American kids, dumber than dirt
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
America is ending one the most successful runs of any nation in recorded history. Cheap raw materials, incredibly cheap energy, vastly expanded markets: it's a recipe for a cake walk -- and it was a cake walk. The problem is, when you give successive generations great wealth without having to work very hard for it, what happens? We don't have to look far for case studies. It's so common in wealthy families that the expression is: the first generation creates the wealth, the second builds upon it, and the third spends it.
Unfortunately, we've borrowed our way well into a fourth generation. If these kids were even slightly interested in learning, they could do so easily. Libraries and any internet-capable computer are tremendous resources. The teachers and books these kids are given are also quite good. But the culture they live in discourages learning. It values fiscal superiority over hard work. In fact, it glorifies those who get wealthy fast over those who work their lifetimes for it. It gives feel-good advice, such as, "Go your own way; break the rules; don't listen to others," which is only good advice once you already know all the rules. Getting to know those rules, however, takes a lot of hard work and time. In other words, we're a culture that values results, not effort.
It's the curse of success. It's the third/fourth generation effect. It will all correct itself naturally and there's not much we can do about it -- except put our fingers in our ears and wait.
Didn't work out that way in Russia, though, did it? Whereas Japan, which has severely limited sources of energy and raw materials, has done very well. Conclusion: culture matters more.
Don't get me wrong, America has a top 10% which is incredibly well-educated and motivated. My concern, and I think the concern in the article, is not for that 10% but instead for the other 90% who are leaving high school with neither abilities nor the motivation to get them. Worse, the opportunities which came so easily for their parents and grandparents are waning. This leaves 90% of a generation about to face a situation where the performance they can expect from their lives is: little times less times not much at all.
All over the world, people want to do exactly what the guy complains about: tune in, turn on, and drop out.
You can either view this as the beginning of the singularity or a sign that we're all going to turn into mostly immobile blobs of flesh wired into a continuously self-pleasuring electronic grid. Or perhaps both of those things are the same thing. As far as me, I'm optimistic that changes in society and technology will lead to great advances in human knowledge and science. I think as some generations plug into the grid other generations in other cultures will do all the heavy lifting. On the other hand, when it comes to difficult things, like space exploration or politics, I'm not so optimistic. It's hard to have a democracy when people don't know what "agriculture" is.
According to the journalist's source, when posed the stumper about definining agriculture, "Not a single student could do it". I sometimes feel like I'm the only adult who actually remembers being young, or remembers going to school. Remember school: Often enough, a teacher (or professor) would stand up, clear his throat, and grandiloquently ask,
Now, could somebody define the word "agriculture"?.
Of course, everyone rolls his eyes, and nobody answers the stupid question. NOBODY answers those questions--because you automatically become an idiot when you do so:
I believe I know the answer, sir. Agriculture is the process of raising edible plantlife on a large scale for purposes of trade and direct consumption[1]
Obviously, the journalist's methodology suggests that he himself is a functional illiterate. NO--you don't ask your friend the cranky high school teacher his opinion and then extrapolate it out to the world. Bad science. Bad reporting.
People don't change that much, really. Evolution is slow. A stupid generation (evidenced by IM-engendered spelling skills) can easily be followed by a smart one. Genuine declines in intelligence are possible, but that has to do with dysgenics, a subject which most San Francisco newspapers generally won't touch on.
[1] I got this off the top of my head--I hope it's right.
I didn't view it as science or reporting. I felt the guy was just trying to write his weekly column. Such articles are typically mismashes of personal stories, legend, observations, opinion, etc.
There is a bit of generational relativism going on (as far as opinion, not science or fact.) Are we really worse off than those generations 100 years ago that could live off the land? Probably not -- unless we need to start living off the land again. Then it would suck. We're evolving into something. I think it's interesting to speculate about what that might be.
"Students did the work on time, writing real definitions to the first two and last two terms, but for the thirty or forty in the middle they free-associated whatever nonsense they wanted. 'Hawley-Smoot Tariff: I have no idea, Mr. De Moulin,' might be one entry. Or 'Blue Eagle: FDR's pet bird who got very sad when he died.' Educational theorists call such acts "day-to-day resistance" -- a phrase that comes from theorizing about slavery...
"Of course, fooling the teacher is of little consequence. Quite possibly my sister's teacher even knew of the ruse and joked about it with his colleagues, the way masters chuckled that their slaves were so stupid they had to be told every evening to bring in the hoes or they would leave them out in the night dew."
So, no, you're not the only adult who remembers what school was like.
And school is worse today -- students have more restrictions, more rote testing, and less academic freedom than ever. No wonder they feel and act like imprisoned, rebellious slaves.
American high schools are less effective than they could be because they employ bitter old cranks that the students wisely ignore.
Also: "any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life"
You no comment good.
I suspect well off neighborhoods would still in general have 'better' schools, simply due to having more resources, but even the poorest of parents would have at least some competitively exposed, hence at least decent, options. If nothing else, charity, churches and such would help out the neediest of kids.
As it stands now, a poor parent in an inner city (even more so in one as much at war with religious anything at all as Oakland), is pretty much left without viable alternatives to the local public indoctrination institutions.
What if both parents work? What if everywhere else they can afford to live has public schools just as bad?
But are there a lot of dumb people who BECOME millionaires, without winning the lottery?
> One of the most valuable things my father taught me is an old Yorkshire saying: where there's muck, there's brass. Meaning that unpleasant work pays. And more to the point here, vice versa. Work people like doesn't pay well, for reasons of supply and demand. The most extreme case is developing programming languages, which doesn't pay at all, because people like it so much they do it for free.
There are more reliable ways to get rich than the way that we go about it on this forum. It's just that they're unpleasant enough that most people would prefer to stay poor. Construction contracting is a good example.
Ever watch your parents try to use MS Word or even a web browser? It's painful. Kids today may not know how to use a ruler but they can use 3DS Max. Let's see the Greatest Generation do that. Nonlinear video editing--? What's that?!? Kids today do it all the time and post to YouTube.
This month's Scientific American Mind says: "A generation ago TV programs such as I Love Lucy, Dragnet and Starsky and Hutch required virtually no concentration to follow. Beginning in 1981 with Hill Street Blues, single-episode dramas began to weave together as many as 10 threads into their plotlines. The hit drama 24 connects the lives of 20 or more characters, each with a distinct story."
The subject of the article is massive IQ gains during the 20th century. "If asked what dogs and rabbits have in common, a boy in 1900 would have said, "You use dogs to hunt rabbits." A boy in 2007 would say, "They are both mammals." It would never have occurred to someone a century ago to offer something so trivial. Who cares that dogs and rabbits are both mammals? What is important is what things are useful and under one's control." The context is working on abstractions with no concrete referents. (Although the article badly botches the proffered explanation of what a mammal is.)
I've no references to quote, but I'm pretty sure soap operas have been doing that many years earlier, perhaps even when on the radio.
It's also true of serialized novels published in magazines even before that.