Looking back at The Demon Haunted World

[Kaylee]

Gore Vidal wrote that our leaders want a docile, unquestioning populace, and the way to achieve that is to dumb down education. People incapable of critical thinking don't make waves.

Interesting. Perhaps there is something to it. Years ago "leaders" would not have to be so indirect. They could and did create laws to make it illegal to teach slaves how to read and they could and did prevent people from selected demographic groups (women, blacks, Asians, etc.) from being admitted to schools of higher education. But now there are no longer laws enforcing illiteracy and schools are not allowed to discriminate (slavery has been banned also).

It would be interesting to see if an inverse correlation could be proven between a dumbed down education system and news medium, and the elimination of the ability to legally discriminate in key areas.

<Conspiracy mode> Can't stop 'em from learning? Make it unfashionable and nerdy instead! </Conspiracy mode>

I have issues with blaming the media for everything.

Or the dumbed down news medium may just be a side effect of the fact that they're paid for substantially or entirely by commercials and ads, and not by subscriptions from individuals. See The Medial Monopoly (6th Ed.) by Ben Baqdikian for more on that. (The 6th Ed and not the 7th, which was substantially rewritten. I don't know if the author kept that section in the newer edition.)

But I guess my main point is: it seems we're getting stupider because of media exposure, etc. But at the same time, we're getting smarter. For every new homeopath, there's someone who looked up a real diagnosis on WebMD and questioned it, or sought a real solution.

I don't think the media is bad, I think people just need to learn how to read it.

Good point.

Myself, in RL I am a total skeptic. I don't believe in anything. And yet, I just sat glued to the TV for the season finale of *Lost.* I LOVE that show. And I loved the *X-Files.* And I love horror movies, from Kubrick's *The Shining*, to all the Hellraiser films. And I've read most of Stephen King, and some Koontz, and a lot of sci-fi, and not much nonfiction, because when I watch a movie or read a book, I want to be entertained.

I don't believe any of this stuff is real for cryin' out loud.

…

And yet I watch it and am distracted from the *horrors* or my daily life

I do wonder how much of the audience is there for the entertainment value and to "make fun of the dummies", and not because they actually believe. {shrug} I watched part of the Criss Angel show last night. I thought his use of props and camera cuts when he "walked through" the glass window was interesting. {shrug}

 

[BlackCat]

I have issues with blaming the media for everything.

Same here. I didn't think that I was blaming the media for our problems. They are merely a symptom. The media reflects what people want to watch and hear. My problem is that my favorite science channels have stopped showing educational programming in favor of "wooish tales," home improvement programs, and reality TV. I have no desire to watch these shows, and am a little bitter that I have no refuge on TV anymore.

And yet I watch it and am distracted from the *horrors* or my daily life (you don't wanna know).

Yes, it's called escapism. I do it too, and enjoy it. But sometimes I don't want to escape. Sometimes I want to watch something gratifiying, that changes me after I'm done watching it. Like Cosmos.

It's not the screenwriters' fault. I'd say it's *education*. But I don't mean public education. I mean what you learn at home. It's not up to the schools to teach religion or any *woo* stuff, mostly the facts, and I realize there's intepretation there, especially when it comes to subjects like history. But it's also up to the parents at home, and I think this is where a big problem lies. Granted, there are a lot of parents out there who believe the woo stuff and pass it on, and what hope do those kids have? Parents need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, and that's the problem.

I would agree. But how do you educate these parents? The public education system. No, the schools shouldn't be teaching wooish material, they should be teaching critical thinking. I think the problem is that schools are not teaching important things to the next generation. How can someone think critically when they've never been taught how, and having only take two years of science class, much of which is memorization than actual learning, be expected to twenty years after they've graduated from high school?

I don't know how to solve any problems either. The public education system is so disgusting to me that when I have kids, they're going to be homeschooled, so that I can teach them what I consider important: math, science, curiosity, critical thinking, etc. (They'll learn more than that, of course, I'm just emphasizing what I would teach.)

Which brings me to another point, but it's a digression: has anyone read *The DaVinci Code*?

No. I haven't felt the desire to. In fact, it's been shoved in my face so much, I'm getting sick of it, and I probably never will read it.

BlackCat

 

[Overman]

When I took economics, it was generally understood that the better off economically a family or society is, the fewer children they will have. It may or may not be related to intelligence.

BlackCat

The higher an education a person has, generally, the better job and therefore the more money that person has.

I think the stat is related more to education. Education takes time and hard work, child rearing is difficult to do this. Also Jobs that require more education are usally more time consuming, making more difficult to have more kids.

If a Dr. has kids right out of school they are still at least 26 years old, where many people who have their first kid at 17 are not likely to attend further school...

I will try to find the source on this data....

 

[Overman]

The higher an education that a person has, the less likely that they will have kids, and when they do they have less kids.

Dumb people are breeding faster.

Presumably, then, we can extrapolate backwards to a time when everyone was super intelligent. When was that?

Incorrect assumption.

The denominator would not totally disappear and super intelligence was never mentioned.....

But if I had to guess I would say 1975.

 

[BlackCat]

Dumb people are breeding faster.

This assumption also requires that it is impossible for intelligent people to be born from "dumb" people, or for "dumb" people to become intelligent. (Whatever dumb means.)

I think the stat is related more to education. Education takes time and hard work, child rearing is difficult to do this. Also Jobs that require more education are usally more time consuming, making more difficult to have more kids.

This is generally correct, but I was thinking more in terms of industrial development. In unindustrialized countries, the women have 8-10 children in their lifetimes. In industrialized, they have 2.5 (in the US, at least), and in Japan, even fewer.

I think your hypothesis of dumb people overrunning the smart people is specious at best.

BlackCat

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The higher an education a person has, generally, the better job and therefore the more money that person has.

I think the stat is related more to education. Education takes time and hard work, child rearing is difficult to do this. Also Jobs that require more education are usally more time consuming, making more difficult to have more kids.

If a Dr. has kids right out of school they are still at least 26 years old, where many people who have their first kid at 17 are not likely to attend further school...

I will try to find the source on this data....

So by this measure we should have rich stupid people having lots of kids.

Paris Hilton, not so likely.
Britney Spears, maybe. We'll have to see.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you have Power Point, this html site has the link to the PPt version. It has a wealth of information on how affluence affects everything from birth rates to all other population factors. The html version misses all the graphs and charts which contain all the information.

The relationship between affluence and birth rates are unquestionable. First the death rates have to fall. There is a delay, and eventually the birth rate drops.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Side issue:

...For every new homeopath, there's someone who looked up a real diagnosis on WebMD and questioned it, or sought a real solution.

Do you mean that for every new homeopathic client, there is someone who looked up a real diagnosis?....

WebMD is a commercial site and as such should be viewed with a tad of skepticism. Personally, I find it way too watered down, but then I am a health care provider. A lay person might find it useful.

Back to the topic....