Could've Been a Rant, but I Decided Better

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I blame Facebook.....

I was talking to my mother in law today and she was blindly on the trump bandwagon wondering why people don't get he's doing what's best for the country, and that he represents the people.

Then I pointed out to her that more than half of voters voted against him and disagree with him on what's best for the country.

Long silence followed.

Blindly on the Trump bandwagon...In reality, it is not being on "Trump's bandwagon" that is the issue.
What this all boils down to is this...are you a globalist or a nationalist?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The best part of that was when she says, "These are the FBI's statistics; they're not a liberal organization," with a straight face
Sorry, I couldn't resist, given everything that's going down right now.

To be fair, the FBI's been going after progressives and the left wing for at least half a century. During the Civil Rights movement, they went after everyone from the Socialist Workers Party to Dr. MLK.

Sadly, though, Newt (whatta name) was correct in saying that he's going to focus on how people feel over generalized statistics, because we have become a nation that worries more about feelings than we do about reality and facts/statistics, and a large bulk who actually look at facts and statistics are incapable of constructively doing so, so they get misinterpreted and bastardized to fit a preconceived notion.

It's all about a false sense of security. Hype something that's not really a threat, and then sell a solution or cure for that exaggerated threat. Though I disagree that we've "become" a nation like this; I suspect we were always like this.

We're in a tough place right now as a species: We have unprecedented access to education and knowledge, but it seems to be having an inverted effect on intelligence. People are (seemingly, at least) increasingly less capable of applying knowledge to real-world situations and finding appropriate solutions or coming to logical conclusions. I'm certainly not claiming that I know everything or that I'm perfect at this, but I see a large number of people who are so apathetic about even trying that it's a sad reflection on our future overall.

Once again, we've always been like this. For every inventor there's always been someone who shunned innovation. Every civilization has had creative members that wanted to overcome humankind's known limitations, from experimenting cooks, adventurers, and alchemists to artists, blacksmiths, and stargazers. But every civilization has also had its share of fools, including the willfully ignorant and those who pretend to be ignorant so they can manipulate others.

In other words, I think it's better to focus on the people who are trying to learn than to focus on those who don't. It's never been easier to learn new languages and recipes, to learn about political and business deals, or to communicate with complete strangers from around the world. Anyone with internet access can access virtually any religious scripture, legal document, scholarly subject, or info about current events. Just ignore the ones who don't want to.

But for the record, I think it helps to note that people may be apathetic about the things you care about, but they may still care about other subjects that you're overlooking. In other words, just because people have different interests doesn't mean that those interests are irrelevant or wasteful. It just means that we all have different priorities, interests, goals, etc.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
But for the record, I think it helps to note that people may be apathetic about the things you care about, but they may still care about other subjects that you're overlooking. In other words, just because people have different interests doesn't mean that those interests are irrelevant or wasteful. It just means that we all have different priorities, interests, goals, etc.

No, that doesn't help at all, because I'm not talking about opinions or apathy towards a topic, I'm discussing the ignorant out there who care enough to incessantly argue while at the same time embracing willful ignorance when information--often with quotes and clickable links--is laid out directly in front of them.

I don't care if certain people don't have the same interests as me--that's not what this thread is about--what I care about is that there is a segment of society, including some here on ATS, that are in it just for the fun of counter-arguing in childish ways, and I find that disturbing.

In my OP, I sincerely ask if anyone can shed a light in to the psychology that governs this behavior, and I haven't received an answer to that. I think that I have a few logical explanations centered on what I know about human nature, but I was hoping that someone in the field would have a better answer for me.

But like I said, I don't care if someone has dissimilar interest from me--if that's the case, don't spread incorrect information in a way that makes you seem like you know what you're talking about, and then don't belittle those who do know what they're talking about when they simply correct you with proper facts and information. That's the beef, here...not the apathetic in society, or the unknowledgeable, but those types who refuse information in an aggressive way.

But like I noted in another comment, I'm going to put forth the effort to not waste much effort on these people. If they respond in childish ways, I just hope to better my skill at ignoring them and moving on.

I wonder what the over-under is on that actually happening...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Charlotte Iserbyte comes across as a half crazed lunatic. But if you hear her out, and ignore her style, you find a very interesting conspiracy that seems to match up with observations. Essentially, she claims that Reagan conspired with Russia to dumb us down. She was a DOE employee that left due to this.

Believe her or not, you can see plainly that we don't teach basic logic skills to our students. I didn't learn them in school, and have had to teach myself HOW TO THINK.

It really is as simple as a shift from teaching how to think to what to think. You focus on rote memorization year after year. A solid mechanism for this is the standardized testing, where students spend half the school year practicing for a test and memorizing various facts needed to pass that test. There is no form of logical skill presented during these exercises.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yessir, one-hundred percent.

But like you say: We can teach ourselves how to think, and we should. Those who don't want to...well, that's fine, I have no real beef with them. Those who don't want to, but then want to debate as if they're an authority on the topic, well, that's something else entirely.

I believe what you're citing, too, because it certainly does seem like my "generation" (born in '79, went through school with the last general group of teachers in K-12 who taught to learn and not necessarily for memorizing for a test) is one of the last who really understand what it is to think for one's self. And even in high school, I could see the shift between "old school" teaching versus the new teachers who were just coming in to the profession.

Hell, I even remember in the mid-80s a few of my teachers being super-focused on this or that test, but it wasn't all of them.

Now, they all are focused on that, and I know better than most because my step-mom (been in my life for 23 years) is a retired teacher, and now her daughter is one as well. Both complain about the stranglehold on teachers these days in how they teach--it is all standardized, even the teaching methods.

Good point in your comment--thanks for participating.