Unbelievable... the ignorance of Britons shines on

[Anaxagoras]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the man on the street."

-Winston Churchill

And here we have supporting evidence for that... at least for Britain.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1275989,00.html

Some tidbits:

A sizeable slice of younger Britons think Gandalf, Horatio Hornblower or Christopher Columbus was the hero of the English fleet's defeat of the Spanish Armada, a survey showed today.

Less than half identified Sir Francis Drake as a key figure in one of the most famous sea battles in British history, the poll for the BBC showed.

A third of 16 to 34-year-olds did not know that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings, while more than a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds thought Britain had been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish.

And 15% of 16 to 24-year-olds thought the Orangemen were actually celebrating victory at Helms Deep, the fictional battle that marked the climax of The Two Towers, the second novel in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And here's my personal favorite:

When it came to identifying who helped destroy the Spanish Armada in 1588, 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds credited Horatio Hornblower, CS Forester's fictional Royal Navy hero from the Napoleonic wars.

And a fifth said it Christopher Columbus, the Genoa-born adventurer who discovered the New World in 1492, while 6% thought it was Gandalf, the wizard from Tolkien's fantasy novels.

Of course.... everyone knows that ships are highly flammable. All Gandalf had to do was cast the third level spell Fireball, and the entire armada would have gone up in flames.

But you would have thought that King Philip would have cast Protection From Fire to prevent that very tactic? Ah well. Just goes to show that the Spanish are really dumb.

[Bub, Andrew]

That is sad. But then again you're talking about 500 years ago. The average on the street person in our country don't know anything about the Civil War, WWII, or Nam. Much less what happened 500 years ago

[Dirt]

What school systems did they conduct the surveys in?

[Rywill]

The most unbelievable thing is your unblinking assumption that all teenagers take these surveys seriously. Did you know that a measurable percentage of Americans think that Mickey Mouse is a real person and eligible to be president of the United States? OMG LOLZORS WHAT IDIOTS!!!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The most unbelievable thing is your unblinking assumption that all teenagers take these surveys seriously. Did you know that a measurable percentage of Americans think that Mickey Mouse is a real person and eligible to be president of the United States? OMG LOLZORS WHAT IDIOTS!!!

Plus the assumption that this is a new phenomenon. Sam Wineburg, an American education scholar, has dug up similar surveys and handwringing about the ignorance of youth from 1917. This is not to say that we should be happy that people don't know stuff, but let's keep it in perspective.

Troy

[Anaxagoras]

The most unbelievable thing is your unblinking assumption that all teenagers take these surveys seriously. Did you know that a measurable percentage of Americans think that Mickey Mouse is a real person and eligible to be president of the United States? OMG LOLZORS WHAT IDIOTS!!!

Yeah, I already thought of that. Except that I've been to Britain, and this isn't far off the mark of what most people I met knew. Plus, they polled people of several age groups... this wasn't just teenagers. But whatever... it's much more fun to imply that I swallow everything without any critical thought, isn't it?

[Nick Walter]

The most unbelievable thing is your unblinking assumption that all teenagers take these surveys seriously. Did you know that a measurable percentage of Americans think that Mickey Mouse is a real person and eligible to be president of the United States? OMG LOLZORS WHAT IDIOTS!!!

Yeah, I already thought of that. Except that I've been to Britain, and this isn't far off the mark of what most people I met knew. Plus, they polled people of several age groups... this wasn't just teenagers. But whatever... it's much more fun to imply that I swallow everything without any critical thought, isn't it?

I think it's more of an outright statement than an implication. Perhaps you need to work on your wording, I read your post and had the same immediate reaction as Rywill.

[John Merva]

Bearing in mind as well that in a survey Americans were asked to name three Japanese people. The most popular answers were Hirohito, BRUCE LEE and GODZILLA.

[Bullhajj]

I have friends that were shipwrecked on Godzilla, so I don't know what you're trying to imply.

[Robert Sharp]

Fair enough, but Anaxagoras isn't being naive here. I can tell you from experience that a good percentage of college freshmen couldn't tell you when the Civil War was (within 10 years). Nor would they know who Churchill was, or any other very basic historical fact.

[Ben]

Anax- So what's your theory that explains the Gandalf thing? People honestly believing that Gandalf the Grey defeated the Spanish Armada? People who just guessed would probably pick one of the people with a surname.

Any survey will have people who don't take it seriously, and using fictional people as the answer to a real world question is pretty clearly an example of that.

[shift6]

Everyone knows Godzilla was an American, created by the might of our Trinity nuclear tests. Jesus.

[Jason McCullough]

Fair enough, but Anaxagoras isn't being naive here. I can tell you from experience that a good percentage of college freshmen couldn't tell you when the Civil War was (within 10 years). Nor would they know who Churchill was, or any other very basic historical fact.

What I can't figure out is why everyone's upset that they can't tell you when the civil war was within 10 years. The 19th century is taught to everyone as a long featureless expanse of dreary presidents - why would they remember?

Everyone can probably tell you "1800s", though, which is about as close as anyone without a history major would ever need to get.

[Sparky]

The Godzilla was Horatio Hornblower's first ship, which he unfortunately lost at the battle of Helm's Deep off Gibraltar in 1809. Admiral Nelson, Captain Crunch and Admiral James T. Kirk were lost in this historic action.

Duh.

[Anaxagoras]

Crap. I just thought this was a really funny article. If I had thought this would turn acrid, I would've posted this in P&R. Oh well.

Anax- So what's your theory that explains the Gandalf thing?
My theory is that they had no idea who defeated the Spanish Armada, so a couple people answered "Gandalf the Grey" to be funny. And it is funny... but not for the reasons they think. I'm not sure about the "Horatio Hornblower" answer... I could imagine some people seriously answering that.

What I can't figure out is why everyone's upset that they can't tell you when the civil war was within 10 years. The 19th century is taught to everyone as a long featureless expanse of dreary presidents - why would they remember?

I see your point Jason, but if you stop to think about it, misplacing the Civil War by more than 10 years doesn't leave room for the other important historical events of the 1800's.... the War of 1812 & the Trail of Tears on one end, and the... umm... crap. Alright... nothing much interesting happened on the other side. I don't suppose William Jennings Byron and the gold standard makes for riveting reading.

[derek_hutch]

I see your point Jason, but if you stop to think about it, misplacing the Civil War by more than 10 years doesn't leave room for the other important historical events of the 1800's.... the War of 1812 & the Trail of Tears on one end, and the... umm... crap. Alright... nothing much interesting happened on the other side. I don't suppose William Jennings Byron and the gold standard makes for riveting reading.

You seem to be missing the Mexican and Spanish American wars in your understanding of the 1800's.

[Anaxagoras]

You seem to be missing the Mexican and Spanish American wars in your understanding of the 1800's.

Eh? The Mexican-American War happened before the Civil War, which places it on the same side of the War (in terms of chronology) as the Trail of Tears and the War of 1812. As for the Spanish Americani war... it wasn't terribly important, at least not for the US. I mean, we gained the Philipines, which I suppose explains why we were down there during WW2, but it never struck me as that important in our history.

For the Spanish, on the other hand, it's really important. They lost the last of their colonial holdings, and they finally had to own up to the fact that they were a third rate world power; their empire was completely gone, and they were truly irrelevant in the balance of world power. A lot of Spanish told me that that war was a real eye opener for their country... and they didn't take it too well. (Hellooooo Franco!)

[Kitsune]

Hmmm? Dreary presidents? (I'm guessing beside Lincoln.) Isn't Andrew Jackson on one of the denominations of US bills? Why is he there if he isn't important? (I had once heard he had some sort of great influence on political campaigning...)

And didn't Edison invent the lightbulb at the end of the 19th century? Isn't he American?

-Kitsune

[Jason McCullough]

I'm sure it was exciting when it was all happening, but the 19th century just for some reason has zero cultural mindshare today. Theoretically the phillipines insurrection, civil war, the economic changes of the period - they should all be really interesting. But they just bore the shit out of me, and I'm a dork who likes that kind of stuff.

[mdowdle]

Alright... nothing much interesting happened on the other side. I don't suppose William Jennings Byron and the gold standard makes for riveting reading.

Actually, they do (it's what I'm reading on right now). They don't help you pick-up chicks, tho'.

[James Gutierrez]

I'm sure it was exciting when it was all happening, but the 19th century just for some reason has zero cultural mindshare today.
That's kind of a bizarre statement. What about the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, California gold rush, Custer's Last Stand, Geronimo, Transcontinental Railroad, Thomas Edison, etc? Practically all of American cultural mythology and archetypes are rooted in events of the 19th century.

[Jason McCullough]

Beats me, I'm just sayin'.

[novacane]

I would suggest that the 'funny' answers given were a result of multiple choice questions. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people who are guessing something to come out with a name popular in the current media. I suppose the answer of "I don't know" doesn't look as 'stupid'.

1006 over 16 year olds speak for over 55 million Brits? Far too small a number to be representative. I've no idea why the BBC should think this 'revelation' will compel more people to watch their salacious new programme.

[Mike Hussey]

Doing Dumb Britain threads is mine and Whitta's job.

A few weeks ago the BBC reported a survey of school kids in the US about what they thought of schools in the UK and from the responses it seemed that they believed that all British kids went to schools like Harry Potter's Hogwarts.

Of course British school kids don't get to do cool stuff that American school kids do, like slaying vampires.

[Ben]

The problem is that even the War of 1812 and the Trail of Tears weren't that important. The Mexican American war was more significant than the War of 1812 and the Trail of Tears just wasn't an important historical event.

The Civil War was important, and most people could tell you that it happened in the middle of the 19th century. The rest of the 19th century was us expanding westward at various speeds.

I imagine Sharp's good percentage is like 5, by the way. Not knowing who Churchill is?

[Robert Sharp]

I imagine Sharp's good percentage is like 5, by the way. Not knowing who Churchill is?

You want me to test it? I'll probably teach a class this fall. I can give a quick knowledge quiz on the first day. Any question suggestions? How about: "Who was the Prime Minister of England at the start of WW2?"

My point is not that somehow the basic Civil War dates are very important everyday knowledge. I do think having historical context is important, and basics like that are part of setting up such a context.

Anyway, my point is that these are COLLEGE student, which is supposed to mean that they received at least some high school education. But I have students who can't figure out how to determine what they need on the final in order to get a certain grade that they want in the class...and they have all the percentages on the syllabus. That's sixth grade math. Are you telling me that an educated person should not know that?

I get that its very cool to think that history isn't important. Whatever. Ignorance is not something to be proud of; it isn't something to justify or dismiss.

Our vaunted modern education system is crap. And it keeps getting worse.

[Ben]

"Who was Winston Churchill?" is the question you believed people wouldn't know the answer to.

Anyway, bullshit. People have been whining about these kids these days for centuries. When did you take Algebra for the first time, Robert?

Have you heard of the Flynn effect?


What the hell are you talking about about it being cool to not know history? I know plenty of history. I don't think it's cool or uncool, it's entertainment.

I don't think it's very important for anyone to know what year Custer's Last Stand was. I can't imagine a situation where that information would provide a tangible benefit to anyone.

[Anders Hallin]

Robert, you should ask both who was the Prime Minister at the beginning of and at the end of WW2.

[Robert Sharp]

"Who was Winston Churchill?" is the question you believed people wouldn't know the answer to.

Ok, I'll ask that one. But wouldn't you say that anyone who didn't know the answer to the question I asked above wouldn't really know who Churchill was? What is the "correct" answer the question as I originally phrased it? A guy who led England during the war?



Anyway, bullshit. People have been whining about these kids these days for centuries. When did you take Algebra for the first time, Robert?

Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

It's fractions, which isn't really full algebra. I'd say I learned them in 5th or 6th grade...no later. I don't know exactly. And I'm not sure what IQ has to do with anything. We are talking about education levels here, NOT ability to learn. It doesn't matter how fast you can learn things if you don't read a book.


What the hell are you talking about about it being cool to not know history? I know plenty of history. I don't think it's cool or uncool, it's entertainment.

I don't think it's very important for anyone to know what year Custer's Last Stand was. I can't imagine a situation where that information would provide a tangible benefit to anyone.

I didn't mean to seem like I was accusing you, Ben. In fact, I am sensing hostility towards me, which I didn't intend to illicit. I'm talking about the attitude amongst much of America today. And I am not talking about the youth of today either. I am talking about everyone, including myself. And I am not talking about the general population, which is what Flynn seems to have looked at. I am talking specifically about the people we call educated. I don't think the people who graduate college today could touch the people who graduated 100 years ago for pure education (knowledge gained through education). And yes, I am including myself in that.

As for history being entertainment, that IS the tendency I am talking about. Because that implies that if you don't find it entertaining you have no reason to learn it. That's what's wrong with education in general today. People think THEY can decide what is important or not, when they don't even know anything yet.

[Anaxagoras]

People have been whining about these kids these days for centuries.
Yes.... and using a similar line of reasoning, because people have been complaining about the venality and corruption of officials in China for millenia, there isn't venality or corruption over there. Oh, wait. There is. And always has been. It's an accurate complaint, just as the complaint about the ignorance of the masses is an accurate complaint.



I don't think it's very important for anyone to know what year Custer's Last Stand was. I can't imagine a situation where that information would provide a tangible benefit to anyone.
That's part of the problem. Most historical knowledge (and other bits of knowledge that an "educated" person should have) don't provide any obvious benefit. My knowledge that Chamberlain was Prime Minister of Britain during the outbreak of WW2 doesn't provide any apparent tangible (read: material) benefit for me. Which is precisely why most people don't care, and why they don't bother to find out the answers.

edit- Robert responded right before I did, so I deleted duplicate answers

[Ben]

Anax- So you believe humans have been getting progressively less and less educated? The complaint isn't "People are stupid", because, duh, obviously. Everyone is stupid. Most people know a few things very well and then nothing at all about most things.

The complaint is that these kids these days are getting stupider, right? That's a story, that's something worth commenting on. And it's simply untrue.

Robert- When did you learn full algebra? When was your first exposure to Trig? Kids today are more educated at a younger age, but the focus of education has shifted.

The people who graduated 100 years ago may be better educated about the classics(they probably read The Illiad in Greek, etc.), but they couldn't touch graduates of today in math or science. Or, in fact, any specific field. We've gotten more specialized, and that's a good thing.

I thought the comment about "cool" was a shot at me, Robert, and I apologize for misinterpreting it.

[Anaxagoras]

Anax- So you believe humans have been getting progressively less and less educated?
Nope. Actually, on average, they've been getting better and better educated. I don't buy the "our schools are going down the tubes" argument... such an argument is usually advanced by people who want to make radical changes to our school system, so they have to invent and/or exaggerate its flaws.

However, even given the improvement of education, the masses are still woefully undereducated on what I would consider to be basic facts... historical, psychological, scientific, mathethematical, or other.

The complaint isn't "People are stupid", because, duh, obviously. Everyone is stupid. Most people know a few things very well and then nothing at all about most things.
Ben, you've got to separate "stupid" from "ignorant". They're very, very different concepts. You can be extremely well read and knowledgeable, and still be dumb as a doorpost. (Many people with PhD's fall into this category... I've met tons of them.) Alternately, you can be ignorant as all get out, but be very intelligent. (I've met many factory workers like this... they came from low income households, so they never got a good education, but they were really intelligent individuals.)



The people who graduated 100 years ago may be better educated about the classics(they probably read The Illiad in Greek, etc.), but they couldn't touch graduates of today in math or science. Or, in fact, any specific field. We've gotten more specialized, and that's a good thing.
As for it being a good thing that we're highly specialized, that's highly debateable. And I'm not real sure which side of the argument I would fall on. The specialization has allowed our culture to produce more and better material goods, as well as to perform more advanced and faster research. On the flip side, we live more incomplete, compartmentalized lives, and we're less able to decide for ourselves what's right & wrong. As an exmple, look at creationism. It's precisely because of this specialization that many people believe in creationism....which is complete bullshit. But how would they know any better? They haven't even given the life sciences a cursory study, so they don't know how much evidence there is in favor of evolution. And simply reading talking points (of either side) doesn't really educate them... they're reading knowledge that has been carefully distilled to support one side or another. To really understand what's going on, they need to do general, wide reaching research... which is the exact opposite of specialization.

[mouselock]

However, even given the improvement of education, the masses are still woefully undereducated on what I would consider to be basic facts... historical, psychological, scientific, mathethematical, or other.

...

As for it being a good thing that we're highly specialized, that's highly debateable. And I'm not real sure which side of the argument I would fall on.

The obvious question then becomes the following, however:

History, science, technology, et. al. march on. Assumably, at the very least, as we progress we generate knowledge (quantified as a fact worth knowing) at a constant rate (probably fairly reasonably true for 'soft' subjects like history, anthropology, psychology; a gross mis-estimation for harder subjects like math, biology, physics). Assuming we won't be inventing time dilation machinery any time soon, what exactly is one to do if one is required to remain 'as educated' as people 100 years ago about subjects that aren't stationary?

If we limit oursevles as Americans to significant history since the discovery of the contenent (more or less), people going to school in 2017 have a 20% enhanced burden over those going to school in 1917, who themselves had a 33% enhanced burden over those in 1817.

Obviously these are gross estimations, but if you assume a reasonably constant per time generation of 'worthwhile' facts, the later you're born, the more you're expected to learn. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect people to adapt that quickly to increased intake of knowledge. There's certainly something to be said for an influx of 'junk knowledge' in people today over a century ago, but there's also a general all around increase in 'real knowledge' too. Taking people to task for effectively not having relatively weighted the two categories proper to some arbitrary expectations doesn't seem very clearly worthwhile to me. Deciding that relative weighting is a tough problem, and it's not particularly being tackled aggressively, especially at a primary school level in America (and, perhaps, Britain too, if we believe the anecdotal evidence).

Ultimately it's pretty opaque to me how much history I need to really and truly understand in order to be a good physicist. And it's likewise unclear to me how much math, even what I would consider 'really basic math', a graphic designer needs to know. As long as people are functional in society in the role they've chosen for themselves in the aggregate, I think education about other topics can still be regarded as a luxury.

[BobJustBob]

That's quite possibly the smartest thing I've ever read on the internet. Kudos.

[Anaxagoras]

History, science, technology, et. al. march on. Assumably, at the very least, as we progress we generate knowledge (quantified as a fact worth knowing) at a constant rate (probably fairly reasonably true for 'soft' subjects like history, anthropology, psychology; a gross mis-estimation for harder subjects like math, biology, physics).
Good point, but your definition of knowledge is a bit wonky. Although the raw amount of facts is rapidly increasing, that which is useful to learn (even moderately so) isn't necessarily increasing at the same rate... or even increasing at all. At one point it was essential that an educated person learn Latin... now it's pretty much irrelevant. Similarly, knowing who William the Conqueror used to be important for all Europeans, now it's only of moderate interest to Britons.... it's not terribly important for French, German, or Spanish. (or Americans for that matter.)

What's more, people will always come up with stories and have working theories for things such as sociology, psychology, and so on. As our true knowledge in those areas expands, the accurate facts will displace our incorrect myths that used to explain those phenemonen, but the grand total of information that we have to learn doesn't necessarily have to increase.


If we limit oursevles as Americans to significant history since the discovery of the contenent (more or less), people going to school in 2017 have a 20% enhanced burden over those going to school in 1917, who themselves had a 33% enhanced burden over those in 1817.Again, you're ignoring the fact that those in 1917 had to learn about things like the Spanish American War, the exact battles of the Civil War, and so on. Since those events were so recent for the person in 1917, they were still relevant, and should be learned. However, those in 2017 can prolly get by with "There was a Civil War sometime in the 1800's, and a couple other not-very-important events also happened."



Ultimately it's pretty opaque to me how much history I need to really and truly understand in order to be a good physicist. And it's likewise unclear to me how much math, even what I would consider 'really basic math', a graphic designer needs to know. As long as people are functional in society in the role they've chosen for themselves in the aggregate, I think education about other topics can still be regarded as a luxury.

Thing is... you've already defined what needs to be learned in terms of your profession... your specialization. The very thing that I'm arguing for is that an eudcated person doesn't only learn things for their profession, but also so they understand the world at large.

[Equis]

Every time the ignorance vs education agument comes up.
I am reminded of this poem

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man.
Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state,
a being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic's pride;
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
whether he thinks too little or too much.

I'll give a big loving heterosexual hug to whoever can identify the poet/writer straight off without googling. 8)

And if you can't, ah well. I'll still give you a big loving heterosexual hug. :D

[mouselock]

Thing is... you've already defined what needs to be learned in terms of your profession... your specialization. The very thing that I'm arguing for is that an eudcated person doesn't only learn things for their profession, but also so they understand the world at large.

I think the link between "learning" and "understanding the world at large" is pretty spurious, at least in the institutional sense of learning (and the implied quantification of that learning through the recitation of empirical facts).

Let me ask you, if your fundamental of being learned is "understanding the world at large", does it make one less learned if they satisfy the latter criteria based solely on artificial 'facts' gleaned from whatever source? (i.e. if someone is learning about history only from the movies, and develops an understanding of the sociopolitical dynamics of the world that are as correct as someone who has spent their time learning to your satisfaction, are they any less learned because of the source of their knowledge?) Does being learned necessarily imply a common series of contexts?

[Mike Hussey]

I imagine Sharp's good percentage is like 5, by the way. Not knowing who Churchill is?

You want me to test it? I'll probably teach a class this fall. I can give a quick knowledge quiz on the first day. Any question suggestions? How about: "Who was the Prime Minister of England at the start of WW2?"



Why would American schoolkids have heard of Neville Chamberlain?

[Rywill]

Um, because he represents one of the most important lessons of history?

[Mike Hussey]

Perhaps, but depending on which historian you read, the actual lesson varies.

[Robert Sharp]

I imagine Sharp's good percentage is like 5, by the way. Not knowing who Churchill is?

You want me to test it? I'll probably teach a class this fall. I can give a quick knowledge quiz on the first day. Any question suggestions? How about: "Who was the Prime Minister of England at the start of WW2?"



Why would American schoolkids have heard of Neville Chamberlain?

They wouldn't. That's the point. They will assume that Churchill was Prime Minister the whole time. They won't have a context. They won't know who was responsible for the war and who wasn't. they won't know WHY things happened, but only THAT they happened, and even then only vaguely. That's what I mean about how historical context is important. Does it matter who was giving in to Hitler's demands? Maybe not. Does it matter that doing so only encouraged him? Well, yes, I think it does. That seems very relevant today, given the current terrorist situation. Knowing the difference between how Chamberlain handled things and how Churchill did is part of knowing who Churchill is and why he was doing what he did.

We have an election coming up in which we will be choosing between Chamberlain and Churchill (yes, the analogy is imperfect, but still useful). How are Americans supposed to make informed decisions about which policies are better if they have know knowledge of what worked in the past?

[Robert Sharp]

I thought the comment about "cool" was a shot at me, Robert, and I apologize for misinterpreting it.

Actually, that was my fault. I should have been clearer. I get over annoyed at this tendency in my students, so I was venting in general at the attitude, not at anyone in particular.

[Mike Hussey]

We have an election coming up in which we will be choosing between Chamberlain and Churchill (yes, the analogy is imperfect, but still useful). How are Americans supposed to make informed decisions about which policies are better if they have know knowledge of what worked in the past?

I realise you have an election coming up, which probably makes it inadvisable to argue history with Americans this year :) . However whilst one should learn the lessons of history, it's not always easy to discern what the lesson is. Was Chamberlain giving in to Hitler's demands (bad thing) or buying time for Britain to rearm (good thing) or both (neutral thing)? Was the appeasers' main mistake to underestimate Hitler, because they were focusing on the wrong threat i.e. Stalinist Russia?

[Ben]

Well, to get even more crazy, was Stalinist Russia the main threat after all? Maybe if we had whacked Russia instead we wouldn't have had such a nasty cold war.



More to the point about specialized vs. unspecialized, coming down on the unspecialized side of that debate is more or less the equivalent of supporting creationism. We don't need to argue over whether division of labor is a positive. Human history has neatly answered that question for us.

[Jason McCullough]

"Division of labor and specialization has increased economic growth" isn't an answer to "to have the most satisfying life, is it better to spend all your time learning about one thing or spread it out?"

Sure, it'd probably make me more money, but devoting 100% of my life to compiler theory wouldn't make me all that proud when I'm 80.

[mouselock]

"Division of labor and specialization has increased economic growth" isn't an answer to "to have the most satisfying life, is it better to spend all your time learning about one thing or spread it out?"


Yeah, but it's not as if there's a singular "right" answer there anyway.

There are just so many assumed value judgements attached to phrases like "the most satisfying life".

As for the context of history being required to undersand how to make 'good' choices/draw 'good' conclusions, I couldn't more stringently disagree. Inasmuch as the argument seems to hinge on capitulation to egomaniacal sub-populations, I can come to the same inferred 'right' conclusion (that doing so leads to bad things) despite the fact that I have no idea about the historical facts of WWII to any significant degree, and don't care either.

There are many, many ways to come to valid conclusions. Not all of them come about through the set chain of facts that are habitually taught. There's always tons of context involved (Americans learn WWII history differently than the British and far differently than the Germans; however one would suppose that if there were some underlying 'truth' to be taken away from the entire chain of events, they would be reasonably independant of the facts one learns.)

I'm still unconvinced that anything other than assuaging random feelings of "What is right" is accomplished by promoting the learning of a rote set of 'important' facts. (However, I'm pretty convinced that learning something outside of a laser sharp focus is habitually useful for most people. That doesn't necessarily translate into the 'standard' curriculum idea in my mind, however. I would have gotten much more out of college by ignoring the imposed history classes altogether and instead focusing on more philosophy, however that wasn't allowed due to some arbitrary ideas about the relative necessity of learning historical facts, most of which I've since completely forgotten.)

[Ben]

Yes, but you can learn about whatever makes you feel you've had a fufilling life during your leisure time. The specialized plan gives you more of that to spend. We are talking about educational theory, your comment is slightly non-sequitorish.

Having my teachers guess what not directly applicable information(History? Art? Music? Literature?) will make me feel good about myself is a waste of everyone's time. Let me buy books or whatever for my interests, I'll pay you to get me some skills. If I'm an idiot and I don't have any interests, even better.

[Brian Koontz]

Yes, but you can learn about whatever makes you feel you've had a fufilling life during your leisure time. The specialized plan gives you more of that to spend. We are talking about educational theory, your comment is slightly non-sequitorish.

Having my teachers guess what not directly applicable information(History? Art? Music? Literature?) will make me feel good about myself is a waste of everyone's time. Let me buy books or whatever for my interests, I'll pay you to get me some skills. If I'm an idiot and I don't have any interests, even better.

How exactly is that "better"? Being a one-track machine is "better"?

Education is the primary non-familial/social life for young people. Turning it into a factory line is *at the very least* highly risky... I'd say a cavalier approach toward the subject isn't a good idea, assuming you're not simply Trolling here.

Didn't the Communist system pretty much take the educational approach you are proscribing? Focus on production, pragmatism, away from the arts and "non-materials"? I don't think people laud that as a success, although perhaps you have an effective modification in mind.

Ben... a Communist? You've come a long long way, baby.

[Ben]

Up to like high school what you learn in school is socialization. That's it. What we are basically arguing about(well, what I think we are arguing about) whether history/art/whatever should be electives or requirements in high school/college.

[Equis]

Pardon my rather idealistic viewpoint. But I somehow envision education to be a process in which students are to be equipped with a certain skillset in order to fulfill their lives to whatever level they deem necessary.

Let's back up a moment, I am unfamiliar with both the British and American educational system, coming instead from a rather cloistered country of rote learning.

Now when you're young, you won't have much of a defined interest or a focused goal in yoru life. This period of youth caries, yes, but still at some point in time. You're just young. You have no idea what's good to do, what's profitable and what in the end will make you a happy and fulfiled person. You're probably only gonna do what's cool, like a super spy, or a video game designer or try to crew on the starship enterprise.

The point of education here then, in a broad sense of the word, is to introduce students to the various disciplines that can be studied in depth later. Be it physics, chemistry, history or whatever nonsense the government thinks its necessary. You have to study it for a few years, realize you don't like it, and then drop it at you grow up, choosing instead to pursue something you're eally interested in. Like maybe practiing shooting womprats so you can be a ace X-wng pilot or something.

When you get no interest at all in the long run. Whoop dee doo for you. Slack of all you want then. Whatever dude.

That's the high ideal of course.

Now, the education I come from is not unlike the communist system of being a pragmatic and production focus. Science is emphasized over the humanities, Maths and Biology in particular. Literature and History are taught, yes, but they are usually taught with there being only a few right answers. (you know, the ones that gets the grades, raher than a well thought out, supported, evidencial argument on why you think Iago is secretly gay for Othello, blah blah blah.)

Which brings us back to the origin of this thread. Historical fact and historical lessons. Often, we are told what exactly to think about the historical lessons offered to us. Being repeated told that history is a rote learnign subject just dulls our interest in it. We don't want to read history and struggle to find what the "right" answer is. We wanna go home, go out, make out, play X-boxes and PS2s, sleep, learn how to speak Klingon, pretend to be wolverine, or beat up that loserish looking kid to seem cool to the others. Who cares about history?

Like mouselock says, if the memorization iof historical fact isn't the only way to learn how to distinguish between "good" and "bad" choices. Then why study history when you have no interest in it.

Ultimately it boils down to what you can feel fulfilled with. Then the onus is on the student to go out and discover what he is interested in, pursue that.

Suppose someone is fulfilled that he has devoted his life to compiler theory by the age of 80 and feels happy about it, all the best for him. Sure, he might irk the ire of a lot of people who would label him as having tunnel vision.

The point of the education system (or theory or whatever)then is that at least at some point in his life, he was persented with the broad spectrum of disciplines, whatever others out there that he could be interested in outside the field of compiler theory. And maybe, just maybe, make him feel like a more fulfilled person. Just guessing here.

Again, that's a high ideal.

There's always that huge gap from understanding it to actually executing it.

[Jason McCullough]

It's a free country - for adults. Kids don't know any better, unfortunately, so they need to be forced to learn a basic grounding in everything.

What are we arguing about again?

Sure, he might irk the ire of a lot of people who would label him as having tunnel vision.

Who would those people be? I wouldn't; great, if that's what floats his boat. But I don't know and have never met anyone even remotely like that.

[Peter Frazier]

I teach kids to roll snakes out of clay. Sometimes we even make pots out of them.
That's the teacher's point of view, I'll leave the rest to you experts. :wink:

[quatoria]

I teach kids to roll snakes out of clay. Sometimes we even make pots out of them.
That's the teacher's point of view, I'll leave the rest to you experts. :wink:

Are the clay snakes poisonous? (it IS Australia, after all)

[Mike Hussey]

Well, to get even more crazy, was Stalinist Russia the main threat after all? Maybe if we had whacked Russia instead we wouldn't have had such a nasty cold war.





Oh I dunno, a cold war where the other side were herding Jews into gas chambers wouldn't have been too pleasant either.

[Robert Sharp]

We have an election coming up in which we will be choosing between Chamberlain and Churchill (yes, the analogy is imperfect, but still useful). How are Americans supposed to make informed decisions about which policies are better if they have know knowledge of what worked in the past?

I realise you have an election coming up, which probably makes it inadvisable to argue history with Americans this year :) . However whilst one should learn the lessons of history, it's not always easy to discern what the lesson is. Was Chamberlain giving in to Hitler's demands (bad thing) or buying time for Britain to rearm (good thing) or both (neutral thing)? Was the appeasers' main mistake to underestimate Hitler, because they were focusing on the wrong threat i.e. Stalinist Russia?

Good question, but it proves my point. These are things we need to debate and be aware of. I tend to think that giving in to Hitler caused him to be more aggresive, but you could certainly argue the other way. I think at the time Russia wasn't considered as much of a threat, but perhaps you have evidence to the contrary? At any rate, without some knowledge of history, neither of us would be able to discuss the matter, much less use it to reflect on current issues.

BTW, despite the popular conception, not all Americans are pro-war ;)

[Ben]

Jason- We are discussing at the youngest 14 year olds here. These aren't infants who will eat plastic if left alone in the room with a small object.

And I don't see the importance of basic grounding in everything. I was taught some art history in my travels through our educational system, but I've completely forgotten all of it, and it just doesn't matter to me. I would've been better off being taught something else during that time.

Hussey- The Soviets did their share of mass killing and mass oppress


But I'm pretty sure an argument that the USSR was the real bad guys would center around the Nazis not being so Nazi after Hitler eventually lost power. Either that or defeating both the Soviets and the Nazis.

[Mike Hussey]

Hussey- The Soviets did their share of mass killing and mass oppress

Well you can say that about any country, the Nazis were unique in that they attempted to wipe out an entire race and enslave a second. Life in Communist Poland was hardly a bowl of cherries, but at least the Russians didn't try to stop Polish kids going to school because slaves didn't need to read and write.


But I'm pretty sure an argument that the USSR was the real bad guys would center around the Nazis not being so Nazi after Hitler eventually lost power. Either that or defeating both the Soviets and the Nazis.

Well it took long enough to defeat the Nazis with the Red Army fighting on our side. The Normandy invasion was not very likely to have happened, if the majority of the German army weren't busy dying in the east.

[Ben]

Hussey- Uh, Soviet Russia killed millions of it's own citizens. You can't say that about any country.

And it took a long time to defeat the Nazis, but in retrospect another year or two of war against the Soviets would've been worth it if it prevented the Cold War.

[Robert Sharp]

Hussey- Uh, Soviet Russia killed millions of it's own citizens. You can't say that about any country.

And it took a long time to defeat the Nazis, but in retrospect another year or two of war against the Soviets would've been worth it if it prevented the Cold War.

Both of these observations are only available to you because you know a bit of history. Doesn't that, if nothing else, make that history useful to you? I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your art history example. To be useful to you, do you have to like it? Want to use it? Use it every day? Every week? I would say that being educated is innately useful, and not just because you will then know certain facts that you can enjoy in your leisure time. You apply your knowledge all the time, often without any conscious thought. Granted, you can't learn everything, but surely that's not a good reason for not learning as much as you can. And you don't know if it will be "useful" to you until after you learn it (assuming you are right in saying some things aren't useful to learn, which I would disagree with).

[Bullhajj]

assuming you are right in saying some things aren't useful to learn, which I would disagree with

Gary Whitta's supreme knowledge of pornography comes to mind as an example of what Ben is talking about. I'm just sayin'.

[Robert Sharp]

assuming you are right in saying some things aren't useful to learn, which I would disagree with

Gary Whitta's supreme knowledge of pornography comes to mind as an example of what Ben is talking about. I'm just sayin'.

As useless, or as something that we could spend more time learning about instead of taking art history? I, for one, think I could learn a lot from Mastur Gary.

[Anaxagoras]

As useless, or as something that we could spend more time learning about instead of taking art history? I, for one, think I could learn a lot from Mastur Gary.

I'm already on it, Mr. Sharp. That cumfiesta.com site is half researched, but I have another 50 movies to... umm.. study.

[Brian Koontz]

I would say that being educated is innately useful, and not just because you will then know certain facts that you can enjoy in your leisure time. You apply your knowledge all the time, often without any conscious thought. Granted, you can't learn everything, but surely that's not a good reason for not learning as much as you can. And you don't know if it will be "useful" to you until after you learn it (assuming you are right in saying some things aren't useful to learn, which I would disagree with).

I agree, but I'd like to add something here.

Its not a matter of "as much as you can". Its a matter of distinguishing *between* elements of knowledge. No truth is equal to another, and no human has time enough to "learn everything", even if time was the only limiting factor.

Also, as you learn, what you *previously* knew changes, either being forgotten or being transformed. The idea of knowledge as separate entities accumulated in some kind of "brain collection" is nonsense. Knowledge isn't a set of figurines placed on shelves, with the key being to "collect 'em all!"... its a set of warring and allied agents, ultimately either controlling or being rejected by the house (the identity that houses them).

To one man, the war of 1812 is mere trivia. An irrelevancy, forgotten or remembered, with no difference. To another, the war of 1812 is eminently important. Every detail, critical. Deep analysis, determined.

I can say "Why don't you know that?" and you might say "Its better that I don't!" Much of what passes for knowledge is a waste of time to the majority of humans.

While knowledge itself can help humans judge the value of future potential knowledge, wisdom is far more valuable for that, which is a topic much more complicated than knowledge.

[Pjerrot]

Studying philosophy.
What does it really mean?

Is it a bit like going to a fancy restaurant and studying the menu - in french. Wondering what is what - maybe you think you recognice a bit here and there. You make a choice - get something - interesting? good? Yes, of cource it must be - it's in french and everybody says that's good.
You just need to learn to understand what it is, knowing how to consume it.

Don't you? Yes. Consume. Learn. Know. Understand. Wise?
That's the ticket!
And come back soon, ye hear!

(Inspired by Epicurus - fullfill your needs, like eating - restudy guidlines as well as finding new - fullfill by minimizing needs!!!)

[wildpokerman]

The only thing this poll shows me is that 16-33% of young people don't care for strangers asking them questions about boring Brittish history. Isn't there a real "screw around" factor in tests like these? This kind of stupid survey naturaly assumes that kids want to take your boring ass non-graded test and do well at it. If someone did a phone survey about the American Revolution or had me take a test on the street I'd probably just make shit up and then the results would say "33% of american adults think that Eminem was the first president of the united states."

People aren't as stupid as these polls say they are and even assuming that they are why would knowing who the general in some battle 2000 years ago make you a better citizen. Aren't there more important issues to be basing your vote on?

If I remember my history right the Britts were a bunch of Imperialistic Assholes and involved in everything evil from slave trading to conquering countries and treating the people living there like garbage. India, South Africa, America which was populated with Brittish citizens? WTF is there to be proud of in english history up until WWII when the stood up to the Nazis. Oh wait they didn't, they were too busy terrorizing Indians and only got involved when it was completely clear that Hitler was gonna kick their ass.

Some history. I can see why kids don't want to waste their time answering questions about a sad nation that is a shadow of itself because the people that ran the country couldn't treat people like human beings.

[Kalle]

Some history. I can see why kids don't want to waste their time answering questions about a sad nation that is a shadow of itself because the people that ran the country couldn't treat people like human beings.

I seem to recall most of Britain's darker history mirrored by the United States.

Slave Trade? Check. Oppressing different cultures, and stealing their land? Check. Colonization? Check. Avoiding conflict with the Nazis? Check The US has been involved in all these things.

So, in your own words, WTF is there to be proud of in US history?

And it's not just Britain and the US. Nation states do what they do for power, moral concerns are secondary at best.

[Anaxagoras]

WTF is there to be proud of in english history up until WWII when the stood up to the Nazis.

1) They were one of the first European nations to outlaw slavery in all their dominions. They did it about 100 years before the US did.

2) When they took over South Africa, they were a progressive and modernizing influence on that country, and they were generally much nicer to the blacks than the Afrikaaners were, albeit in a paternalistic way.

3) They were pivotal in defeating Napoleon and preventing French domination across Europe. (Obviously, this isn't such a great thing from the French perspective)

4) The British involvement in India was much less straightforward than "they treated them like garbage". You might want to pick up a book and actually learn the facts before you spout garbage yourself.

5) They've produced John Locke, Johnathan Swift, Alexander Pope, David Hume, Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, and Sir Isaac Newton. Just to name a few.

I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are spewing crap about a country that you have an irrational dislike about. I have no idea where you got your opinion of Britain from, but it sure as hell wasn't from historical facts.

Perhaps there's something to the study I originally cited about how ignorant the comman man is.

[wildpokerman]

WTF is there to be proud of in english history up until WWII when the stood up to the Nazis.

1) They were one of the first European nations to outlaw slavery in all their dominions. They did it about 100 years before the US did.

2) When they took over South Africa, they were a progressive and modernizing influence on that country, and they were generally much nicer to the blacks than the Afrikaaners were, albeit in a paternalistic way.

3) They were pivotal in defeating Napoleon and preventing French domination across Europe. (Obviously, this isn't such a great thing from the French perspective)

4) The British involvement in India was much less straightforward than "they treated them like garbage". You might want to pick up a book and actually learn the facts before you spout garbage yourself.

5) They've produced John Locke, Johnathan Swift, Alexander Pope, David Hume, Francis Bacon, Lord Byron, and Sir Isaac Newton. Just to name a few.

I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. You have no idea what you're talking about, and are spewing crap about a country that you have an irrational dislike about. I have no idea where you got your opinion of Britain from, but it sure as hell wasn't from historical facts.

Perhaps there's something to the study I originally cited about how ignorant the comman man is.
1. WTF history book have you been reading, slavery was allowed in the empire until 1833. If my American history books are correct that's less than 40 years before it was abolished in the US. Don't forget that the USA didn't have slavery in half of it's territory long before the English even thought of it as immoral. One of the big arguments when the constitution was drawn up was over slavery. Check your dates here:
http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~mgilbert/indiasyl.htm

2. Umm so Brits treated South Africans better than the Afrikaaners did. Do you beat your wife a little less than her ex did? Doesn't sound like bragging rights to me.

3. Um whatever. Napoleon was probably one of the USAs biggest allies against the wicked British. Too bad he didn't win. I am glad that your pressing him hard gave us cool parts of the country like Minnesota and New Orleans. After we ethnicaly cleansed the original inhabitants of course.

4. I suppose I should read an English book on this subject?
http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~mgilbert/indiasyl.htm
Here's a sylabus from one just one college course. Funny how everything that isn't taught in an English university explains how poorly the Indians were treated. Yeah you built them some railroads and so generously handed them over when it was clear that you weren't in control in the country anymore.

5. Yes some of your guys wrote some pretty decent adventure books and some guy "discovered" some scientific laws that the Arabs rightfully claim they knew years before Newton was born. Don't forget you had Shakespeare too. Yes you're the only society that can claim to have a few thinkers and artists. Boy I wish Americans had some of those. By the way with Locke writing so much about Rights and Tolerance how come those were so absent in the british empire until all your colonials bitch slapped you out of their countries? I guess Natural Rights and tolerance only applies to your own.

Name any evil in the world from 1600-1900 and the English had their grubby little hands in it.

[Kalle]

Name any evil in the world from 1600-1900 and the English had their grubby little hands in it.

... and the French...and the Dutch...and the Spaniards...and just about any country powerful enough to project itself on a worldwide scene. Hell, even Sweden was part of the slave trade, for instance. And after the 18th century, that also included the USA.

The British were no more, nor any less, wicked than any other country at the time, including your own. Arguing anything else just shows a profound ignorance of history.

[Anders Hallin]

I like how Anax suddenly became the Brit of the forum :D

[Kitsune]

Every time the ignorance vs education agument comes up.
I am reminded of this poem

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is man.
Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state,
a being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic's pride;
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
whether he thinks too little or too much.

I'll give a big loving heterosexual hug to whoever can identify the poet/writer straight off without googling. 8)

And if you can't, ah well. I'll still give you a big loving heterosexual hug. :D

I'm not sure if anyone's answered this yet, but is that Alexander Pope?

-Kitsune