Let's make America smart again

[MuDPhuD]

Ironically, the course I referenced above places a great deal of emphasis on critical thinking and examining sources of information. People have to actually care about facts to make it stick, however.

This is why I say that the primary and secondary education is far more important than free college. Knowledge of cognitive biases, and logical thinking need to be part of schooling from childhood.
The adults have already made their minds up that learning is bad, education is elitist, and the "facts" can whatever I want them to be.

 

[Aridas]

I suggest to you that it is your ability to use critical thinking which leads you to conclude that "we really are all equal". You will find a great deal of argument over this conclusion, all based on fallacious reasoning, falling prey to implicit bias, and not understanding human cognitive biases.

Hmm? Yet, people really aren't equal, and quite demonstrably so. Before even touching the average differences to be found in groups that are only really separated by ethnicity/ancestry, there's education, ability, situation/opportunity, health, and so very much more. People are, quite obviously, not equal in just about any objective way. Rather, it's better to start with arguing that, first of all, it's better to not use vague and highly variable criteria, like ethnicity, to discriminate. Averages are just that, after all, and have considerable overlap. One can then continue on that thread in a couple ways, among other things, to easily substantiate the desirability of giving *equal* rights to all, which is notably distinct from saying an easily disprovable "we all are equal."

 

[Aepervius]

@OP: Like a whack on the bottom? That smarts. Quick, too.

*take a sexy voice* America, you have been a bad bad boy (*).
*get the whip out*

(*) or girl.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is why I say that the primary and secondary education is far more important than free college. Knowledge of cognitive biases, and logical thinking need to be part of schooling from childhood.
The adults have already made their minds up that learning is bad, education is elitist, and the "facts" can whatever I want them to be.

Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Correct. Millions of people in this country blame "Mexicans" for taking all their excellent jobs away, such as roofing, landscaping, dishwashing, and changing sheets in motels.

The actual jobs people think of with respect to American manufacturing have been lost to computers and robotic arms. We're not even talking about this, let alone doing anything to address it.

I think this is partially true, but it is not only the menial/hard labor type jobs that have been lost to immigrants. The "jobs Americans won't do" meme gets taken too far.
Outside of the union-protected areas up North, I would say that quite a lot of work in the trades has been taken by immigrants. Home construction, masonry, etc. are dominated by hispanics, as well as quite a bit of factory work in some areas. Probably not a real glamorous job, but the Purdue chicken plant nearby is almost entirely staffed with hispanic workers.
I can't attest to what percentage, if any, of these workers are illegally in the country, but just based on the fact that most are still primarily speaking Spanish , I would imagine they have emigrated somewhat recently and taken jobs.

 

[TomB]

I have a daughter who is recently out of high school. Having seen the curriculum and assignments, I can tell you that critical thinking IS emphasized in the public school system around here (downstate Illinois) and is at least attempted to be taught.

The thing to remember is that is that critical thinking does not necessarily mean coming to the same conclusion that you do. Each of us has different datasets, circumstances and experiences that we evaluate to come to conclusions.

Part of critical thinking is understanding arguments against your own position from other points of view. If you aren't doing this, you aren't really thinking critically.

I didn't like either candidate and wish both parties would go away, but if I had been in a position where the election in my state would have been close I would have voted for Clinton as the lesser evil. However, I live in Illinois, so I had the luxury of voting for anyone I wanted knowing that the Illinois votes (and by extension, mine) would not go to Trump.

To me, the "good" that came out of this election was a result in Maine to adopt ranked voting. I see that (if it spreads) as the only way to break the two party dichotomy we have in this country.

 

[TomB]

Correct. Millions of people in this country blame "Mexicans" for taking all their excellent jobs away, such as roofing, landscaping, dishwashing, and changing sheets in motels.

You seem to be implying that these are not good jobs.

I know people who do landscaping because that's what they like to do. This includes some college educated people like the son of the woman across the street from me. He and his buddy started a lawn service (just the two of them) and are doing pretty well. At least well enough to buy houses, nice cars, and support their families.

Not every job is glamorous or even enjoyable. That doesn't make them bad jobs. Maybe not glamorous, but they are jobs that need to be done. Is there some threshold a job needs to meet before it is valued?

 

[The Shrike]

The "jobs Americans won't do" meme gets taken too far.

True, true. When I really think about this issue, however, I keep circling back to who's doing the hiring and not who's getting hired.

 

[The Shrike]

You seem to be implying that these are not good jobs.

A good job is a job that someone wants and that provides desirable compensation. I worked my way through college doing landscaping and janitorial work and enjoyed doing so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do they also give "equal time" to all religions (including non-believers)? Of course not! So-called "equal time" is a meaningless mantra.
Journalists are generally as ignorant of science as the general population.

It's not just science. Journalists are mostly ignorant about everything. Are you familiar with the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a daughter who is recently out of high school. Having seen the curriculum and assignments, I can tell you that critical thinking IS emphasized in the public school system around here (downstate Illinois) and is at least attempted to be taught.

I'm curious to see an example.

The thing to remember is that is that critical thinking does not necessarily mean coming to the same conclusion that you do. Each of us has different datasets, circumstances and experiences that we evaluate to come to conclusions.

This is making an assumption here I don't think is valid. Critical thinking is not only about the conclusion, it's about discerning valid from invalid evidence. It's about the evidence actually supporting the conclusion.

Unless you believe there are multiple realities, critical thinking involves coming as close to that real reality as one can. Trump supporters came to various conclusions that Trump did or did not mean what he said. In addition he frequently said contradictory things, and when asked how, his answer was more often than not, "Trust me, I will do that." If you believe that, it's hard to justify with evidence that he actually will.

That is not critical thinking.

 

[LSSBB]

This is why I say that the primary and secondary education is far more important than free college. Knowledge of cognitive biases, and logical thinking need to be part of schooling from childhood.
The adults have already made their minds up that learning is bad, education is elitist, and the "facts" can whatever I want them to be.

I agree that an increased emphasis on critical thinking at an early age is important, however I think that awareness of cognitive biases is even more crucial.

 

[TomB]

I'm curious to see an example.

Well, first, every paper had several smaller tasks leading up to it. These including finding and evaluating sources and explaining why you considered them reliable or not reliable.

Second, in each paper it was required to outline and address the opposing arguments to your position. One thing I've learned from debates and discussion boards is that you learn more from arguing the opposite point of view than you do from arguing your own.

This is making an assumption here I don't think is valid. Critical thinking is not only about the conclusion, it's about discerning valid from invalid evidence. It's about the evidence actually supporting the conclusion.

Unless you believe there are multiple realities, critical thinking involves coming as close to that real reality as one can. Trump supporters came to various conclusions that Trump did or did not mean what he said. In addition he frequently said contradictory things, and when asked how, his answer was more often than not, "Trust me, I will do that." If you believe that, it's hard to justify with evidence that he actually will.

That is not critical thinking.

Critical thinking includes a lot of things. It includes evaluating the information you have, examining your own predispositions and why you have them (self-identifying biases), and examining the issue from points of view different than your own.

Is it about getting to reality? Sort of. You say the goal is, to get as close to reality as possible. That's partly right. The goal, when using critical thinking to make a decision is to select the alternative that has the best chance of getting the outcome you desire with acceptable costs.

The assumptions you are making are:

1) The outcome you desire is or should be the same outcome that all others should desire.

2) If someone desires a different outcome, that outcome must be one motivated by xenophobia/sexism/racism etc.

For the first, different circumstances lead to a different perception of what problems most need to be solved and what risks are merited to achieve them.

For the second, those items (xenophobia/sexism/racism) may possibly be a motivation. See the KKK for example. But they are not the only possible motivations. Or they may not be motivations, but consequences that some deem acceptable, if not desirable. Or they may be risks whose likelihood or extent some judge to be mitigated by trust in other institutions of power to prevent or limit.

For myself, I choose to watch closely and hope for the best. Some of the people I know are less optimistic, as I would be from their perspective.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Is it about getting to reality? Sort of.

Sort of?

You say the goal is, to get as close to reality as possible. That's partly right.

Partly?

The goal, when using critical thinking to make a decision is to select the alternative that has the best chance of getting the outcome you desire with acceptable costs.

The assumptions you are making are:

1) The outcome you desire is or should be the same outcome that all others should desire.

I said no such thing.

2) If someone desires a different outcome, that outcome must be one motivated by xenophobia/sexism/racism etc.

Didn't say that either.

For the first, different circumstances lead to a different perception of what problems most need to be solved and what risks are merited to achieve them.

For the second, those items (xenophobia/sexism/racism) may possibly be a motivation. See the KKK for example. But they are not the only possible motivations. Or they may not be motivations, but consequences that some deem acceptable, if not desirable. Or they may be risks whose likelihood or extent some judge to be mitigated by trust in other institutions of power to prevent or limit.

For myself, I choose to watch closely and hope for the best. Some of the people I know are less optimistic, as I would be from their perspective.

This is going way off from critical thinking and into value judgements. This may be why we are not in agreement. You are trying too hard to address the political divide here, and I'm not. Are you making the false assumption that I think one side in the political divide was rational and one side not?

There is one reality. If you believe things that are outright false, and you come to your value judgement because of those false beliefs, that is a problem for a critical thinker.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's make America smart again

Would we still be stupid if Hillary had won?

 

[Belz...]

Would we still be stupid if Hillary had won?

Yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would we still be stupid if Hillary had won?

Why don't you read the OP.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

OK

Now, why can't you answer the question?

 

[Mark6]

We need to deport these millions of machines. And make Cybertron pay for it.

I know you are joking, but I fully expect within a few years to see a populist candidate who is:

Anti-immigration
Anti-free trade
Anti-automation

Trump is only first two. But it is only a matter of time before all three.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK

Now, why can't you answer the question?

Because it's off topic.