Let's make America smart again

[Roger Ramjets]

There is a way back that both sober conservatives and thinking liberals might craft,

but it won't happen because the real impediment isn't lack of education, or the news media, or democracy, but simply human nature.

People didn't vote for Trump because they they lacked the critical thinking skills required to see through his lies, but simply because the truth doesn't matter to them. What's important is supporting your tribe and repelling attackers. If swallowing lies and denying facts is what it takes to do that, then truth is the first casualty.

And you can't 'educate' them out of it because their ignorance isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's willful - a necessity to defend their culture (numerous threads in this forum are proof of that...). There are two tribes in America who have been at war with each other since 1861, with no indication that hostilities are about to end. The real ignorants are those who don't see it.

Scientists study the behavior patterns of animals in the wild and try to understand the dynamics of it, but they don't try to change it. The mistake that 'sober conservatives and thinking liberals' make is thinking that we can change our behavior patterns for the better. But history has shown that we can't. We are what we are, and the only way it will change is through evolution.

 

[Belz...]

but it won't happen because the real impediment isn't lack of education, or the news media, or democracy, but simply human nature.

People didn't vote for Trump because they they lacked the critical thinking skills required to see through his lies, but simply because the truth doesn't matter to them.

I don't know. If experience has taught me anything on this forum it's that a LOT of people lack critical thinking skills, and that most of those who don't have serious blind spots on certain topics; yours truly included.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If America could find better candidates for office than the latest two, might that resolve some of the issue?

What obstacles do qualified and reasonably "low lying percentage" candidates need to overcome in order to get on the ballot? Is the primary system in need of improvement? Is the nomination system, or the vetting system, in need of improvement? Is the lack of objectivity in media a problem, or something that's always been an issue?

Why are we left with such poor choices?

 

[LSSBB]

but it won't happen because the real impediment isn't lack of education, or the news media, or democracy, but simply human nature.

People didn't vote for Trump because they they lacked the critical thinking skills required to see through his lies, but simply because the truth doesn't matter to them. What's important is supporting your tribe and repelling attackers. If swallowing lies and denying facts is what it takes to do that, then truth is the first casualty.

And you can't 'educate' them out of it because their ignorance isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's willful - a necessity to defend their culture (numerous threads in this forum are proof of that...). There are two tribes in America who have been at war with each other since 1861, with no indication that hostilities are about to end. The real ignorants are those who don't see it.

Scientists study the behavior patterns of animals in the wild and try to understand the dynamics of it, but they don't try to change it. The mistake that 'sober conservatives and thinking liberals' make is thinking that we can change our behavior patterns for the better. But history has shown that we can't. We are what we are, and the only way it will change is through evolution.

Citation, please, that anti-bias education does not work.

 

[Aridas]

If America could find better candidates for office than the latest two, might that resolve some of the issue?

Likely so. Also, more honest advertising might help, too. Political elections frequently get rather dirty, which tends to reduce overall trust in all candidates.

What obstacles do qualified and reasonably "low lying percentage" candidates need to overcome in order to get on the ballot? Is the primary system in need of improvement? Is the nomination system, or the vetting system, in need of improvement? Is the lack of objectivity in media a problem, or something that's always been an issue?

Why are we left with such poor choices?

Personally, I'm strongly inclined to lay the strongest blame directly on the higher-ups in the Republican Party who decided that "no compromise" was a good strategy, that undermining trust in the government and science as a long-term strategy to try to retain and strengthen their power in a time of changing demographics was desirable, and that people and proposals should be evaluated more strongly or solely based on who presents them than on their own merits and flaws. Notably more could be said, but the higher-ups in the Republican Party seem to have increasingly been putting party over nation or democracy rather consistently for more than a few years now. The Democratic Party quite certainly deserves blame for a number of things, too, of course, corruption among seemingly more of their leaders, for example, but, by and large, those things seem to be on a notably more personal level than the systemic attempts at undermining the system to make it work in their favor and get what they want, regardless of the larger repercussions, that the Republicans have been employing.

 

[MuDPhuD]

but it won't happen because the real impediment isn't lack of education, or the news media, or democracy, but simply human nature.



People didn't vote for Trump because they they lacked the critical thinking skills required to see through his lies, but simply because the truth doesn't matter to them. What's important is supporting your tribe and repelling attackers. If swallowing lies and denying facts is what it takes to do that, then truth is the first casualty.



And you can't 'educate' them out of it because their ignorance isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's willful - a necessity to defend their culture (numerous threads in this forum are proof of that...). There are two tribes in America who have been at war with each other since 1861, with no indication that hostilities are about to end. The real ignorants are those who don't see it.



Scientists study the behavior patterns of animals in the wild and try to understand the dynamics of it, but they don't try to change it. The mistake that 'sober conservatives and thinking liberals' make is thinking that we can change our behavior patterns for the better. But history has shown that we can't. We are what we are, and the only way it will change is through evolution.

An interesting point of view, not entirely without merit, although I think you are a bit too pessimistic.

The urge to defend your culture against attack is certainly a powerful instinct.

However, a great deal of progress has been made, especially regarding sexism, racism, and tolerance of LGBTQ lifestyles. The younger generation in America (my children), through broad exposure and education, do not have the fears that they are "losing" their country expressed by many on the political right. On the contrary they feel the political right is now positioned to undo 60 or so years of social progress. Thus in my experience education of the young can certainly change our future direction, not to eliminate our biological instincts, but certainly to engender tolerance of diverse appearances and culture.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

a great deal of progress has been made...

This progress was largely an illusion. It was only ever embraced by a minority of the population, with the rest merely paying lip service to it. And current indications are that the country as a whole is rapidly sliding backwards.

In this election more people voted against progress than for it. Add the huge number of people who couldn't even be bothered voting at all, and it's obvious that the vast majority of the population is either anti-progress or apathetic towards it. True progressives need to accept that they are not in the majority now (if they ever were) and be prepared for the long dark times ahead.

the political right is now positioned to undo 60 or so years of social progress.

That '60 years of progress' was only temporary. Now comes the backlash, as conservatives finally find their voice and openly reject it. And in case you think that too will only be temporary, look around at other countries which have a similar history of cultural repression. Take Iran for example - at one time it seemed to be progressing nicely, then boom! - straight back to the ultraconservative religious state that it remains today.

'But', you may say, 'the US is nothing like Iran!'. If that's what you think then you just haven't opened your eyes. A large percentage of the population wants a religious state, and even more share their views on race, women and gays. If these people had their way we would be just like Iran. And now they have the power...

Thus in my experience education of the young can certainly change our future direction, not to eliminate our biological instincts, but certainly to engender tolerance of diverse appearances and culture.

Theoretically it can, but in practice it won't. Young people tend to rebel against their parents as they assert themselves, but become more like them as they age. And since parents indoctrinate children with their mores and decide what they will learn, the opportunity for lasting social change is limited.

Conservatives know this well, which is why they denigrate public education and promote home schooling. And now that they have a clear majority politically, you can bet they will consolidate their hold over young people. Progress doesn't have a chance in this environment - regardless of what plans we could theoretically implement to give it one.

If you want to do something that will truly make a difference, finish what Lincoln started - make the South secede from the Union and split the US into two countries, progressive and conservative. Let anyone who doesn't like one country move to the other. Then we can get on with making things better for those who want it...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Citation, please, that anti-bias education does not work.

Citation that it does?

 

[LSSBB]

Citation that it does?

Running away from backing your assertion?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't know. If experience has taught me anything on this forum it's that a LOT of people lack critical thinking skills,

Critical thinking is overrated. Trump didn't get to be President by thinking critically...

and that most of those who don't have serious blind spots on certain topics; yours truly included.

Everyone has blind spots. For example:- I used to think that deep down most people are reasonable human beings who just want to get along - boy was I wrong!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Running away from backing your assertion?

I'm a skeptic. So sorry, but I tend not to believe that something works without evidence. Got any?

 

[LSSBB]

I'm a skeptic. So sorry, but I tend not to believe that something works without evidence. Got any?

So wouldn't it be proper to say "I doubt you can 'educate' them out of it because their ignorance isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's willful" instead of "you can't 'educate' them out of it because their ignorance isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's willful"?

In any case, habituation points a way to modification of bias behavior.

Automatic self-regulation: From habit to goal pursuit

In the present chapter, we have examined automatic self-regulation by analyzing the cognitive processes that allow people to pursue their goals in daily life without relying on conscious awareness. We have seen that goals can be conceptualized as mental representations of outcomes or behaviors that are associated with positive affect, and which can be activated by external cues. Goals are embedded in rich knowledge structures that include contexts for pursuing the goals, as well as effective means and procedures for goal pursuit, all based on an individual’s earlier experiences. To the degree that they have been automatized as habits by frequent past performance, goal-directed actions can be triggered once a goal is activated, and they support effective goal pursuit independent of conscious intentions. We have further seen how automatic processes of attention, perception, evaluation, and executive control support automatic self-regulation by ensuring privileged processing of goal-relevant information and making sure that people recognize opportunities to pursue their current goals. Finally, we have examined the occurrence of experiences of self-agency with regard to behaviors that are produced by automatic processes of selfregulation. Specifically, although people often experience agency concerning their own behavior, these experiences might emerge from performing and observing actions and the results they produce, rather than reflecting the actual cause of the mechanisms driving goaldirected actions.
Together, the processes of automatic self-regulation that we have discussed in this chapter elucidate how people can function so effectively in their dynamic living environments: the pursuit of many daily-life goals, such as socializing, travelling to work, or eating healthy, or can be “outsourced” to processes that do not require conscious awareness. This way, humans can focus on less ordinary endeavors, such as finding a romantic partner, writing an article, or cooking a Thanksgiving dinner. While the processes that support this automatic self-regulation often let people perceive the world in a somewhat inaccurate and biased way, they are functional, for example in that they increase the likelihood of their detecting and acting on good opportunities. A potential downside of automatic selfregulation may be that habits make us conservative: once a habit has developed, changing it by means of conscious intentions becomes increasingly difficult, even if the habitual behavior has become undesirable. When sufficient resources are available, however, conscious processes can intervene to change behavior, so that ultimately self-regulation can be automatized again in new, desirable ways.

See also:

The Influence of Multicultural Educational Practices on Student Outcomes and Intergroup Relations

The empirical research reveals that all five components of multicultural educational practice outlined by Banks to have a strong, positive impact on the educational outcomes of students of color and to improved intergroup relations, although research has been stronger in some areas (e.g., prejudice reduction and some equity pedagogies such as cooperative learning) than others (e.g., the specific effects of content integration and knowledge construction). The evidence suggests several additional conclusions: (1) Multicultural educational practice has benefit for the academic outcomes of all students, not just students of color. (2) Multicultural educational practice is most effective when implemented with careful attention to issues of race and power. (3) The academic and intergroup relations outcomes are linked, such that efforts designed to improve one improve the other.

I wouldn't say that the methodology is mature for anti-bias education, and I think it's a bit premature to say it cannot work.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm a skeptic. So sorry, but I tend not to believe that something works without evidence. Got any?

Also, there was this, I posted earlier:

Yes, and I'll just add this:

Research says there are ways to reduce racial bias. Calling people racist isn’t one of them.

By extension, maybe calling them ignorant won't make them embrace intellectualism. Maybe dialogue and engagement by "smart people" will.

The underlying paper:

Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing

Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters’ doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans’ average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments.

 

[psionl0]

People didn't vote for Trump because they they lacked the critical thinking skills required to see through his lies, but simply because the truth doesn't matter to them. What's important is supporting your tribe and repelling attackers. If swallowing lies and denying facts is what it takes to do that, then truth is the first casualty.

It seems to be a little more than the "old boys" network in this case.

There seems to be evidence that many voters are fed up with a status quo that ignores large numbers of voters. If voting in somebody as divisive as Trump is the only way to shake things up then so be it.

 

[Trakar]

but it won't happen because the real impediment isn't lack of education, or the news media, or democracy, but simply human nature...

...There are two tribes in America who have been at war with each other since 1861, with no indication that hostilities are about to end. The real ignorants are those who don't see it...

Only point I'd argue with you about is the second bit there.

There are lots of little tribes, that is one of the pratfalls of "melting pots," individuals are constantly swirling mixes of desires, dislikes, and motivations. Which sets of causes they are willing to ally themselves with depend upon which individual preferences are currently prioritized the highest, which are the immediate pressures motivating them to lend their support to one set of causes versus alternative sets of causes.

The largest problems generally arise when all viable options seem to be greatly flawed by most individuals.

 

[Darat]

Are you certain you linked to the correct post? Because I read nothing in the one you linked to which is the opposite of what LSSBB stated. Moreover, I certainly have the impression that your belief is that no judgement on whether one lies more than another can be made because, for all intents and purposes, no sample can be free of bias or representative enough. If this is not representative of your position, then why do you refuse to accept any judgement that Trump lies more?

Stripped of all the deceptive language it boils down to "Hillary is a big liar" and anything that might possible indicate that she isn't the worse ever liar in the whole of creation (she told the serpent what to say to Eve) must be wrong because Hillary is a big liar. You are not arguing about any conclusions that they've reached via reason nor evidence, and so no reason or evidence will ever make them change their minds.

 

[Belz...]

Critical thinking is overrated. Trump didn't get to be President by thinking critically...

Well I think he got fewer votes than Romney did so he didn't really energise the voters or anything. It's just that Clinton energised them even less.

Everyone has blind spots. For example:- I used to think that deep down most people are reasonable human beings who just want to get along - boy was I wrong!

Yeah life tends to make a cynic out of me, too.

 

[MuDPhuD]

This progress was largely an illusion. It was only ever embraced by a minority of the population, with the rest merely paying lip service to it. And current indications are that the country as a whole is rapidly sliding backwards.



In this election more people voted against progress than for it.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

No, more people voted for Hillary (just slightly more than half).
Also some fraction of Trump voters voted for him because they did not "trust" Hillary, although they were in fact ideologically progressive. Thus, in fact there are more individuals in the progressive camp.

Add the huge number of people who couldn't even be bothered voting at all, and it's obvious that the vast majority of the population is either anti-progress or apathetic towards it. True progressives need to accept that they are not in the majority now (if they ever were) and be prepared for the long dark times ahead.

I had many an argument with otherwise progressive individuals who would not vote for Hillary, generally because they had been mislead by non-factual news stories about her.
There is not a "vast majority" on either side. In fact, this vote is so close that the popular vote went progressive, while the electoral college went conservative.

Nevertheless, as you say, dark times are ahead for progressives in USA.

.

That '60 years of progress' was only temporary. Now comes the backlash, as conservatives finally find their voice and openly reject it. And in case you think that too will only be temporary, look around at other countries which have a similar history of cultural repression. Take Iran for example - at one time it seemed to be progressing nicely, then boom! - straight back to the ultraconservative religious state that it remains today.



'But', you may say, 'the US is nothing like Iran!'. If that's what you think then you just haven't opened your eyes. A large percentage of the population wants a religious state, and even more share their views on race, women and gays. If these people had their way we would be just like Iran. And now they have the power...

I agree, this is a serious concern. The Republicans have gerrymandered the house to the point where I doubt there will every be a democratic majority there, the republican president will appoint regressive judges to the courts, and the voter disenfranchisement policies partly in place now, will continue to be strengthened. Things look very gloomy indeed. This is why people are protesting, and will continue protesting, throughout this administration.

Theoretically it can, but in practice it won't. Young people tend to rebel against their parents as they assert themselves, but become more like them as they age. And since parents indoctrinate children with their mores and decide what they will learn, the opportunity for lasting social change is limited.



Conservatives know this well, which is why they denigrate public education and promote home schooling. And now that they have a clear majority politically, you can bet they will consolidate their hold over young people. Progress doesn't have a chance in this environment - regardless of what plans we could theoretically implement to give it one.

Look at the breakdown of the vote by age in the link above. The younger generation already sees things very differently. The difference is not entirely going to reverse as they age. They have a fundamentally different view of the world because, I believe, they have grown up with the internet. First they understand that you can't believe everything that's posted online, and second their exposure to diversity has been orders of magnitude greater than my own generation.

If you want to do something that will truly make a difference, finish what Lincoln started - make the South secede from the Union and split the US into two countries, progressive and conservative. Let anyone who doesn't like one country move to the other. Then we can get on with making things better for those who want it...

Do you feel that we have made literally NO progress since the emancipation proclamation? Yes we progress in increments and social progress is slow, periodically reversing course, but surely you see that there has been progress in terms of racism, sexism, religious tolerance, and tolerance of LGTBQ lifestyles ?

 

[LSSBB]

Well I think he got fewer votes than Romney did so he didn't really energise the voters or anything. It's just that Clinton energised them even less.



Yeah life tends to make a cynic out of me, too.

Yes, the cynical way could be to blame the outside world for your cynicism.

Attitude is mutable.

Pendulums swing. Setbacks with the world could be a symbol of defeat, or an opportunity to identify the weaknesses in your own position and address them. And they can be an opportunity to identify your strengths, and find a way to leverage them.

Even the pendulum itself should be analyzed at this time. Such a focus in American political debate, on one party or the other. It is an artificial binary construct, and itself a failure in collective critical thinking. The Foucalt's Pendulum I witnessed swings not to and fro, but in arcs within a circle. There are multiple paths, multiple choices.

 

[Ziggurat]

Stripped of all the deceptive language it boils down to "Hillary is a big liar" and anything that might possible indicate that she isn't the worse ever liar in the whole of creation (she told the serpent what to say to Eve) must be wrong because Hillary is a big liar. You are not arguing about any conclusions that they've reached via reason nor evidence, and so no reason or evidence will ever make them change their minds.

A claim was made. I pointed out that the evidence used to support this claim was fundamentally flawed. Isn't critical examination of evidence the hallmark of skepticism? But rather than addressing the merits of that evidence or my criticism of it, you now resort to straw men and an ad hominem based on my presumed motives. That's basically the antithesis of skepticism.