The cult of ignorance, anti-intellectualism and "dumbing down"

Blueingreen

Both that use of literally and ignorant are entirely reasonable.

"Literally" in this context is just a form of hyperbole or intensifier.  It has been used in that sense for centuries (objections to its being used in this way are far more recent). 

Discourteous or rude is one of the dictionary meanings of ignorant.

Roland

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fret's first post at the top of this thread mentioned Mark Bauerlein and how a generation was being dumbed down by the online experience 

This is how screen time,in red, has grown according to https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_alter_why_our_screens_make_us_less_happy

aord43

Blueingreen said:

Both that use of literally and ignorant are entirely reasonable.

"Literally" in this context is just a form of hyperbole or intensifier.  It has been used in that sense for centuries (objections to its being used in this way are far more recent). 

If that's the case it's news to me.  As I've always understood it the whole point of the word "Literally" was to distinguish from mere hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and say, yes, it *actually was* that (whatever it was).
Can you provide a reference?

Blueingreen

aord43 said:

Blueingreen said:

Both that use of literally and ignorant are entirely reasonable.

"Literally" in this context is just a form of hyperbole or intensifier.  It has been used in that sense for centuries (objections to its being used in this way are far more recent). 

If that's the case it's news to me.  As I've always understood it the whole point of the word "Literally" was to distinguish from mere hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and say, yes, it *actually was* that (whatever it was).
Can you provide a reference?

In this fascinating 2005 National Public Radio interview Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, cites literary examples of the word literally being used to "intensify statements" as early as the 17th century and misused from the 19th century. But he says objections were only raised in the early 20th century. He said:

As is often the case, though, such abuses have a long and esteemed history in English. The ground was not especially sticky in "Little Women" when Louisa May Alcott wrote: 'The land literally flowed with milk and honey.' Tom Sawyer was not turning somersaults on piles of money when Mark Twain described him as 'literally rolling in wealth'. Jay Gatsby was not shining when Fitzgerald wrote that he 'literally glowed'. Such examples are easily come by, even in the works of the authors we are often told to emulate.

How did literally come to mean the opposite of what it originally meant, either 'word for word' or 'exactly'? By the late 17th century, 'literally' was being used as an intensifier for true statements. Jane Austen wrote of being 'literally rocked in bed on a stormy night.' In such examples, 'literally' is being used for the sake of emphasis alone. Eventually, though, 'literally' began to be used to intensify statements that were themselves figurative or metaphorical. You can find examples throughout the 19th century, but no one seems to have objected until the early 20th. In 1909, the satirist Ambrose Bierce included the term in "Write it Right," a little blacklist of literary faults. 'It is bad enough to exaggerate,' he wrote, 'but to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable.'

In truth, many words are used in seemingly contradictory ways. They're known as Janus words, contronymns or autoantonyms. They include 'cleave,' which means both 'to stick to' and 'to split apart,' and the verb 'dust,' meaning both 'to remove dust from' and to 'sprinkle dust upon.' And don't forget 'peruse' and 'scan,' each of which means both 'to read closely' and 'to skim.'

aord43

Thanks, I clearly wasn't aware of that.
Still don't like that usage though 

Chalky

Two main causes are the death of 'The Expert' and the growth of 'Anti-knowledge'.

The Expert used to be a rare person who occasionally appeared in your life, earned your trust, and gave serious advice couched in careful wording that conveyed the complexity of the matter.

Now, experts are ubiquitous, make grand claims, and talk about their topic as if future events and outcomes are set in stone. They contradict each other, admit no area that they are less than absolutely certain, and ignore their failures or blame anything or anyone if the future doesn't precisely match their claim.

So Anti-knowledge has developed and there is a lot of it. All those times when the hordes of 'Experts' have got it wrong, often badly. Knowledge gained of a negative emotional experience is very strong, because that is the way our brain is hard-wired. The Experts may tell you that the "rustle in the bushes" is nothing bad but once you've experienced the Tiger leaping out at you, you will never believe those Experts again. And your Anti-knowledge will be clear and very strong evidence that the Experts were wrong before. So when Experts tell you something else, it might well be wrong again surely? Even though they are different Experts. That experience of the Tiger is extremely hard to ignore. Ignoring Experts in future is much easier.

Anti-knowledge is also reinforced by sharing experiences with others. And what is social media if not an experience-sharing indulgence-fest?  The old media still plays its role too, setting expectations way too high for what Experts can do.  For example, folks expect Doctors to have the diagnostic abilities of House, and Police to have the crime-solving abilities of CSI.  And everyone knows someone who has been let down when such professionals aren't as effective as the Telly would suggest. Which simply builds more Anti-knowledge, borne of bad experience with Experts.

The answer is for Experts to earn trust instead of just demanding it, and show some humility when they are wrong. Folks need to lower their expectations of Experts too, and start accepting that the vast majority of what they see on Reality TV, even documentaries, is as much fiction as fact.

Myranda

strtdv said:

Without being too right-wing/politically incorrect about it, part of the problem with the welfare state is that we don't allow people to suffer the repercussions of bad/stupid choices.

People think they know better than experts, but then when they get themselves into trouble through their ignorance, the state rescues them.

They get to have their ignorant cake and eat it.

Actually - to a large extent it does. Don't pay your rent and get kicked out then you're "voluntarily homeless" and the local council will only try housing you if they have rooms and if you're an "at risk" group... get fired from work for a stupid reason and you wont be getting job seekers allowance for up to 6 months... 

So a lot of folks don't get to have cake and eat it - hell, plenty of people on disability living allowance don't get enough to help with their dissabilities these days, let alone the dumb

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

I think when looking at notions of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility amongst millennials, you shouldn't underestimate the influence of the generally piss poor example being set by the boomers and older Gen X ers.

Those are the generations where you could be a news agent and buy a house that you'd have to run a hedge fund to buy today, and are then outraged at the idea that some of the equity in that house - wealth they've acquired through none of their own effort, just 'being' while the housing market goes crazy - might have to go towards funding their care. That seems pretty fucking snowflakey to me. Talk about everyone's got an excuse - the emerging generation is looking at a political class that exhibits very little personal accountability for its fuck ups. Why should they buck up their ideas when they're going to be dealing with the consequences of the previous generations' hubris and selfishness?

Frankly I'm amazed that millennials are as philanthropic and enterprising as they are.

You can be a newsagent now and own a good house. Many people do it. I'm doing it right now!! Okay, not the newsagent bit.. but you get the point - hard graft can still get you a house, if that's what you want.

I've spent the last 8minutes trying to parse SOMETHING from the rest of what you've written, and I can't. You might think what you've written is eloquent and meaningful, but I'm really struggling to understand what you mean.

Baby boomer generation members were able to buy property at a much lower percentage of income, they had much lower costs regarding education (again, as a percentage of income) and as there were fewer graduates the benefits of those reduced costs were easier and faster access to well/better paid jobs.

These self-same people label the current generation as overly entitled snowflakes wanting the moon on a stick - not realising they have two moons on solid gold sticks sitting spare in the basement in case the current moon on a stick breaks. Yes some hard working types managed to go poverty to wealth - the poverty gap is something that has widened since then... 

I was able to parse that from his words and words that have been said before in a variety of places...

aord43

Chalky said:

The answer is for Experts to earn trust instead of just demanding it, and show some humility when they are wrong. Folks need to lower their expectations of Experts too, and start accepting that the vast majority of what they see on Reality TV, even documentaries, is as much fiction as fact.

I don't think it's the "Experts" themselves but rather certain parts of the media who want said experts to be 100% correct or to shut up.  Whereas real scientists are never 100%, more like "based on our observations and current thinking there is X% chance that Y will happen, provided that Z is taken into account" - which gets translated as "SCIENTISTS SAY Y WILL KILL YOU!!!"

Sure, some scientists don't help themselves, when they will refuse to commit, (Stupid made up example to illustrate the point: "based on previous observations it is most likely that the rain will fall downwards") which leads to them being slated for not being sure, again the media want certainty.

Generally I haven't see experts "demanding trust" unreasonably.  They demand to be taken seriously (not unreasonable if they are allowed to report their position) but the problem is that their messages are dumbed down, diluted, and cut off to the point that they *appear* to be making it up as they go along -- when really the media just doesn't want to report the real and genuine complexity.  The media can't have it both ways - true expert judgement based on good research, with all it's nuances and subtleties, yet also a snappy soundbite.

Drew_TNBD

You guys who are always going "every generation says that about the next" are like the shittiest Lost episode EVAR. Yeah... fuck spotting patterns and noticing trends... that's way too discriminatory! 

Evilmags

Given that half the state sector in education seeks to indoctrinate kids with left wing entitlement. Look at teachers voting percentages versus general population. Dumbed down kids are just part of the Fabian plan...

Sporky

Evilmags said:

Given that half the state sector in education seeks to indoctrinate kids with left wing entitlement. ...

And the other half does it with right wing arrogance?

Sounds like a decent balance overall then.

Evilmags

Sporky said:

Evilmags said:

Given that half the state sector in education seeks to indoctrinate kids with left wing entitlement. ...

And the other half does it with right wing arrogance?

Sounds like a decent balance overall then.

Sporky said:

Evilmags said:

Given that half the state sector in education seeks to indoctrinate kids with left wing entitlement. ...

And the other half does it with right wing arrogance?

Sounds like a decent balance overall then.

Last poll suggests only 7% of teachers vote Tory. Compares to 42% of the electorate quite badly...

chillidoggy

Anti-knowledge. Isn't that just ignorance?

digitalscream

chillidoggy said:

Anti-knowledge. Isn't that just ignorance?

I think ignorance is more passive, whereas anti-knowledge is actually an active effort.

Chalky

chillidoggy said:

Anti-knowledge. Isn't that just ignorance?

No, its knowledge borne of experience and therefore carries weight with the person who has it. To them it is entirely real, accurate and true.

Think of someone who owns a Volvo for two years and has nothing but trouble with it - breakdowns, expensive repairs, utterly unreliable - and they then read an article where Experts say Volvos are very reliable.  They then jump on social media and relate their experience with Volvos and how the Experts have got it wrong.  Instantly, there are now many people aware of this person's experience with Volvos. Some of this Anti-knowledge will be picked up by others and relayed elsewhere to be spread around further. Some people respond supportively, especially those with similar experience. This especially reinforces the Anti-knowledge - "See! Its not just me!"

You and I know it is only one person's experience and therefore scientifically unrepresentative. But to them it is real precisely because it is borne of actual experience.  It is not ignorance.  They've actually lived it, you've never owned a Volvo!

The majority of the large number of happy Volvo owners will not bother replying to the rant on social media. When someone feels strongly about a topic, its just not worth the hassle trying to balance their views with your own happy experience.  Social media is largely about sharing experiences with others.  But there is no editing and rarely any context. One or two might say how their Volvo has never missed a beat. But, a quick look by someone who sees all this in response to a Google search will show some strong emotional views of  'Volvos are unreliable' together with a few weaker views that 'Volvos are reliable'.

So what does the Google-searcher take away from this? "Looks like a lot of people had bad experiences so I won't buy a Volvo".

It is easy to say that the Google-searcher should not draw that conclusion. But the vast majority of folks are not good at critical reading or analysis - if they were, Reality TV would never exist.

And so the Anti-knowledge spreads. And of course it wasn't even made up!  Its real not fake.  And it is often persuasive because of that - the author really did have two years of Volvo trouble and that is why there is so much emotion in what they say. And strong statements together with real emotion borne of experience is very influential.  

Even though in the end it is only one person's experience of where 'they are right and the Experts are wrong', it is now validated by being preserved on social media and relayed by search engines.

Comments made in a chat down the pub used to disappear from memory - comments made on social media are memorialised forever.

chillidoggy

Thanks.

By way of a comparison, I went to a local classic car show on Sunday. I lost count of the times I heard the phrase "Lotus - Lots of trouble, usually serious" muttered by passers by. I suspect none of them had ever owned one, and none were aware that in three years of ownership, it's never once broken down.

digitalscream

chillidoggy said:

Thanks.

By way of a comparison, I went to a local classic car show on Sunday. I lost count of the times I heard the phrase "Lotus - Lots of trouble, usually serious" muttered by passers by. I suspect none of them had ever owned one, and none were aware that in three years of ownership, it's never once broken down.

Indeed...one of my mates made a bet with me - either £10 from him for every month that my MG ZR survives without head gasket failure, or £100 from me if it goes. He's £30 down so far, and I suspect it's going to get a lot bigger.

chillidoggy

I suspect you'll be coming out of the deal £100 the richer.

proggy

digitalscream said:

chillidoggy said:

Thanks.

By way of a comparison, I went to a local classic car show on Sunday. I lost count of the times I heard the phrase "Lotus - Lots of trouble, usually serious" muttered by passers by. I suspect none of them had ever owned one, and none were aware that in three years of ownership, it's never once broken down.

Indeed...one of my mates made a bet with me - either £10 from him for every month that my MG ZR survives without head gasket failure, or £100 from me if it goes. He's £30 down so far, and I suspect it's going to get a lot bigger.

Especially if you stop using the car and just leave it parked up, the head gasket will last forever and you'll be getting a tenner a month.

Ravenous

Evilmags said:

Last poll suggests only 7% of teachers vote Tory. Compares to 42% of the electorate quite badly...

Does this suggest a problem with teachers, or a problem with how tories treat teachers?