We have a failure of followership

[Anaxagoras]

Interesting theory.

What we have today is a failure of followership.

Americans don't follow like they used to. Every institution that once had "authority" has lost followers over the last two generations. Mainline church denominations have been losing membership since 1965. So have the old clubs and civic groups. Newspaper readership penetration peaked in 1965 and has been declining ever since. Are people fleeing newspapers because a lack of "leadership," Mr. Know-It-All Editorial Page?

People aren't following anymore. And not just in the United States. University of Michigan political scientist Ron Inglehart has been polling worldwide since the 1970s. (See his World Values Survey here.) What Inglehart finds is that people in richer countries are less "elite-directed" and are increasingly engaged in "elite-challenging" activities.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/default.aspx

Everyone thinks they're an expert, so they're not listening to actual experts like they should.

[shift6]

Everyone thinks they're an expert, so they're not listening to actual experts like they should.
They don't want to commit an appeal to authority fallacy.

(ok ok, I'm just goofin' on you)

[ravenight]

greater education = greater confidence in your own opinion

[Janster]

Its a good thing.

Lets hope the trend continues.

[Aeon221]

Are people fleeing newspapers because a lack of "leadership," Mr. Know-It-All Editorial Page?

Well it sure as fuck ain't the quality of internet copy editing, Mr. "Writter".

[bago]

Every morning I put on my pants just like everybody else. And then do you know what I do? I Make gold records.

[Gordon Cameron]

greater education = greater confidence in your own opinion

Not for me. It seems the more I learn about anything, the more I become aware of my own vast ignorance on that subject. I've by now learned enough about politics and economics to be fairly confident I will never have a useful opinion about either for as long as I live.

[shift6]

The internet is no such place to make an admission like that, Gordon. I suggest the local college philosophy clubbe. Your penance is 1000 words on why you have all the answers written from the POV of a mid-20s suburban white-bread American.

[Telefrog]

I think a big part of the problem is the immediate availability of simple answers via the internet. Google and Wikipedia make people think they have access to all the answers and that no further study on a subject is needed. When you had to look stuff up in a (gasp!) library, you had to actually do some reading and exercise some analytical skills.

[shift6]

I'd like to agree with you Telefrog, I really would. It would assuage some of my discouragement. It's like most people are still the same as in the usenet days, when the debates had already started but actual data and/or source material was still hard to find outside of a library.

When it's some dim-bulb conservative who disagrees with global warming, we lol. When it's us being instructed what to think by our preconceived favorite blahgs or interpretors, we are serious thread. I may point you to the previous mortgage threads for a plethora of examples of this kind of thing.

Perhaps I'm biased since I have a Lexis-Nexis account and it's easier to search for relevant stuff (yeah, try and Google "CRA Fannie-Mae" now and see how useful your search results are).

[Brad Grenz]

The problem is stupid people aren't smart enough to know they shouldn't trust their own judgment. And there are a lot of stupid people out there.

[Sarkus]

Its a good thing.

Lets hope the trend continues.

Go listen to late-night radio (or read any internet message board) sometime. I think you'll change your mind.

[bago]

No, it's just tribalism . Post-hoc explanations are never good enough.

[Robert Sharp]

Go listen to late-night radio (or read any internet message board) sometime. I think you'll change your mind.

I'm with you in spirit, but isn't this an example of followership (what the hell kind of word is that anyway!)? I have family members that believe every word of that hate-filled rightwing crap.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm with you in spirit, but isn't this an example of followership (what the hell kind of word is that anyway!)? I have family members that believe every word of that hate-filled rightwing crap.

I'm not sure it is. I suspect that right-wing talk radio is telling them what they want to hear rather than informing them what they should believe. For example, if Rush were to suddenly start telling them that liberals aren't so bad and we need to work together, I don't think they'd follow him... they'd write him off as an idiot and find someone else to listen to.

They listen to Rush for confirmation of beliefs they already know are right... not in order to find out what they should believe in the first place.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm not sure it is. I suspect that right-wing talk radio is telling them what they want to hear rather than informing them what they should believe. For example, if Rush were to suddenly start telling them that liberals aren't so bad and we need to work together, I don't think they'd follow him... they'd write him off as an idiot and find someone else to listen to.

They listen to Rush for confirmation of beliefs they already know are right... not in order to find out what they should believe in the first place.

But it's also about anger. It's about creating targets for their own failure and self-denial.

[Hanacker]

I was thinking something along these lines the other day and decided this is probably why we get leaders like Bush and Palin. These days everyone thinks "I'm smart enough to be president. I'd definitely be better at it than those no-talent assclowns in Washington." and votes for someone who vaguely reminds them of themselves.

[Robert Sharp]

That sounds about right. I know people who support Palin because she seems like them. Her little schtick of being an average American plays really well to some voters. Personally, I want an exceptional American to be President of the freaking world, but what do I know?

[MarinusWA]

I blame the liberals for this.

The real ones, not the ones in the USA they call "liberal".

[Robert Sharp]

You mean hippies?

[bago]

Like the west coast?

[Kraaze]

Are we seriously having a discussion about why things were better in the old days? Hint: They weren't, we just aren't remembering them right.

[Anaxagoras]

Are we seriously having a discussion about why things were better in the old days? Hint: They weren't, we just aren't remembering them right.

No, we're not. Hint: we're trying to puzzle out patterns of human behavior & how they change.

[Lux]

People are still following, there are just more choices. The information explosion has something for everyone! Rather than sort through massive amounts of information to sort out any sort of truth folks decide what they want to belive and follow the guy who pours that particular flavor of kool aid. The general public isn't equipped to deal with the sheer volume of information available today.

Who can you trust for a straight take on things? The Wall Street Journal? The L.A. Times? CNN? Fox News? MSNBC? Assorted blogs? Any source that gets a significant audience is accused by multiple parties of biased and inaccurate reporting. Most people have things they have to do other than compare 20 different sources of information on one event to get a feel for what actually happened and what consequences it may have for every major item of importance as it arises.

I just don't see how Joe Sixpack could possibly figure out which 'truth' to belive from an objective standpoint because there are so many authority figures essentially calling each other liars. When faced with a situation where it's near impossible to make an informed decision people fall back on what they feel like the answer should be. Or what they would like it to be. Or what would be conveniant for their personal advancement.

[Hanacker]

That sounds about right. I know people who support Palin because she seems like them. Her little schtick of being an average American plays really well to some voters. Personally, I want an exceptional American to be President of the freaking world, but what do I know?

On NPR yesterday, they were talking about how character became a huge issue for politicians after Watergate. So I guess another part of it is that for a lot of Americans, straight-talking, deeply religious person who reminds them of themselves is easier to trust than someone who is smarter than you and uses words you might not always understand. So you'd trust someone you think you understand and could imagine having a beer with over someone who seems smart but comes from a different background from you (and can't fake it like the millionaire-but-still-an-average-joe persona some politicians tend to have).

[Qenan]

The fact that lots of voters eat up anti-intellectual populism is nothing new.

[Aeon221]

Are we seriously having a discussion about why things were better in the old days? Hint: They weren't, we just aren't remembering them right.

Serious discussion where? All I see are jokes and a bunch of babbling (once again) declaring the world full of mouth breathing morons. And hippies. Lord save us from the both of them, can I get an AMEN, Congregation?

[SmokeyNecrosis]

Die hippie die!

[Anaxagoras]

Serious discussion where? All I see are jokes and a bunch of babbling (once again) declaring the world full of mouth breathing morons. And hippies. Lord save us from the both of them, can I get an AMEN, Congregation?

Then improve your reading comprehension. All the posts longer than one sentence do not match what you see.

Aeon... your anti-elitist schtick is getting old. People have provided solid arguments for why elitism is, to a certain degree, justified. And all you have are these stupid snarky posts. Why are you wasting time posting if you're not going to engage in the discussion?

[MarinusWA]

Seeing as there has been complaints...

I don't think that there are less people following these days. Just that the things they follow have shifted from traditional authorian institutes to consumerism and kleptocracy. Freedom to choose my ass.

Yes, I'm blaming the bling.

[Aeon221]

Then improve your reading comprehension. All the posts longer than one sentence do not match what you see.

Aeon... your anti-elitist schtick is getting old. People have provided solid arguments for why elitism is, to a certain degree, justified. And all you have are these stupid snarky posts. Why are you wasting time posting if you're not going to engage in the discussion?

I'd love to see your arguments about why some people are just betterest than others! That'd be fabulous, thanks. Please. Oh, and it's totally cool if you just happen to end up in your own definition of elite, definitely. Obviously you're elite as hell.

[Anaxagoras]

I'd love to see your arguments about why some people are just betterest than others! That'd be fabulous, thanks. Please. Oh, and it's totally cool if you just happen to end up in your own definition of elite, definitely. Obviously you're elite as hell.

First off, elitism != people betterest than others. Second, I've already provided arguments about why elitism is, within certain bounds, justified. But hey... it's not hard to summarize those arguments, so I'll humor you.

People who are more qualified (i.e. better educated, smarter, or whatever qualification is relevant) to speak on a subject should form the "elite" with regards to that subject. Thus, on most historical subjects, I should be part of the elite because I have read a *ton* of history and I understand what I read. Conversely, when it comes to economics, I know I'm not among the elite. My understanding of economics is shaky at best, and so in economic discussions I generally keep my mouth shut & just read what others who know better have to say.

So... umm... that's it. The argument in favor of elitism. Pretty radical, huh, Aeon? If you honestly want me to elaborate why those who are most qualified should speak, I can break that argument down for you. I'm hoping that won't be necessary... not even for you.

[Lux]

First off, elitism != people betterest than others. Second, I've already provided arguments about why elitism is, within certain bounds, justified. But hey... it's not hard to summarize those arguments, so I'll humor you.

People who are more qualified (i.e. better educated, smarter, or whatever qualification is relevant) to speak on a subject should form the "elite" with regards to that subject. Thus, on most historical subjects, I should be part of the elite because I have read a *ton* of history and I understand what I read. Conversely, when it comes to economics, I know I'm not among the elite. My understanding of economics is shaky at best, and so in economic discussions I generally keep my mouth shut & just read what others who know better have to say.

So... umm... that's it. The argument in favor of elitism. Pretty radical, huh, Aeon? If you honestly want me to elaborate why those who are most qualified should speak, I can break that argument down for you. I'm hoping that won't be necessary... not even for you.

The fundamental problem here is that most people aren't amongst the most qualified to speak on any subject nor do they particularly care about rational arguments. I've been in academia for decades so I'm right with you on the merits of elitism but the truth of the matter is that the general public doesn't care how qualified someone is to speak on a subject. They just want to be told that what they feel in their gut is right.

[Equis]

They just want to be told that what they feel in their gut is right.

That, and they don't like it when someone else makes them feel stupid by being more "knowledgeable" on a subject in which they are discussing.

It's more prevalent in the fairly educated adults who've already assumed that they've learn all they need to know with regards on how to be successful in their own lives. Anyone else saying that they know "better" is obviously arrogant and elitist.

[Lux]

That, and they don't like it when someone else makes them feel stupid by being more "knowledgeable" on a subject in which they are discussing.

That too.

[Equis]

On the flipside though, it's often the elitist's incredulous reaction towards other people speaking on subjects they consider themselves to be experts at that is used as the reason for disliking elitism. Elitists get annoyed, irritated and frustrated at the lack of substance and insight in those conversations and come across as arrogant and an intellectual bully when trying to correct certain misconceptions. After all, the elitists invested a lot of time and energy understanding nuances and depth; who then are these people to reduce honourable ideas into trivial soundbites.