HN Gopher Feed (2017-07-15) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Asimov: America's Cult of Ignorance (1980) [pdf]
107 points by georgecmu
http://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_o...80_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf___________________________________________________________________
faragon - 15 minutes ago
Before that, in 1930, the Spanish philosopher Jos? Ortega y Gasset
(two surnames) published "The Revolt of the Masses" book [1], going
even further.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses
SapphireSun - 1 hours ago
I love Asimov, and he's right that we should educate our population
better, but why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it
seems completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives? People
pay close attention to stuff that they feels significant to them
and that they can control. People read the sports section because
they can talk about that with their friends and are invested in the
outcome. You and I read the politics section for the same reason
even though without popular mobilization, we have basically the
same effect on outcomes as a sports game.If policies are promoted
that people actually like as opposed to barely resent, they'll
start reading and talking and you won't hear the end of it.
[deleted]
carrier_lost - 1 hours ago
"why would anyone pay attention to the papers when it seems
completely remote and irrelevant to people's lives?"Local
elections directly affect people. Local boards and councils set
tax rates and allocate money to schools, police, fire and other
public services. Local elections often are covered extensively by
local newspapers. Yet voter turnout often is quite low. Why?
SapphireSun - 1 hours ago
I live in Boston and I don't see much local coverage unless I
look for it explicitly. Unless I subscribe to a local paper I
don't really see much of their reporting. I did see some local
papers with great stories in grocery store, but they were
positioned poorly. It took me literally years of going to that
store before I noticed them. Secondly, I feel powerless as my
elected officials are basically doing what I already want them
to do. A little while ago, I got a newsletter from my state
senator with a photo of her hanging out in a marijuana
greenhouse wearing a bunny suit. I didn't know how to respond
for a moment and started laughing. It's a pretty dumb thing,
and I'm certainly not one of the overly oppressed people in
this country, but it felt like a crack in the door where my
representatives were pushing for more civic freedom and tamping
down on calls for repression and state violence.I think people
get more interested if there are ways for them to have an
effect on outcomes or if they can see people they know doing
things. I'm sort of embarrassed, but I joined an organization
pushing for instant runoff voting in MA thanks to a friend
convincing me to try it out (and I want it to happen!), but I
hadn't heard from them since that introduction. Without a
friend there, it's difficult for me to work up the courage to
go time and time again as I'm kind of introverted.
noobermin - 12 minutes ago
So, in other words, it doesn't quite have more to do with
what affects you as you claim in your earlier comment, but it
has to do with what is accessible and available? Or some
linear combination of the two?
ouid - 15 minutes ago
There is an opportunity cost associated with becoming informed
about local government. If that is greater than the value of
your vote, which it almost certainly is, then it's not rational
to keep up with local news.Government is also often as
convoluted as possible, artificially increasing the cost. I
just don't see how this argument makes sense.
Spooky23 - 58 minutes ago
People are lazy.I saw firsthand the affect that engagement has.
A group of self interested people were going to build a library
in a way that was bad for the community. We mobilized a small
group of neighbors and were able to get a much better outcome.
jdavis703 - moments ago
"People read the sports section because they can talk about that
with their friends"Well why not have them read the "Science and
Technology" section and talk about that with their friends? How
is sports, which has a negligible direct impact on your life,
seen as more relevant than reading the "Health" section? And the
problem isn't just sports. The crime section is just as guilty,
reading about most crimes in no one serves to keep me safe.
Koshkin - 42 minutes ago
No doubt, there are benefits in being ignorant. As they say,
ignorance is bliss! And they are right; especially because truth is
almost always confusing, unpleasant, troubling and often downright
scary. Knowledge rarely brings happiness...
paulpauper - 37 minutes ago
I dunno how true that is. What about people who enjoy learning
things
Koshkin - 30 minutes ago
Well, one might enjoy learning that there are six-legged things
living under everyone's eyelids, but the knowledge of that can
hardly make one happy.Learning history can serve as another
example.
etiam - 18 minutes ago
I find some measure of joy in how remarkable that is.Ignoring
the disagreeable parts of reality may be pleasant as long as
reality's ignoring you back, but when it presents real
dangers, ignorance is a recipe for getting into real trouble
more effectively.Of course, being dead is an incredibly
effective way of avoiding one's personal inconveniences too,
but for some reason we don't seem to lionize that to anywhere
near the same extent...
tomcam - 5 minutes ago
> there are six-legged things living under everyone's
eyelids, but the knowledge of that can hardly make one
happy.Not only does that mak me happy, because I'm an
American I figure more is better. I'm currently trying to
breed them with 14 legs
Kenji - 1 hours ago
> We can all be members of the intellectual elite, and then, only
then, will a phrase "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true
concept of democracy, have any meaningCome on. We cannot all be
members of the intellectual elite. And I'm not being facetious
because of a few mentally disabled people. Half the population has
an IQ below 100. Let that sink in for a moment. There are (more or
less) innate IQ differences and some people excel at intellectual
tasks while others do not and actually cannot as a matter of the
body they possess. Just ask any school teacher: There are bright
kids who get things easily and quickly get ahead and others who
cannot progress even if they put in all the hard work and hours
they can.This entire piece seems like Asimov is salty because not
everyone is an intellectual. Well, too bad, there are people who
enjoy a simple life without the sorrows that come with being an
intellectual.
bostik - 22 minutes ago
> Half the population has an IQ below 100I'm going to quote a
junior high school mate, because what he said nearly 25 years ago
still rings true. For background: Finland has mandatory
conscription military service. Every year you get an honest
cross-cut of the entire population.The sentence you used
highlights a real fact, but it leaves it without context. What
I'm going to say next is guaranteed to be both insensitive and
politically incorrect, but I believe it has to be said.As my mate
said: If you think about the "average" person, with an IQ of 100,
you should also realise just how dumb that person appears to you.
Sit down and take a deep breath. Half the population is, by
definition, dumber than that.While in the military service, I
learned this the hard way. I saw enough people who had trouble
tying their showlaces, let alone the ability to hold a
constructive argument. And like everyboby else in the military,
everyone of them was given an assault rifle and live ammunition
within 96 hours of starting their service. That gives a whole new
meaning to fear.The only thing separating some these individuals
from Gomer Pyle[0] was the lack of psychosis. (When I became a
medic, I met those too. We had to provide them with hard
prescription drugs to keep them subdued and maintain a suicide
watch to make sure they could be escorted safely out the next
day.)I can say with honesty that the military service
recalibrated my view of humanity. And it's not pretty.0:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/
noobermin - 3 minutes ago
I get it, military service is a particularly exceptional
service because of the sampling is wide and all that, but it's
not like anyone over the age of 20 hasn't met all sorts of
people in general. Also, I get what you're saying, but every
time I hear these sorts of things, alarm sirens in my head off
and a refrain "confirmation bias" is blasted on repeat.The
whole "half of people dumber than the median" doesn't really
bother me as much as it does other people, especially since IQ
often isn't what I care about when evaluating a person.
kleer001 - 1 hours ago
Why the down votes? It's correct. There's tons of dumb people. We
can't all be elite. That's not how variation in a species works.
Intelligence leans heavily on biology so it's got to be varied.
Not everyone wins the lottery. Right?Asimov was from New York,
he's f-n salty. He'd probably quickly admit it then laugh and
compose a limerick about it and slap you on the ass.Also we need
dumb people. We need people happy to swim in the shallow end of
the pool of ideas. And we need to help them, take care of them,
love them like any human. Give them opportunities to do important
work. We certainly shouldn't let them have governmental or
military powers.Now, we can shift the average intelligence to the
right by a standard deviation, but that requires some real
gumption. And only a rare group of people is that brave.
booleandilemma - 23 minutes ago
It takes all kinds to make a world.
[deleted]
lossolo - 59 minutes ago
You know that you could be perceived as dumb to a lot smarter
people than you, right?"But don't worry, "we need dumb people"
too. You will get help, we will take care of you and love you
like any human. Give you opportunities to do important work.
But know one thing, we certainly shouldn't let you have
governmental or military powers, you are just too dumb for
it."That kind of reasoning is dangerous. Dictatorships are
built on "I am smarter than those people, they are just dumb. I
know better what's good for them than they do. They can't be
allowed to make any decisions, direct or indirect (through
voting)".
marcoperaza - 44 minutes ago
I don't think you're being fair to the person you're replying
to. We should want to be led by people more intelligent than
most. And not just more intelligent, but more honest,
honorable, and courageous than most. That shouldn't be
controversial.I don't agree with the OP's paternalism, but I
do think that men need to be led to achieve the greatest that
each is individually capable of. And to be a great leader
requires one to be extraordinary. There is not a Napolean or
Alexander sleeping inside each of us. And that's just fine.
We are nonetheless equal before God, or for secular ears:
equal in dignity and moral worth.
lossolo - 12 minutes ago
> but I do think that men need to be led to achieve the
greatest that each is individually capable of. And to be a
great leader requires one to be extraordinary. There is not
a Napolean or Alexander sleeping inside each of us. And
that's just fine. We are nonetheless equal before God, or
for secular ears: equal in dignity and moral worth.I fully
agree but this doesn't make what I wrote less true.> We
should want to be led by people more intelligent than most.
And not just more intelligent, but more honest, honorable,
and courageous than most. That shouldn't be controversial.I
don't deny that. But we (most of western civilization) live
in democracy, Sarah Palin is democratically elected
official and by many she is not seen as the brightest
person. Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world,
is he "not just more intelligent, but more honest,
honorable, and courageous than most." ? In my opinion he is
not, but I didn't vote for him, I am not even an us
citizen, but this was people choice.Writing that we should
not allow someone to be part of government because we
perceive them as dumb ourselves is dangerous, let the
people decide, say your opinion in that matter, show
candidate faults, but let the people decide.
marcoperaza - 4 minutes ago
>Writing that we should not allow someone to be part of
government because we perceive them as dumb ourselves is
dangerous, let the people decide, say your opinion in
that matter, show candidate faults, but let the people
decide.I don't think I follow. You, I, and everyone else
in this conversation are part of "the public" as much as
the next guy.And insofar as our political system forces
us to vote for flawed people in order to advance or
protect important principles--and I think lots of people
of all political persuasions felt like this in 2016--it
is defective.
paulpauper - 44 minutes ago
It's all relative. If everyone had an IQ of 150, the elites
would be those with IQs of 180
PhasmaFelis - 54 minutes ago
Asimov is not demanding that everyone be a brilliant professor.
He is demanding that people educate themselves to the best of
their personal ability, rather than expilictly despising anyone
who attempts to do that.
ucarion - 1 hours ago
In that sentence, Asimov refers to the popular conception of the
elite -- a very low standard -- and not some elite that is
defined as the top 1% of society by some measure.On this popular
conception of the elite, almost anyone can be a member. All you
really need to do is regularly read a news publication.
paulpauper - 36 minutes ago
yeah just reading the news will make you better-informed than
95% of the population probably
middleclick - 1 hours ago
Since IQ was mentioned, another Asimov essay on the topic:"What
Is Intelligence,
Anyway?"http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
dragontamer - 1 hours ago
> Half the population has an IQ below 100.Not surprising, since
the very definition of "IQ 100" is average.As far as most
researchers go, it turns out that the "IQ 100" has gotten harder
and harder every year for nearly the past 100 years. In effect, a
person with "IQ 100" back in 1930s would only have an IQ score of
~70 today.Yes, the _average_ person of the 1930s would be
considered borderline retarded (defined as below IQ 70) by
today's much higher
standards.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
------------------The average person is far, far more intelligent
today than decades past. There are numerous theories why this is
happening (better nutrition? Better technology? Maybe better
schooling and teaching?) But regardless, we as a society are
significantly improving our "IQ scores" decade after decade.
pizza - 1 hours ago
What evidence is there of intelligence following a Gaussian
distribution, anyway?
dragontamer - 1 hours ago
None.Its an assumption of the IQ Test. The test itself
assumes a Gaussian distribution.IQ Test was a quick-and-dirty
testing methodology made in the dark ages of psychology. It
turned out to be a decent measurement of general
intelligence, but its theoretical fundamentals are... kind of
shoddy. I mean, its better than a lot of early 1900s
psychology... but its still from an age when psychology was
more folk-science than real science.Fortunately, the IQ Test
actually seems to measure something... and due to its age
there are a large number of results that span over a century.
And the test has been relatively standard throughout the time
(with exception of its increasing difficulty, as our
population has grown smarter on the average)
Kenji - 1 hours ago
> Not surprising, since the very definition of "IQ 100" is
average.Average is not enough. If you have 10 people who have
an IQ of 80 and one with an IQ of 300, that'd also average to
100. What matters here is the (roughly) gaussian distribution,
too.
dragontamer - 1 hours ago
The IQ Test assumes a Gaussian distribution by definition
.One-standard deviation above and below is defined as 85 to
115. Two standard deviations (which includes 95% of the
population) is between 70 and 130.----------Your proposition
that someone has an IQ Score of 13+ Sigma above the average
only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the IQ test.
There's literally no one that's that high. The IQ Test I
think only measures like +/- 4 sigma or so... 40 to 160.
Kenji - 42 minutes ago
It was an example with simple numbers. My goodness, I
forgot how pedantic people are here. If someone does not
understand that average is not median, then I'm not going
to talk about standard deviation...
dragontamer - 18 minutes ago
Then just say what you're trying to say.And this time,
don't use subjects like "IQ Score" unless you actually
know what the hell it means. IQ Score means something
particular. An IQ Score of 100 is literally average
(Mean, Median, AND Mode), because the IQ Test assumes a
Gaussian distribution. 115 is +1 Sigma, and 130 is +2
Sigma.-----------If you're trying to make a statement on
intelligence that doesn't have to do with the Gaussian
Distribution, then maybe you should stop using "IQ" as
your metric. Are you trying to say that you think that
general intelligence is bimodal or otherwise a non-normal
distribution?
paulpauper - 39 minutes ago
Technically, tests can be devised to extrapolate IQs to the
200+ range . One such test is reading age and talking age.
If someone attains a cognitive milestone at such an early
age that is only achievable by one in a billion people, the
person has a 1/billion rarity IQ or IQ of 200 (assuming a
SD of 15).
pdonis - 1 hours ago
> The average person is far, far more intelligent today than
decades past.That's not the only possible explanation of the
Flynn effect. An obvious alternative hypothesis (which is
mentioned in the Wikipedia article) is that people have gotten
much more experienced at taking standardized tests, without
having actually increased in general intelligence at all.