posted on December 16, 2001 05:07:40 AM new
In following some links while researching a different subject I stumbled across the following article, the first 3 paragraphs are copied below. The article is well-written and well worth reading in my opinion.
Much of the information is not necessarily new to me but some of the perspectives and conclusions that he draws merit consideration. One of those is that people are becoming dumber as a result of media manipulation, spin, PR, propaganda, call it what you will. This idea of people generally becoming dumber is a possibility that I've been mulling over for the last week since my wife stated rather matter-of-factly in a conversation that people aren't as smart as they used to be. I wondered if any of you had thought in particular about this and/or had any opinions.
The Doors Of Perception:
Why Americans Will
Believe Almost Anything
By Tim O'Shea
www.thedoctorwithin.com
8-18-1
Aldous Huxley's inspired 1956 essay detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters, all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched, infinite rawness.
Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?
It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given popular opinion.
posted on December 16, 2001 10:39:00 AM new
The number of medical myths is only surpassed by the number of government issued myths. Common denominator= follow the money!
posted on December 16, 2001 11:05:23 AM new
We've discussed this very thing many times here at home. Americans are getting dumber.I am not sure of the reasons but the evidence of the dumbing down of America surrounds us.
The media does ~I am sure ~play a hand in it. They make all the news nicey nice and never talk about the real issues like they used to when I was a child.News was NEWS back then. Now it is more like the community report. All made nice. The news stations are all owned by huge corporations now or in the case of one station here ,religious organizations. I fear you can't get impartial news when they are run like that.
Just the news, that's all I want.I don't want the reporters opinion of the news. Just the facts. You can't get those anymore.
I did notice that on 9-11 for the first time in a long time we actually had reporting done in the old manner. Reporters were caught in the thick of things and reported much like when the Hindenburg went down. There was real emotion and real reporting. Till the next day. Then it began to be whitewashed.
Why people are getting dumber may relate to news or it may relate to the way the schools bring everything down to the lowest common denominator.Teachers can't teach anymore so that kids can actually learn. They are forced to teach so that all the little darlings will pass and have self esteem. Which of course they don't have because they know they don't know anything!This is not the fault of the teachers but of the cirriculum they are forced to use. At least in our school district. Some schools don't even give grades anymore because it might hurt their little feelings. So what? If they don't so the work and don't earn the grades they don't deserve to have their little egos stroked.
So I can see several reasons for the dumbing down of Americans. The young people are adversly affected by the structure of the school system and the adults are affected by the news media. No excuses either way. Anyone can read for themselves and not let the media influence them so much. People are lazy though and want the news handed to them in a friendly and seemingly efficient manner . Americans can only blame themselves for their stupidity. Too many just want to be taken care of, they would rather be dumb and feel a false sense of security.
It's bad if your enemy is quick. It's worse if he is patient.
posted on December 16, 2001 11:07:17 AM new
I went to a movie on Friday night (Vanilla Sky - disappointing flick, btw), and was surprised that prior to the regular previews (which included 2 "war" movie previews), we were treated to at least 3 pro-war/military/America reels. The majority of the crowd cheered as "America the Beautiful" blared in surround-sound. It felt like something out of the 1940s or 50s, yet most people bought it, hook, line and sinker...
posted on December 16, 2001 11:27:36 AM new
After reading that good article, I turned the TV off. I'm guilty of watching news from early in the morning to Midnight, when the same story has been repeated so many times that the news becomes background noise.
But I don't believe, without good reason, everything that I hear, read or see. If I disclosed how much I believe, everybody would be calling me paranoid again.
posted on December 16, 2001 03:01:51 PM new
Well, I think your wife is right, people aren't as smart as they used to be, at least I know I'm not. But why isn't Vitamin C Ascorbic Acid? I've always thought it was.
posted on December 16, 2001 03:24:00 PM new
I did read the article, and it's interesting, but I'm not ready to buy everything he says. The mention of vaccinations raises a red flag.
Who is his O'Shea guy? I went to his website, and read over some of what he has to say about vaccinations. Here's a quote:
"What is certain is that these days polio is almost gone in the U.S., but not because of the polio vaccine. The inventor of the vaccine, Jonas Salk himself testified in 1977 that the few cases of polio we now see in the U.S. are the result of using his live vaccine, which has been in use since 1955, rather than the result of the disease itself! (Mendelsohn, p 144)"
Now, that doesn't make sense, does it? If his claim is that vaccination hasn't been responsbile for the near eradication of polio, the proof of that is not in the fact that the only cases of U.S. polio now are caused by the vaccine. That's only proof that the polio vaccine can cause polio, it doesn't address at all what caused the eradication of person to person transmission of polio.
If this is an example of his reasoning, I'm not impressed. He might have some good points about some things, but...
posted on December 16, 2001 04:42:31 PM new
How do I know ANYTHING???? Because someone told me, or I read an article, or I can "reason" it out based on what I do know. Now, I am beginning to wonder what exactly I do know or is it all something someone else knows.....
Ya'll just ignore me, I'm trying to get this all sorted out in my head and it's easier for me to "see" it, if I read it....
While I'm at it, just who gets to determine exactly what an expert is or exactly why a person is an expert. Can anyone who wants to be an expert be an expert???? Or do you have to have someone else refer to you as an expert to make you an expert?????
I have to go now, my head is beginning to hurt.....
posted on December 16, 2001 05:22:28 PM new
This author does not claim to be an expert. He is just a writer. It's clear that he has a negative attitude toward conventional medicine based on this article and other articles that he has written.
I share his distrust to some extent. When I see a doctor, I check his credentials, and question whatever information or prescription that he may give me very thoroughly.
posted on December 16, 2001 05:50:45 PM new
Well, he is a doctor, but a doctor of what, I don't know. But he must present himself as an expert, at least in anti-vaccination, because he apparently goes around giving seminars about that topic.
But anytime anyone goes off on an anti-vaccination stance, I have doubts about his reasoning. Reading his explanation about vaccinations on his website, www.thedoctorwithin.com, doesn't reassure me.
The paragraph I quoted makes absolutely no sense to me.
Doctors do sometimes kill their patients, that's true. But, if they don't, something else does.
posted on December 16, 2001 06:53:26 PM new
He certainly has gone off the deep end about vaccinations. He even felt that an increased incidence of reported autism was directly related to vaccination of children. http://www.whale.to/m/shea.html
The paragraph that you quoted doesn't make a lick of sense. HaHaHa.
<quote>
"What is certain is that these days polio is almost gone in the U.S., but not because of the polio vaccine. The inventor of the vaccine, Jonas Salk himself testified in 1977 that the few cases of polio we now see in the U.S. are the result of using his live vaccine, which has been in use since 1955, rather than the result of the disease itself! (Mendelsohn, p 144)"
<end quote>
Is he trying to say that polio is gone because in 1977 the use of "live" polio vaccine was discontinued?
posted on December 16, 2001 06:55:02 PM new
That's strange. Salk invented a killed vaccine, which was supplanted by Sabin's live vaccine. (At least those are my memories from public health) The live vaccine, which does shed from the vaccinated person for a while, is used because it doesn't require needles.
Good article on the creation of public opinion and how to manipulate it. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
"The critics insisted that Salk's vaccine should be shelved in favor of the experimental Sabin oral vaccine, which is made from a live, weakened virus. Sabin's vaccine would be safer and more effective, it was argued, even though it was years away from being ready. On the other hand, Salk's vaccine was ready to go.
The March of Dimes didn't wait around. It backed Salk's vaccine in the midst of an epidemic that was killing 3,000 American children each year and paralyzing many more. It was a striking example of a private agency taking the lead away from the federal government. After large-scale tests in humans, the Salk vaccine was pronounced a success in 1955. It was 70 percent effective in protecting children from developing polio.
Sabin's vaccine took seven more years to develop. If the March of Dimes had waited for it, thousands more children would have died.
But Salk's critics were proved right on one point: A batch of the Salk vaccine produced by Cutter Laboratories contained viruses that had not been killed in the vaccine-making process. Many of the children vaccinated with this defective batch developed polio"
I think that he needs to rewrite that paragraph.
Helen
posted on December 16, 2001 07:13:23 PM new
"He even felt that an increased incidence of reported autism was directly related to vaccination of children"
Yes, and in his article on soybeans, he links soy products to autism, and in his article on mercury, he probably links mercury to autism as well. Which is it? All of them? In the soybean article, he only points to soybeans, in the vaccination article, he only points to vaccinations.
Anyway, back to the original link. I believe two of the things on his list, that Ascorbic Acid is Vitamin C (and he's probably right, and I'm wrong, it's not really) and that vaccinations confer immunity (and I do believe that, they do, for a time, anyway)
Everything else on his list, I don't know anyone who believes all those things the way he puts them. Yet he asserts that most people believe these things and then says that's proof that we've been indoctrinated.
But, I still agree completely with Antiquary's wife, I am dumber than I used to be.
posted on December 16, 2001 07:26:33 PM new
Right, stusi, and increasingly in following the money, in those instances when it's possible to do so, the trails end at one location. Gives a rather ironic twist to Truman's "The buck stops here."
Those are my observations also, Robin. The social institutions that have the capacity to encourage and nuture learning also have the ability to restrict and control it. Of course, there are no standard measures of intelligence, (even if we could agree on how to define it), which have been scientifically applied for any appreciable amount of time -- which is fortunate. Plenty of horror stories from the limited uses in the past. What I keep mulling over in my mind though is whether or not there are areas in which intelligence may have increased generally, as in science and technology for instance, though it may have decreased in other areas, such as abstact problem-solving. Then too I consider what the nostalgia quotient may be in my perceptions of the recent past. One thing that I'm pretty sure of though is the increasing value given to specialization in society and the corresponding lack of emphasis on being well-rounded.
That's interesting, Julesy. I hadn't heard about that being done again, but I've noticed what you could almost call a campaign in the media to present the 40's and 50's as a sort of utopian era.
Turning off the TV? Good try, Helen.
But we know that it won't last. Wouldn't it be fun to see what would happen if the entire nation lost access to TV for a month or so?
I was more interested in his presentation of the funding of medical research being driven by profitability rather than scientific standards and how the public can be manipulated to accept nonstandard levels. I am familiar with quite a few of the instances that he sites so I have no reason to doubt that premise has validity. I assume that he wrote his treatise prior to the current practice of advertising prescription drugs on TV and in popular print publications or he would have included some opinions about that. I'm unaware of what his specific concerns about vaccinations are, but it looks like you guys have done some good research.
More than the medical aspect, however, he touches upon the other aspects of our lives that can be influenced through media. Some techniques are obvious but even being aware of them, as with the political PR machines which are publically acknowledged and discussed, they still have an impact. I suppose because people aren't able to envision alternatives.
posted on December 16, 2001 07:45:23 PM new
I think that one reason people seem dumber today is that they are unchallenged. My siblings shop for entertainment. Their children play with toy models of TV characters. They don't use their imagination or puzzle-solving skills very often. These same kids can be given a few simple tools or a blackboard and chalk and they will spend an hour entertaining themselves, but my sister, who spent ten years as a teacher, would rather buy them a specific toy. And they would say that they would rather have a Power Ranger or other popular toy. But in the end, they'll spend more time with a hammer and screwdriver puttering around my dad's workshop. Advertising has choked their imagination and driven them into debt. They never question the status quo.
posted on December 16, 2001 07:59:04 PM new
Tim O'Shea puts an interesting spin on the concept of spin. I don't believe American's are dumber. IMO, our children are given more opportunities to expand their knowledge and skill levels than I believe was available "in my time." It's true that school employees are more sensitive to special needs children but they are also much more sensitive to children who want advanced learning opportunties. Twenty years ago college was a maybe - now it's almost a necessity to guarantee any kind of successful employment within most corporations. There will always be students/parents who don't take education seriously, but that's nothing new.
I think most adults prefer to latch on to a favored "opinion maker." Afterall, having a valid, researched opinion on the vast amount of issues we confront every day is entirely too much work. So, we tend to look for like-minded "reporters" of the issues we're interested in and follow along blindly.
Some news sources are more subtle than others when it comes to manipulating public opinion. But some couldn't be more obvious. I'm pretty sure that Molly Ivins is never going to find a Republican concept that she likes and that Rush Limbaugh has has never met a single Democrat that had a viable idea. I enjoy reading both of their opinions but would never take their words at face value. Afterall, their goal is to convince me that their perception of the issue is correct. Sometimes that requires leaving out facts. It's my job to weed out the emotional verbage - find the facts and begin my own research from there. IMO, the first rule of consuming any report is heavy skepticism. The writer always has a motive for every word he/she has written.
I do find it interesting that there are no longer any "used" car lots... they're "pre-owned" now.
posted on December 16, 2001 09:01:09 PM new
"I was more interested in his presentation of the funding of medical research being driven by profitability rather than scientific standards and how the public can be manipulated to accept nonstandard levels."
<br />
<br />
Yes, but who <b>doesn't</b> know this? As a comment on the medical industry, that's correct. As a proof of indoctrination, it's not.
More proof that I'm one of the people who aren't as smart as people used to be. I used to could bold, now I can't. Must've been that soy burger and mercury shake I had, right after my daily afternoon vaccinations.
posted on December 16, 2001 10:59:09 PM newYes, but who doesn't know this? As a comment on the medical industry, that's correct. As a proof of indoctrination, it's not.
Well, donny, I would guess that quite a few don't know the particulars of who funds scientific medical research and the standards that are used but there's been no study or polling to determine that, and I think that it's a safe bet to say that that won't happen. As to proof of indoctrination, I don't believe that it can be proved legally, if that's what you mean, that intent to manipulate public opinion exists unless you have either documents or testimony to that effect, even though it may otherwise seem apparent, as with the tobacco industry. If you wish to believe that corporations and institutions have not successfully attempted to create public opinion, then I have no objections, as long as you can prove to me that you are dumber than you used to be.
Saabsister, I agree about the lack of challenge and the lack of imagination. I think that imagination naturally alters as one ages, but I did see a decline in the capacity of students to envision alternative and creative presentation of oral and written work. Also with the re-creative imagination, as in reading.
Mybiddness, interesting observations. I believe that public education has been successful in raising the bottom level a little and in that sense those students are smarter than they used to be. The very top is about the same and do have more options. The middle though has been pretty much ignored.
posted on December 16, 2001 11:42:18 PM new
No, I don't mean prove legally, Antiquary.
But if we stopped 10 people on the street and asked them which of these things is true:
A. - The aim of the drug companies is to improve everyone's health to the point where no one will ever have to buy another drug from a drug company OR
B. - The drug companies are in it for the money
How many of even the dumbest of modern people is going to answer "A?"
I don't disagree that drug companies have attempted to portray themselves to consumers and the medical profession as only interested in health, and don't, in appealing to this audience, mention profit. But that this has been as successful as this author attempts to portray I do disagree with. Drug company stock prices shot up after Sept. 11th. I think we pretty much all know that human misfortune equals huge drug company profits, we don't believe that drug companies are going to prostrate themselves in service to humanity.. quite the opposite.
But when this author takes a few facts, such as that drug companies are dishonest in their marketing and their stated motivations, which I agree with, and then uses the proof of their dishonesty to support his contention that vaccination is a big hoax and we've all been stupidly duped, that gives me pause. When I read your link and find he's cited one of his own articles as a reference, I'm pausing some more.
At a quick glance, your link looks credible enough, it's got just enough sort-of-facts with an assertive tone to sound good. But take two of his contentions, that nearly everyone believes that:
"* Menopause is a disease condition
* When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics"
Who believes this? To point to these two things as being in the popular wisdom is, to me, just wrong. I don't know anyone who thinks that Menopause is a "disease," and I'd feel comfortable in saying that nearly everyone realizes that antibiotics are a bad idea for illnesses that aren't cured by antibiotics.
But he takes these assertions, and a whole list of others like them, states that nearly everyone believes them, and then says that since nearly everyone believes them that it's proof that everyone has been intentionally misled.
And he lists this one twice!
"* Back and neck pain are the only reason for spinal adjustment."
So I'll take his advice, when someone asserts something medical, I'll look for an agenda. So I visited his website.
He's a doctor. He doesn't directly state what kind of doctor, but in the section on Chiropracty, he refers to Chiropractors as "we," so I'm guessing he's a Chiropractor.
In addition to his section on Chiropracty, he takes on a whole slew of other subjects, vaccinations and soybeans are the only two I read completely. And they're trash.
In both, he provides just enough facts to sound good. Some he provides references for, but other times he puts out assertions with no references at all. He cites other articles written by himself as a reference. References to "The Matrix" are also heavily used as support.
It looks to me like he's promoting an "everything the government and big companies ever told you is wrong" agenda to make his own holistic medicine/chiropractic claims look better.
I don't have any problem with holistic medicine or chiropracty, there's good in both... but to build that up by saying that other medical practices, such as vaccination, are bad is, in my opinion, untruthful and dangerous.
I don't know what you were looking for when you found him but, if it was me, I'd be careful to read him critically. Sorry.
posted on December 17, 2001 12:00:14 AM new
Well, donny, I don't know much about the guy's life or professional credentials, though I think that he is kind of interesting, nor did I consider that he
was an expert on anything. I thought that I made clear in the first post, though I might not have, that I was mainly interested in whether or not some of the rest of you had thoughts about the possibility that
people aren't as smart as they used to be. Since he makes that assertion and attributes it to the use of media to create public opinion, which I have also been thinking over lately, though mainly in a political
perspective, I found that worth thinking about.
Ad hominem considerations aside, I think that he presents enough logical proof to support his thesis that as a society many of us allow the media to control our thinking, though that doesn't make it necessarily true. Who controls the media and the extent of that control is less clear, though he
does establish connections. As far as I'm concerned his purpose for writing and his biases are self-evident, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate his conclusions.
If I were going to him for a medical problem or as a source of academic research, I would look at his work with different criteria in mind.
But I haven't really heard any of your thoughts on why you think people aren't as smart as they used to be. If you think so, I would be interested in knowing what
you think the contributing factors are.
revision
they finally fixed the <b> insertions with edit
[ edited by antiquary on Dec 17, 2001 06:24 AM ]
posted on December 17, 2001 08:04:15 AM new
Well, since you asked, I have had thoughts about this, and I've been thinking more about it since you started this thread. These are only my opinions, and, so far, no one I've tried them out on has thought they've had much merit.
I've mentioned before, I'm a big believer in structure. I look at my sister, she's a better thinker than I am. What did she learn that I didn't learn? Latin, for one thing. Latin is big on structure, and I suspect that learning Latin helps in developing thinking skills that go beyond the language itself. By my reckoning, the ancient Romans were big intellects, I guess, since they all spoke Latin.
Another thing that I think has been detrimental to thinking skills is the near-extinction of analog timepieces. My daughter never had any concept of time, or, it seems, for any mathematical theory. I think a clock face helps us link to abstractions like time and mathematical relations.
It's true that people don't seem as smart as they used to be. One thing people don't seem to be able to do is make change, and that annoys me. But, as I've thought about this the last day or so, I've wondered if it really is true that people aren't as smart as they used to be.
I think it's natural for us to believe that older people are smarter than we are, they know more than we do, just like we know more than our children do, on the whole, because the older people have learned more over more time, like we've learned more over more time than our children. But does that mean we're smarter, or we've just had more time to learn more? I don't know. And I don't know if a generation difference is enough to decide.
Are falling test scores an indication? Well, those are pointed to a lot, but who really believes a test measures much more than how well someone performs on that test? When my son was 5, he was tested before going into kindergarten, and the teacher informed me that they reckoned his IQ at something ridiculous like 160 because, among other things, he knew that ketchup was made from tomatoes. Heck, I know that ketchup is made from tomatoes does that make me have 160 IQ? And what kind of question is this anyway? What if I never liked ketchup, never had it in the house, or only bought a cheapo brand without a picture of a tomato on the bottle? They would've come out and told me my kid was a dope, while my cousins from W. Va., whose mother made their ketchup from scratch, would test as geniuses.
Maybe we'd look further back than a generation for our assertion that people today aren't as smart as people from before. When we think of smart people of the past, they weren't smart in only one subject, they knew a wide range of things - they could quote things, in several languages, they wrote well, they invented things, they did all kinds of stuff.
But, remember, back then, not as many people were educated, and the ones that were were the ones who could afford to be, who had the leisure to be. A guy who was working 12 hours a day in the field to get the crop in wasn't going to have time to loll around under a tree and think about why an apple was falling on him like Sir Isaac Newton did. Jefferson wasn't a farmer, he was a "gentleman farmer," and there's a world of difference. Could the guys who were actually bringing in his crops also have the time to read Greek, sit around and write the Declaration of Independence and invent a barometer (or whatever he did?) Show me a guy who can speak several languages, form a country, and invent stuff, and I'll show you a guy with a lot of time on his hands.
So the people who had the time, and the training, to think about things, learned a lot more, and thought a lot more, than most poeple today. But, on the other hand, most people back then didn't have much time or training to think about much beyond - am I going to be able to get enough work done today to keep us going 'till tomorrow? Deep thinking is a luxury that people who don't have to do real work can indulge in. So perhaps instead of saying - People back then were smarter than people today, it's closer to the truth to say - The smart people of back then were smarter than the smart people of today.
As to the media controlling our thinking - When hasn't this been true? Even way back when, when the medium in use was a guy giving a rousing speech in a Roman forum, the basics of the thing have been the same, it's only the technology that has changed. And if this author is going to trace this back to the 1940's, and give all the credit to this Bernays guy, I think he's very much mistaken, and poor William Randolph Hearst is rolling over in his grave. There he went to all the trouble of orchestrating the Spanish American War, only to find that Bernays invented media control of public opinion years later. At least he sold some papers, he'll have to be content with that.
And I still have issues with the examples of "public wisdom" that O'Shea uses to support his contention, they don't look to me to be either public or wisdom, the examples look squirrley.
So, yes, I do believe that big corporations and the gov't put out sound bites and flash to sway our opinions, little morsels that can be ingested quickly and are easily remembered. But I don't know if being exposed to this has made people dumber than they used to be, or if people swallow it easily because they're dumber than they used to be (and I have to say, I'm not sure which of those two things he's asserting, if either, I try to read this article completely and I keep getting a bit swimmy in the middle.)
posted on December 17, 2001 01:15:22 PM new
Neat stuff, donny. I don't have time to respond today but didn't want it to seem that I was ignoring you after I asked.
posted on December 17, 2001 10:12:02 PM new
It's not that Americans aren't "as smart as they used to be." Rather it is a case of Americans being more ignorant in a general sense these days.
posted on December 18, 2001 03:53:43 PM new
Well, I'm back after attending to some dull family matters.
This was one of those endless, useless questions that one day I'll finally learn to quit asking myself, since everytime that I do I eventually become the embodiment of the Sisyphus Myth and retreat into the safety of the shallower waters of existentialism.
But what precipitated the plunge this time with my wife's comment was one of those innocuous annoyances which taken out of context have very little importance in life. About a year and a half ago a budding entrepreneur provided a local internet service which my wife decided to use while I remained with AOL, still believing it would have to improve some day. Abandoning hope, I trudged down to the local office a couple of months ago to sign up with the local. Mentioning to the young lady (euphemism) behind the desk that my wife had an account and I had decided that I also wanted one, she informed me that she would have to check to see if that was okay. There was once a time that I would have impetuously questioned her sanity but anymore I more or less roll with the punches since it saves time in the long run. Having obtained corporate approval, I then decided to ask if they were now taking credit cards though they weren't when my wife had signed up but planned to do so and would notify when they did. Yes, they were. We should have periodically checked with them instead of waiting for them to announce that in the monthly newsletter which they enclose with their statements. Giving her the credit card, I then quickly filled out the application after she considerately ended her phone conversation with a friend when she inadvertently glanced my way and saw that I was signaling her because I needed advice on how to interpret a perplexingly ambiguous question on the application form. Collecting my software and leaving, I naturally assumed the end of our business. No problems with the service but the beginning of the next month, I received a monthly statement for both our accounts. So I debated the possibilities. Were they really not accepting credit cards? Did she somehow misunderstand and only use the credit card for one billing? Was sending the statement an oversight? So I called to inquire. She would call someone in accounting and get back to me, which she did, an oversight in billing since they had charged the credit card and they would correct it. This month billed again. Probably an oversight in correcting the first oversight, but a real possibility exists that there will be another oversight which will result in our service being disconnected since I'm not calling again.
Situations like the one above have always existed, but the frequency of occurence is alarming and you'll be pleased to know, if anyone is still reading, that I'll refrain from detailing all of them. Except for yesterday's. It was unique in our experience. We pay our son's U.S. Cellular bill and this month's was unusually high, yet when contacted he couldn't remember making an unusual number of calls, which verifies nothing since his memory is selective. Because of sufficient errors of one sort or another in the past, my wife decided to call the regional office and request a print out of the calls. The lady that she contacted didn't want to send the print out if it would get our son in trouble. She explained at some length that her son had recently died and how little we appreciate our children. She was able to be persuaded that it wasn't a life and death matter, at least yet.
So it's pretty natural when we begin to detect patterns of behavior which we can't ignore to also begin to question their cause. Since many of these seem stupid, and could be avoided with a minimal amount of thought, and since they didn't exist with such prevalence in the past, perhaps they do result from a decline in a form of intelligence.
The other area that is less direct is the greater difficulty in getting information that is necessary to creating informed opinions, especially about national issues. If it's our responsibility as citizens to make informed choices in order to productively contribute to shaping the policy and laws which govern us, why isn't it also the responsibility of government or of an institution of the society to see to it that a source of information which is reasonably objective and thorough, as well as accessible, exists, in addition to all of the other avenues that exist privately. If the ethics of journalism are entrusted almost solely to corporate capitalism then the goal of competing venues for information
would be rewarded for continually dumbing down news coverage of critical issues to attrack the most viewers, especially through stressing entertainment over substance. We know that these changes have occurred, both from our own observations and also from a number of prominent journalists who've documented gradual changes. The chief thrust of journalism has been to oversimplify issues and increase their entertainment value while ensuring the public that it is being as well-informed as possible. Of course, the degree and level of coverage tha is possible may be debatable, but if the number of complex issues is greater than ever, and if many of those issues are given token or superficial coverage, then how can the public make informed opinions? And why doesn't the public demand more and better coverage of issues? So again the question comes up, as to whether or not the public's lack of demand for quality news coverage is associated with intelligence and its decline.
Assuming, as I do, that the capacity for intelligence has not generally lessened and is variable, I believe that some types of acquired intelligence have decreased, self-discipline, imagination, and habits of mind, I'll term them. Partly because of the influence of technology and partly because of their inconvenience.
The attention span of children, many of whom are now adults, have been decreasing for some time. In the secondary schools, it became particularly noticeable in the late 70s to early 80s and renewed the debates about the effects of TV and extended to potential drug use by parents, etc. In brief, education then restructured itself to accomodate the changes with the result being a greater emphasis on short-term, less complex problem-solving and greater emphasis on education as entertainment than achievement. I could probably write a book, but my theory is that the development of technology created habits of mind in younger children which made complex problem-solving more difficult to acquire and the educational system as well as the society adapted to these changes. Technological changes have affected all of us resulting in increased impatient but those who developed complex problem-solving skills and the self-discipline to see them through could be considered more intelligent than those who haven't and I think that the percentage of people who can do so today is less than in the past.
It's also my belief from my personal observations that abstract thinking skills develop a certain form of imagination which is related to intelligence. The ability to conceive not only a series of sequential cause/effect relationships but to be able to mentally visualize the potential outcome of actions with such clarity that a strong mental impression results and creates an understanding of their importance. The lightbulb effect.
So I think that many people do less and expect less, especially of social institutions but also in daily life and business affairs, not simply because they are lazy but also because they are incapable of conceiving of alternate courses of action which are often less work and more productive. Just as they are incapable of conceiving of how great a bearing the outcome of government policy has on their lives. I don't know that this change is earthshattering, yet, but I do see it as a general decline in intelligence. Of course, some are just lazy, and perhaps the very brightest just don't give a damn.
I don't know how much individual media sources may set out to create opinion and manipulate the content and presentation of information to achieve that effect. There are biases of which we are aware, especially those relating to liberal or conservative orientation, but I sometimes wonder if it doesn't go beyond those. For instance, it was my perception, and perhaps it was also a biased one, though I don't believe so, that some of the news coverage before the Supreme Court took over the election process, placed undue emphasis on a national crises and the downfall of the nation; after the decision, virtually everywhere in the mainstream media was the relief that we had passed the greatest test to the republic since the Civil War. The conventional wisdom not repeated directly but also indirectly in numerous instances was that of unity in not questioning the decision or else the fall of the republic was imminent. I'm phrasing it ironically of course, but not really exaggerating the message much. Regardless of how much anyone disagreed with the decision, the message indicated, further analysis would portend revolution and throw us into chaos. Since then we've heard the same message, more strongly, in all questions related to the terrorist attacks.
So what I keep wondering is, if these incidents had been reported differently and given a different slant, how would that have affected public opinion? Should the media be defining, directly but more so indirectly, what appropriate patriotic behavior should be? The appropriate sources of comfort and refuge? The appropriate feelings toward government officials and their actions? Of course, I've admitted to being cynical and skeptical but it does cause me to continue to question in what other less momental circumstances media may be influencing me for either its own profit or paternalistically.
posted on December 18, 2001 10:05:15 PM new
Antiquary, I don't believe I've ever seen you quite so talkative.
I shouldn't post to a thread discussing intelligence issues when I'm strung out on cold meds... I hope this will make sense.
I think it would be almost impossible to make any real judgement as to a possible drop in overall intelligence of the American people. I do think that too many people are allowing their thoughts and opinions to be formed by the media. I also think that what seems to be on the decline is the application of good ole common sense. When I was a kid my mom would occasionally ask me if I'd be willing to jump off of a bridge just cause "so and so" jumped. In other words, think for yourself. It is that thinking process that tells you not to jump off of the bridge that is on the decline in today's society. We want the easy bites... the path of least resistance. Maybe it's because we're bombarded with so much information that we can't possibly assimilate it all. I've seen reasonably intelligent people jump off bridges (so to speak) because the person who was doing their thinking for them thought it was the right thing to do.
I talked to the manager of a local cigarette discount store today. For the last three months he has not had my brand of cigarettes in stock. Today I asked him when he thought he might get them in again. He says the chances were pretty slim. Seems the corporate policy is that if he didn't sell any of XX brand the week before he places his order then he's not allowed to order them. Basic common sense should tell these people that if they don't allow the manager to order the XX brand when he's out of stock then there's not much of a chance that he'll be selling any that week.
That whole scenario sounds incredibly stupid on the surface. But, I don't believe these people are really too stupid to grasp that there's no way they're going to sell a product that isn't in stock. I think they have a policy and to hell with common sense... they're sticking to it!
I think the meds are starting to talk now... they're telling me to shut up and go to bed.
posted on December 19, 2001 03:04:29 AM new
Love that cigarette story. It reminds me of another story, about buying apples from a vending machine. I don't remember where this apple story came from - might've been "Catch-22."
Vending machine sells apples. The apples it dispenses are always old. One guy asks another guy why this is. Explanation:
The vending machine man restocks the machine with apples, fresh apples, but he restocks them from the back. Since old apples aren't big sellers, by the time the old apples in front are bought in enough quantity to move the new apples forward in the line, the "new" apples are now old themselves.
First guy mulls this over, comes up with a solution. If we all make an effort to buy the present stock of old apples quickly, the new apples will move to the front quickly enough so that they'll still be new. The vending machine man will restock with new apples. New apples will naturally sell more quickly than old apples so, by this first, one-time effort on our part, the natural order of things will become - the machine will always be stocked with "new" apples.
Second guy shakes his head, it's been tried, doesn't work. Why not?
If we all buy up all the old apples, when the vending machine man comes and sees that this has happened, he'll conclude that we _like_ old apples, and he'll restock with old apples instead of new ones.
Antiquary, your credit card problem sounds much like a recent credit card problem my sister wrestled with for several months this year. Hers involved a overcharge from my son's university.
I won't go into the gruesome details except to say that, after numerous phone calls over the course of several months, the dern charged wound up on her credit card anyway, and she finally got rid of it only by disputing it with the credit card company itself.
Now, she complained about this incident, probably in the same vein you did - What's wrong with people, they're so stupid, etc. etc. And she's right but... I told her our mother would never have come to the point in this dispute that my sister ended up in. If it was true that people weren't as smart as they used to be, one of those people was my sister herself.
When you get into a problem with some company, like my sister and you, Antiquary did, you both started out right - You called the first person in line who can fix this.
But when the next month came, and my sister found that the problem still hasn't been fixed, she shouldn't have called the same people she called the first time. She should have immediately gone up the line. Instead of calling "billing" the next month, like she did the first time, she should have asked for the "head of biling," or the head of whatever dept. oversees this stuff.
So my sister, while complaining of the stupidity of people, was stupid herself. And I told her as much when, after listening to the monthly updates and final, exasperating end, I said "Our mother would never have done it that way, why did you?" And my sister agreed and shrugged - She had been stupid. But I was stupid as well - Why didn't I tell my sister that, after the first non-fix, she should go up the line and stop trying to deal with the same people who hadn't fixed it last month?
Anyway, if you go by my mother's experiences, as she related them, other people have been stupid for over 50 years. She enjoyed encounters like this from the beginning of her adulthood almost to the day she died, when, in her last few months, she had the Head of the Water Department install a pressure regulator at her house (after a couple of assurances by the regular Water Dept. guys that the problem was fixed.) These regular Water Dept. guys were stupid. My sister and I are stupid. My mother was never stupid.
"For instance, it was my perception, and perhaps it was also a biased one, though I don't believe so, that some of the news coverage before the Supreme Court took over the election process, placed undue emphasis on a national crises and the downfall of the nation;"
That's right, I saw that too. I watched CNN a lot during that period, and several times a day Bill Schneider (that little pink bald guy) would come on breathlessly, in that annoying high-pitched voice of his, to give the latest results of the constant polls they did, asking people if this had to be wrapped up quickly because the country was in danger, blah blah.
Now, the danger of the recount was a constant theme on CNN. But every time Schneider reported the results of the polls, his tone was one of amazement and disbelief at the polling numbers. While 100% of people who yapped before the cameras on CNN seemed to feel this was leading us to the brink of disaster, Constitutional Crisis, whatever, a much smaller percentage of the polled public responded this way. Every single time, Schneider reported the poll results the same way you might have expected him to announce that only 30% of the poll respondees thought that a bear pooped in the woods.
So you're right about the media spin, but I'm not sure how effective it is. I was suprised, in NYC, to overhear a conversation between a bartender and a guy who had, it turned out, passed this bar for years and only this afternoon decided to come in.
My brother and I, this bartender and this new guy, were the only ones in the place. The bartender looked and sounded like a typical working class late 20's something guy of the New York variety, probably named Kevin. New guy, 40's, thinning hair, glasses, dark suit, white shirt, desk-job guy.
So the bartender and the suit guy start talking about what's going on in Afghanistan, Israel, blah blah. And I'm surprised to hear - their opinions are not the mainstream media spin.
Maybe things are what they've always been, like Lincoln put it about fooling the people.
posted on December 19, 2001 01:12:09 PM new
I hope you feel better soon, mybiddness. It's an especially unpleasant time of the year to have a cold.
I agree that it's all just speculation based upon individual experiences and observations and how one interprets them. But I don't know how effective the old jumping off bridges admonition ever was. A few that I jumped off were rather exhilarating. Though I use the term common sense fairly often too, I've always considered it somewhat suspect since I read an essay years ago that began with the statement that common sense is what tells you that the earth is flat. In context it's usually used to suggest an obvious thought pattern that we believe that someone has ignored or overlooked in a particular situation, I think. But whatever it is, the sense seems less common than it used to be.
For good or ill, but likely both, the techology that we create and become dependent upon, especially in short cuts to problem-solving, will affect the development of our thinking skills and thought patterns. The terrorists with their low tech box cutters were successful because the habits of thought in relation to airline security had only focused upon the threats from more sophisticated technology, though our airline security was lax anyway. With these attacks though we also discovered that we had become overly dependent on high tech intelligence surveillance and we really didn't know nearly as much about bin Laden and other terrorist organizations or the ability to locate particular individuals as we had assumed. So such incidents also make me wonder if we aren't overlooking some of the effects of technology in the more mundane activities of daily life.
Great story, donny. People no longer accept the wisdom that an apple a day keeps the doctor away. I've heard that Ben had a heavy investment in apple futures.
My encounter with the ISP local wasn't a problem with their billing the credit card, which is what I wanted them to do, but rather their continuing to send a statement in addition to billing the credit card. A few years ago, someone did get one of my card numbers somehow, could have been any number of ways, and charged a few things. But that was easy to handle. The problem in the instance with the ISP was a different nature because the problem was in trying to determine whether or not there was a problem. If it should turn out that there is a problem, it can probably be rectified fairly quickly. But my main concern is not with the particular problem but that the number of these problems have increased greatly. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining that and other people that I know seem to have similar perceptions, so I assume that there must be a cause. It may not have anything to do with the alteration in a form of intelligence, and I did consider fluoride but dismissed it because of inadequate sampling.
Your example with the bar opinions is similar to what I hear also. Maybe we coincidentally know or hang out in places that are attractive to the nefarious l0%
I'm guilty of watching news from early in the morning to Midnight, when the same story has been repeated so many times that the news becomes background noise.
