[Prometheus The Supremo]

imo many Canadaians are idiots to...

They still think Toronto is up tight city conservative city full of WASPS...

i haven't seen much wasps. lots of yellow jackets though.

 

[Dichotomy]

Not stupid, but a nation of extremes. America is still on the cutting edge of science while having great swaths of regressive fundamentalism.

Regardless of the numbers of the uneducated (intentionally or through a poor education system) America had produced great numbers of scientists and innovations as well as world class universities and research labs. And remember, ignorance in science doesn't necessarily translate to ignorance in other subjects, though geography might be a bit off if Rick Mercer is to be believed. I think it all boils down to numbers--America's population is well above most of the Western world, so you are bound to have a few less than stellar peas in the pod even as you get your fair share of geniuses too.

+ 1

Good post. I would add that most people, including Canadians are simply tuning out. It's more 'fun' to follow the Oscars or the NBA than the collider experiment going on in Europe right now. How many kids give a crap about the Mars landings compared to what they see on Star Trek and their video games in terms of action and excitment?
More effort needs to be spent in engaging our youth in the Sciences, rather than simply trying to keep them from shooting each other.
To keep abreast of the developments in genetics and the evolution front is simply overwhelming. I've been following those topics for decades and yet find it hard to explain to a layperson. So much of what one chooses to believe is based on faith, whether it's God or Big Bang.

 

[Hydrogen]

imo many Canadaians are idiots to...

They still think Toronto is up tight city conservative city full of WASPS...

So what's a "Canadaian"?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Test scores bother me. It tells you nothing about the student, but about how well a person can do on a standardized test. Standardized tests present only a very limited way in which knowledge is to be treated, and tell nothing about the future academic possibilities of a given individual. Comparing national scores is like comparing apples and oranges, there are differences all around.

Yeah, ditto. I would almost certainly expect a country like Taiwan to have vastly better standardized test scores than America because their formulaic education system values rote learning.

--------------

The pop culture (Paris Hilton) argument is incredibly disingenuous. From the "high culture" perspective, what other country has produced as many true cultural luminaries as the United States in the last one-hundred years? From the moral relativism perspective (or the one that does not support the view of some cultures being inherently more worthy than others), America is not the exclusive producer of pop culture. If you are going to dump on American Idol and Miley Cyrus, you should also be prepared to dump on Italian variety shows, Cantopop, Polish wedding party techno, Brazilian Baile Funk parties, German "schlager" music and British tabloids.

 

[adma]

Though I wouldn't be surprised if a figurehead such as Sarah Palin might lead many to reconsider their worship (ironic or not) of what might be deemed "Pop America". Like, if this is what it all viably leads to, then...

Part of the same broad cultural bankruptcy that led to a woefully weak, kitsch-purgatory mass response to 9/11. The USofA has lost its mojo.

 

[kEiThZ]

America works because it doesn't have to rely on the locals....

The best and brightest minds flock to the US and join its labour market. Look at the names of those who win those Nobel prizes for the US.

Even on the low end, they rely on illegal migrants to get the job done.

Middle America is as lazy as ever and will stay that was as long the tedious work is done by cheap foreign labour and the high end stuff is done by imported educated labour.

The strength of the US is not in Middle America. It is in its vast open market that offers unlimited potential to those with talents to offer. That's why it will keep drawing the best and brightest for a long time to come. Can you imagine a google or microsoft popping up from a garage in China?

 

[PukeGreen]

There are a slew of new books about anti-intellectualism popping up right now, and I just read a good round-up of them in the NYT: Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

What struck me most is not the observation that many Americans are ignorant, it is that they are willfully ignorant and hostile toward those who are not. It is not a matter of a better education system or stupidity; it is a point of view. To quote briefly from that article:

But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing") and anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion") have fused in a particularly insidious way. Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don't think it matters.

I think part of it is complacency and entitlement. For many Americans in recent decades (and yes, all this applies to Canadians, too) there has been a pretty easy road to middle class life. If you follow the basic rules like finishing high school, showing up at work at 9am and not committing a crime, you can pretty much coast into a reasonable lifestyle. Even most "poor" people in North America have TV sets and cars. This is not the case in much of the world. Contrast that with the stereotypical hard-working immigrant from a poor country who has to work enormously hard to stand out from the pack and get ahead. No wonder many Americans are fearful of immigration, too: they know, at some level, that the newcomers have a more stringent skill set than they do. But rather than propose that Americans strive to match this level of education and work ethic, they would prefer to build walls (virtual or physical) around the country to keep out the immigrants. Soon enough, though, the other rising powers of the world will decide to circumvent the US completely, choosing instead to nurture their own talent at home. Then the US will become redundant as a world power.

This same complacency has led to a vast amount of adult immaturity. What used to be considered acceptable behaviour for only children or adolescents is now the norm for adults. Contrast the admittedly stereotypical adult male of the 1950s with his suit, tie, and sense of familial responsibility (or his also respected blue collar equivalent in overalls with lunch pail and calloused hands) with today's teeming mass of pseudo slackers slouched in front of video games, painted head to toe at a football game or skulking around with pants drooping halfway down their asses. I'm hardly one to call for a return to the bad old days, or a social conservative, but it does depress me sometimes to see people with the apparent maturity level of 12-year-olds reproducing and passing on their partially-formed worldview to their children. Well-formed coherent opinions no longer matter as much as how loudly and belligerently you communicate them. Nuanced analysis is deemed "flip-flopping" and discussing your differences with rival nations like an adult is "weakness". American Idol propagates the silly fantasy that everyone can be a celebrity and anyone can do anything if they just try, hard work and training be damned. We happily pay grown men millions of dollars to throw balls around while libraries and schools rot from underfunding.

From this mindset, the traditional high school value system with skinny blonde girls and football jock bullies on top of the pecking order and scrawny nerds at the bottom has now extended into adult society as a whole. We pick our politicians as we would pick our dates to the prom. It boggles my mind that John Kerry, and now Obama to a lesser extent, can be deemed unqualified to run the USA because they "use too big of words" and "talk in too much detail about issues". Call me insane, but I expect the President of the United States to use big words and to analyze the complexities and gray areas within major issues, and frankly, I want him or her to be smarter than I am. Toughness is good, sure: Churchill was one bad-ass dude, but he was also sharp as a tack. Think of how many witticisms and quotable quotes came from that one man. What does G W Bush have to offer in that respect?

And finally, this new fear of science is also absurd. The overwhelming reliance on "better living through chemistry" of the 1950s was also misguided, but now the pendulum has swung way too far the other way: many Americans now don't seem to trust scientists at all when it comes to things like climate change or evolutionary theory, even when they know so little about these topics that they could not articulate a coherent argument as to why they distrust those theories. At the same time, however, they are perfectly happy to snap up iPods and iPhones and laptop computers all built with the knowledge gleaned from decades of study and investigation by these same scientists they apparently distrust. Essentially they trust science when it suits them, and distrust it when it doesn't.

None of this will change without disaster; the current fascination with celebrity and pop culture seems to be at its zenith. Search engine analysis shows that celebrity worship websites get more traffic than sites on religion and politics combined. I come away from social events and parties with fellow 30-somethings now feeling stupid because I don't know anything about all the superhero movie adaptations being discussed ("ironically" of course) or who any of the bazillion interchangeable stick-figure celebrities being mocked are. I can't see this situation being sustainable, but it will not change until we have no choice. Change will only happen when other societies around the world have sadly dethroned American from its seat as the world's sole superpower, and only when new harsh economic realities set in will people realize they need to grow up and smarten up or live in the resulting muck. In the meantime, we can only hope and pray that one of our freshly elected populist cowboy/cowgirl leaders doesn't get us all nuked by bumbling into war with fully grown-up rivals like Russia and Iran.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

too much learnin' leads to informed citizens capable of critical thinking. that sort of stuff leads to a disbelief of god. it also makes it hard for politicians to get elected. isn't it enough that "______" thinks jesus is cool?

 

[Hydrogen]

The distinguishing feature of the United States is its economic and military power. It is for that reason that there is this focus on concerns over intelligence and competence with respect to the population. There is an expectation that they (Americans) all ought to know better because of that economic and military position. The reality is that, as a population, they are no more or no less than the population of any other developed nation.

Well-formed coherent opinions no longer matter as much as how loudly and belligerently you communicate them.

This is really nothing new.


Sorry to Cherry-pick, but...

Contrast the admittedly stereotypical adult male of the 1950s with his suit, tie, and sense of familial responsibility (or his also respected blue collar equivalent in overalls with lunch pail and calloused hands) with today's teeming mass of pseudo slackers slouched in front of video games, painted head to toe at a football game or skulking around with pants drooping halfway down their asses.

This comparing a stereotype with a stereotype, which does not reveal much.

It boggles my mind that John Kerry, and now Obama to a lesser extent, can be deemed unqualified to run the USA because they "use too big of words" and "talk in too much detail about issues". Call me insane, but I expect the President of the United States to use big words and to analyze the complexities and gray areas within major issues, and frankly, I want him or her to be smarter than I am.

This is stated as if it was the typical sentiment held by all Americans. I highly doubt that it could be proven to be so.

None of this will change without disaster...

What else is new.

From this mindset, the traditional high school value system with skinny blonde girls and football jock bullies on top of the pecking order and scrawny nerds at the bottom has now extended into adult society as a whole

Another stereotype. Some much for wishing for rational arguments.

For many Americans in recent decades (and yes, all this applies to Canadians, too) there has been a pretty easy road to middle class life. If you follow the basic rules like finishing high school, showing up at work at 9am and not committing a crime, you can pretty much coast into a reasonable lifestyle. Even most "poor" people in North America have TV sets and cars. This is not the case in much of the world.

Is this an argument that life should be more difficult, or that "poor"people should be without? It's hardly typical of the United States; one could easily show that many middle-class Europeans work less to achieve the same level of lifestyle.

No wonder many Americans are fearful of immigration, too: they know, at some level, that the newcomers have a more stringent skill set than they do. But rather than propose that Americans strive to match this level of education and work ethic, they would prefer to build walls (virtual or physical) around the country to keep out the immigrants.

This is a simplistic analysis. Can it be shown that all immigrants have a more "stringent" skill set? Comparing (legal) immigrants to the whole of a population shows poor thinking in terms of making comparisons. And how much of the opposition to immigration revolves around illegal immigration? These things are not clearly distinguished at all.

And finally, this new fear of science is also absurd. The overwhelming reliance on "better living through chemistry" of the 1950s was also misguided, but now the pendulum has swung way too far the other way

Again, the same thing can be found anywhere. This is a sentiment held by some Europeans as well, and its an attitude that can be found in populations within countries that are lead by theocracies.


Anyway, hardly the insightful analysis.

 

[Roy G Biv]

The stupid in the US are empowered. So yes, the US is stupid.

I used to defend them, but the closeness of this election (and '04) has changed my mind.

 

[BobBob]

"Every country has a government it deserves."

If this last two-term presidency is any indication, the state of the country is... not good. The fact that McCain/Palin are neck-and-neck with Obama/Biden is even more disconcerting.

 

[PukeGreen]

Hydrogen, I agree this is something of a rant and includes stereotypes and generalizations (hence why I called them out myself) but I think you've gone a bit out of your way to portray my statements more broad than intended and dismiss some outright.

Well-formed coherent opinions no longer matter as much as how loudly and belligerently you communicate them.

This is really nothing new.

Fair enough, I don't think it's new either. But I do think the phenomenon is more extreme and widespread than before. I remember the radio and TV newscasts of my childhood being much more serious and balanced than what I see today. Perhaps my memories have become sugar-coated, but I don't remember the same screaming and hysteria and partisan editorial commentary masking as "news" to the extreme that I see today. I'm certainly not the first to observe this, and I think there's something to it.

Contrast the admittedly stereotypical adult male of the 1950s with his suit, tie, and sense of familial responsibility (or his also respected blue collar equivalent in overalls with lunch pail and calloused hands) with today's teeming mass of pseudo slackers slouched in front of video games, painted head to toe at a football game or skulking around with pants drooping halfway down their asses.

This comparing a stereotype with a stereotype, which does not reveal much.

I am calling them stereotypes, but I think they are reasonably valid caricatures of what is seen as the "norm" for the given demographic of each time period. What I am comparing is societal expectations, which are embodied in the stereotypes. I clearly understand that individuals vary in both time periods, but what I'm aiming for here is some sort of consensus.

It boggles my mind that John Kerry, and now Obama to a lesser extent, can be deemed unqualified to run the USA because they "use too big of words" and "talk in too much detail about issues". Call me insane, but I expect the President of the United States to use big words and to analyze the complexities and gray areas within major issues, and frankly, I want him or her to be smarter than I am.

This is stated as if it was the typical sentiment held by all Americans. I highly doubt that it could be proven to be so.

No, I'm only talking about anti-intellectuals here, not all Americans. That is the topic of this thread. This argument was used quite plainly against Kerry in the 2004 election, again, I am not the first to observe it. It was also alluded to in the article I linked to at the beginning of my post.

None of this will change without disaster...

What else is new.

I never claimed to be a bearer of all-new news, it's my opinion.

From this mindset, the traditional high school value system with skinny blonde girls and football jock bullies on top of the pecking order and scrawny nerds at the bottom has now extended into adult society as a whole

Another stereotype. Some much for wishing for rational arguments.

Again, I'm stating an opinion, and I don't think it is irrational. The topic of this thread is anti-intellectualism, and those that claim it is spreading in the US. I happen agree with that assessment. In place of intellectualism, then, must be other values that matter: good looks and physical brawn are other human qualities that are often valued in our society. I'm conjecturing that these values are replacing intellectualism as a judge of character and worthiness to lead. I think that's a rational theory. 100% provable beyond a doubt? Probably not, but certainly not irrational.

For many Americans in recent decades (and yes, all this applies to Canadians, too) there has been a pretty easy road to middle class life. If you follow the basic rules like finishing high school, showing up at work at 9am and not committing a crime, you can pretty much coast into a reasonable lifestyle. Even most "poor" people in North America have TV sets and cars. This is not the case in much of the world.

Is this an argument that life should be more difficult, or that "poor"people should be without? It's hardly typical of the United States; one could easily show that many middle-class Europeans work less to achieve the same level of lifestyle.

Life should be difficult? Poor people should be without? No, I never said either of those things. What I'm saying is that a certain amount of scoffing at academics and intellectualism may be because in recent years we haven't needed to excel in those things. And, frankly, they are hard, so if we don't need to study hard why would we? But the world is changing and other countries are passing us in terms of education and a desire to work hard to get ahead. Again, not my original observation, others have spoken about this before. I agree with that sentiment. I would also argue that Europe is at risk of the same economic and power decline as the US, although admittedly there seems to be more of a respect for intellectualism there than in the US, so obviously there are other factors at play.

No wonder many Americans are fearful of immigration, too: they know, at some level, that the newcomers have a more stringent skill set than they do. But rather than propose that Americans strive to match this level of education and work ethic, they would prefer to build walls (virtual or physical) around the country to keep out the immigrants.

This is a simplistic analysis. Can it be shown that all immigrants have a more "stringent" skill set? Comparing (legal) immigrants to the whole of a population shows poor thinking in terms of making comparisons. And how much of the opposition to immigration revolves around illegal immigration? These things are not clearly distinguished at all.

In both the US and Canada, almost all legal immigrants must meet certain criteria before being admitted. Education is one of those criteria. Clearly, those who are born here do not pass any such examination. As a result, it's not unreasonable to conjecture that over time, legal immigrants may actually be higher educated and more qualified for some jobs than citizens born on this side of the ocean. Illegal immigration is a different issue. I was referring to the highly education scientists who used to come to the US to take advantage of the free markets and well-funded scientific institutions there, who are now finding themselves frozen out by endless red tape and anti-immigrant sentiment in the wake of 9/11.

And finally, this new fear of science is also absurd. The overwhelming reliance on "better living through chemistry" of the 1950s was also misguided, but now the pendulum has swung way too far the other way

Again, the same thing can be found anywhere. This is a sentiment held by some Europeans as well, and its an attitude that can be found in populations within countries that are lead by theocracies.

But again, the topic of this thread is anti-intellectualism in the US, which is the context in which my point was made. And your comment about theocracies is perfect: anti-science thinking is more fitting of a third-world theocracy than a nation like the US that became a superpower partly on the basis of scientific innovation.

Anyway, hardly the insightful analysis.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just throwing out ideas, and I'm open to others. But I think many of my thoughts above have merit and are hardly as irrational as you imply they are. You can disagree with my ideas if you see things differently, but that doesn't make them irrational.

 

[lordmandeep]

imo some Republicans and many moderates are angry about how Republicans have lost their ways.

What has happened to the fiscal conservatism they showed in the mid 90's in Congress?

What happened to fiscal Conservatism in Conservative ideology?

Conservatism has been destroyed by social Conservatives and the Religious Right.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, I agree this is something of a rant and includes stereotypes and generalizations (hence why I called them out myself) but I think you've gone a bit out of your way to portray my statements more broad than intended and dismiss some outright.

The trouble with stereotypes and generalizations is that they only serve to obscure things. Even the title of this thread suggests, by way of a question, a gross over-generalization.

Perhaps my memories have become sugar-coated, but I don't remember the same screaming and hysteria and partisan editorial commentary masking as "news" to the extreme that I see today. I'm certainly not the first to observe this, and I think there's something to it.

What I am saying is that what you call "hysterical" partisanship has always existed, and that well-formed coherent opinions still exist, and as always, you have to go looking for the latter. Partisan editorial commentary is as old as newspapers, and people like Pulitzer and Hearst made a mint off of trying to shape political outcomes by whipping up the partisan emotions. But it should be noted that this type of activity was and is not restricted to the United States. As you no doubt have noticed, with the ever expanding universe of news outlets, there is a need to make news, and what you get is dance wherein parties use the media to get headlined, and media outlets use any partisan statements to yarn a couple of stories from (inevitably including those lengthy commentary and analysis segments analyzing what such statements could possibly mean). There's a lot of time to fill on TV.

I am calling them stereotypes, but I think they are reasonably valid caricatures of what is seen as the "norm" for the given demographic of each time period. What I am comparing is societal expectations, which are embodied in the stereotypes. I clearly understand that individuals vary in both time periods, but what I'm aiming for here is some sort of consensus.

I'm not entirely sure what "consensus" you are trying to find here. The glamorization of the 1950's is well established, and that the values that defined that stereotype were so roundly attacked by the 1960's is also quite telling. By the same token, there can be little doubt that there is caricature of youth today as being lazy slackers with only their self-interest at heart. I just don't see how stereotypes reveal anything about anti-intellectualism or relative levels of stupidity (however that is being measured).

No, I'm only talking about anti-intellectuals here, not all Americans. That is the topic of this thread. This argument was used quite plainly against Kerry in the 2004 election, again, I am not the first to observe it. It was also alluded to in the article I linked to at the beginning of my post.

I doubt that the sentiments concerning Kerry and Obama are held by the majority of Americans (big words, etc). No doubt some people were quoted saying as much, but yet again it comes down to repetition standing if for a measured majority. No doubt that people will judge politicians in many different ways, and not all of them are useful - or even nice. I found it odd when some perceptive, well-educated women who were Democrats said they couldn't vote for Clinton because they found her shrill. It was perplexing that this perceived quality so overshadowed the expression of ideas. Sadly, this type of approach to voting is not restricted to the United States. By the same token, intellectuals can be some of the biggest anti-intellectuals around. And who better to get a handle of crafting the messages aimed at manipulating the political debate. Karl Rove is a lot of things, but he's no idiot.

I never claimed to be a bearer of all-new news, it's my opinion.

Fair enough; I just think it's an extreme view.

In place of intellectualism, then, must be other values that matter: good looks and physical brawn are other human qualities that are often valued in our society. I'm conjecturing that these values are replacing intellectualism as a judge of character and worthiness to lead. I think that's a rational theory.

My point is that intellectualism has never been front and centre, so its decline is somewhat overstated.

What I'm saying is that a certain amount of scoffing at academics and intellectualism may be because in recent years we haven't needed to excel in those things. And, frankly, they are hard, so if we don't need to study hard why would we? But the world is changing and other countries are passing us in terms of education and a desire to work hard to get ahead. Again, not my original observation, others have spoken about this before. I agree with that sentiment. I would also argue that Europe is at risk of the same economic and power decline as the US, although admittedly there seems to be more of a respect for intellectualism there than in the US, so obviously there are other factors at play.

Not to sound like a broken record, but scoffing at academics and intellectuals is nothing new. As for questioning academics and intellectuals (because the presumption is that they know better) this should be encouraged in a reasonable manner. To bow to an intellect purely on the basis of such a label is to achieve the ultimate installation of the argument from authority.

You point out that the world is changing, and that if we don't study hard others will get ahead. But study what and get ahead of what? Is their a race on? What's the finish line? As for the supposed economic and power decline of the United States and Europe, I would see it otherwise. Other countries are developing their own economies and creating their own economic and educational opportunities because such an approach has been successful in countries like the United States. Governments in these countries are pursuing the relative stability and higher standard of living that is found in those places. I'm sure that these countries already field their own anti-intellectuals as well, and will continue to do so in the future.

But again, the topic of this thread is anti-intellectualism in the US, which is the context in which my point was made. And your comment about theocracies is perfect: anti-science thinking is more fitting of a third-world theocracy than a nation like the US that became a superpower partly on the basis of scientific innovation.

People can be very accommodating when it comes to science. For example, the Vatican sponsors scientific research, and there is a drive for greater scientific education in Iran. Pursuit of science was emphasized in the Soviet Union as well, and it hardly was a democracy or known for free expression of dissenting political sentiments. Today, you can find great emphasis on developing scientific and technological infrastructure - not because it translates into political intellectualism - but because it is seen as being beneficial to economic development and security. Not everyone will become a scientist, though.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just throwing out ideas, and I'm open to others. But I think many of my thoughts above have merit and are hardly as irrational as you imply they are. You can disagree with my ideas if you see things differently, but that doesn't make them irrational.

My comment was not intended as an insult to you, but a comment on your analysis. Also, I did not say you were speaking irrationally. Questioning opinions is certainly a part of the intellectualism that I think you are commenting on. I would suggest that clarifying one's own opinions is always a first step to further understanding, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

 

[urbandreamer]

To answer the question--Is the USA stupid?

No. It's bloody brilliant.

Reading this thread it is becoming obvious who is truly stupid.