From the tea party to truthers, Creationist and anti vaccination kooks. we have far too many people who dont know shit, and are proud of the fact they don't know.
This is a terrible article. There are a few things at play, which the author wishes to conflate into a "dumbing down:" 1) The flailing for relevance amongst social conservatives. 2) The failure of No Child Left Behind. 3) The changing media landscape in the United States. Cherry-picking results for these three trends can give you a trendline, but so can just about anything: As to (1), the United States is now a country where more states permit gay marriage than don't, where marijuana is steadily being legalized, where gays are explicitly permitted in the military, where socialized medicine is becoming a reality and where prominent billionaires are rallying support against unrestricted gun ownership. Meanwhile, if you're a tea party conservative looking to get re-elected, you still have to find a sop to throw at the "not Adam and Steve" crowd. Behold: tack a genesis verse onto a fossil bill. Which was done anonymously, by the way. And didn't stop the bill from passing, sans Genesis verse, four months ago. As to (2), yeah, it's pretty terrible. But the schools aren't failing because the kids want to be stupid, or because their parents want them to be ignorant. The schools are failing because the United States ties education to property taxes. It's a fucking stupid system but it has more to do with neoconservative fiscal bullshit of the type McLean's typically spews. As to (3), yeah, people aren't reading books as much and they aren't watching the news. But to throw out that "and the Internet isn't trustworthy" canard as if it somehow makes your point is disingenuous. We're having to switch from passive news absorption to active news absorption. It's a societal change, not a mark of ignorance. Wanna take a look at the real trends? Google "belief in evolution over time" or "belief in global warming over time" and get a fistful of graphs that indicate the exact opposite of the article: more people believe in evolution this year than last year, and more people believe in anthropocentric global warming this year than last. Substitute pretty much any two years and you'll see the same result - the arc of history is long but it bends toward enlightenment.
I have to work in SC and I have to say, it's scary sometimes.Just 12 per cent expressed strong confidence in the press to accurately report scientific findings.
-I'm not surprised by this. The press is horrible at reporting science and they do everything they can to make it more "appealing" by giving their articles link-baity titles and over simplifying things that can't be simple. Calling the higgs boson the "GOD PARTICLE" is one example.
It's not just science reporting. It's all reporting. Science is the easiest to point to and say, "Look how bad that is!" It used to be that news was a prestigious job. The people who broke the story, the ones that did the extra leg work. Then it became television's loss leader Now it's not news. It's ratings. Get the most viewers so the ad revenues are higher. It has not been about news for a long time.
Science reporting, as compared to political or general news reporting takes a base of knowledge that is harder to come by and takes time. If took some time, I could be a somewhat decent political reporter IMO but given the same amount of time, I'd be an inadequate science reporter at best.
Was there an option in the survey these Americans were presumably completing that allowed them to choose "not one" vs. "not one, proudly" ?In 1978, 42 per cent of Americans reported that they had read 11 or more books in the past year. In 2014, just 28 per cent can say the same, while 23 per cent proudly admit to not having read even one, up from eight per cent in 1978.
Actual study. It says the median American read 5 books last year. The average american? TWELVE.
Ahh, but that's a critique of quality, not quantity. let's be honest: Dan Brown is no shittier than James Fenimore Cooper or Charles Dickens. We're just denied the misty water-colored memory filter to put it in perspective. The fact that Capital in the 21st Century has spent 21 weeks on the NYT best-seller's list is a sign to me that it's gonna be okay.
Here, though, is a real comment. I will ignore your opinion of Dickens as firmly and stoutly as I ignore your opinion of Asimov and (I think?) your opinion of Tolkien. I was reading Bryson's Summer 1927 last week and he talked a bit about the bestselling books of the 1920s. He says it better than I, but ... it's all people you've never heard of, and Zane Grey. There was a crazy eugenics book which outsold all of Hemingway, or something along those lines. Past Sinclair Lewis, it's essentially a graveyard.
Interestingly enough, I tried to look up the NYT best-seller's list for 1927. I failed. So I looked it up for summer 1978, the year in the article above.
....
...............
..
.......
. . I have no idea what to say to this. I'm physically affected by that statement. Help I don't feel rightlet's be honest: Dan Brown is no shittier than ... Charles Dickens. We're just denied the misty water-colored memory filter to put it in perspective.
Lion of English Literature Scourge of English LiteratureIt was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.
First of all, yes, and second of all, Dan Brown can do a hell of a lot worse. And has. I know of what I speak, unfortunately. Dickens created some of the most moving scenes in the history of literature. The only thing Angels and Demons ever moved was my -- well.
First of all, yes, Dan Brown is shit. But so is Dickens. Dickens is shit. So is Jane Austen. The only difference between the two is if you say Dan Brown is shit you're a genius and if you say Jane Austen is shit you're a troglodyte.
I've read every Dickens novel your average guy on the street can name, and then some, and this is total crap. He was quite good at exactly this. Hurts to see George Eliot say that. I don't find any of those criticisms terribly convincing. Dickens' greatest fault was his occasional over-over-verbosity. His characterizations were often brilliant and almost always very apt. They were essentially stereotypes, but there's nothing wrong with that.“He scarcely ever passes from the humourous and external to the emotional and tragic, without becoming as transcendent in his unreality as he was a moment before in his artistic truthfulness.”
Issac Asimov is often quoted on it: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." But think about it. From an early age we are training ourselves to hate knowledge. The smarts kids with the good grades were the most ostracized group in schools. The one group that was hated by all other groups. And look where that got us. Right here where we are now with people pretending that they are smart and nowhere near it. Edit: Put down wrong author's name.
In the 19th c. people were illiterate at very high rates.
Just read something that reminded me of this conversation -- "When Tom Paine’s The Rights of Man was published in 1791, his insurrectionary defense of the French Revolution sold more than 50,000 copies in England and Scotland in the first few weeks. Given that most adults were barely literate at the time, the number was extraordinary. Over the decade, Paine’s work is said to have sold an even more unheard-of total of more than 1.5 million copies." From a biography of Ken Galbraith. What's neat is that every time I read historical writing about 18th and 19th century America I am provided with more examples of this phenomenon of massive political efficacy, especially manifesting itself in wide-ranging reading. I wonder if, back when literacy was unusual, the ability to read was taken less for granted -- so that if you had it, you used it, or felt foolish in the same way that someone who buys a car and doesn't drive it should feel foolish. Else how do you explain ... 1.5 million people. In 1791. That's like, a third of the (US) population, or more if you account for slaves who were a) mostly illiterate and b) not generally allowed to read even if they could. Anyway, that's my rambling for the evening.
I'm going to put this more clearly because apparently people think what you said was a refutation of what I said. In the 19th century, people who knew how to read (most) did. In the 21st century, people who know how to read (all) don't. That's what it boils down to.
Well yeah I was thinking of percentage of literate people who read, because that's the relevant way to compare centuries. Lot of people also only had one book (Bible) but those that had the opportunity paid way more attention than any other time of our history.