TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Has Our World Been Dumbed Down?
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by spdandpwr I also wanted to mention one last thing: has anyone noticed the complete jump in poor writing and mechanics? Most people don't know what a semicolon or a hyphen are even used for -- although, it should be said, that I too make mistakes. I don't think you should pass through college if you can't write; hell, you shouldn't pass through high school if you cannot manipulate the English language well enough to articulate a point.

Semicolons add so much style to writing. It's a shame that the proper usage of a semicolon is unkown to the vast majority of people. Hyphens, on the other hand, can be tricky because the usage is largely a matter of style, and the modern practice is to omit hyphens.

I would also add that many people don't use commas appropriately. I admit, however, that I have my moments when I confuse the proper usage of commas.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Dizzy i'm so disgusted with the state of our country it makes me sick. our country has been going down the wrong route for quite awhile now and we'll eventually wake up and realize that we are so below the curve in today's globalization. i do my best to constantly educate myself and always keep an open mind, i'm 27 years old and have been out of school for quite some time but still find that you can remain in a constant state of learning your entire life and never reach a comfortable level of knowledge, but one should still strive for the next level of enlightenment. our country NEEDS psychedelics and a wake up call.

Or one could meditatively induce a DMT trip, although that isn't the purpose of meditation and it takes hard work to be able to do such a thing. So, yeah, keeping the status quo in mind, acid will do .

Acid made me into a poet. But only during the trip. I could speak in alliteration.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Acid made me into a poet. But only during the trip. I could speak in alliteration.

LOL, I bet Dr. Sues did Acid .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, I bet Dr. Sues did Acid .

Wouldn't doubt it..

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I think I understood your point there, but not entirely. It's seems like a clash, especially going by your inductive example, of induction v.s. deduction if I'm correct? BTW, sometimes I think you're the only person in here who understand formal logic .

Yes, that's pretty much it. A sound deductive argument is always the best source of truth, where possible. But, in economic terms, there are information costs associated with obtaining the necessary premises from which to reason deductively. This makes it less than ideal for most situations that organisms, including humans, typically encounter.

Take this deductive argument:

Red is a dog.
All dogs have four legs.
Therefore, Red has four legs.

The accuracy of the conclusion, given the truth of the premises, is 100%. But in order to apply that reasoning in a practical sense, we would somehow have to first establish that all dogs have four legs. That's going to be a pretty big obstacle. What are we going to do, gather up all the dogs in the world and count their legs?

Heuristics, like the categorization heuristic, are more efficient because they are inductive. Suppose you are a wild animal and you need to find a source of water. On the one side you see some rather barren, sandy looking terrain. Because you are evolved to employ categorization heuristics and you have seen terrain like this before, you are apt to categorize it as a "desert." There are abundant trees on the other side. You are apt to categorize that terrain as a "forest."

Now, it may be that there is an oasis just over that dune. It may also be that there is no readily accessible water in the forest. But I doubt anyone thinks that the animal which categorizes the terrain and acts upon generalizations relating to those categories is not more likely to survive than the organism which insists on giving each unexplored area an equal chance at proving its fruitfulness.

It is not so different when it comes to homo sapiens seeking a more cerebral sort of edification, although the stakes are likely lower (I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be higher.) Categories of potential sources of information do help us make judgments about where we are likely to find accurate information, and what sources are likely to be intellectually barren. That is, it helps us decide where we will likely get a greater return for the investment of our time. Over many iterations of this problem, the person who chooses more efficiently is likely to possess greater knowledge, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

All that said -- and in this regard, Shibby's point is well taken -- it is best that we employ this sort of reasoning consciously, and only to the extent efficient under the circumstances, taking into consideration the extent of our knowledge of each source beyond mere categorization and also the probable cost of an error.

Human beings employ heuristics, for example, that help them gauge how physical objects are likely to move through space. In most situations, they are very useful, since most of us are not capable of performing the calculations that would be necessary to achieve a higher degree of accuracy, at least in any timely manner. But while these limitations may be entirely tolerable in aiming my garden hose, we may not find it efficient to rely on them aiming a rocket.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 here's my view: an academic education serves two main efficiency purposes. First, formal education is beneficial because the information has already been compiled for people to study, and that information otherwise may have been impossible for someone to discover alone. sure, a person could learn anything without going to school, but it likely to be much less efficient because not only do you have to study, but you also have to discover the information (which is handed to you in college). Second, it is a non-arbitrary way for others to evaluate someone's skills.

I agree with your first statement; but, I will take a contrasting point of view on your second observation. I wouldn't say education is a non-arbitrary way to evaluate someone's skills as there are many variables that go into an education: some schools have different curriculums, some professors skip certain lessons or material that they feel may be unimportant, and extra credit can be given to students who ask (boosting an otherwise lackluster performance). Henceforth, we cannot prove an education as a non-arbitrary means of assessing education (especially considering the aforementioned variables), but we can establish that education does provide the necessary, at least in my mind, framework from which to learn.

And on a side note, this debate reminds me of the statement "90% of what you learn in college is outside of college."

quote:

Originally posted by spdandpwr I agree with your first statement; but, I will take a contrasting point of view on your second observation. I wouldn't say education is a non-arbitrary way to evaluate someone's skills as there are many variables that go into an education: some schools have different curriculums, some professors skip certain lessons or material that they feel may be unimportant, and extra credit can be given to students who ask (boosting an otherwise lackluster performance). Henceforth, we cannot prove an education as a non-arbitrary means of assessing education (especially considering the aforementioned variables), but we can establish that education does provide the necessary, at least in my mind, framework from which to learn. And on a side note, this debate reminds me of the statement "90% of what you learn in college is outside of college."

My second statement was focused more on the broad scale. For example, when an employer is interviewing 30 people for a position it would be quite difficult to give an exam to assess the basic knowledge of each applicant. The university credentials indicates that a person has a basic knowledge of various areas, and the major indicates a more thorough understanding of that specific area.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 My second statement was focused more on the broad scale. For example, when an employer is interviewing 30 people for a position it would be quite difficult to give an exam to assess the basic knowledge of each applicant. The university credentials indicates that a person has a basic knowledge of various areas, and the major indicates a more thorough understanding of that specific area.

yea, the university credentials, at the least, show the aptitude to perform duties...sort of what a jd does to lawyers (you don't really go to law school to become a specific type of lawyer, but rather go to law school to demonstrate your ability to manipulate law).

And this can serve a rebuttal to those denigrating formal education. While formal education is flawed, it is, for the most part, a solid means of assessing aptitude. Yea, there are exceptions to the statement, but generally, if you can't do well in school, you usually aren't ready and able to do something ground breaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yes, that's pretty much it. A sound deductive argument is always the best source of truth, where possible. But, in economic terms, there are information costs associated with obtaining the necessary premises from which to reason deductively. This makes it less than ideal for most situations that organisms, including humans, typically encounter. Take this deductive argument: Red is a dog. All dogs have four legs. Therefore, Red has four legs. The accuracy of the conclusion, given the truth of the premises, is 100%. But in order to apply that reasoning in a practical sense, we would somehow have to first establish that all dogs have four legs. That's going to be a pretty big obstacle. What are we going to do, gather up all the dogs in the world and count their legs? Heuristics, like the categorization heuristic, are more efficient because they are inductive. Suppose you are a wild animal and you need to find a source of water. On the one side you see some rather barren, sandy looking terrain. Because you are evolved to employ categorization heuristics and you have seen terrain like this before, you are apt to categorize it as a "desert." There are abundant trees on the other side. You are apt to categorize that terrain as a "forest." Now, it may be that there is an oasis just over that dune. It may also be that there is no readily accessible water in the forest. But I doubt anyone thinks that the animal which categorizes the terrain and acts upon generalizations relating to those categories is not more likely to survive than the organism which insists on giving each unexplored area an equal chance at proving its fruitfulness. It is not so different when it comes to homo sapiens seeking a more cerebral sort of edification, although the stakes are likely lower (I can certainly imagine scenarios where they would be higher.) Categories of potential sources of information do help us make judgments about where we are likely to find accurate information, and what sources are likely to be intellectually barren. That is, it helps us decide where we will likely get a greater return for the investment of our time. Over many iterations of this problem, the person who chooses more efficiently is likely to possess greater knowledge, both quantitatively and qualitatively. All that said -- and in this regard, Shibby's point is well taken -- it is best that we employ this sort of reasoning consciously, and only to the extent efficient under the circumstances, taking into consideration the extent of our knowledge of each source beyond mere categorization and also the probable cost of an error. Human beings employ heuristics, for example, that help them gauge how physical objects are likely to move through space. In most situations, they are very useful, since most of us are not capable of performing the calculations that would be necessary to achieve a higher degree of accuracy, at least in any timely manner. But while these limitations may be entirely tolerable in aiming my garden hose, we may not find it efficient to rely on them aiming a rocket.

I advocate the use of deducation, as well as intuition, as well as chaos.

I think deducation works well over long periods of time in large populations, and is kind of how evolution itself unravels.

None of this means it displays truth in any quantity or quality; it just maps models effective to what we can use here and now in this junction.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Tesla is my hero.

He's long since been one of mine, too. He probably wouldn't have lasted too long in present day society, though. He probably would have either been institutionalized or something else to that effect, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Close-minded statement? Your statement right here is more than close-minded, it's downright stupid. Nikoli Tesla studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic, otherwise known as the Graz University of Technology, and was thus accredited. It seems like you're making a concerted effort to dumb us down in the PDD..

So what kind of accreditation did he receive for dropping out in the first semester of his junior year? I've never heard that before so that's a new one to me.

Did they give him some sort of honorary degree or something?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X So what kind of accreditation did he receive for dropping out in the first semester of his junior year? I've never heard that before so that's a new one to me. Did they give him some sort of honorary degree or something?

Spent most of his college education in Graz, graduated from the University of Prague.

Tell me, you need a heart transplant, who are you going to trust with the scalpel. A guy who says he's watched internet videos of the surgery, or the guy who spent 10 years learning how to do heart surgery in medical school? Goddamn...didn't think we'de have to stoop to such elementary levels...really is an insult to all who have taken the time to pursue higher education. And the vast majority of intellectuals of our age have engaged in such pursuits. Not just our age. We can go back to the time of Isaac Newton, who was at Oxford. Even in that far back, the vast majority of intellectuals were learned individuals who pursued higher education.

quote:

Originally posted by spdandpwr I am still in the process or reading all the posts, so more relevant posts will follow, however, I wanted to make a quick comment about wikipedia: I think the people who use wikipedia as a legitmate source for proving a point or arguing in a debate are not helping in making anyone smarter -- wikipedia should be used as a starting point, nothing more.

Actually, Wikipedia has been professionally assessed as being about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica while also boasting more in-depth articles.

What it basically boils down to is that there is no single, definitive source for anything and that no matter what the source, it's always good to compare it to other references as well.

And for whatever it's worth, that we "the people" are able to employ open sources of information (beyond the control of those in power) must be a growing problem for the handful of governing elites (AKA the Custodial Management Team) who like to keep us "dumbed down" in a relatively constant state of ignorance.


See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Back when I used to listen to talk radio, Sean Hannity did a "man on the street" segment, where he sent his assistant out to the street to do live interviews on the air. I swear, he received the exact same types of answers from random folks.. People who didn't know the Vice President...who didn't know the leader of Iraq (just before the war began, etc). A huge chunk of Americans really are that ignorant.

And sadly enough, having graduated from four year colleges and universities, a lot of those people are supposed to be "highly educated."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Spent most of his college education in Graz, graduated from the University of Prague. Tell me, you need a heart transplant, who are you going to trust with the scalpel. A guy who says he's watched internet videos of the surgery, or the guy who spent 10 years learning how to do heart surgery in medical school? Goddamn...didn't think we'de have to stoop to such elementary levels...really is an insult to all who have taken the time to pursue higher education. And the vast majority of intellectuals of our age have engaged in such pursuits. Not just our age. We can go back to the time of Isaac Newton, who was at Oxford. Even in that far back, the vast majority of intellectuals were learned individuals who pursued higher education.

I figured you'd probably twist it around but I guess I just wanted to see if you actually would.

As per his closest associates and his school records, he dropped out of college but later received HONORARY DEGREES from several institutions. What isn't certain is whether or not it was because of his father dying or because of his lack of funds.

Anyway, good straw man but there are plenty of bad doctors out there just as there are plenty of good ones and to say that one is better than another judging simply by the school which they attended seems to me like a pretty foolish prospect to begin with. Sure, you might be able to form a decent picture of the individual's ability via the accomplishments/achievements at their attended school(s) but those accomplishments don't always correlate into success or continued ability outside of that formal environment. Some people are just good ass-kissers, some cheat, some lie, and some even steal other's work in order to rise above the crowd. Of course, there are also some who are given a free pass due to their political connections (as did our current Harvard and Yale graduated moron of a President.)

Experience is what really counts and I would take a good, experienced, UNaccredited doctor over one who went to the best schools but lacks real-world experience and I would do it in a proverbial heartbeat.

Anyway, that's all aside from the fact that Western Medicine itself is still an imperfect practice but of course that's an entirely different subject altogether.

Also, not to further change to subject but how do you expect that people would have pursued certain courses of study back then if it weren't for the mode of formal education? Up until the advent of the internet, one required the means to travel far and wide in order to access the same learning materials that we have so readily available to us now - all at the touch of our fingertips.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I figured you'd probably twist it around but I guess I just wanted to see if you actually would.

Please, spare me your arrogant higher-than-though non-sense...

quote:

As per his closest associates and his school records, he dropped out of college but later received HONORARY DEGREES from several institutions. What isn't certain is whether or not it was because of his father dying or because of his lack of funds.

Wrong. Tesla graduated from the University of Prague before it split into separate entities, one being German, the other Czech. He is listed by them as an alumni. That's not even the point. Tesla was an extremely learned individual. But that doesn't matter. He had to learn how stuff worked before he could go off creating all his invention. He has to learn about electricity, physics, engineering. What you're telling me is, anyone can learn by themselves how to be an engineer, without ever going to a school of engineering. Ok then, do that, and see if you'll be commissioned to construct a building...It won't happen.

quote:

Anyway, good straw man but there are plenty of bad doctors out there just as there are plenty of good ones and to say that one is better than another judging simply by the school which they attended seems to me like a pretty foolish prospect to begin with. Sure, you might be able to form a decent picture of the individual's ability via the accomplishments/achievements at their attended school(s) but those accomplishments don't always correlate into success or continued ability outside of that formal environment. Some people are just good ass-kissers, some cheat, some lie, and some even steal other's work in order to rise above the crowd. Of course, there are also some who are given a free pass due to their political connections (as did our current Harvard and Yale graduated moron of a President.)

What's the straw man? I am not misrepresenting your argument. Clearly, you are asserting one can become an expert/professional in a certain field of science without ever studying the subject at an institution of higher learning.

quote:

Experience is what really counts and I would take a good, experienced, UNaccredited doctor over one who went to the best schools but lacks real-world experience and I would do it in a proverbial heartbeat.

Guess what? You won't find a "good, experienced, unaccredited doctor." Why? Because they don't exist. It is against the law to be a doctor and not be accredited. Tell me. How does an unaccredited doctor learn how to perform procedures, tests, examinations, diagnoses, etc., without having studied it at medical school? Guess where such individuals belong? PRISON.

quote:

Anyway, that's all aside from the fact that Western Medicine itself is still an imperfect practice but of course that's an entirely different subject altogether.

Tell me one science that is perfect? If science were perfect, there would be no disease, no energy problems, no death, no poverty, and most of all...no more questions. So just because there are still unanswered scientific questions, you say, we shouldn't what...not trust a heart surgeon to perform our heart transplant? Not believe the laws of physics?...There are still a myriad of unanswered questions about the universe! Ohhh, but it's an imperfect science, let's not believe anything the physicists say. Oh, that PHD they took 12 years to get, that's just a piece of paper, it means NOTHING!! Give me a break dude...

quote:

Also, not to further change to subject but how do you expect that people would have pursued certain courses of study back then if it weren't for the mode of formal education? Up until the advent of the internet, one required the means to travel far and wide in order to access the same learning materials that we have so readily available to us now - all at the touch of our fingertips.

The internet can not make you into a doctor, an engineer, a pilot, financial advisor, etc. etc. etc. Your faith in the internet is very naive. Did you know anyone can post ANYTHING without so much as a peer review? I can't learn to be an economist by reading www.investopedia.com. I have to earn the damn degree before I'll even be considered for hire, by ANYONE.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What you're telling me is, anyone can learn by themselves how to be an engineer, without ever going to a school of engineering. Ok then, do that, and see if you'll be commissioned to construct a building...It won't happen. What's the straw man? I am not misrepresenting your argument. Clearly, you are asserting one can become an expert/professional in a certain field of science without ever studying the subject at an institution of higher learning.

For the sake of brevity and mainly because I'm just tired of you and wish that I had never taken you off ignore, my paternal grandfather was a rather successful General Contractor who was self-taught in just about everything that he knew and that often included the drawings for the building projects that he oversaw. So while he might not have been an engineer, I sincerely doubt that he wouldn't have been able to teach himself engineering if had so put his mind to it. And heck, for all I know he could have gotten an online degree in that field if he had lived in the time of the WWW - in all of it's educational glory. lol

There are still a few autodidacts out there, you know. Not everyone has been dumbed down to the point of total subjugation through the same thought conditioning process that was apparently all too successful on you.

No higher-than-though involved. I just like to call a spade a spade when I see one.

quote:

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was the Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in the US Department of Education under President Reagan and is the author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

I thought that this next one was good as well. Within the first few minutes Charlotte Iserbyt talks about their of use language similar to Orwellian Newspeak (semantic deception) while in the process of carrying out their plans for a one-world socialist government. She brings up the Patriot Act as one example.



What she didn't mention, however, is something that I think is currently happening and that's that we're experiencing a modern day form of Gleichschaltung. But I guess you'd actually have to listen to Naomi Wolf's warning to hear someone talking about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X For the sake of brevity and mainly because I'm just tired of you and wish that I had never taken you off ignore,

Of course, you're intolerant of criticism.

quote:

There are still a few autodidacts out there, you know. Not everyone has been dumbed down to the point of total subjugation through the same thought conditioning process that was apparently all too successful on you.

You seem conditioned to automatically assume there is a conspiracy behind everything. If you read my posts, I am against preemptive warfare, I believe our public school system is a shame, and a myriad of other things considered "outside the status quo". If I am conditioned, you are fucking brainwashed to hell...

quote:

No higher-than-though involved. I just like to call a spade a spade when I see one.

I express my opinion. Of course, since you're intolerant of criticism, my expression of opinion is in your words, "twisting" an argument, or essentially, I'm out to deceive the world. You're right, I'm wrong, and if I don't agree, it's because I'm a conditioned NWO bot. Seriously, spades?

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

How about this. We agree to disagree. I respect your views, if you respect mine, we end it now.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Spent most of his college education in Graz, graduated from the University of Prague. Tell me, you need a heart transplant, who are you going to trust with the scalpel. A guy who says he's watched internet videos of the surgery, or the guy who spent 10 years learning how to do heart surgery in medical school?

The guy with experience, surely.

Which is not necessarily the guy who went to school and has been practicing his trade for years, unfortunately.

If I think about it, very few trades in this world actually require going through the "system" in order to be validated, especially these days with information spread reaching critical mass.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby The guy with experience, surely. Which is not necessarily the guy who went to school and has been practicing his trade for years, unfortunately. If I think about it, very few trades in this world actually require going through the "system" in order to be validated, especially these days with information spread reaching critical mass.

if this "infortation spread" is so powerful/important, why are there so many people in the PDD that repeat known fallacies despite all the data and evidence to the contrary? if people are so inept at doing their own research into say, how the economy works (culorut, trancer-x, capitalizt) why can we expect similar people to be able to work out anything else without some kind of yardstick by which to measure their own knowledge?

how many people do you think exist that would be able to teach themselves to be a doctor or an engineer or financial analyst etc? few and fucking far between i can tell you, making your point moot.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if this "infortation spread" is so powerful/important, why are there so many people in the PDD that repeat known fallacies despite all the data and evidence to the contrary? if people are so inept at doing their own research into say, how the economy works (culorut, trancer-x, capitalizt) why can we expect similar people to be able to work out anything else without some kind of yardstick by which to measure their own knowledge? how many people do you think exist that would be able to teach themselves to be a doctor or an engineer or financial analyst etc? few and fucking far between i can tell you, making your point moot.

I believe anyone and everyone in this world can teach themselves to be a doctor, an engineer, or a financial analyst.

It's just human knowledge and compendiums, which make the ceiling rather low--requiring though, ambition and desire and curiosity, all natural states of our form.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I believe anyone and everyone in this world can teach themselves to be a doctor, an engineer, or a financial analyst. It's just human knowledge and compendiums, which make the ceiling rather low--requiring though, ambition and desire and curiosity, all natural states of our form.

Then I think you are seriously and absolutely kidding yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Then I think you are seriously and absolutely kidding yourself.

Why?

We've all got the same hardware.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.