Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."
I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.
Enjoy this story?
Buzz up!Thanks for your support.
In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to "their candidate"; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong.
Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others.
Perhaps the single academic study most germane to the present election is the 1999 psychology paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The two Cornell psychologists began with the following assumptions.
Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
To put their theories to the test, the psychologists asked a group of Cornell undergraduates to undergo a series of self-assessments, including tests of logical reasoning taken from a Law School Admissions Test preparation guide. Prior to being shown their test scores, the subjects were asked to estimate how they thought they would fare in comparison with the others taking the tests.
On average, participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile, revealing that most of us tend to overestimate our skills somewhat. But those in the bottom 25 percent consistently overestimated their ability to the greatest extent. For example, in the logical reasoning section, individuals who scored in the 12th percentile believed that their general reasoning abilities fell at the 68th percentile, and that their overall scores would be in the 62nd percentile. The authors point out that the problem was not primarily underestimating how others had done; those in the bottom quartile overestimated the number of their correct answers by nearly 50 percent. Similarly, after seeing the answers of the best performers -- those in the top quartile -- those in the bottom quartile continued to believe that they had performed well.
The article's conclusion should be posted as a caveat under every political speech of those seeking office. And it should serve as the epitaph for the Bush administration: "People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's."
The converse also bears repeating. Despite the fact that students in the top quartile fairly accurately estimated how well they did, they also tended to overestimate the performance of others. In short, smart people tend to believe that everyone else "gets it." Incompetent people display both an increasing tendency to overestimate their cognitive abilities and a belief that they are smarter than the majority of those demonstrably sharper.
Closely allied with this unshakable self-confidence in one's decisions is a second separate aspect of meta-cognition, the feeling of being right. As I have pointed out in my recent book, "On Being Certain," feelings of conviction, certainty and other similar states of "knowing what we know" may feel like logical conclusions, but are in fact involuntary mental sensations that function independently of reason. At their most extreme, these are the spontaneous "aha" or "Eureka" sensations that tell you that you have made a major discovery. Lesser forms include gut feelings, hunches and vague intuitions of knowing something, as well as the standard "yes, that's right" feeling that you get when you solve a problem.
The evidence is substantial that these feelings do not correlate with the accuracy or quality of the thought. Indeed, these feelings can occur in the absence of any specific thought, such as with electrical and chemical brain stimulation. They can also occur spontaneously during so-called mystical or spiritual epiphanies in which the affected person senses an immediate "understanding of the meaning or purpose of the universe." William James described this phenomenon as "felt knowledge."
Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction are not rational deliberate conclusions; they are involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain. Like other powerful mental states such as love, anger and fear, they are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge through rational arguments. Just as it's nearly impossible to reason with someone who's enraged and combative, refuting or diminishing one's sense of certainty is extraordinarily difficult. Certainty is neither created by nor dispelled by reason.
Similarly, without access to objective evidence, we are terrible at determining whether a candidate is telling us the truth. Most large-scale psychological studies suggest that the average person is incapable of accurately predicting whether someone is lying. In most studies, our abilities to make such predictions, based on facial expressions and body language, are no greater than by chance alone -- hardly a recommendation for choosing a presidential candidate based upon a gut feeling that he or she is honest.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Great post. And I believe it whole-heartedly. A lot of people I know (myself included, in some cases) tend to make up their minds long before all of the facts are known, and then it is very rare that they change their minds after all facts are known - even if the facts prove their pre-set beliefs to be wrong.
Scary, but true.
Never let the facts get in the way of an opinion. ; )
I was wondering about this just the other day. I have never seen someone change their mind over a debate no matter how polite and well informed. So why do we spend so much effort in debate? It seems pointless. How do you really change someone’s mind?
I guess if anyone knew the answer to this they would be emperor of the world.
|
|
It's particularly bothersome when people feel the need to 'correct' someone who doesn't agree with them. I made the horrible mistake of admitting at work that I was probably going to vote for Obama, and, several times a day, I have people walking up to me telling me that he's a Muslim or going to raise taxes on people who make under $100,000 or whatever bull**** they've heard from Fox News this time.
I've taken to responding, 'Yeah! And I heard he has black babies, too!' since that's what Bush's campaign in 2000 used to say to make McCain look bad. They don't get the joke, but I wouldn't expect them to.
I've also taken to wearing a headset. I don't listen to music, because it's a pain in the butt to set up at work, but the appearance of a headset seems to give people the idea that I'm not in the mood to be ambushed with yet another attack advertisement or backhanded comments like, 'Oh Ian, I thought you were too smart to be a Democrat! It's just a phase, you'll grow out of it!'
It's particularly bothersome when people feel the need to 'correct' someone who doesn't agree with them.
This is to contrast attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the parable of the "Blind Men and an Elephant". In this story, each blind man felt a different part of an elephant (trunk, leg, ear, etc.). All the men claimed to understand and explain the true appearance of the elephant, but could only partly succeed, due to their limited perspectives.[3] This principle is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence, so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception. According to the Jains, only the Kevalins—the omniscient beings—can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge.[4] Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth.
I find it ironic that we all (well most of us, you may be special) want people to think like us yet what a terrible world it would be if everyone did.
Interesting.
However, my mind is set on how I should deal with a certain CourtFool. He will suffer horribly!
Excellent post!
What? No dis on Hero? I am disappointed.
|
|
Party loyalty is BS, choose a person that stands for your values and vote that person whether that person is a liberal political icon, to a right wing conservative. If they stand for your values, then who gives a crap what political party they stand for. (Always check their political past as well the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior.
[spoiler]Sept. 22, 2008 | "Let's make sure that there is certainty during uncertain times" -- George W. Bush, 2008
Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."
I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.
Enjoy this story?
Buzz up!Thanks for your support.
In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to "their candidate"; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong.Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others.
Perhaps the single academic study most germane to the present election is the 1999 psychology paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The two Cornell psychologists began with the following assumptions.
Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
Incompetent individuals fail to...
I think you are wrong on a few things. I plan on voting for Sen. Obama, because I share a majority of his beliefs (abortion, Iraq War, Universal Health Care, etc...) HOWEVER, if a video of him surfaced that showed him doing really bad things, then I would not vote for him. The key is visual evidence. Seeing is believing.
Now, if we could rate which party is more close-minded, then it would be the Republicans. Conservatives are naturally more resistant to change their minds, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Just show a group of Creationists scientific evidence that proves the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. They would find ways to dispute it, and then they would offer up their own "evidence" that proves their belief.
Obviously, they are wrong, but it is pointless to debate them (the Earth was not created in 4,004 B.C.). I know of no Creationists who belong to the Democratic Party...maybe there are a few...but the percentage would be less than 1%. There are large numbers of Creationists who are Republicans, and their current VP nominee (Sarah Palin) is one of them.
Almost everyone I meet -- on either end of the political spectrum --seems absolutely sure that they are omniscient. It's not a Democratic or Republican thing; it's a human thing.
On Saturday, one of my friends proclaimed that global warming was a myth. I responded, "Anthropogenic warming? Or warming in general?" He had no idea what I was talking about, so I explained that during the Eocene, there were no ice caps. He nodded sagely, "See, that's what I mean. Everything that happens to the Earth is naturally supposed to happen. Humans can never have an effect on the planet."
I asked if maybe we could accelerate a process that's already underway. "No! Things only happen naturally!" I explained the effects of the introduction of catalysts in chemistry; I might as well not have bothered; he'd never studied chemistry, and doesn't believe in it. I asked, "if humans cannot affect the planet, did the cities naturally pave themselves, then?" and he failed to see what I was getting at. I tried one last time: "We go through some of the feebback loops that govern temperature, and think if there's any way any of them could be influenced."
He has no idea what a feedback loop is.
What he does know is that Al Gore believes in something called "global warming." He has no idea what that 'global warming' is, but if Gore believes in it, it must therefore be a myth.
And then there are people like one of my other buddies, who are equally ignorant of any of the science, but who think that extra years of liberal arts education translate into universal knowledge. He staunchly maintains that "They proved global warming!" -- again having no idea what 'global warming' even is -- and there's no penetrating his delusions of omniscience.
If someone tells me their car doesn't work, I ask what's wrong. I don't immediately tell them "it's the solenoid!" before I bother to find out that the car starts, but the gears stick, for example.
|
|
Party loyalty is BS, choose a person that stands for your values and vote that person whether that person is a liberal political icon, to a right wing conservative. If they stand for your values, then who gives a crap what political party they stand for. (Always check their political past as well the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior.
What he said. I love living in New Hampshire for that reason. I can walk into the polling place on election day, register right there as a Republican or Democrat, and still check off boxes all over the ticket, based on individuals, instead of being stuck with some single-party ballot. Then, on the way out the door, I can sign a piece of paper that returns me to Independent status.
Why would I want to be stuck with one party? Both have good people in them that I'd vote for (with my favorites seeming to be at the fringes, like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). Both have creeps in them that I wouldn't trust with a wooden nickel, let alone my retirement.
Seeing is believing.
Are you sure?
Well...Its "sad" to know that not only Mexicans are that daft... In the end we are all "humans", no matter the nationality...
|
|
That article is so right, as we have seen here. The same applies to people trying to judge how open minded they are as well. I don't see how saying you will not support someone who believes in creationism is open-minded, especially when that same person said that it should be taught as an alternative alongside evolution. I personally could care less what someone thinks about how the world was created. There do not seem to be any big creation or dinosaur crisis looming on the horizion.
I will tell you this much. I am a Republican who supported Obama until I started to listen to what he was proposing and saying. The more I heard from him in debates and interviews, the more I realized that he did not support my views and I could not support him.
Also the idea that party loyalty is BS is crazy talk if you ask me. You join a party because it represents certain things that you believe in. I became a Republican because I believe in a strong national defense, lower taxes, less government regulation, protection of innocent life via restrictions on abortion, tough penalties for crime, and personal freedom. Democrats, according to their party platform, support higher taxes, more government restriction, freedom of abortion, and a softer, more understanding attitude towards criminals. I do not see how it is being closed minded to say, over all, I will support Republicans over Democrats, because they believe the same things I do.
|
I was wondering about this just the other day. I have never seen someone change their mind over a debate no matter how polite and well informed. So why do we spend so much effort in debate? It seems pointless. How do you really change someone’s mind?
I guess if anyone knew the answer to this they would be emperor of the world.
As surprising as this may be, there are people who do change their minds in a debate. I happen to be one of them. I'm generally swayed by convincing, rational arguments, and it doesn't matter who makes them. In the past two Canadian elections, I've voted for two different parties, and it's looking like I may vote for yet another different one in the upcoming election.
There are people in the world who don't have strong opinions, like myself. I imagine all this debate is an attempt to sway us.
When you look for it, it is easy to see we are emotional creatures and not rational. I see it in myself all the time and I probably do not see all of it.
I'm luring you into a false sense of security...
Maybe that should be your presidential strategy.
Assuming it is not already.
I don't see how saying you will not support someone who believes in creationism is open-minded, especially when that same person said that it should be taught as an alternative alongside evolution. I personally could care less what someone thinks about how the world was created. There do not seem to be any big creation or dinosaur crisis looming on the horizion.
A few points to consider:
1. Does that person also want Hindu, Norse, Native American, etc. creation myths taught alongside? If so, there's not enough time in the school year. If not, why Christian creation myth specifically? To indicate that it's "more correct" or "more scientific" than all those others?
2. The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the world was created.
3. The main point is whether we're teaching that evaluation of evidence is a key aspect of science. If we teach creationism as a "viable alternative," we are in effect saying that physical evidence is meaningless. In turn, this undermines the whole point of science. If that's the case, go ahead and just throw out the class and tell all the kids to make up whatever explanations for things they feel like, and give them all an "A." That's as open'-minded as you get!
4. Pursuant to point (4), I do see a big crisis looming -- namely, that America is losing its edge in technical (scientific) fields. Biochemical reasearch is going to Singapore. Sweden is way ahead of us in aerospace industries. Japan and France are way ahead of us in energy production. Politicians like George Bush and Al Gore make policy decisions on scientific issues without undertanding ANY of the science behind them.
*quietly backs away from the thread*
*pushes poodle back in since he started it*
*yelps*
|
|
That article is so right, as we have seen here. The same applies to people trying to judge how open minded they are as well. I don't see how saying you will not support someone who believes in creationism is open-minded, especially when that same person said that it should be taught as an alternative alongside evolution. I personally could care less what someone thinks about how the world was created. There do not seem to be any big creation or dinosaur crisis looming on the horizion.
I will tell you this much. I am a Republican who supported Obama until I started to listen to what he was proposing and saying. The more I heard from him in debates and interviews, the more I realized that he did not support my views and I could not support him.
Also the idea that party loyalty is BS is crazy talk if you ask me. You join a party because it represents certain things that you believe in. I became a Republican because I believe in a strong national defense, lower taxes, less government regulation, protection of innocent life via restrictions on abortion, tough penalties for crime, and personal freedom. Democrats, according to their party platform, support higher taxes, more government restriction, freedom of abortion, and a softer, more understanding attitude towards criminals. I do not see how it is being closed minded to say, over all, I will support Republicans over Democrats, because they believe the same things I do.
As too the first comment about creationism being taught as science well it simply isn't science. "What can be asserted without proof can equally be dismissed without proof" no science. no facts, no proof no teaching.
As too the second about party loyalty if you want too follow a whole organization who most of the time doesn't know what they want half the time (thats too all political parties not just republicans) thats your business the republican or democratic parties beliefs are dictated only by the person or persons who lead it.|
|
1. Does that person also want Hindu, Norse, Native American, etc. creation myths taught alongside? If so, there's not enough time in the school year. If not, why Christian creation myth specifically? To indicate that it's "more correct" or "more scientific" than all those others?
I personally don't agree with it being taught in school, unless it is in a philosophy class. I was mearly commenting on what I saw as the hypocracy of saying essentailly "I'm more open minded because I don't support people who don't think like me."
4. Pursuant to point (4), I do see a big crisis looming -- namely, that America is losing its edge in technical (scientific) fields. Biochemical reasearch is going to Singapore. Sweden is way ahead of us in aerospace industries. Japan and France are way ahead of us in energy production. Politicians like George Bush and Al Gore make policy decisions on scientific issues without undertanding ANY of the science behind them.
That is a completely different issue than a creation or dinosaur crisis. I agree that something has to be done to stem the bleeding in the science and research fields. However, I feel that it requires a reexamination of our whole education system. The countries you listed are beating us in those areas is because of two things. The first is that they have much stricter standards for primary and secondary education than the United States does, and second, many of their brightest and most promising young scientists are being educated in the US and then taking that knowledge back to their home countries. However, I think that if we fix the former, the latter should take care of itself as more American students become qualified to enter those programs at our universities.
|
I don't see how saying you will not support someone who believes in creationism is open-minded, especially when that same person said that it should be taught as an alternative alongside evolution. I personally could care less what someone thinks about how the world was created. There do not seem to be any big creation or dinosaur crisis looming on the horizion.A few points to consider:
1. Does that person also want Hindu, Norse, Native American, etc. creation myths taught alongside? If so, there's not enough time in the school year. If not, why Christian creation myth specifically? To indicate that it's "more correct" or "more scientific" than all those others?
I had a similar problem when attending a World Music class. I kept thinking "Why are we studying these particular cultures? I'm sure there are equally valuable ones elsewhere. What is the basis for inclusion?" I'd rather study one thing well than several things to no end.
Interestingly, there is a strong initiative in Canada to teach Native creationism in schools, in an effort to help restore their culture.
Good post, CourtFool. Pretty much goes along with everything I learned while studying music - the best musicians are not the most talented, but the ones who have the greatest capacity for self-reflection (same goes for teaching, by the way). In fact, the ones with natural talent are frequently condescending towards those with less ability, whom the talented expect to measure up to their high standards.
And then you have the musicians who think they are a gift to humanity but are in fact a curse. Mental breakdowns on American Idol prove this if nothing else.
I was wondering about this just the other day. I have never seen someone change their mind over a debate no matter how polite and well informed. So why do we spend so much effort in debate? It seems pointless. How do you really change someone’s mind?
I guess if anyone knew the answer to this they would be emperor of the world.
Actually I am the Emperor of this world. Oops, correction. I gave this world to Lisa Stevens. I'm in charge of the 7th dimension. You all should visit sometime.
|
|
Frankly if creationists would take the time to come up with some facts, quantitative measurable outcomes, and JUST ANY SCIENCE behind their assertion of creationism then I'll take it more seriously. I won't agree with it, but I'll take it seriously.
Honestly, like I said to Kith, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. However, I also don't find it to be the least bit open-minded to say that everyone who supports creationism is a Republican, that makes them close-minded, and as a result I will not support them. I see that as being equally closed-minded.
[The countries you listed are beating us in those areas is because of two things. The first is that they have much stricter standards for primary and secondary education than the United States does.
That, and the fact that Singapore will provide first-rate facilities and funding for embryonic stem cell research, and the U.S. won't.
But, yes, we seriously need higher standards. If the science ones were worth anything -- or if the existing standards were at least enforced -- then people from Texas to Alaska would know why creationism isn't taught in science class, without needing it to be explained to them yet again. Also, why is basic automotive maintenance not taught in the public schools? It would be far more useful for many people than a unit on Chaucer. Why don't kids learn the rudiments of personal finance: how to balance a checkbook, why you shouldn't max out all your credit cards, why subprime loans are a bad idea? A lot more of that might have spared us our current looming financial crisis...
Honestly, like I said to Kirth, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. However, I also don't find it to be the least bit open-minded to say that everyone who supports creationism is a Republican, that makes them close-minded, and as a result I will not support them. I see that as being equally closed-minded.
David's point has merit. Likewise, the people who say "evolution is a fact!" -- without having any idea what the evidence for/against is -- really need to think about their position. Again, better science education would help here.
|
|
[The countries you listed are beating us in those areas is because of two things. The first is that they have much stricter standards for primary and secondary education than the United States does.That, and the fact that Singapore will provide first-rate facilities and funding for embryonic stem cell research, and the U.S. won't.
But, yes, we seriously need higher standards. If the science ones were worth anything -- or if the existing standards were at least enforced -- then people from Texas to Alaska would know why creationism isn't taught in science class, without needing it to be explained to them yet again. Also, why is basic automotive maintenance not taught in the public schools? It would be far more useful for many people than a unit on Chaucer. Why don't kids learn the rudiments of personal finance: how to balance a checkbook, why you shouldn't max out all your credit cards, why subprime loans are a bad idea? A lot more of that might have spared us our current looming financial crisis...
One of the classes that I actually teach is financial literacy. It is now a graduation requirement here in Utah. Personally I favor a system like England had when I lived there in the early 90's. Each student upon entering what we would call high school was given an apptitude test, those who showed an apptitude for scholastics went into a standard education program while those who did not were offered the option of vocational training. It would cut down on so many problems is students who did not want to take traditional classes were allowed to enter a program that would prepare them for a career.
*quietly backs away from the thread*That's good, because you were wrong anyways... I'll always change my opinion based on the evidence and nothing you can say will change my mind about that.
Now if we can just get someone to bring up 4e in here, my work will be done.
Did you hear that? It sounded like Teter sliming down the hall.
In before Teter!
|
Similarly, without access to objective evidence, we are terrible at determining whether a candidate is telling us the truth. Most large-scale psychological studies suggest that the average person is incapable of accurately predicting whether someone is lying. In most studies, our abilities to make such predictions, based on facial expressions and body language, are no greater than by chance alone -- hardly a recommendation for choosing a presidential candidate based upon a gut feeling that he or she is honest.
...thus, the safe (and easy) thing to do is to look for the little (D) or (R) after the candidate's name...that's a better indicator of what he will do in office than the promises he makes before an election. And this is part of the reason voters won't budge...they see thru the BS and recognize that Obama would do things in office that traditionally Democrats have done and that McCain would do things in office that traditionally Republicans have done.
I was wondering about this just the other day. I have never seen someone change their mind over a debate no matter how polite and well informed. So why do we spend so much effort in debate?
1. Some people just enjoy the debate (or like arguing).
2. Assuming the debate is in public, the goal may not be to change your opponent's mind, but to lay out enough evidence that a neutral person would side with you.3. I like debating to hear the other side's arguments...and I may end up changing my position.
How do you really change someone’s mind?
Mind control?
(Always check their political past as well the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior.
True, but that requires work...it's easier to just look for the (D) or (R). (And if his past behavior is so different than the D or the R, then maybe he should switch parties or go independent.)
|
|
But, yes, we seriously need higher standards. If the science ones were worth anything -- or if the existing standards were at least enforced -- then people from Texas to Alaska would know why creationism isn't taught in science class, without needing it to be explained to them yet again. Also, why is basic automotive maintenance not taught in the public schools? It would be far more useful for many people than a unit on Chaucer. Why don't kids learn the rudiments of personal finance: how to balance a checkbook, why you shouldn't max out all your credit cards, why subprime loans are a bad idea? A lot more of that might have spared us our current looming financial crisis...
In Utah, financial literacy is a required class for graduation. As far as reforming the education system goes, I would like to see more money for vocational programs, so that the students that are in a science classroom. for example. are the ones who want to be there. Those that don't do well in a traditional environment could then prepare for a career while taking a few basic classes and get jobs out of high school that don't involve "pull around to the second window."
|
|
In Utah, financial literacy is a required class for graduation. As far as reforming the education system goes, I would like to see more money for vocational programs, so that the students that are in a science classroom. for example. are the ones who want to be there. Those that don't do well in a traditional environment could then prepare for a career while taking a few basic classes and get jobs out of high school that don't involve "pull around to the second window."
But, yes, we seriously need higher standards. If the science ones were worth anything -- or if the existing standards were at least enforced -- then people from Texas to Alaska would know why creationism isn't taught in science class, without needing it to be explained to them yet again. Also, why is basic automotive maintenance not taught in the public schools? It would be far more useful for many people than a unit on Chaucer. Why don't kids learn the rudiments of personal finance: how to balance a checkbook, why you shouldn't max out all your credit cards, why subprime loans are a bad idea? A lot more of that might have spared us our current looming financial crisis...
The Student Success programs in Ontario are currently driving at exactly what you describe, David. I don't think we've seen an effect yet, but it might be a good start. Letting kids acquire practical knowledge instead of just overburdening the University system with people who would just struggle in it to no end.
|
|
Honestly, like I said to Kirth, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. However, I also don't find it to be the least bit open-minded to say that everyone who supports creationism is a Republican, that makes them close-minded, and as a result I will not support them. I see that as being equally closed-minded.David's point has merit. Likewise, the people who say "evolution is a fact!" -- without having any idea what the evidence for/against is -- really need to think about their position. Again, better science education would help here.
I am familiar with most christian science, but the simple fact there are mountains of evidence toward evolution and very very little against it. Which is why we now consider evolution a scientific principle not just a theory.
That I can agree with you about, financial classes should be taught in high school, and made mandatory. Like it or not most of them after high school they enter the real world and have to start taking care of themselves and most have no idea what their doing.
Where are the parents?
|
Another quirky bit of research Conservatives are happier people.
i could flip the tone of the article and say "liberals are miserable due to a sense of unfulfilled entitlement".
it is interesting that conservatives of all economic strata seemed happier, the article didn't differentiate.
|
|
Similarly, without access to objective evidence, we are terrible at determining whether a candidate is telling us the truth. Most large-scale psychological studies suggest that the average person is incapable of accurately predicting whether someone is lying. In most studies, our abilities to make such predictions, based on facial expressions and body language, are no greater than by chance alone -- hardly a recommendation for choosing a presidential candidate based upon a gut feeling that he or she is honest....thus, the safe (and easy) thing to do is to look for the little (D) or (R) after the candidate's name...that's a better indicator of what he will do in office than the promises he makes before an election. And this is part of the reason voters won't budge...they see thru the BS and recognize that Obama would do things in office that traditionally Democrats have done and that McCain would do things in office that traditionally Republicans have done.
I was wondering about this just the other day. I have never seen someone change their mind over a debate no matter how polite and well informed. So why do we spend so much effort in debate?1. Some people just enjoy the debate (or like arguing).
2. Assuming the debate is in public, the goal may not be to change your opponent's mind, but to lay out enough evidence that a neutral person would side with you.
3. I like debating to hear the other side's arguments...and I may end up changing my position.How do you really change someone’s mind?
Mind control?
(Always check their political past as well the best predicter of future behavior is past behavior.True, but that requires work...it's easier to just look for the (D) or (R). (And if his past behavior is so different than the D or the R, then maybe he should switch parties or go independent.)
The reason you should take the time to look into who your voting for is the simple fact that we live in a Republic and we don't make every decision that faces the country, we vote people in to make these decisions for us. You need to know who your voting for. If you don't know much about this person and they get voted in and make decisions totally antithetical to your sensibilities it's on your head, you didn't check them out, so it's partially your fault.
Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?