CDZ Information

[320 Years of History]

The American public seems, in general, to have a love-hate relationship with information. On one hand, folks seem like they love to know everything about "everything." On the other, they rarely invest much of their own energy to get that information. Similarly, the public want to have "everything" boiled down to a soundbite, even though many things just aren't that simple.

Overlying those penchants and preferences, folks are yet willing to make assertions, form opinions and come to conclusions based on their limited knowledge of the actual facts, even in cases where the data one would need are readily available, care of the Internet. If one just starts reading threads on USMB, one will no trouble finding examples of this:

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15190403/
  
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15192178/
  
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15175444/

I think most folks know they don't have a complete (or nearly complete) set of information when they form their opinions. I certainly know when I'm involved in a discussion about something for which I lack a full spectrum of information. It's not hard to know that. If I haven't gone hunting for the information or wasn't given it as part of my formal or professional training, I don't have have all the information I need to make or have a well informed decision/opinion. Data doesn't just run up to me waving a flag and begging to jump into my brain. Maybe they do that with other folks and I'm just not aware of it?

• So just what it is it with the American electorate's members (I don't count minors seeing as their opinions on politics don't matter until they can vote) that they won't, can't, "whatever," pursue getting accurate and complete information beyond that which is provided via their favorite sources, sources that may or may not provide the full picture, to say nothing of presenting it in full context?
• What is it that drives the American electorate to seemingly prefer "opinion news" over hard fact news? Do most folks even know the difference?

Let's be real. Television news only has a few minutes available to cover any given topic, yet if you've researched anything, even a topic you care to discuss on USMB, you know that unless you are already truly and expert on the topic, it takes a more than two or three minutes to cover it. Even PBS Newshour, which of the news programs out there devotes a lot more time to any given topic, tends to spend about six to ten minutes covering a topic

 

[Toronado3800]

People have opinions despite a wide array of familiarity with the situation.

Politics is a wide ranging field where I perhaps will NEVER know everything I need to.

Something equally entertaining is auto repair. There are often a few dozen things which may be taken into consideration if an automobile has a malfunction. Working under my shade tree I often have to decide if with my diagnostic information I can make an informed decision. It often comes down to me taking one shot at a diagnosing a repair then taking the car to a professional who hopefully I trust.

I find our Republican form of government somewhat similar. We vote with the information on the candidates we have. The candidate's perceived personalty and party platform help drive many voters.

 

[OldLady]

Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until someone points it out.

You've been here almost a year. You are still struggling with the fact that people voice their opinions without doing full blown research on a given topic? Or that they trust the source where they heard what they believe is a "fact?" I realize you object to this, but the only way to "fix" that is to point out where they are wrong when it's voiced, and if the poster doesn't care enough to consider it, it is his loss, not yours.
Unless it results in Trump being elected, of course, in which case it will be all our loss.

 

[oldsoul]

So just what it is it with the American electorate's members (I don't count minors seeing as their opinions on politics don't matter until they can vote) that they won't, can't, "whatever," pursue getting accurate and complete information beyond that which is provided via their favorite sources, sources that may or may not provide the full picture, to say nothing of presenting it in full context?

I think the answer to this boils down to two things:

1. Time: most people have a very limited amount of time they are willing to devote to such things as politics. Therefore, they must prioritize and many choose to simply believe/"go with" whatever they see/hear on their favorite news outlet.
2. Most people have deeply held ideological views, and as such, when a "story" come along that supports their views, they cling to it and don't question the validity of it. Conversely, when a story refuting their views comes along, they dismiss it as partisanship, and move on.

This is likely over-simplifying the situation, but I don't believe going deeper would serve any purpose as of yet, for the reasons cited above.

What is it that drives the American electorate to seemingly prefer "opinion news" over hard fact news? Do most folks even know the difference?

Simply put, "opinion news" is much easier to understand and put into a sound bite. Generally, I think this is a grey area. While most people will recognize overt "opinion news", generally speaking, more subtle deliveries, will get interpreted as hard facts. For example: If a pundit says, "I believe/think...." people understand what is being expressed is an opinion. However, when a pundit says, "We/he/she/it/they are/do..." people will generally interpret it as fact, regardless of what is actually said. Consider the following:
"I believe Mars could support human life."
"Mars can, indeed, support human life."
Most people will accept the second statement as fact, if it is expressed by a respected expert (i.e. a NASA scientist), even though it is, in fact, an opinion. The fact that we simply do not have enough data to support such a statement, will rarely even cross the mind of the average voter.

 

[Pilate]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

 

[oldsoul]

Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until someone points it out.

You've been here almost a year. You are still struggling with the fact that people voice their opinions without doing full blown research on a given topic? Or that they trust the source where they heard what they believe is a "fact?" I realize you object to this, but the only way to "fix" that is to point out where they are wrong when it's voiced, and if the poster doesn't care enough to consider it, it is his loss, not yours.
Unless it results in Trump being elected, of course, in which case it will be all our loss.

That is certainly a valid point, however,

Unless it results in Trump being elected, of course, in which case it will be all our loss.

You simply could not help yourself, could you?
Here we are, discussing how far too many people do not do the research required to develop a well educated opinion on a subject, and you post your opinion as if it were fact. The fact of the matter is, we simply do not, indeed cannot, know if Trump (or Clinton for that matter) would be a "good" choice or a bad one. The events of the next four or so years will determine that(for who ever gets elected), thus, we do not have the data to support any claim of who would be a "good" choice, and who would be a "bad" choice, only opinions (hopefully guided by facts and wisdom).

 

[OldLady]

Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until someone points it out.

You've been here almost a year. You are still struggling with the fact that people voice their opinions without doing full blown research on a given topic? Or that they trust the source where they heard what they believe is a "fact?" I realize you object to this, but the only way to "fix" that is to point out where they are wrong when it's voiced, and if the poster doesn't care enough to consider it, it is his loss, not yours.
Unless it results in Trump being elected, of course, in which case it will be all our loss.

That is certainly a valid point, however,

Unless it results in Trump being elected, of course, in which case it will be all our loss.

You simply could not help yourself, could you?
Here we are, discussing how far too many people do not do the research required to develop a well educated opinion on a subject, and you post your opinion as if it were fact. The fact of the matter is, we simply do not, indeed cannot, know if Trump (or Clinton for that matter) would be a "good" choice or a bad one. The events of the next four or so years will determine that(for who ever gets elected), thus, we do not have the data to support any claim of who would be a "good" choice, and who would be a "bad" choice, only opinions (hopefully guided by facts and wisdom).

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek for our OP, cuz I'd bet it was drivel from a Trumpster that set him off to write this. I could be wrong. Don't be sensitive. I agree 100% with your earlier post. I don't 100% agree that we can't have a very well supported opinion on Trump being a disaster. But that is another thread. I didn't mean to get off topic with that.

 

[320 Years of History]

You've been here almost a year. You are still struggling with the fact that people voice their opinions without doing full blown research on a given topic?

Only insofar as I had higher expectations of folks in general than I'm encountering. Sure, there are a handful of folks who post regularly and who, if they don't know (mostly) "everything" about a topic, they refrain from posting as though they do, or as though someone else is a fool for not seeing things as they do. Truly, I really had no idea it's as common a phenomenon as it appears, from observing on USMB, as it is. Then again, part of why I'm here was to get some sort of sense of the matter beyond what I would otherwise get as I go about my daily routines, and in that, I've been successful. I came here with a hypothesis about this, and based on what I've observed so far, more about it was wrong than was right.

 

[320 Years of History]

The fact that we simply do not have enough data to support such a statement, will rarely even cross the mind of the average voter.

Agreed. I wonder just how did we get to a place where that type of response is the "default" if you will? Personally, it's deeply disturbing to me that our national sense/desire to seek the truth has become so adulterated or suppressed, most especially given the comparatively greater ease and rapidity these days of obtaining factually accurate and complete information. It's not like it was in my youth when one had to go to a library, dig through stacks and card catalogs and then actually read whole books/papers on a topic in order to become well informed.

 

[320 Years of History]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

Really, that quality of my post was included to constrain the scope of the discussion to American politics and citizens, and that mainly because what goes on in the U.S. is what is most important to me.

As for the "uniquely" aspect of your question, well that would be your inference, not my assertion or implication. Heck, I didn't even mention another nation's polity. What therefore made you feel as though you should ask me the leading question of how I come to believe the noted behavior is "uniquely American?" Was that just something that came to mind so you figured you'd ask it? ???

 

[Pilate]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

Really, that quality of my post was included to constrain the scope of the discussion to American politics and citizens, and that mainly because what goes on in the U.S. is what is most important to me.

As for the "uniquely" aspect of your question, well that would be your inference, not my assertion or implication. Heck, I didn't even mention another nation's polity. What therefore made you feel as though you should ask me the leading question of how I come to believe the noted behavior is "uniquely American?" Was that just something that came to mind so you figured you'd ask it? ???

Perhaps phrase it differently next time. Anyway, information is a commodity. Currently we have a ton of it available and consequently it is perceived as being not very valuable. Thought that's just my take on things.

 

[320 Years of History]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek for our OP, cuz I'd bet it was drivel from a Trumpster that set him off to write this. I could be wrong.

That's not a terrible assumption for I've been thusly inspired in the past. In this thread, however, no, that wasn't the inspiration. I was tempted to link the discussion with Trumpeteers, but as I've already been down that road, I decided to present the rubric for discussion without any specific party/candidate affiliation.

 

[320 Years of History]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

Really, that quality of my post was included to constrain the scope of the discussion to American politics and citizens, and that mainly because what goes on in the U.S. is what is most important to me.

As for the "uniquely" aspect of your question, well that would be your inference, not my assertion or implication. Heck, I didn't even mention another nation's polity. What therefore made you feel as though you should ask me the leading question of how I come to believe the noted behavior is "uniquely American?" Was that just something that came to mind so you figured you'd ask it? ???

Perhaps phrase it differently next time. Anyway, information is a commodity. Currently we have a ton of it available and consequently it is perceived as being not very valuable. Thought that's just my take on things.

Water is also a commodity, and it's essential. Information is much the same, although it's more perishable than is water.

 

[320 Years of History]

Perhaps phrase it differently next time.

WTH? Do you truly expect folks to say what they don't mean/intend as well as what they do? If you do, you clearly are left unsatisfied with a lot of what you must read.

 

[Pilate]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

Really, that quality of my post was included to constrain the scope of the discussion to American politics and citizens, and that mainly because what goes on in the U.S. is what is most important to me.

As for the "uniquely" aspect of your question, well that would be your inference, not my assertion or implication. Heck, I didn't even mention another nation's polity. What therefore made you feel as though you should ask me the leading question of how I come to believe the noted behavior is "uniquely American?" Was that just something that came to mind so you figured you'd ask it? ???

Perhaps phrase it differently next time. Anyway, information is a commodity. Currently we have a ton of it available and consequently it is perceived as being not very valuable. Thought that's just my take on things.

Water is also a commodity, and it's essential. Information is much the same, although it's more perishable than is water.

Well, we literally flush it down the toilet.

 

[westwall]

What leads you to believe that this is uniquely American?

Really, that quality of my post was included to constrain the scope of the discussion to American politics and citizens, and that mainly because what goes on in the U.S. is what is most important to me.

As for the "uniquely" aspect of your question, well that would be your inference, not my assertion or implication. Heck, I didn't even mention another nation's polity. What therefore made you feel as though you should ask me the leading question of how I come to believe the noted behavior is "uniquely American?" Was that just something that came to mind so you figured you'd ask it? ???

My guess would be your lead sentence. "The American public" seems to be an inference that this is a uniquely American issue when it clearly is not. The sad fact is that worldwide the level of education is dropping, and the bureaucrats in charge are intensifying their attacks on education and the ability for people to think critically.

 

[oldsoul]

I wonder just how did we get to a place where that type of response is the "default" if you will?

In part it is laziness I suppose. Mostly though, as Westwall stated, it's the intentional "dumbing down" of the populace. For those in power, information readily available, and more precisely, utilized by "the masses" is seen as a dangerous threat to their grip on power.

 

[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.)

 

[oldsoul]

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

 

[320 Years of History]

THREAD NOTE:

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHOSE POSTS ARE USED IN THE OP TO ILLUSTRATE INSTANCES OF FOLKS MAKING REMARKS WITHOUT BEING FULLY INFORMED ON THE TOPIC ABOUT WHICH THEY REMARKED.