Interesting Article About Public Ignorance

[Arkady]

Salon has a nice summary of three studies each pointing to a shocking level of public ignorance:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/you_will_be_shocked_at_how_ignorant_americans_are_partner/

The first recounts the wildly skewed view of wealth distribution most people in this country have. Basically, most people think we're too unequal, but wrongly assume that inequality is vastly less than it actually is. Most people think the top 20% of Americans have about half the nation's wealth, and 92% of Americans believe that the top 20% should instead have about 30% of the nation's wealth. In reality, though, the top 10% alone take home half the income and the top 1% takes home 20%.

The second study recounts how little time the majority of Americans spend consuming news: most news consumption is done by a minority of the population, with the rest consuming very little news. The third study shows that this is particularly an issue among Millenials.

I wouldn't be so distressed by low total minutes of news consumption if what we call "news" were densely packed with important stories and serious analysis, such that just an hour a day would be more than enough to keep you decently informed about events. But most people get their news from the major networks, which spend much of their time on local news stories of questionable social value even in their localities, plus an inordinate amount of time on weird crime stories and celebrity gossip. I suspect if a study could be done showing daily consumption of serious "issues" news (if we could agree on a definition of that), we'd find that most people get little or no exposure to news in a typical day.

This fits with my own observations of my extended family. When in gatherings, if some of us engage in any issues talk, it's quickly clear that most of those present lack even vague familiarity with the facts -- not that they lack an interest in engaging in the discussion, but that their attempts to engage are thwarted by a basic lack of familiarity with the topic. For example, at a barbecue last summer involving twenty members of my extended family, it became clear that of the seven people between the ages of 16 and 30, not one knew who Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Boehner were, other than some vague sense they were politicians. On a couple specific issues the younger people had decent familiarity with facts and the state of controversies (climate change, gay marriage, marijuana, gun control), but on pretty much anything else, you might as well have been speaking Swahili: NAFTA, fracking, the Social Security trust fund, NSA surveillance, pretty much anything dealing with foreign policy, etc.

I think that's something that's easy to forget when you spend time in forums like this. We may all be accustomed to thinking of the "other side" as a pack of idiots with a lack of familiarity with even the most basic facts, but even the dumbest of the dumb here are very likely far, far more informed about serious issues than a typical American.

 

[PhilFish]

Salon has a nice summary of three studies each pointing to a shocking level of public ignorance:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/you_will_be_shocked_at_how_ignorant_americans_are_partner/

The first recounts the wildly skewed view of wealth distribution most people in this country have. Basically, most people think we're too unequal, but wrongly assume that inequality is vastly less than it actually is. Most people think the top 20% of Americans have about half the nation's wealth, and 92% of Americans believe that the top 20% should instead have about 30% of the nation's wealth. In reality, though, the top 10% alone take home half the income and the top 1% takes home 20%.

The second study recounts how little time the majority of Americans spend consuming news: most news consumption is done by a minority of the population, with the rest consuming very little news. The third study shows that this is particularly an issue among Millenials.

I wouldn't be so distressed by low total minutes of news consumption if what we call "news" were densely packed with important stories and serious analysis, such that just an hour a day would be more than enough to keep you decently informed about events. But most people get their news from the major networks, which spend much of their time on local news stories of questionable social value even in their localities, plus an inordinate amount of time on weird crime stories and celebrity gossip. I suspect if a study could be done showing daily consumption of serious "issues" news (if we could agree on a definition of that), we'd find that most people get little or no exposure to news in a typical day.

This fits with my own observations of my extended family. When in gatherings, if some of us engage in any issues talk, it's quickly clear that most of those present lack even vague familiarity with the facts -- not that they lack an interest in engaging in the discussion, but that their attempts to engage are thwarted by a basic lack of familiarity with the topic. For example, at a barbecue last summer involving twenty members of my extended family, it became clear that of the seven people between the ages of 16 and 30, not one knew who Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Boehner were, other than some vague sense they were politicians. On a couple specific issues the younger people had decent familiarity with facts and the state of controversies (climate change, gay marriage, marijuana, gun control), but on pretty much anything else, you might as well have been speaking Swahili: NAFTA, fracking, the Social Security trust fund, NSA surveillance, pretty much anything dealing with foreign policy, etc.

I think that's something that's easy to forget when you spend time in forums like this. We may all be accustomed to thinking of the "other side" as a pack of idiots with a lack of familiarity with even the most basic facts, but even the dumbest of the dumb here are very likely far, far more informed about serious issues than a typical American.

The typical American, IMHO, is virtually bereft of even the most cursory knowledge of events..economic, political, or other.. Most, in fact, are challenged to absorb much beyond a 6th grade reading level, and are mired in the likes of reality tv, Jennifer Anistons hair, though can rattle off fantasy football data like a statistician.

 

[trapdoor]

I started throwing in the towel on this subject about 20 years ago. Fewer and fewer people are informed, and even fewer realize they're lack of information is at all important.

I only wish this meant wiser heads would prevail, but seemingly it doesn't. The uninformed masses are readily swayed by slick marketing into things that "feel" good for the moment, without regard to their long term consequences.

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

What? You mean Obamcare isn't Free?

 

[Arkady]

The typical American, IMHO, is virtually bereft of even the most cursory knowledge of events..economic, political, or other.. Most, in fact, are challenged to absorb much beyond a 6th grade reading level, and are mired in the likes of reality tv, Jennifer Anistons hair, though can rattle off fantasy football data like a statistician.

Back in the late 80s, US News and World Report ran poll results suggesting the level of historical ignorance of most Americans. The results seemed implausibly bad to me, so I tested a bunch of my extended family by peppering them with the same questions (they indulged me, because I was still a kid), and although they weren't quite as ignorant as most Americans, their level of ignorance was still shocking to me. I'm talking about such ignorance as not being able to identify when the Civil War started within fifty years, not being able to identify the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence, not being able to sort Germany, Japan, Italy, the UK, the US, and Russia into a correct arrangement of Axis and Allies from WWII. It blew my mind. It was the kind of stuff I thought everyone had mastered by sixth grade.

 

[PhilFish]

Back in the late 80s, US News and World Report ran poll results suggesting the level of historical ignorance of most Americans. The results seemed implausibly bad to me, so I tested a bunch of my extended family by peppering them with the same questions (they indulged me, because I was still a kid), and although they weren't quite as ignorant as most Americans, their level of ignorance was still shocking to me. I'm talking about such ignorance as not being able to identify when the Civil War started within fifty years, not being able to identify the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence, not being able to sort Germany, Japan, Italy, the UK, the US, and Russia into a correct arrangement of Axis and Allies from WWII. It blew my mind. It was the kind of stuff I thought everyone had mastered by sixth grade.

take heart...in that...it is even worse today.

 

[Arkady]

I started throwing in the towel on this subject about 20 years ago. Fewer and fewer people are informed, and even fewer realize they're lack of information is at all important.

I only wish this meant wiser heads would prevail, but seemingly it doesn't. The uninformed masses are readily swayed by slick marketing into things that "feel" good for the moment, without regard to their long term consequences.

And, oddly, there often seems to be an inverse relationship between the degree of knowledge and the strength of opinion. After all, when you have more knowledge, you're often forced to see that there are valid considerations counterbalancing some of the considerations you've found convincing, which can keep you from being as full-throated in your advocacy as if you have the conviction that only comes with an absence of nuance:

http://eriklundegaard.com/media/2/calvin-and-hobbes-neocubist.gif

 

[Mytzlplk]

Salon has a nice summary of three studies each pointing to a shocking level of public ignorance:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/you_will_be_shocked_at_how_ignorant_americans_are_partner/

The first recounts the wildly skewed view of wealth distribution most people in this country have. Basically, most people think we're too unequal, but wrongly assume that inequality is vastly less than it actually is. Most people think the top 20% of Americans have about half the nation's wealth, and 92% of Americans believe that the top 20% should instead have about 30% of the nation's wealth. In reality, though, the top 10% alone take home half the income and the top 1% takes home 20%.

The second study recounts how little time the majority of Americans spend consuming news: most news consumption is done by a minority of the population, with the rest consuming very little news. The third study shows that this is particularly an issue among Millenials.

I wouldn't be so distressed by low total minutes of news consumption if what we call "news" were densely packed with important stories and serious analysis, such that just an hour a day would be more than enough to keep you decently informed about events. But most people get their news from the major networks, which spend much of their time on local news stories of questionable social value even in their localities, plus an inordinate amount of time on weird crime stories and celebrity gossip. I suspect if a study could be done showing daily consumption of serious "issues" news (if we could agree on a definition of that), we'd find that most people get little or no exposure to news in a typical day.

This fits with my own observations of my extended family. When in gatherings, if some of us engage in any issues talk, it's quickly clear that most of those present lack even vague familiarity with the facts -- not that they lack an interest in engaging in the discussion, but that their attempts to engage are thwarted by a basic lack of familiarity with the topic. For example, at a barbecue last summer involving twenty members of my extended family, it became clear that of the seven people between the ages of 16 and 30, not one knew who Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Boehner were, other than some vague sense they were politicians. On a couple specific issues the younger people had decent familiarity with facts and the state of controversies (climate change, gay marriage, marijuana, gun control), but on pretty much anything else, you might as well have been speaking Swahili: NAFTA, fracking, the Social Security trust fund, NSA surveillance, pretty much anything dealing with foreign policy, etc.

I think that's something that's easy to forget when you spend time in forums like this. We may all be accustomed to thinking of the "other side" as a pack of idiots with a lack of familiarity with even the most basic facts, but even the dumbest of the dumb here are very likely far, far more informed about serious issues than a typical American.

well, I'd say you'd be shocked if and only if you're ignorant about how ignorant Americans have long been.

 

[trapdoor]

And, oddly, there often seems to be an inverse relationship between the degree of knowledge and the strength of opinion. After all, when you have more knowledge, you're often forced to see that there are valid considerations counterbalancing some of the considerations you've found convincing, which can keep you from being as full-throated in your advocacy as if you have the conviction that only comes with an absence of nuance:

http://eriklundegaard.com/media/2/calvin-and-hobbes-neocubist.gif

I agree. I think that's why many people supported Obamacare -- they couldn't see its downstream costs or that it amounts to a middle-class tax increase. It simply "felt right."

Same thing with gun control. People call for controls based on a skewed vision of "bad" guns and "good" guns and no real understanding of crime statistics.

 

[resident_evil]

The first recounts the wildly skewed view of wealth distribution most people in this country have. Basically, most people think we're too unequal, but wrongly assume that inequality is vastly less than it actually is. Most people think the top 20% of Americans have about half the nation's wealth, and 92% of Americans believe that the top 20% should instead have about 30% of the nation's wealth. In reality, though, the top 10% alone take home half the income and the top 1% takes home 20%.

Wealth and income are two different things. Care to clarify?

 

[Arkady]

well, I'd say you'd be shocked if and only if you're ignorant about how ignorant Americans have long been.

I should stop being shocked by this, but I'm repeatedly lulled into a false sense by my immediate surroundings. All my immediate family members (3 year old daughter excepted) have either an undergrad degree from an elite school or an advanced degree of some kind, or both, and they're all relatively active news consumers. I work mostly with lawyers and Director- or VP-level execs at a big-name company, who have excellent exposure to any issue with a business implication, from interest rates to climate change. I live in a wealthy town within a fairly cosmopolitan area of a very well-educated state. So, I get used to those I interact with daily having good familiarity with all of what I'd call "basic" issues, and passing familiarity even with some of the hard stuff. So, when I step out of that bubble (as with dealing with my redneck extended family, or scrolling through Facebook posts of old friends and high school classmates), it's jarring.

 

[Arkady]

I agree. I think that's why many people supported Obamacare -- they couldn't see its downstream costs or that it amounts to a middle-class tax increase. It simply "felt right."

Same thing with gun control. People call for controls based on a skewed vision of "bad" guns and "good" guns and no real understanding of crime statistics.

I'll agree that, in each case, some emphatic advocates for the liberal position are running on emotion unpolluted by any awareness of the counter-arguments. But the same can be said for some emphatic advocates for the conservative positions on those matters.

When I try to debate those issues with my redneck, uninformed extended family, it's often clear that they haven't ever even heard some of the most frequently raised points of the other side, before I raise them. For example, they may be almost violently sure that America had the world's best healthcare system before Obamacare, and yet shockingly unaware of where the US actually ranked in major indicators of actual public health. It would be one thing if, like you, they were aware of those things but found some cause to dismiss the relevance of that information, but for such information to come as a brand new revelation, for someone who has strong opinions about the overall topic, is just incompehensible to me.

I like it when I learn interesting new facts on this forum, even when they are problematic for my position on a topic. I take the view that if I'm right, my position can only become stronger by wrestling with those new facts and modifying my position enough to accomodate them -- and if I'm wrong, better to find out than to remain ignorant. But, as I'm sure is the case with you, as well, I don't encounter major new facts (or new analytical angles) all that often, here, because if you've made a diligent effort to understand an issue, you pretty quickly get a decent outline of the major talking points of the competing viewpoints. The people who blow my mind are those whose absence of even that kind of outline understanding shows that they've managed to feel their way into an emphatic position on a topic without even the most basic research or thought. I don't get that mindset.

 

[Arkady]

Wealth and income are two different things. Care to clarify?

Yep. I was sloppy in conflating the two in my summary (though I correctly identified each). The article I linked to is clearer about what the various studies showed. Each of the stats about distribution should refer to wealth, other than those for the top 10% taking home half the income, and the top 1% earning more than a fifth of the income.

Regardless, my understanding is that it's generally undestood that wealth distribution in this country is even more uneven than income distribution, so the disparity between what people think the distribution is and what it actually is would be even larger than that comparison might initially suggest.

 

[resident_evil]

Yep. I was sloppy in conflating the two in my summary (though I correctly identified each). The article I linked to is clearer about what the various studies showed. Each of the stats about distribution should refer to wealth, other than those for the top 10% taking home half the income, and the top 1% earning more than a fifth of the income.

Regardless, my understanding is that it's generally undestood that wealth distribution in this country is even more uneven than income distribution, so the disparity between what people think the distribution is and what it actually is would be even larger than that comparison my initially suggest.

Is it because the top 1% have wealth in stocks in the mega corporations that they created and use that stock wealth to leverage corporate control? And does that have a different moral connotation? Just asking.

 

[marvin martian]

Our public education system in action.

 

[connieb]

I agree. I think that's why many people supported Obamacare -- they couldn't see its downstream costs or that it amounts to a middle-class tax increase. It simply "felt right."

Same thing with gun control. People call for controls based on a skewed vision of "bad" guns and "good" guns and no real understanding of crime statistics.

I agree Trap. That is why whenever we have talks about rules and laws - it should have nothing to do with emotion. Can you quantify positives and negatives. Can you quantify a specific need or problem and prove that it is material. Okay then... lets consider a rule or law. If we just feeeeeeellll like we neeeed to do SOMETHING - that is absolutely no basis to create a law.

connie

 

[NightSwimmer]

I agree Trap. That is why whenever we have talks about rules and laws - it should have nothing to do with emotion. Can you quantify positives and negatives. Can you quantify a specific need or problem and prove that it is material. Okay then... lets consider a rule or law. If we just feeeeeeellll like we neeeed to do SOMETHING - that is absolutely no basis to create a law.

connie

Heh... Good luck with that.

 

[Arkady]

Is it because the top 1% have wealth in stocks in the mega corporations that they created and use that stock wealth to leverage corporate control? And does that have a different moral connotation? Just asking.

Some of the top 1% have wealth in stocks in mega corporation they created. Some, though, have stock in mega corporations that others created. For every Sam Walton who creates a mega corporation, there's almost inevitably a whole gaggle of talentless descendents who wind up filthy rich through accident of birth. 40% of the 10 richest people in America are there merely because they either married or were sired by Sam Walton.

In fact, most of the richest people in America have inherited wealth at the core of their fortunes, even if they've greatly expanded that wealth since then. Even Bill Gates, for example, is the child of the founder of a large, international law firm. The Koch Brothers are the sons of the founder of Koch Industries. Three of the twenty richest people in America are rich because they're descended from the founder of the Mars Company, who died way back in 1934.

So, I don't want to characterize that kind of wealth as necessarily being the result of owning stock in mega corporations they created. Very often, it's just an accident of birth. And I think that does have a different moral connotation. If we had very high estate taxes, with few exclusions, such that nearly everyone started the "race" at more or less the same starting line, with only such advantages as their parents could leave them in upbringing and connections, then it would be tougher to begrudge the massive wealth of those who, through genius, hard work, or luck (with the last of those three almost always having a dominant role), amassed huge fortunes. But in our society, where by far the biggest predictor of economic success is the wealth of one's parents, such success has different moral implications.

 

[resident_evil]

Some of the top 1% have wealth in stocks in mega corporation they created. Some, though, have stock in mega corporations that others created. For every Sam Walton who creates a mega corporation, there's almost inevitably a whole gaggle of talentless descendents who wind up filthy rich through accident of birth. 40% of the 10 richest people in America are there merely because they either married or were sired by Sam Walton.

In fact, most of the richest people in America have inherited wealth at the core of their fortunes, even if they've greatly expanded that wealth since then. Even Bill Gates, for example, is the child of the founder of a large, international law firm. The Koch Brothers are the sons of the founder of Koch Industries. Three of the twenty richest people in America are rich because they're descended from the founder of the Mars Company, who died way back in 1934.

So, I don't want to characterize that kind of wealth as necessarily being the result of owning stock in mega corporations they created. Very often, it's just an accident of birth. And I think that does have a different moral connotation. If we had very high estate taxes, with few exclusions, such that nearly everyone started the "race" at more or less the same starting line, with only such advantages as their parents could leave them in upbringing and connections, then it would be tougher to begrudge the massive wealth of those who, through genius, hard work, or luck (with the last of those three almost always having a dominant role), amassed huge fortunes. But in our society, where by far the biggest predictor of economic success is the wealth of one's parents, such success has different moral implications.

I'd only care to comment that it doesn't matter that talentless progeny inherited anything. Those are the vagaries of life. Eventually that wealth dilutes out within a generation or two by the shear number of divisions and profligate living. So there really is no reason to unevenly apply the rule of law when it comes to property rights. Wealthy mostly isn't forever. Those that do keep the wealth usually don't do so because they are talentless. It is in the 'begrudging' that you lose moral standing really.

Plus, I thought you'd bring numbers to the table from your source. A sloppy source not to make the distinction I just asked for.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Salon has a nice summary of three studies each pointing to a shocking level of public ignorance:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/you_will_be_shocked_at_how_ignorant_americans_are_partner/

The first recounts the wildly skewed view of wealth distribution most people in this country have. Basically, most people think we're too unequal, but wrongly assume that inequality is vastly less than it actually is. Most people think the top 20% of Americans have about half the nation's wealth, and 92% of Americans believe that the top 20% should instead have about 30% of the nation's wealth. In reality, though, the top 10% alone take home half the income and the top 1% takes home 20%.

The second study recounts how little time the majority of Americans spend consuming news: most news consumption is done by a minority of the population, with the rest consuming very little news. The third study shows that this is particularly an issue among Millenials.

I wouldn't be so distressed by low total minutes of news consumption if what we call "news" were densely packed with important stories and serious analysis, such that just an hour a day would be more than enough to keep you decently informed about events. But most people get their news from the major networks, which spend much of their time on local news stories of questionable social value even in their localities, plus an inordinate amount of time on weird crime stories and celebrity gossip. I suspect if a study could be done showing daily consumption of serious "issues" news (if we could agree on a definition of that), we'd find that most people get little or no exposure to news in a typical day.

This fits with my own observations of my extended family. When in gatherings, if some of us engage in any issues talk, it's quickly clear that most of those present lack even vague familiarity with the facts -- not that they lack an interest in engaging in the discussion, but that their attempts to engage are thwarted by a basic lack of familiarity with the topic. For example, at a barbecue last summer involving twenty members of my extended family, it became clear that of the seven people between the ages of 16 and 30, not one knew who Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Boehner were, other than some vague sense they were politicians. On a couple specific issues the younger people had decent familiarity with facts and the state of controversies (climate change, gay marriage, marijuana, gun control), but on pretty much anything else, you might as well have been speaking Swahili: NAFTA, fracking, the Social Security trust fund, NSA surveillance, pretty much anything dealing with foreign policy, etc.

I think that's something that's easy to forget when you spend time in forums like this. We may all be accustomed to thinking of the "other side" as a pack of idiots with a lack of familiarity with even the most basic facts, but even the dumbest of the dumb here are very likely far, far more informed about serious issues than a typical American.

When my family gathers the main topic of conversation are always kids, work, and family scandal.

In that order.

I can't remember having a political conversation with ANYONE in my family in years.

Decades, even.