|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2018 23:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think arts degrees are just as valuable as stem degrees. Probably not for a developing country, but in Norway? Absolutely.
Oh, I didn't mean to scoff art degrees. I think they're useful too, absolutely. They provide value of their own, which is unfortunately hard to quantify. But it doesn't provide the same type of value as, say, a medical degree. An arts degree is almost universally going to be bad if you only look at the economical aspect, while a medical degree is practically required for a society not to destroy itself.
Another way to look at what college provides: In most of Europe, police academy is a college degree. And in most of Europe, police works as they should. In the US it is not, and there is pretty much a universal agreement that the police in the US is not working like it should be doing. You can of course argue that there are other aspects making it difficult too (Like way too many guns floating around, making cops paranoid), but the lack of proper training/education is in my mind doubtless a large reason for it. But if you only look at it from a pure economical aspect, then having cops finish a college degree is obviously not going to be worth it. Hell, how do you even look at just the pure economics of it? How can you tell if a cop possibly not shooting 10 children is an economical benefit or not? How can you possibly calculate how much worth an arts student brings to society in money alone?
I honestly think this whole conversation is a bit stupid, and smells a bit of willfully ignoring nuance and actual depth. The second you look beneath the surface it falls apart.
|
I think there's some self-selection at work b/w liberal arts degrees and STEM/ business degrees and there's definitely a bit of truth to the dickhead STEMlord and the lazy arts student.
A motivated, hardworking history major can do just as well as a motivated, hardworking doctor-to-be. The difference is that the way the curriculums are built, a history major can be a lot less work than a science major with all the have-to-have's like research, clinical experience and the MCAT. So some people who are less interested in really grinding it out in college go do a history major and graduate, but are ultimately less prepared for the next stage of their life. Obviously, there are some hard as fuck LA classes, but from what I remember, those were electives whereas if you're pre-med you're going to have to take orgo and biochem and almost everyone will bitch about how awful they are.
|
On April 15 2018 23:22 Excludos wrote:
Why are you all talking about "college/university" as if it's one single thing? When did an arts degree suddenly become the same as a stem degree? Why are you all discussing it like Surgeons provide the same value as Community Organization? You can't just comb everything as the same and try to conclude whether college provides benefits to society, both economical in the long term and in other aspects.
That one's my fault. I seem to remember US colleges are the same as UK universities, essentially. But that could be complete wrongness on my part.
|
On April 16 2018 00:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think there's some self-selection at work b/w liberal arts degrees and STEM/ business degrees and there's definitely a bit of truth to the dickhead STEMlord and the lazy arts student.
A motivated, hardworking history major can do just as well as a motivated, hardworking doctor-to-be. The difference is that the way the curriculums are built, a history major can be a lot less work than a science major with all the have-to-have's like research, clinical experience and the MCAT. So some people who are less interested in really grinding it out in college go do a history major and graduate, but are ultimately less prepared for the next stage of their life. Obviously, there are some hard as fuck LA classes, but from what I remember, those were electives whereas if you're pre-med you're going to have to take orgo and biochem and almost everyone will bitch about how awful they are.
I think most people will agree that not all college majors are equally difficult, not all degrees are equally useful, and not all college experiences are equally rewarding (e.g., KwarK's "waste of time" anecdote is certainly not unique, and as someone who had good/ beneficial experiences in school that helped me both academically and socially, I wish more people would have stories more similar to mine). There are a ton of risks in the engagement of higher education, from student debt to a useless degree to wasting years of potential resume-building job experience, and it makes me sad that those things frequently outweigh all the potential benefits. Students should have more reliable and positive experiences, and a lot of these issues can't even be blamed on the student.
|
On April 16 2018 00:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 23:22 Excludos wrote:
Why are you all talking about "college/university" as if it's one single thing? When did an arts degree suddenly become the same as a stem degree? Why are you all discussing it like Surgeons provide the same value as Community Organization? You can't just comb everything as the same and try to conclude whether college provides benefits to society, both economical in the long term and in other aspects. That one's my fault. I seem to remember US colleges are the same as UK universities, essentially. But that could be complete wrongness on my part.
You misunderstood my meaning. College and university is about the same thing (college generally have bachelors degrees / 3 year courses, and universities generally have masters degrees/5 year courses, but there's plenty of both in either so it's not really a rule). For the most part that can be used interchangeably.
What I meant to say was: Why are people treating all courses in a university or college as the same thing. One course can drastically differ from another, and what value they provide.
|
On April 16 2018 00:08 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 23:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think arts degrees are just as valuable as stem degrees. Probably not for a developing country, but in Norway? Absolutely. Oh, I didn't mean to scoff art degrees. I think they're useful too, absolutely. They provide value of their own, which is unfortunately hard to quantify. But it doesn't provide the same type of value as, say, a medical degree. An arts degree is almost universally going to be bad if you only look at the economical aspect, while a medical degree is practically required for a society not to destroy itself. Another way to look at what college provides: In most of Europe, police academy is a college degree. And in most of Europe, police works as they should. In the US it is not, and there is pretty much a universal agreement that the police in the US is not working like it should be doing. You can of course argue that there are other aspects making it difficult too (Like way too many guns floating around, making cops paranoid), but the lack of proper training/education is in my mind doubtless a large reason for it. But if you only look at it from a pure economical aspect, then having cops finish a college degree is obviously not going to be worth it. Hell, how do you even look at just the pure economics of it? How can you tell if a cop possibly not shooting 10 children is an economical benefit or not? How can you possibly calculate how much worth an arts student brings to society in money alone? I honestly think this whole conversation is a bit stupid, and smells a bit of willfully ignoring nuance and actual depth. The second you look beneath the surface it falls apart.
In the USA, the role of the police is to oppress the poor and black people in particular. The lack of education for police officers might be a cause of their unartful approach, but it is also a symptom of their role. e.g. the war on drugs, which was literally invented to punish hippies and poor communities as a backlash against the civil rights movements, and which had nothing much to do with a rational approach to solving crime.
It is well-known that if you want to reduce crime you invest into education, employment, neighborhoods, reducing inequality etc. This isn't considered, because that would require helping black people. What is considered is to criminalize the black community and control them by thugs masquerading as benign police force.
A comparison I heard is to think of black people as a colonized people. When Indians start to rebel in one of the provinces of the British Empire, the solution is not to increase their civil liberties, invest into their villages, give them more democratic control over their own lives and commit to a peaceful solution and mutual disarmament. Instead it is framed as a security issue and the military is called in.
You see this also in the discussion of gun control by some elements of the Democratic party. Disarming the police is never considered, only disarming the population. The role of the police as the protectors of property and a tool to control the poor is never reconsidered.
|
Depends on the circles Grumbels. That discussion goes on a lot more frequently, but it is moot without the power to implement.
In other news, Biden 2020?
|
On April 16 2018 01:50 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 00:57 iamthedave wrote:On April 15 2018 23:22 Excludos wrote:
Why are you all talking about "college/university" as if it's one single thing? When did an arts degree suddenly become the same as a stem degree? Why are you all discussing it like Surgeons provide the same value as Community Organization? You can't just comb everything as the same and try to conclude whether college provides benefits to society, both economical in the long term and in other aspects. That one's my fault. I seem to remember US colleges are the same as UK universities, essentially. But that could be complete wrongness on my part. You misunderstood my meaning. College and university is about the same thing (college generally have bachelors degrees / 3 year courses, and universities generally have masters degrees/5 year courses, but there's plenty of both in either so it's not really a rule). For the most part that can be used interchangeably. What I meant to say was: Why are people treating all courses in a university or college as the same thing. One course can drastically differ from another, and what value they provide.
Oh I see. Carry on then.
The central point is an interesting one but I don't think it's right, as I've indicated. Aside from more focused university courses, I think the cultural experiences are invaluable to society as a whole, and find it very hard to imagine just how much damage would be done if we got rid of higher education.
|
On April 16 2018 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Depends on the circles Grumbels. That discussion goes on a lot more frequently, but it is moot without the power to implement.
In other news, Biden 2020?
I haven't heard anything about biden 2020 news related, what did you hear?
or were you simply asking what people thought of the prospect?
|
Vice President Joe Biden is not ruling out a White House run in 2020, telling MSNBC host Al Sharpton that all options remain open.
"I’m really hoping that some other folks step up. I think we have some really good people," Biden said of the potential other 2020 Democratic hopefuls in an interview that aired Sunday.
The former vice president and two-time presidential aspirant (1988 and 2008) said he needs to know that whoever carries the Democratic Party's nomination is someone who can beat President Donald Trump.
In response to a Sharpton question — “What would make Joe Biden really consider running in 2020 for president? — Biden said former President Barack Obama gave some good advice.
"I know Barack always asked me that question. And he said what’s going to make the decision," Biden said. "I‘ve got to be able to look in the mirror and if I walk away knowing — not walking away because I’m afraid or I’m worried about losing or that I just don’t want to take on the responsibility."
Source
Not much to go off of, but just wanted to see what you all thought.
|
On April 15 2018 14:56 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 13:43 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2018 13:29 IgnE wrote:On April 15 2018 13:23 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2018 12:54 IgnE wrote:On April 15 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:
University did nothing to prepare me for accounting. One day the world will realize that auditors are stretching the hell out of the word reasonable in “reasonable assurance” and that we work for the people paying us, the entity being audited. We add no value. So was college a waste of time? It allowed me to signal to an accounting firm that I was worth training to be an accountant but it didn’t teach me shit about accounting. They teach that on the job. I'm asking about non-accountant aspects of your life. Was it worth something beyond simply the job you have obtained? No. I was working full time through school. It detracted from my life. I met some cool people I guess but the same would be true of basically anything I’d done with that time. Beyond social and professional signaling I’d say it made both my life and society collectively poorer. I am not up for trying to quantify 'collectively poorer' but I will say that I found your rant on the tenuousness of the claim that "western culture grew out of Greek philosophy" rather interesting, and it made me have thoughts I hadn't had before. I think ideally that's what education does, it allows large segments of the population to not spend all their mental energies grinding a job and instead generating and spreading ideas. As for economic value, I know it's hip in certain circles to point out that people like Gates or Zuckerberg dropped out of college to become successful entrepreneurs and generate lots of value. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that they would have had the ideas they had, and the energy to execute them, if they had spent their days working 7-6 jobs as chemical engineers, or lawyers, or lumber jacks.
The problem isn't about whether or not university studies are interesting - it generally is kind of neat stuff. I found Multivariable Calculus to be fun & challenging. There just isn't all that many jobs that want or need that. What jobs need are basic accounting skills as well as basic knowledge of supply & demand & simple algebra. The "real reason" that ppl continue to attend college on cheap student loan money is for dating purposes. You will probably not find a better cross-section of all the single people in your area who are looking for boyfriends or girlfriends. Social life matters. Just sayin.'
Anyways, that's getting off topic for a thread that's supposed to be about US politics so I suppose I'll try to contribute something political. I guess that Congress just passed the H.R. 1865 bill which changes the way that the internet is regulated by the judicial system. I guess the purpose of the law was to shut down Backpage.com
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/30/congress-online-sex-trafficking-bill-impact-sex-workers-craigslist
|
On April 16 2018 03:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Vice President Joe Biden is not ruling out a White House run in 2020, telling MSNBC host Al Sharpton that all options remain open.
"I’m really hoping that some other folks step up. I think we have some really good people," Biden said of the potential other 2020 Democratic hopefuls in an interview that aired Sunday.
The former vice president and two-time presidential aspirant (1988 and 2008) said he needs to know that whoever carries the Democratic Party's nomination is someone who can beat President Donald Trump.
In response to a Sharpton question — “What would make Joe Biden really consider running in 2020 for president? — Biden said former President Barack Obama gave some good advice.
"I know Barack always asked me that question. And he said what’s going to make the decision," Biden said. "I‘ve got to be able to look in the mirror and if I walk away knowing — not walking away because I’m afraid or I’m worried about losing or that I just don’t want to take on the responsibility." SourceNot much to go off of, but just wanted to see what you all thought.
It doesn't add anything new really, or change anything; but i can give you my prior thoughts:
he'd be ok, and seems to have a fair bit of support/being liked, especially amongst more blue collar workers iirc, but there are some issues:
he's really getting a bit too old. it'd be good to have someone younger. (both for the future of the party, and also just general concerns about age)
there's a history of some creepiness with women which would cause some issues.
|
On April 16 2018 03:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Vice President Joe Biden is not ruling out a White House run in 2020, telling MSNBC host Al Sharpton that all options remain open.
"I’m really hoping that some other folks step up. I think we have some really good people," Biden said of the potential other 2020 Democratic hopefuls in an interview that aired Sunday.
The former vice president and two-time presidential aspirant (1988 and 2008) said he needs to know that whoever carries the Democratic Party's nomination is someone who can beat President Donald Trump.
In response to a Sharpton question — “What would make Joe Biden really consider running in 2020 for president? — Biden said former President Barack Obama gave some good advice.
"I know Barack always asked me that question. And he said what’s going to make the decision," Biden said. "I‘ve got to be able to look in the mirror and if I walk away knowing — not walking away because I’m afraid or I’m worried about losing or that I just don’t want to take on the responsibility." SourceNot much to go off of, but just wanted to see what you all thought. It doesn't add anything new really, or change anything; but i can give you my prior thoughts: he'd be ok, and seems to have a fair bit of support/being liked, especially amongst more blue collar workers iirc, but there are some issues: he's really getting a bit too old. it'd be good to have someone younger. (both for the future of the party, and also just general concerns about age) there's a history of some creepiness without women which would cause some issues.
That's what I was thinking. He'd probably have the most success in the liberal party besides Sanders or Warren. Ultimately, I think it comes down to who the RNC runs that will ultimately shape who gets into the ring. While I would love for someone younger (late 40s - mid 50s), unless they're Obama 2.0 with the level of celebrity, charisma, and semi-decent understanding of the law, then we're stuck with old people for the foreseeable future.
While his history is certainly a bit, odd, in regards to women, I don't think it would be enough to derail his campaign. I mean shit, trump.
|
On April 16 2018 03:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 03:31 zlefin wrote:On April 16 2018 03:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Vice President Joe Biden is not ruling out a White House run in 2020, telling MSNBC host Al Sharpton that all options remain open.
"I’m really hoping that some other folks step up. I think we have some really good people," Biden said of the potential other 2020 Democratic hopefuls in an interview that aired Sunday.
The former vice president and two-time presidential aspirant (1988 and 2008) said he needs to know that whoever carries the Democratic Party's nomination is someone who can beat President Donald Trump.
In response to a Sharpton question — “What would make Joe Biden really consider running in 2020 for president? — Biden said former President Barack Obama gave some good advice.
"I know Barack always asked me that question. And he said what’s going to make the decision," Biden said. "I‘ve got to be able to look in the mirror and if I walk away knowing — not walking away because I’m afraid or I’m worried about losing or that I just don’t want to take on the responsibility." SourceNot much to go off of, but just wanted to see what you all thought. It doesn't add anything new really, or change anything; but i can give you my prior thoughts: he'd be ok, and seems to have a fair bit of support/being liked, especially amongst more blue collar workers iirc, but there are some issues: he's really getting a bit too old. it'd be good to have someone younger. (both for the future of the party, and also just general concerns about age) there's a history of some creepiness without women which would cause some issues. That's what I was thinking. He'd probably have the most success in the liberal party besides Sanders or Warren. Ultimately, I think it comes down to who the RNC runs that will ultimately shape who gets into the ring. While I would love for someone younger (late 40s - mid 50s), unless they're Obama 2.0 with the level of celebrity, charisma, and semi-decent understanding of the law, then we're stuck with old people for the foreseeable future. While his history is certainly a bit, odd, in regards to women, I don't think it would be enough to derail his campaign. I mean shit, trump.
i don't think ti'd be enoug hto derail the campaign either; but it'd hurt a bit. and this is the dem party, not the republicans, so issues like that actually matter (in terms of enthusiasm of the base)
|
On April 16 2018 03:24 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 14:56 KlaCkoN wrote:On April 15 2018 13:43 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2018 13:29 IgnE wrote:On April 15 2018 13:23 KwarK wrote:On April 15 2018 12:54 IgnE wrote:On April 15 2018 12:48 KwarK wrote:
University did nothing to prepare me for accounting. One day the world will realize that auditors are stretching the hell out of the word reasonable in “reasonable assurance” and that we work for the people paying us, the entity being audited. We add no value. So was college a waste of time? It allowed me to signal to an accounting firm that I was worth training to be an accountant but it didn’t teach me shit about accounting. They teach that on the job. I'm asking about non-accountant aspects of your life. Was it worth something beyond simply the job you have obtained? No. I was working full time through school. It detracted from my life. I met some cool people I guess but the same would be true of basically anything I’d done with that time. Beyond social and professional signaling I’d say it made both my life and society collectively poorer. I am not up for trying to quantify 'collectively poorer' but I will say that I found your rant on the tenuousness of the claim that "western culture grew out of Greek philosophy" rather interesting, and it made me have thoughts I hadn't had before. I think ideally that's what education does, it allows large segments of the population to not spend all their mental energies grinding a job and instead generating and spreading ideas. As for economic value, I know it's hip in certain circles to point out that people like Gates or Zuckerberg dropped out of college to become successful entrepreneurs and generate lots of value. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that they would have had the ideas they had, and the energy to execute them, if they had spent their days working 7-6 jobs as chemical engineers, or lawyers, or lumber jacks. The problem isn't about whether or not university studies are interesting - it generally is kind of neat stuff. I found Multivariable Calculus to be fun & challenging. There just isn't all that many jobs that want or need that. What jobs need are basic accounting skills as well as basic knowledge of supply & demand & simple algebra. The "real reason" that ppl continue to attend college on cheap student loan money is for dating purposes. You will probably not find a better cross-section of all the single people in your area who are looking for boyfriends or girlfriends. Social life matters. Just sayin.' Anyways, that's getting off topic for a thread that's supposed to be about US politics so I suppose I'll try to contribute something political. I guess that Congress just passed the H.R. 1865 bill which changes the way that the internet is regulated by the judicial system. I guess the purpose of the law was to shut down Backpage.com https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/30/congress-online-sex-trafficking-bill-impact-sex-workers-craigslist
from a friend who works for an organization that fights human trafficking, shutting down backpage is apparently a bad move. sex workers were able to do their listings without pimps and such, and also able to verify the identity and reputations of clients.
|
I thought Biden was signalling he might run as a “sensible” centrist, opposed to the Sanders wing of the party. That means he will be pro-military, pro-business and against any meaningful reform, unless his hand is forced. He would be better than any GOP candidate, but that is not saying much. The USA needs sweeping reforms and hostility to the establishment from a radical left perspective, not a continuation of the Obama presidency.
|
On April 16 2018 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I thought Biden was signalling he might run as a “sensible” centrist, opposed to the Sanders wing of the party. That means he will be pro-military, pro-business and against any meaningful reform, unless his hand is forced. He would be better than any GOP candidate, but that is not saying much. The USA needs sweeping reforms and hostility to the establishment from a radical left perspective, not a continuation of the Obama presidency.
the US, as with everywhere else, needs a whole lot of things that aren't gonna happen. sweeping reforms won't happen under a far left candidate either, because they probably won't win/wont' have enough support if they do.
and hostility to the "establishment" doesn't tend to work that well.
|
On April 16 2018 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I thought Biden was signalling he might run as a “sensible” centrist, opposed to the Sanders wing of the party. That means he will be pro-military, pro-business and against any meaningful reform, unless his hand is forced. He would be better than any GOP candidate, but that is not saying much. The USA needs sweeping reforms and hostility to the establishment from a radical left perspective, not a continuation of the Obama presidency.
Biden is super outdated at this point unless he went yolo on single payer and legal weed and a few other left populist things.
|
On April 16 2018 04:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 04:31 Grumbels wrote:
I thought Biden was signalling he might run as a “sensible” centrist, opposed to the Sanders wing of the party. That means he will be pro-military, pro-business and against any meaningful reform, unless his hand is forced. He would be better than any GOP candidate, but that is not saying much. The USA needs sweeping reforms and hostility to the establishment from a radical left perspective, not a continuation of the Obama presidency. the US, as with everywhere else, needs a whole lot of things that aren't gonna happen. sweeping reforms won't happen under a far left candidate either, because they probably won't win/wont' have enough support if they do. and hostility to the "establishment" doesn't tend to work that well.
What is your point here? Give up, and instead vote for someone who explicitly promises to do nothing? The Trump presidency is very radical and is achieving a lot of (bad) things, the only reason that the Democrats can’t achieve similar results is because of people like Biden who are fundamentally happy with the status quo and with tens of millions of uninsured, staggering inequality and overseas imperialism. If you want to push the Dems into a better direction, start with painting Biden as toxic today.
|
On April 15 2018 17:29 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2018 16:28 mozoku wrote:
Eh, that's a philosophical discussion I've voiced my opinion on already. I don't see democracy as an end unto itself; I see it as the system that happens to prevent government abuse more than other systems. It still sucks for administering functioning policy in large part, and I don't feel I'm being inconsistent in complaining when it continues to do that.
If a majority of Americans are comfortable to effectively mandating university attendance without bothering to do proper policy analysis (even though doing so quite possibly exacerbates inequality and wastes large amounts of time and money), then they're quite frankly being idiots. That's the downside of democracy; voters are mostly incompetent at their jobs. Hmm, this seems like a problem that a robust education that teaches skills such as critical thinking, analysis of available data, and how and when to question assertions from other people. Not that all universities are necessarily doing a great job of it, but they're generally doing a better job than nothing.
There's some irony here in that you're espousing that universities lead to more data-driven policy analysis by voters... which is a claim that I just established is essentially impossible to verify with current data. Yet educated voters in this thread seem completely content to assure us of the value of university attendance in the absence of any meaningful data. Maybe this is the unusual exception, but it certainly worth an eyebrow-raise.
In fact, you're actually not practicing any of the values you're preaching in this post that universities are supposed to be teaching. You're just assuming status quo four year universities are better than nothing, which isn't even a relevant question. The relevant question is whether the traditional four year university is better than the alternative way of spending that four years. That's a question that would certainly involve lots of time and thought (not least of which to figure out what possible alternatives might look like), but if we can't prove the current universities provide any benefit beyond signaling then the bar for the alternatives to clear is pretty low. So again, it comes back to whether the original premise is true.
Here's a quick and dirty thought experiment towards that goal: are voters today significantly more competent than they were ~40 years ago when university attendance was much lower? I wasn't alive 40 years ago, but it doesn't seem like it. Voters are still highly susceptible to manipulation and misinformation. Are they a a little better? Probably. Does that matter when factors like the proliferation of social media, data-driven political campaigns, etc., have effects that are many times larger? No, not really.
It comes down to beliefs, and I'll restate one of mine about humanity in general: no matter how much effort you spend educating people, only a small percent (certainly less than 10%) will ever become quality thinkers. Nearly everyone I went know in my generation went to college, and I would say the vast majority of them are mostly incapable of quality original thought. Being a quality thinker really requires intrinsic motivation, the right personality type, and a lot of discipline. The confluence of these traits in the general population is rare. As they say, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Wegandi actually put it in a way that I thought was quite effective (though I don't agree with his whole post): conflating (formal) education, knowledge, and learning is a huge error. I would add critical thinking to that as well.
To expound a bit on what exactly a "quality thinker" is, I'll give an example that focuses mostly on critical thinking.
Suppose you're going to bet on the outcome of a debate about topic X with preset (but unknown) positions X1 and X2. In one scenario, the debate will be average voter vs competent lawyer, and in another the debate will be competent lawyer be competent lawyer. You, the bettor, can choose only one of either the debater or the position to bet on before its known which side must defend what position.
I, and I'm guessing most people, would bet on the lawyer in the first scenario, and position in the second. Because critical thinking skills intuitively follow a log or S-shaped curve--meaning there's significantly less difference in critical thinking between two random competent lawyers (or persons of any similarly demanding profession) than there are between two random voters.
I'm asserting that fewer that 10% populace would be a worthy bet even if you knew the assigned positions simply because they lack the critical thinking skills to effectively debate a competent debater. Among quality thinkers, the assigned positions matter more than the debaters themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
