Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

[ChainLightning]

Difficult to understand? Yes. Way too many words with more than one syllable. AND very few words with only 4 letters or less.

Not to mention the comprehension requirement being something beyond, "Ooh look! A shiny!"





You *did* ask.

I was actually sort of serious... Though I'm guessing you are sort of too...and even if you are not, you *are* apparently correct. That *was* too difficult of a sentence (or too difficult of a concept) for her to get.

I would think a half-way intelligent individual trying to engage in a debate on the role of religion in one's voting habits should be able to get that as an idea. I guess I didn't dumb it down for her enough...are my expectations too high in the arena of reading comprehension as well?

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

I didn't want to limit this to religion, where it really began, considering the the abomination I was faced with, just the other day, where religion wasn't even a consideration.

Thalassa raises a very valid question, here.

If a person can make a reasonably sound decision,on whatever topic, be it voting, religion, parenting, what-have-you, should they not also be able to withstand some scrutiny? And in that scrutiny, isn't comprehension a prerequisite?

How in the world can ANYONE make a decision, and stand by it (vehemently, even), if they don't have the comprehension skills to discuss it?

Has society dumbed down so much? Flippant decisions, with no real aforethought, are written in stone because of some unsubstantiated "entitlement"? As in: I don't have to explain, expound or even define anything that I don't want to. Even if I bring it up! Or demand that others join me in my blindness, no questions allowed.

Seriously??!!?

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

I think it is possible to make mountains out of molehills, just as it is possible to make molehills out of mountains. I think - and I've always advocated - that people should understand precisely why they believe something and why it makes sense, otherwise the whole thing falls apart at the first whiff of crisis. We were born with brains, we have to use them. We were meant to use them. That doesn't always mean having an amazing vocabulary or grasp of syntax.... it's quite possible to grasp some complicated ideas without using highly technical language. However, if you have the ability, the intelligence, then why not learn the appropriate language for the points you want to make? it really isn't rocket science.

Some years ago, I remember being out with my dogs and a teenage youth came up and made a fuss then started asking what was wrong with his own puppy. His grasp of language was horrendously poor. He wasn't shy, he didn't stammer, he swore like a trooper, and he was a nice enough lad (though I mightn't have been pleased if he had wanted to marry one of my daughters! ) but he didn't even know enough to understand how to get help. (It turned out later that the puppy probably had worms.)

And I thought, as I watched him walk away, what a tragedy it was. All the schooling (compulsory in the UK from 5 - 16) and this young man still couldn't string more than two words together (unless the second was 'off') properly.

So to return to your question, Chain, 'If a person can make a reasonably sound decision,on whatever topic, be it voting, religion, parenting, what-have-you, should they not also be able to withstand some scrutiny? And in that scrutiny, isn't comprehension a prerequisite?' Of course beliefs and actions should be able to withstand scrutiny. That doesn't mean everyone needs to pile in and tear their beliefs apart. I don't particularly wish to see into other people's hearts and minds. However, if something is worth believing in, or doing, then one really does need to understand why.... for one's own sake.

But what that encounter so many years taught me is the depths of ignorance that some people wallow in. Imagine a world where not only did we not understand, we couldn't even explain to anyone who might help us what it was that we didn't understand. And even if we thought we understood something, we probably didn't.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more scared I am.

[Caelia]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

The problem is a very complex one. I usually encountered it from teachers telling me I "think too big" (until I got to college, then it was either a hater or someone decided to actually refine it). So it's no wonder I see people who can't even form a coherent thought, let alone fill out an order form (true story, sad enough. You'd shoot yourself if you learned how right George Carlin was about the lowering of college entrance standards in this country). Part of it stems from ideological warfare - be it political, theological, doesn't matter-combined with a need to cater to "inclusivity" that people don't feel that have to examine something. If we question it, then it means the thought isn't "welcomed" and that means the presenter must evaluate it too, which means change and possibly exclusivity.

As you can see, I've grappled with this for a while. I grew up with everything I said under scrutiny-for better or for worse-and so it doesn't get me as much. I thought it was just an issue of blissful ignorance until I kinda messed with the heads of some of the extremists a bit more...in person. Heck, even when I lived with Azazel and described my observations to people around me they either covered their ears singing or stared at me blankly. It took me a while to realize the latter was the same as the former. I had challenged something they accepted without question and now had to question it and face the onsetting unknown.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

Almost every boss I ever had said "We don't pay you to think", "Leave your brain at the door", or some such thing. All I ever learned from working for others was to watch them make mistakes, quietly do my job, and plot my escape. The chasm between that and the academic environment (where we're encouraged to question things and explore solutions) is unspeakably huge.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

I should say, after some reflection, that "scrutiny" is quite the wrong word. Since that would indicate someone trying to examine "it" very closely. What I meant, basically, was the people should have enough understanding (of their position) to explain, clearly, why they chose such a decision. That isn't scrutiny. That is simply the ability to communicate an understanding and explain an ideology.

From my own experience, one example I can share, is the response, "It's a God-thing, I don't think about those topics. I leave them to God." When asked to consider such benign topics as meditation (or meditative music), the far reaches of the universe or even sharing the humor of some horoscope.

Don't think! Don't consider. Don't do anything with that gray matter, at all!

Isn't that, essentially, walking-talking brain dead?

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

walking-talking brain dead?

I've used that very phrase to describe the hordes of people on commuter trains.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

As a general rule, people first make a decision based on their feelings, without really knowing why they have made that decision (this is based whole explanation I'm giving you is based on some pretty heavy research. I can give references if necessary).

After the decision has been made, an individual, if he/she is introspective, will use his/her reason to come up with a reason for that decision. However, because this "reason" is arrived at after the decision has been made, it may or may not be true (we lie to ourselves about our own actions and motivations moment by moment).

If the individual is not introspective, he/she may not be aware of any reason at all, at least not until questioned and forced to come up with an answer.

You can see this process in action pretty easily in your every day life, if you look for it. It's most easily seen when you engage in "automatic" activities - for instance, I was driving my car through rush hour Detroit traffic (2 inches between each bumper, 75 miles per hour) when I hit a patch of ice. The car began to spin, and I - without any thought (there was no time for it) - began lightly tapping the brake, feeling for the tires to take hold, and straightening out the wheel, somehow avoiding an accident. After the event, I probably could have explained why I was tapping the brake and straightening out the wheel, but at the time, I just did it.

In either case, once a decision has been made, it is possible to go back and take a close look at what one is doing, and THEN apply reason to it, to either confirm the decision or reject it in favor of a new one. We'll do this for some things, but for others we don't. Often we don't do it until somebody asks us for an explanation.

In short form, mostly, people don't know what they are doing until they have decided to do it, then they make up a story to tell themselves about why they did it. Conversation is good because it forces one to take a close look at one's thoughts and actions.

It's not surprising that people often can't explain why they do or believe the things they do or believe.

[Ophidia]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

I think it's all a matter of knowing your audience and being dependent on outcomes.

One, you have to know your audience. Are these people gathered into a place to do something in common, or are they random passers-by? In any random selection of humans, you will find literate, thoughtful, active people, but remember that like attracts like. One aspect of knowing your audience is subject matter - in my experience, being of a coyote-like nature, I occasionally plop myself down where I know I'm not wanted and stir things up. I will interject myself into conversations about the pros & cons of plastic surgery with talk of freeing oneself from media propaganda, dieting conversations with talk of 'health at every size'/fat acceptance/body acceptance, baby talk with population woes... you get the overall picture. But, I know my audience's preferred topics - and my audience knows almost immediately whether or not they are interested in anything I have to say.

Knowing your audience also means knowing the environment. Are you on a university campus, in a library, or a cultural/arts event, or are you in line at the grocery store? That woman reading Woman's World

[thalassa]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

If the language you speak is too high-brow or educated for your audience, you won't hold their interest long enough to get a message across. You can still sound intelligent and have well thought-out arguments if you use modern words in an engaging manner. Think about how many people today still quote Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. The people being quoted knew their audiences and how to get messages across while still playing to their audiences.

This shouldnt have been my problem (though often a problem elsewhere). The "regulars" in the religious debate section where I was at are, for the most part, intelligent...but only 50/50 on being open minded, and only about 30/70 on the ability to not take something said in general as a personal attack...

I've come to the conclusion that its not that she couldn't understand, but that she didn't want to, in favor of getting all offended that I thought my opinion was better than hers.

Well duh, whats the point of HAVING an opinion if you don't think its the best choice (or at the very least, the best choice for YOU)?

What two people find to be demonstrative of integrity or having standards or whatever is likely to be very different. But...she comes from a line of thinking that if you don't like it you must be trying to make it illegal or stop people from doing it (because that is what she would do), rather than the idea that one can dislike something and therefore choose not to do it themselves, and even use it as a standard by which they choose their associates.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

That harkens back to de Corbin's observations on emotional decisions rather than conscious decisions. If it's simply a passionate choice anyone that comes along with reason (or any other tack), questioning the decision? It's heavily related to questioning the person. Directly. So while most of us would like a little thought, at the very least just for discussion and interaction, the very act of questioning, showing interest in discussing something, rationally, intelligently and openly, equates to an act of aggression.

Vocabularies aside, comprehension isn't part of the equation when it comes to closing ranks and defending a passionate stance. Which is likely, what it all boils down to.

That makes perfect sense.

My only fly in the ointment is the lack of intelligence to A.) know the difference between asking, out of curiosity or a willingness to learn; B.) assume that any vocabulary beyond a third graders' shows an attempt to ridicule and undermine; C.) have thought about why such a passionate decision was made, in the first place; and, finally, D.) be able to communicate, even in simple terms, with ANYONE that tries to open a line of communication with them. It stands as proof, to me, that dumbing down, in order to even TALK to others, just doesn't work.

Like teaching a pig to sing.

[Ophidia]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

I've come to the conclusion that its not that she couldn't understand, but that she didn't want to, in favor of getting all offended that I thought my opinion was better than hers.

Yeah, I get that from my mother-in-law all the time - and she understands big words.

/sigh

[Zathera]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

"If a person can make a reasonably sound decision,on whatever topic, be it voting, religion, parenting, what-have-you, should they not also be able to withstand some scrutiny? And in that scrutiny, isn't comprehension a prerequisite?

How in the world can ANYONE make a decision, and stand by it (vehemently, even), if they don't have the comprehension skills to discuss it?"

The topics you bring up: voting, Religion and parenting are all practically private affairs. The person has made a choice, it generally affects their private life only, so why is it our right to try and remove them from what they concieve to be certainties? In my mind it feels like an entitlement in itself, that anyone with an opinion must argue it. To be frank, when I form a private opinion I don't give a damn about arguing it - It's mine and mine alone. If it's topical or i'm engaged in it then sure, but if I debated every little thing I believed i'd probably run out of breath and suffocate!

For someone to make a decision it usually requires a comprehension - that isn't to say they will be experts on the subject, even if it affects their entire lives in some way. Perhaps you cannot understand their comprehension, perhaps you even think it wrong, but it is still comprehension by definition and it is still theirs by right.

There are other factors aswell though, I feel you've over-simplified this. [The irony]
Some don't want to debate - they've no interest in others opinions
" - They don't want to offend others / they wish to fit in
" - They don't feel the need to
" - They lack the capacity to do their opinions justice, so instead opt out
Others still lack the time to debate, or see no value in it at all. Infact most see debating, and generally disagreeing, as a negative thing. That, in my experience, is the public perception.

"Has society dumbed down so much? Flippant decisions, with no real aforethought, are written in stone because of some unsubstantiated "entitlement"? As in: I don't have to explain, expound or even define anything that I don't want to. Even if I bring it up! Or demand that others join me in my blindness, no questions allowed.

Seriously??!!?"

Intelligence is purely subjective, it always has and will probably always be so. You speak against "society" yet have probably not met 1% of the society you hastily generalise and judge. It is a persons right to decide whether they wish to debate, and others as to whether they wish to listen. Who are you to claim that society MUST conform to your debating idealism? You're no better than the entitled society which you clearly dislike.

What I truly feel you're trying to convey here is your anger against the sheep - those that adopt ideas but never truly consider them. It is a waste in my opinion for such people to NOT form their own opinions, but that is their prerogative, my opinion really is of little importance on that.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

The topics you bring up: voting, Religion and parenting are all practically private affairs. The person has made a choice, it generally affects their private life only, so why is it our right to try and remove them from what they concieve to be certainties? In my mind it feels like an entitlement in itself, that anyone with an opinion must argue it. To be frank, when I form a private opinion I don't give a damn about arguing it - It's mine and mine alone. If it's topical or i'm engaged in it then sure, but if I debated every little thing I believed i'd probably run out of breath and suffocate!

For someone to make a decision it usually requires a comprehension - that isn't to say they will be experts on the subject, even if it affects their entire lives in some way. Perhaps you cannot understand their comprehension, perhaps you even think it wrong, but it is still comprehension by definition and it is still theirs by right.

There are other factors aswell though, I feel you've over-simplified this. [The irony]
Some don't want to debate - they've no interest in others opinions
" - They don't want to offend others / they wish to fit in
" - They don't feel the need to
" - They lack the capacity to do their opinions justice, so instead opt out
Others still lack the time to debate, or see no value in it at all. Infact most see debating, and generally disagreeing, as a negative thing. That, in my experience, is the public perception.

Intelligence is purely subjective, it always has and will probably always be so. You speak against "society" yet have probably not met 1% of the society you hastily generalise and judge. It is a persons right to decide whether they wish to debate, and others as to whether they wish to listen. Who are you to claim that society MUST conform to your debating idealism? You're no better than the entitled society which you clearly dislike.

What I truly feel you're trying to convey here is your anger against the sheep - those that adopt ideas but never truly consider them. It is a waste in my opinion for such people to NOT form their own opinions, but that is their prerogative, my opinion really is of little importance on that.

You've only succeeded in proving our point, Zath. You're backing up *your* proposal with sound reasoning. Reasoning, which is an active form of comprehension, is all it takes to answer "why?" when someone is confronted with their choice. Trying to say that they're entitled to not have to explain themselves is all well and good but how can they convey that their concept is better, and that others should adopt it, without having at least a modicum of understanding about what it is they're talking about? Seriously, just enough to answer how they come to that decision, let alone why anyone else should adopt it. If you advertise your thoughts (I'll stop short of saying "try to SELL your thoughts"), have you not invited someone else to THINK? As well as respond?

I'm all for people making their OWN choices, that's true. However, we're not talking about people keeping their choices to themselves, here. I'm supposed to vote/believe/parent some certain way because a person walks in and "says so" with absolutely no reasoning behind it?? Uninformed decisions are in no way, shape, or form, convincing.

The question comes up, "Why? Why should I do it YOUR way?" Surely, "because, it's simply better," is not an answer. "Better" how? "Better" why? Most importantly, why should my INFORMED decision be disregarded only because your uninformed decision is the only one worth knowing?

But, now, to be honest, this is somewhat a tangent from the direction this debate came from. I'd have to defer to Thalassa for more on it.




****Use of the word "your" is in the general sense, and should not be taken to mean ANYONE, specifically.

[Zathera]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

You've only succeeded in proving our point, Zath. You're backing up *your* proposal with sound reasoning. Reasoning, which is an active form of comprehension, is all it takes to answer "why?" when someone is confronted with their choice. Trying to say that they're entitled to not have to explain themselves is all well and good but how can they convey that their concept is better, and that others should adopt it, without having at least a modicum of understanding about what it is they're talking about?
- This assumes that people WANT to sell their ideas to other. And that they genuinely believe their concept is better. I for one as an example, would not want others to follow my Religious decisions to be a Pagan like I am. Why? Because if one is not responsible, a whole ton of undue stress and even danger can be placed upon the practicioner and those around them. That is not to say I cannot debate my Religion, but I've never a wish to say "look, my idea is better than yours. And here's why!" That would be arrogance that only proved that your ideas were NOT better, surely?



Seriously, just enough to answer how they come to that decision, let alone why anyone else should adopt it. If you advertise your thoughts (I'll stop short of saying "try to SELL your thoughts"), have you not invited someone else to THINK? As well as respond?

-If someone Advertises their ideas, then I am in agreement that they should be able to defend WHY they feel they should A) try to convert others and B) be arrogant enough to presume that their worldview is the best worldview.

I'm all for people making their OWN choices, that's true. However, we're not talking about people keeping their choices to themselves, here. I'm supposed to vote/believe/parent some certain way because a person walks in and "says so" with absolutely no reasoning behind it?? Uninformed decisions are in no way, shape, or form, convincing.

- As I stated previously, it is a shame if people wish to conform without using their own creativity and reflecting on their ideals, but it is not our place to stop them. The only time it would ever be fair to intervene, is if it could cause them some harm, or they were using it to unduly influence others. In my opinion, the only time when people should be pressured into debating is when their personal ideas come into the public sphere, that is to say they "sell" their ideas to others, trying to influence them.

The question comes up, "Why? Why should I do it YOUR way?" Surely, "because, it's simply better," is not an answer. "Better" how? "Better" why? Most importantly, why should my INFORMED decision be disregarded only because your uninformed decision is the only one worth knowing?

As far as the thread was directed originally, it atleast to me, appeared to be a rant against the general "society" and the lack of ability to debate.

However just to play devils advocate on your last point. - Being "informed" on a topic does not automatically mean you will reach the best of all possible conclusions. You could be well informed on matters of human rights, yet conclude that racism would be better for the world than no racism. You could know a library's worth of books on the Palaeolithic period of the Earth in terms of humanity, yet still conclude the humans of that time were stupid and primative. Many assume that the majority idea is the best. Whilst I am heavily against this idea, as it breeds general sheepish behavour and is simply an excuse to not think, even I concede that sometimes the majority opinion IS better than the informed one.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Dumbing down? Is it now a rquirement?

As far as the thread was directed originally, it atleast to me, appeared to be a rant against the general "society" and the lack of ability to debate.

Again, as this thread is rather ancient, I forget the details of Thalassa's exchange. It would be best to argue with her, about it.