of our country and countrymen, but we don't have much control at all over how other nations advance and develop their people.)

I certainly don't think folks need to have expert levels of awareness of most things. Merely being as knowledgeable as a reasonably high performing high school student is quite sufficient.
The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing. This makes sense. Otherwise, you are just "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read With loads of learned lumber in his head."

The "sanity check" you think is so simple is NOT. The plan outlined by Trump last night for helping families with childcare expenses and paid maternity leave sounds lovely, but what would cause the average high school student to question the realistic success of his funding sources? What about his push for "deregulation" of industry and the general belief among conservatives that Global Warming is a hoax? What average high school student knows enough details of these arguments to question the claims they hear pro or con?

American voters with busy lives and frequently no love for bookish pursuits will leave those details to the "experts" -- which is why voters so often vote for the candidate they intuitively trust to be a "good" or "honest" person who shares their values.

And by the way, old Al was a HOOT! Too bad you couldn't have met him.

Red:
I guess I confused you. I don't mean that high school students themselves should or would question those things. I meant only that the knowledge and skills one needs to do so effectively, and to know whether one needs to do so, are knowledge and skills one can and rightly should acquire in high school.

What, for example, might that entail?

Well, simply hearing the argument put forth and saying to oneself, "Wait a minute. What 'so and so' said doesn't align with what I learned in [insert relevant class]. Maybe something has changed since I was in school? Maybe it hasn't? Either way, I see an incongruity and I should at least check it out before concurring with 'so and so.'" Upon going to check into it, one will likely learn more than one knew coming out of high school, but so long as one mastered those basics in high school, one is in a good position to know when something does fit with them.​

Why is it that mastering high school level material, such as that covered at the links I shared earlier, enough?

It's enough because rarely does anything mentioned in political campaigns go so deeply into a topic that more than a very solid understanding of fundamentals is needed to know initially that what one is hearing doesn't pass the "sanity test." When something doesn't pass the "sanity test," all that's left to do is investigate enough to credibly find out whether it's one's own recollection that's errant or whether the speaker is just spouting BS because it sounds good and s/he presumes most folks won't/don't know any better.

It's also enough because the material, the knowledge is offered in high school.
​

My point is that adults, not high schoolers, who have a strong high school foundation, even if they didn't go to college or become experts in some or several disciplines, have the knowledge they need to know to and to know how to tell when and whether to rely on what political aspirants say. To my mind, that's enough because having that much awareness alone will lead one to ask the right questions and seek accurate and complete answers to them, or least it is enough if one just has a modicum of intellectual integrity, i.e, concern for determining what is so and what is not before one settles on a conclusion.

I guess I confused you.
I don't think you did, although it wouldn't be the first time I've been confused. I'm pretty used to it.
I think we just don't agree on this. I stand by my earlier post, even in light of your most recent, which pretty much repeats what you said before. I won't repeat what I said before, for the sake of the thread. Maybe someone else will have a different view on it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think we just don't agree on this.

It's lookin' like that. I'm okay with that. I know you are too.

I gotta say, it's hard for me to see as "expert" level anything that is routinely covered in high school.

 

[320 Years of History]

The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic. Even what one is taught in high school about quadratic and cubic equations and solving them doesn't rise to an expert level of understanding about those equations. So while I "get" what the article says, I still see existentially the content I'm talking about is "stuff" that is annually taught to high students.

To accept the "emboldened" premise above, I'd also have to accept that high school students graduate as experts at something. Well, about the only thing I can identify that high school graduates are expert at doing is being teenagers and literally going to (i.e., attending, not necessarily learning) or skipping high school classes, and the only thing making them experts at attending high school is the fact that they graduated from it.

 

[OldLady]

The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic. Even what one is taught in high school about quadratic and cubic equations and solving them doesn't rise to an expert level of understanding about those equations. So while I "get" what the article says, I still see existentially the content I'm talking about is "stuff" that is annually taught to high students.

To accept the "emboldened" premise above, I'd also have to accept that high school students graduate as experts at something. Well, about the only thing I can identify that high school graduates are expert at doing is being teenagers and literally going to (i.e., attending, not necessarily learning) or skipping high school classes, and the only thing making them experts at attending high school is the fact that they graduated from it.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic.
Right. It's not. You said somewhere back there that you felt all voters should know enough to question the blather of political candidates. That, imo, is a critical thinking skill, and critical thinking is done when one has an expert fund of knowledge in a field and/or the spirit of inquiry to not accept anything on its face, to question the inferences. Therefore, a solid high school education alone is not going to give you the results you dream of.
And quit bringing up MATH to intimidate me.

 

[xband]

The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic. Even what one is taught in high school about quadratic and cubic equations and solving them doesn't rise to an expert level of understanding about those equations. So while I "get" what the article says, I still see existentially the content I'm talking about is "stuff" that is annually taught to high students.

To accept the "emboldened" premise above, I'd also have to accept that high school students graduate as experts at something. Well, about the only thing I can identify that high school graduates are expert at doing is being teenagers and literally going to (i.e., attending, not necessarily learning) or skipping high school classes, and the only thing making them experts at attending high school is the fact that they graduated from it.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic.
Right. It's not. You said somewhere back there that you felt all voters should know enough to question the blather of political candidates. That, imo, is a critical thinking skill, and critical thinking is done when one has an expert fund of knowledge in a field and/or the spirit of inquiry to not accept anything on its face, to question the inferences. Therefore, a solid high school education alone is not going to give you the results you dream of.
And quit bringing up MATH to intimidate me.

Critical thinking is too broad a term. Subjective or objective reasoning further defines critical thinking.

 

[OldLady]

The link I shared with you in a previous post is pretty clear that the critical thinking and analysis you posit as being necessary to make informed decisions is tied to expert knowledge in the field you are analyzing.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic. Even what one is taught in high school about quadratic and cubic equations and solving them doesn't rise to an expert level of understanding about those equations. So while I "get" what the article says, I still see existentially the content I'm talking about is "stuff" that is annually taught to high students.

To accept the "emboldened" premise above, I'd also have to accept that high school students graduate as experts at something. Well, about the only thing I can identify that high school graduates are expert at doing is being teenagers and literally going to (i.e., attending, not necessarily learning) or skipping high school classes, and the only thing making them experts at attending high school is the fact that they graduated from it.

The thing I'm stuck on this idea that anything taught to high school students might constitute an "expert" level of knowledge on whatever be the topic.
Right. It's not. You said somewhere back there that you felt all voters should know enough to question the blather of political candidates. That, imo, is a critical thinking skill, and critical thinking is done when one has an expert fund of knowledge in a field and/or the spirit of inquiry to not accept anything on its face, to question the inferences. Therefore, a solid high school education alone is not going to give you the results you dream of.
And quit bringing up MATH to intimidate me.

Critical thinking is too broad a term. Subjective or objective reasoning further defines critical thinking.

Care to say more about that? How it applies to being an informed voter?

 

[320 Years of History]

the spirit of inquiry to not accept anything on its face, to question the inferences. Therefore, a solid high school education alone is not going to give you the results you dream of.

Consider economic policy proposals that leaders may advocate as a means of "curing" a recession. Let's say that one side proposes increasing government spending and the other proposes increasing the money supply by lowering the Fed Funds rate. With as much background as one can obtain in a high school macroeconomics class, one has enough information to know which of those proposals bears any plausible hope of being effective at "curing" the recession and one has enough information to know that if the proposed option that doesn't jibe with what one learned about macroeconomics is to work, some wholly new model of economics must be put in place, and one knows that can't be happening because the laws of supply and demand aren't like the laws legislatures enact. With just a high school level of understanding about macroeconomics, one knows that economic models can't be "put in place."

 

[OldLady]

the spirit of inquiry to not accept anything on its face, to question the inferences. Therefore, a solid high school education alone is not going to give you the results you dream of.

Consider economic policy proposals that leaders may advocate as a means of "curing" a recession. Let's say that one side proposes increasing government spending and the other proposes increasing the money supply by lowering the Fed Funds rate. With as much background as one can obtain in a high school macroeconomics class, one has enough information to know which of those proposals bears any plausible hope of being effective at "curing" the recession and one has enough information to know that if the proposed option that doesn't jibe with what one learned about macroeconomics is to work, some wholly new model of economics must be put in place, and one knows that can't be happening because the laws of supply and demand aren't like the laws legislatures enact. With just a high school level of understanding about macroeconomics, one knows that economic models can't be "put in place."

I don't know that, and I graduated high school and have a B.A. Go out on the sidewalk and ask some random folks or chat at your local diner. I am not alone by a long shot. And you don't want me to vote for that reason? Well, excuse me, fella, but I got something to say about that!

If you're referring to the Democrats' economic proposals as opposed to the Republicans' economic proposals, I have no idea which would work better and I'll bet you I'm not the only person who doesn't. I know when Reagan cut taxes and increased military spending, my day to day survival became MUCH easier. It sounds like what the Republicans are proposing again. It worked once. That's all I know. I can't vote for them, though, because they nominated that buffoon and the rest of them have been acting like idiots.

That is why I normally trust the candidate and party that aligns most closely with my views; I let them figure that stuff out. I know you shared Moody's analysis of Trump's plan awhile ago, but since then I have heard folks taking it apart. Like everything to do with economics, it's all crystal ball gazing, and for every opinion there is a counter opinion.