Go figure.

You've stated so much in so few words.

You're first point in particular resonates with me. The escalation of critical thinking in this country alone would, by the very nature of it, reduce or eliminate the rest.

The news does not want to tell the truth - they want to sell the version of a story that gets the most attention.

I was just talking about this to my family. There is a serious lack of critical thinking and putting so much emphasis on testing is a big part of it. I have a 5 year old that is going to start school in the fall, and I've really struggled with where to send him to school. I know ultimately it will be up to me and my husband to encourage critical thinking.

I've also thought the schools that have the "no tolerance" policies also encourage unquestioning compliance at a young age.

Yup! It's a real thing.

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Link to tweet

I guess brilliant minds think alike.

Some have lived their lives this way for generations.

I'm a product of a dominant male household. There's nothing that hasn't taken
me 40 years to uncover, understand, and begin to clean it up.

In my dim mind, this is a major problem in New York City area. Weakness is not
permitted for men there. Of course having relatives there, I am biased.

And I'm never wrong, and don't you forget it.

Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

This problem is much worse than this used to be because of the internet.

There are "experts" to support any position you want. It simply allows them to pick your own "experts" the way they pick their own "facts"

I would love to say that we are immune from it but engage a few truthers or anti-Vax people around here and you will find the same thing. At least we don't put them into positions of power.

edit for auto-correct fuckery

Books and newspapers were edited, there were rules! I also blame the internet for bad English, for the same reason.

“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.'”

So I'll just add that Asimov wrote/said that in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

This problem has always been part of being human.

There's always been a "smarts vs brute force" struggle in civilizations, or in animal existence.

But the know nothingism took a big jump in prominence under the repugs, starting with raygun, increasing largely under li'l bush, increasing tremendously in the repug party after '08 -'10, and peaked under the current orange nazi imbecile.

BTW, the DU post-er who used the quote is groundloop, just saw a post from them after I posted.

The gatekeepers are scared that so much information is available to regular people now.

Read: "You Are Being Lied To" and understand that so-called experts are often lying on purpose.

The point is that if people have common sense and critical thinking skills, they're not taken in by fake experts. Elementary.

He is billed a "health expert" on Oprah and then gets his own show as a result while promoting quackery and advising people to buy products that he is being paid to promote.

Or Jim Cramer on Mad Money presenting himself as an expert on the stock market giving investment advice that was worse than picking stocks out of a hat.

I think people are right to be wary of folks that are presented as experts in the media.

"Folks that are presented as experts in the media" and "experts" are not necessarily one and the same.

The fact that people are so willing to accept crackpottery is what allows faux experts like Oz and Cramer to flourish. Oz has a medical degree, but not all MDs are equally qualified to address all aspects of the medical field. He's an "expert" not because of his background and actual expertise, but because Oprah likes him. Those who like Oprah will like him, too - and this is not very different from a mouth-breather believing every little "Hillary Should Go To Prison" meme that shows up on Facebook. Cramer is an "expert" not because he actually has a fabulous track record as a stock exchange expert, but because he uses buzz words and behaves forcefully about what he says.

I live what this essay says every day. My research and teaching involve both climate change and evolution. I get "but aren't they controversial?" from my students and from people on social media. It's been an uphill battle.

(Added on edit) I spent some time reflecting on your comment about "gatekeepers" and "so much information available." Although there's lots of information out there, there's also a whole lot of bologna.

Some things are robustly substantiated by modern science - vaccines do not cause autism; the atmosphere is warming because of greenhouse gas emissions; living things are descended from a common ancestor; "GMO" foods are safe to eat; and so on. But if you follow the "information" that's available, you'd get the impression these are all highly controversial in scientific circles.*

One problem is that Americans tend to treat science the way they treat religion - like a cafeteria. I grew up Catholic; I was fine with much of what the church taught, but (for example) knew enough history to doubt the whole "papal infallibility" thing. Most Americans who belong to a religious denomination are like that - they'll accept large parts of their religion's tenets, but draw the line if they contradict observable reality or make their lives sufficiently uncomfortable. Same with science - they'll accept modern science-based medicine, but when it comes to global warming, they'll cry "conspiracy!"

This is true even if some of what they accept is reliant on what they object. I once had an argument with a creationist who claimed that radiometric dating doesn't work. Earlier in the conversation, he accused me of being one of those green types who opposes nuclear power. (Full disclosure - I am.) He was completely flummoxed when I told him that nuclear power plants wouldn't work if radiometric dating doesn't work - both rely on a constant rate of decay of radioactive material. They're both based on precisely the same physics.

*If any of you are going to disagree with me on any of these, be prepared to support your arguments with information from the peer-reviewed literature. I won't accept comments in blogs as evidence.

I'm talking about the video in the OP.

The person in the video derides people who claim they know as much as experts because they look up information on Google. I would argue that someone who Googles diet supplements is as qualified as Dr. Oz (a so-called expert) to have an opinion on the subject.

In fact, the promulgation of info allows ordinary people to question the validity of experts who may have ulterior motives with respect to the information they present.

The video specifically talks about how people who Google info think they know as much as those who went to medical school.

Dr. Oz went to medical school. He went to Harvard. He went to UPenn.

Yet, he is a fraud.

But my point stands. Good internet research can uncover frauds, but it can't actually make one an expert, and the "promulgation of info" is often more harmful than helpful.

I agree with many of the points you've made.

My assertion, though, is that as more information becomes available to more people, there is a greater ability for ordinary folks to acquire knowledge that may have previous not been accessible.

Thus, people aren't as able to easily get away with BS secure in the knowledge that having "Dr." before their name or having a degree from Harvard is sufficient to be unchallenged.

I love the fact that so much original source material can be found online by anyone for free, so that when someone tries to present something in a skewed or manipulated way, they can't always get away with it anymore

Yes that is an old example. Today Monsanto now has their corn experts who are fighting against any negative talk about high fructose corn syrup and trying to tell us that it is no worse than sugar. Yet I've read articles from a respected university that shows otherwise.

Russ Kick, the essay compiler, can be somewhat of a kook. I have the book You Are Still Being Lied To and it contains essays by Alex Jones, Ron Paul, William Corliss (gave aid and comfort to young earth creationists).

He published some really good stuff, but he included reichwing conspiracy theory nonsense and just plain garbage along with it. It's getting harder and harder to know who is trustworthy and who isn't.

Great video nonetheless.

I can attest that the reaction to CRITICAL THINKING skills is a major problem. As a liberal/ progressive, I've always made a practice of following Fox news and other conservative outlets. Liberal/Progressive outlets tend to leave room to question...a major difference. Conservative parents tend to equate critical thinking as an assault on their "values." Ironically they often abuse their take on their " CHRISTIAN" values , while atheists/agnostics are far kinder to those with different values. This tape would hit a brick wall to most of those it's aimed at...but,baby steps.

she'd never fail to remind me that her biggest failure in life was allowing me to go to public school, which ruined me with SECULAR HUMANISM and apparently teaching me to think.

MY mom, who met and introduced JFK locally in 1960, was always socialist/liberal, and great fun as devil's advocate, arguing politics. By her nursing home eighties she was wondering "what's wrong with Bush(Dubya)? He seems like a a really nice guy" Mom passed away at 91, and I really missed discussing politics with her in the last decade of her life.

This sort of thing dates back long before social media and handheld devices.

Religious conservatives have been rejecting experts ever since the experts started advising that disciplining your children with switches, paddles, and belts has its drawbacks and there were alternatives. Wait, no, it was before that, when scientists found out that what they were finding in the ground didn't quite mesh with Noah's flood. Obviously, the experts were wrong (or worse, communists minions of Satan!).

Political conservatives have attacked experts for "liberal bias" for over 50 years. Facts didn't matter, pushing the agenda did, undermining opposition did. Sneering at the "reality based community" may be a quote from the early 2000s, but the attitudes that underlie it were at work for decades.

There are examples on the other side, but I'm not going to list them. It would be another case of emphasizing that there's turf on both sides of the 10 yard line, obscuring the fact that it's not the same amount.

Instead of at least touching on the idea that this distrust is something that has been fostered over a long time, he only points to relatively recent things.

nothing more than paid shills.

Where was this guy in 2003 when the other "experts" lied us into a disastrous war?
(checked it out - he said it was "bad intelligence" - BULLCRAP!!)

Does he claim there "is no money" and social security has to be scrapped?
If so, he might be a shill.

Where does he stand on the drone wars?

Over many years I taught my students to question everything, including
the so-called "experts"

Not facts or the truth will even sway them. (Admittedly)

Sean Hannity refers to his audiences as the "good patriots", would even go to the extent of defending pants-shitter Ted Nugent "my good friend and fellow patriot".
We've all seen the examples of how Bill-o categorizes, simplifies and labels practically all subject matter in oversimplified fashion, then uses "gee aren't we smart to figure that out" reinforcements.
Truly the aspect of all this I would find hilarious if the Fox and RW media franchises were to somehow offer degrees to their idiot faithful simpletons: Doctorates in RW tomfoolery?