Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone doubts that educated people can make bad decisions. But based on your claim should we assume that less educated people would have made decisions that are just as good or better because they have made more mistakes than educated people and thus would have learned from these mistakes? Why should we assume that highly educated people are less likely to learn from their mistakes?
I would suggest that a major aspect of education is providing an opportunity to make mistakes in a relatively safe environment where their mistakes are not so like to hurt large numbers of people. Learning from mistakes is great, but I'd rather not have an jet pilot learning from basic mistakes while I'm on the plane. Same with policy makers. I'd prefer to have policy makers who have already studied a fair amount of history, and psychology, and philosophy, and science, etc., and thus have had lots of opportunities to test large numbers of their ideas in the arena of academic criticism, rather than policy makers who have to figure out all of this stuff out on the fly while trying to weigh the costs and benefits of various policy options in real-life settings where their decisions - like the decisions of the jet pilot - can have devastating consequences for lots of people.
To makes sense of your claim we need specific examples of what you see as bad decisions made by highly educated people, and some reason to think that people with only high school diplomas or vo-tech training would have made better decisions in those instances. I suspect that what you call "bad ideas" are mostly just ideas that you don't personally agree with for political reasons (although I certainly don't doubt that you can find examples of college graduates making bad decisions, since education is not a guaranteed vaccination against all possibilities of prejudice and cognitive error).
In sum: Are you suggesting that people with no college education would, over all, be as good or better than college graduates when it comes to comprehending the complexities of various alternatives? Without specific examples or good supporting arguments for your claim, I see no good basis for believing you. Like a math teach might say: "Show your work!"
Re bolded, and that's the problem. Alot of folks don't have that option. I provided an example of "well educated" politicians that never suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. It's common these days, right?
And finally, no. I'm simply suggesting that there are a lot of intelligent people in this world, irregardless of education. For example, my Dad is a Mechanical Engineer and was very accomplished in his field with Dow Chemical.
I breed, raise, train, and show Arabian horses. I could never grasp the complexities of mechanical engineering any more than my Dad could understand the issues of breeding Arabians. Both require specific knowledge, one no better than the other, just different.
I agree with you here. I don't see it as an issue of "less than" in any general sense. But I think that when we get into realms of discussion that involve controversial issues, there is a disturbing trend toward seeing college educated people as "less than" - the implication seems to be that their college education has corrupted them, indoctrinated them, basically made them less able to think clearly about moral or political issues. I see this as an increasingly dangerous trend. It has gotten to the point where large numbers of people who have, at best, a minimal science education routinely dismiss entire branches of science because the science indicates something that they see as being offensive to their own political sensibilities. It's easier and more convenient to blame the scientists for being corrupt or politically indoctrinated than it is to try to really understand what the scientists are actually saying. It is great to attack scientific theories; that's exactly what we ought to do because if there are cracks in a theory, we need to find them. But if the attacks are purely political and emotional rather than substantive, the result is just a sea of mud.
Yes! As long as someone has genuine interest in other viewpoints and they are willing to seriously engage these viewpoints, all is well. What I find all too often, however, is an unwillingness (or, perhaps, in some cases, an inability) to engage the alternative views in honest discussion. Strawmen run rampant, unsubstantiated claims and accusations fly all over the place, and, as a result, public debates become nothing but hopelessly muddied streams of personal attacks and baseless opinions (or, at least, seemingly baseless opinions since logical argumentation and evidence is conspicuously absent).
As someone who entered college at 47 y/o, most of my classmates were in their late teens, early 20's. My education is in Applied Sociology (statistics), Forensic Psychology (law and Psychology), and Criminal Justice.
The Sociology curriculum certainly attempted to "indoctrinate" young students in the teachings of "Silent Racism," White Privilege," and the advantages of socialism. I was an anomaly, needless to say. I studied Sociology because I'm interested in the actions of groups of people versus individuals. I was too old to be swayed by group think however, we should all be concerned with the lack of acceptance of diverse opinions allowed on many campuses these days.
But I think that when we get into realms of discussion that involve controversial issues, there is a disturbing trend toward seeing college educated people as "less than" - the implication seems to be that their college education has corrupted them, indoctrinated them, basically made them less able to think clearly about moral or political issues. I see this as an increasingly dangerous trend.
I was a sociology major in college in the late 80s and early 90s. I thought it was very much indocrination-ish then. I think it's much worse now. There is almost no viewpoint diversity in the humanities and social sciences. I see that as dangerous. So, to a large extent, I think a college education can, indeed, corrupt people.
I mean, what is this stuff about safe spaces? Were there safe spaces for people who didn't vote for Obama when he was elected?
I was a sociology major in college in the late 80s and early 90s. I thought it was very much indocrination-ish then. I think it's much worse now. There is almost no viewpoint diversity in the humanities and social sciences. I see that as dangerous. So, to a large extent, I think a college education can, indeed, corrupt people.
I mean, what is this stuff about safe spaces? Were there safe spaces for people who didn't vote for Obama when he was elected?
One more piece of evidence that college campuses have become dominated by left wing authoritarians-- Comedians don't want to perform on college campuses:
It's nice having a strong union which can still fight for you, isn't it?
Well, I'm not referring to any one person in this thread, but isn't it amazing how so many of our conservative friends on this forum allegedly claim to have multiple graduate degrees in STEM? Meanwhile, all of the conservative commentators they listen to on TV and talk radio daily all have liberal arts degrees. Same goes for most of the Republican politicians they vote for. Weird, isn't it? Just goes to show you can't believe everything you read.
No, it's much worse now. Centrist and even very liberal professors are saying it. People like Camille Pagia, Dave Rubin (liberal, but not a professor), Jordan Peterson, Janice Fiamengo, Laura Kipnis, and Jonathan Haidt are all speaking out on the attacks on free speech and other leftist authoritarian policies on college campuses.
You really shouldn't use Jordan Peterson as an example of an anti-leftist in an American context. He's Canadian, so his conservative leanings are not like yours or other American conservatives. I don't know the guy, but I can practically guarantee that, as a Canadian conservative, he wouldn't vote for Trump, he wouldn't want the US's gun laws, and he sure as heck wouldn't give up his good Canadian universal health care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
