I think the situation you have described has not really much to do with education (information theory and application), as anyone already within the influence of education will make an effort to recognize their mistakes and continue learning towards changing their own patterns of comprehension.
I think what actually occurs with greater part of the American population that happens to be stubborn and impulsive in their comprehension is more strictly related to psychology (information retention and processing).
The only possible solution would be for people already within the influence of education to continue learning for the shared benefit of the people that are for many possible reasons restricted within the influence of psychology. This would manifest as the educated folk using their own expressions in ever more simpler and altogether more empathic ways to make a stable connection towards education with the folk that are still highly restrained and limited by psychological factors.
I think the cause for this discrepancy within the population is less technologically and industrially oriented but more so genealogically impacted (ancestral and private family relations).
Red:
That's a might optimistic stance and one that is directly refuted by the remarks I got in response to illustrating to the members who misconstrued the terms I noted in my OP. Perhaps theirs are among the statistically rare (comparatively so) types of responses one might expect from those who've shown they don't/didn't understand something they encountered. I don't know, nor have I researched what behavior patterns are most common in response to having be corrected or shown the error of one's understandings and perceptions, but anecdotally, I suspect they are not.
Blue:
"Within the influence of education?"
Would you please explain precisely what be the nature and extent of the "influence of education" you have in mind? Perhaps, however, you intend simultaneously all the influences education can have, although I think that unlikely. I suspect you might merely mean "well educated," but as there are many other types of influence that education can have, I don't know that to be so; thus I bid you elucidate.
"Restricted within the influence of psychology"
Here again, I must, before replying, ask what specific "influence of psychology" have you in mind? I realise you parenthetically noted remembering and applying the knowledge one has gained, and think they may be it, but I want to be sure it is only those and not others.
Given your preferred syntax, were I to apply the its linguistic customs to your comments I'd have expected you to write "restricted
by the influence of psychology," but you did not write that. So, would you please tell me what exactly it means to be "restricted
within" that influence?
I infer that by this turn of phrase you mean "people who unavoidably have cognitive learning disabilities," but, again, as there are other possible meanings of that phrase, I cannot know merely by understanding the words whether that be the meaning you had when writing it.
Pink:
Say what?
- What the heck is "a stable connection towards education" in the context of your sentence?
- For what motive would well educated folks aim to make a "stable connection towards [sic] education?"
- Is it possible that were I rewrite it as follows, my recomposition of your sentence carries the same meaning you had in mind?
The way to overcome the limited information retention, processing and comprehension ability among some members of the population is for well educated folks to present their thoughts using simple, precise, and clear vocabulary and sentence structures so as to make their comments most easily understood by the largest possible share of their audience.
Orange:
Does your comment mean that you think that in a causal way such as "because one's immediate family and ancestors had below par comprehension skills and/or education, so to will oneself in spite of one's innately having average or higher cognitive abilities and presumably greater access to education?"
Personally, I find that quite hard to believe. Numerous are the people who issue from humble beginnings and who have become very learned. Few are the people who have genuine intellectual disabilities and who also procreate.
Other:
I have to say that your penchant for syntactical shibboleths characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, while entertaining to read, does not, to modern readers, or at the very least least this one, enhance the clarity and comprehension of your ideas. Rather its ambiguity forces inefficient requests for delineation prior to one's offering a substantive reply. For myself, it's not that I don't understand what you've written, it's that there are too many viable ways to understand it, and your remarks often lack enough contextual content to assure me of which one is the correct one, the one you mean.
