The Education Gap is Tearing Politics Apart

[carcinogen]

Read this article, for me it's the best article I've read this year.

How the education gap is tearing politics apart

[Carlos J]

Good article, carc. Particularly like this line, "What the educated are better at is sounding like they know what they are talking about, because they have been trained in how to make an argument."

[Rossco]

What a pile of absolute pompous nonsense that article is.

[Petingo]

A great read, carc.

Thank you for posting the link

[Royal24s]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

[Carlos J]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

I disagree, Royals. Point in red, he mentions himself about the high numbers in higher education.

And you IMO are simplistic in your reading of the article if you think he is simply attacking Trump or Brexit voters to mock the socalled 'less educated' He uses Brexit and Trump voters as point starters, as current, not to have a go.

He criticises the socalled 'educated' often. In my quote above and:

What is the EU? Hearing educated remainers mock those who asked that question the day after the vote was an uncomfortable experience – and not just because the story about Google searches was largely apocryphal. After all, the question is not as straightforward as it seems: it is simple enough to say what the letters refer to, but far more difficult to know what they really mean for our politics and our future. Education is not the same as knowledge. Nor is knowledge the same as knowing which way to vote. The split between the university towns and other parts of the country did not arise because one set of people understood what was truly at stake and the others were just taking a wild guess. Both sides were guessing.

And tends to agree with Gove:

What is happening in the United States has also been happening in the UK. The Brexit campaign had its own Trumpian moment, courtesy of Michael Gove, who told Faisal Islam in an interview on Sky News on 3 June that “the British people have had enough of experts”. Gove was also widely mocked – if not experts, who was he proposing to get to repair his car, fix his teeth, teach his kids?

But what he said struck a deep chord, because it contained a large element of truth. The experts Gove was deriding had been telling the British public that the risks of Brexit far outweighed any potential benefits. Gove insisted that the voters should decide this for themselves, on the basis of their own experiences, rather than listening to elite voices that had a vested interest in the outcome. Those voices came trailing educational qualifications, which had put them in their positions of authority – at the IMF, the Bank of England, the Treasury. Gove was asking voters lacking anything like the same educational qualifications to feel empowered to reject what they were being told. And in the referendum on 23 June, that is what they did.

When Gove suggested that the experts should not be trusted because they have a vested interest in what they are saying, that was his point: once knowledge becomes a prerequisite of power, then it no longer speaks for itself. It appears to speak for the worldview of the people who possess it. At that point it ceases to be knowledge and simply becomes another mark of privilege.

I thought it was quite a fair, reasoned and thoughtful article. Maybe I had less of your confirmation bias when reading it?

[Petingo]

Indeed, CJ....very well reasoned and thoughtful.

If a bit long

But well worth the effort.

[Royal24s]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

I disagree, Royals. Point in red, he mentions himself about the high numbers in higher education.

And you IMO are simplistic in your reading of the article if you think he is simply attacking Trump or Brexit voters to mock the socalled 'less educated' He uses Brexit and Trump voters as point starters, as current, not to have a go.

He criticises the socalled 'educated' often. In my quote above and:

What is the EU? Hearing educated remainers mock those who asked that question the day after the vote was an uncomfortable experience – and not just because the story about Google searches was largely apocryphal. After all, the question is not as straightforward as it seems: it is simple enough to say what the letters refer to, but far more difficult to know what they really mean for our politics and our future. Education is not the same as knowledge. Nor is knowledge the same as knowing which way to vote. The split between the university towns and other parts of the country did not arise because one set of people understood what was truly at stake and the others were just taking a wild guess. Both sides were guessing.

And tends to agree with Gove:

What is happening in the United States has also been happening in the UK. The Brexit campaign had its own Trumpian moment, courtesy of Michael Gove, who told Faisal Islam in an interview on Sky News on 3 June that “the British people have had enough of experts”. Gove was also widely mocked – if not experts, who was he proposing to get to repair his car, fix his teeth, teach his kids?

But what he said struck a deep chord, because it contained a large element of truth. The experts Gove was deriding had been telling the British public that the risks of Brexit far outweighed any potential benefits. Gove insisted that the voters should decide this for themselves, on the basis of their own experiences, rather than listening to elite voices that had a vested interest in the outcome. Those voices came trailing educational qualifications, which had put them in their positions of authority – at the IMF, the Bank of England, the Treasury. Gove was asking voters lacking anything like the same educational qualifications to feel empowered to reject what they were being told. And in the referendum on 23 June, that is what they did.

When Gove suggested that the experts should not be trusted because they have a vested interest in what they are saying, that was his point: once knowledge becomes a prerequisite of power, then it no longer speaks for itself. It appears to speak for the worldview of the people who possess it. At that point it ceases to be knowledge and simply becomes another mark of privilege.

I thought it was quite a fair, reasoned and thoughtful article. Maybe I had less of your confirmation bias when reading it?

Maybe you did. I don't think that's the fact of the matter but at least you put your view rationally and took some time and effort to do so.
I wouldnt agree with Plato about very much, but he was right to point put that the general population would be better off listening to those with the experience, intelligence and education to make make better judgements than they can. It is probably in their nature and included in their instincts to do so actually, or they wouldn't survive .
There is another important ingredient though - that those who have the substance to lead are well intentioned and like, rather than contempt, the less able. They must seek to protect and help them rather than to exploit them, and this will be proven by their past actions and achievements on the part of others.
It is quite dangerous to the hard of thinking to believe that their opinions are more reliable than they actually are, because they will be manipulated toward their own destruction.
Personally, I still think the article is intended to introduce a self seeking belief , and the rest is nothing more than an elaborate smoke screen.

[Royal24s]

- point OUT, I'm not editting it

[Zambo]

I think it's become clear that only graduates should be allowed to vote at GEs and if that rule had applied at the reerendum, we wouldn't have had this silly argy bargy since.

[Royal24s]

I think it's become clear that only graduates should be allowed to vote at GEs and if that rule had applied at the reerendum, we wouldn't have had this silly argy bargy since.

Whist I realise youre being ironic, how much credibility does a degree confer these days ?
Complete fucking half wits can get a degree since they've dumbed down the entry requirements and standards and allowed all sorts of polytechnics, technical colleges and 24 hour petrol stations to call themselves universities and dish out degrees as long as you do so many essays per module and manage to turn up and fill a couple of pages with drivel for your final exam.
That was my whole point - bunnying up a massive number of unremarkable people who should be working in a shoe shop to believe they're the intelligentsia by handing out degrees on the back of corn flake packets, then encouraging them to think they know better than anyone who applies lateral thought or logic to issues, because these essential components of higher education and higher thinking are no longer taught or encouraged, or actually as was the case, insisted upon.
Thus, in the mind of the common man, the stupid are regarded as clever, and the clever are regarded as stupid.
It's another example of inverting truth and reality to make the world match someone's desired view if it and achieve the outcomes they wish to see.

[Carlos J]

Maybe you did. I don't think that's the fact of the matter but at least you put your view rationally and took some time and effort to do so.
I wouldnt agree with Plato about very much, but he was right to point put that the general population would be better off listening to those with the experience, intelligence and education to make make better judgements than they can. It is probably in their nature and included in their instincts to do so actually, or they wouldn't survive .
There is another important ingredient though - that those who have the substance to lead are well intentioned and like, rather than contempt, the less able. They must seek to protect and help them rather than to exploit them, and this will be proven by their past actions and achievements on the part of others.
It is quite dangerous to the hard of thinking to believe that their opinions are more reliable than they actually are, because they will be manipulated toward their own destruction.
Personally, I still think the article is intended to introduce a self seeking belief , and the rest is nothing more than an elaborate smoke screen.

Apologies for never reading Plato, In those words, Plato (and the author) seems to have nailed Trump.

For Plato, democracy suffered from the basic defect of putting decision-making in the hands of people who were not competent to decide. Politics was a skill – and most people were simply clueless. Worse, that made them prey for hucksters and demagogues who would promise the earth and get away with it. Democracy was fertile ground for fantasists with a taste for power. If you tell the people that up is down, and the people believe you, then who is going to let them know that they are wrong?

So no democracy then? Experts and the socalled educated who know? Who actually do you want to err rule, Royals?

[Royal24s]

No, I did start by saying that I generally disagreed with Plato, except for the bit I set out.
Because Plato was right about one thing doesn't mean that everything he said and wrote was correct.
I'm not particularly opposed to democracy,since you ask , but nor is it really the most vital component of government, and it has serious deficiencies. In my opinion, how we choose a government is less important than the idea that any such government is limited and that the rights of the people are guaranteed.
The people do not need to be " ruled" , they can appoint and be their own government, and need not hand regal powers to anyone in doing so.
The best form is a republic in my opinion, but you still need someone to administer that so by all means have a vote if you prefer it to tossing a coin. However you do it though, that person has to be limited to actions which are set down in a constitution, and specifically debarred from excersising their personal will over the constitution or the people.
Mere democracy without that is not only meaningless but very dangerous since wicked and cruel opinions will sometimes attract popular support.
I think it was George Washington who expressed this shortcoming as " three wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner ".
Ultimately the people must decide who is wise enough to guide them and consent to that. Only decent men should be given such responsibilities, and such men would not use their intellects or strength to influence their people by the deceptions I have described.
Power corrupts everyone in the end, so we should look to those who are strongest in resisting this, but even then ensure that they are never in a position of absolute power should they succumb to it.
So appoint your leaders by elections if you like, or by a raffle, but make sure that you never hand them the ability to take away the principles upon which your society is founded.

[Hillman avenger]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

Don't know about UKIP but sorry, it is WELL DOCUMENTED that Trump supporters are generally less educated than the population as a whole, and by a distance from the Democrats. If you'd like a quick look, have a look at the red states ( ie Trump) it matches more or less directly the map of states where the majority of people do not have post-school education.
It's so funny that you say this an din another thread argue for less educated people to be excluded from decision-making. If they were, we would not be leaving the EU, we would probably not have a Tory government, and Trump would have been discarded six months ago.

[Hillman avenger]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

Don't know about UKIP but sorry, it is WELL DOCUMENTED that Trump supporters are generally less educated than the population as a whole, and by a distance from the Democrats. If you'd like a quick look, have a look at the red states ( ie Trump) it matches more or less directly the map of states where the majority of people do not have post-school education.
It's so funny that you say this and in another thread argue for less educated people to be excluded from decision-making. If they were, we would not be leaving the EU, we would probably not have a Tory government, and Trump would have been discarded six months ago.

[Royal24s]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

Don't know about UKIP but sorry, it is WELL DOCUMENTED that Trump supporters are generally less educated than the population as a whole, and by a distance from the Democrats. If you'd like a quick look, have a look at the red states ( ie Trump) it matches more or less directly the map of states where the majority of people do not have post-school education.
It's so funny that you say this an din another thread argue for less educated people to be excluded from decision-making. If they were, we would not be leaving the EU, we would probably not have a Tory government, and Trump would have been discarded six months ago.

It was well documented in Hitlers Germany that Jewish people were inferior and wicked. The trouble with that was that it wasn't actually true, was it ?
In a repressive society which controls the media, such as ours, we cannot rely upon facts merely because they are " well documented", as you put it.
Nor did I ever say that uneducated people should be excluded, but that they'd be well advised to listen more to those who might have a better grasp on the whole package than they do, which is all they can do, but also that they should be able to distinguish between those who are trying to protect their interests and those who contempt them so much that they mislead and harm them for their own interests.

[Hillman avenger]

I think Hillaire Belloc said something like, if we introduce public education we will educate more people, but not educate them so well.
Like so many of his little gems , it was prophetic. We now have millions of people educated to a very very basic level who erroneously imagine that this easy version of education equips them to understand such matters as politics.
The truly educated and intelligent have not been slow to exploit this illusory self view, congratulating them upon their sophistication when they swallow big lies which are portrayed as views which only educated people could understand.
It's like patting a dog on the head and telling it'that it's a good boy when it does what you tell it to do.
The converse of this is to tell these gullible sorts that they'd be stupid or ill educated if they disagreed with you, or failed to do what they are told. ( Even Hillman tries this in these threads, although he's only mimicking and doesn't understand it really).

This article is just another example of all this . The author is apparently worried that people obviously don't understand democracy because they don't accept his views or vote as they're told . He is telling us that an understanding of democracy would lead to a particular set of opinions which happen , of course, to be his. He is inviting people he obviously looks down upon to prove they are clever by agreeing with him, and warning them not to place themselves in the group he says are stupid by disagreeing with him.
Those who have been lucky enough to receive a better standard of education than will be provided by the current and recent public systems are unconvinced by this ploy, or by the argument it seeks to bolster.
It's simply not true that UKIP or Donald Trump supporters are any more likely to be stupid, ill educated or wicked than any other group of voters.
The mere fact that anyone starts pushing this sort of manipulative bullshit means two things - that they regard the audience they are addressing as stupid, and that they have no logical or true argument if they have to play the man rather than the ball.

Don't know about UKIP but sorry, it is WELL DOCUMENTED that Trump supporters are generally less educated than the population as a whole, and by a distance from the Democrats. If you'd like a quick look, have a look at the red states ( ie Trump) it matches more or less directly the map of states where the majority of people do not have post-school education.
It's so funny that you say this an din another thread argue for less educated people to be excluded from decision-making. If they were, we would not be leaving the EU, we would probably not have a Tory government, and Trump would have been discarded six months ago.

It was well documented in Hitlers Germany that Jewish people were inferior and wicked. The trouble with that was that it wasn't actually true, was it ?
In a repressive society which controls the media, such as ours, we cannot rely upon facts merely because they are " well documented", as you put it.
Nor did I ever say that uneducated people should be excluded, but that they'd be well advised to listen more to those who might have a better grasp on the whole package than they do, which is all they can do, but also that they should be able to distinguish between those who are trying to protect their interests and those who contempt them so much that they mislead and harm them for their own interests.

Indeed we can'r rely on any facts at all, can we, except those personally approved by you.
By the way, it is a matter of record-unchallenged by anyone but you-- that attainment of further education is at its lowest in the southern and midwest states- those where Trump has the edge.

[Royal24s]

Well, the intelligence applied to testing facts will determine the effectiveness of the tests, won't it ?
Similarly, a lack of intelligence will result in ineffective conclusions.

Now, did you know that people from Dixie and the mid west often attend places elsewhere during their education ?
Your role model Bill Clinton, for example, attended Oxford, but he's from Arkansas. On the other hand, you lived in Oxford, but never received proper education. Can you see how that works ?

Another small factor here, is the massive numbers of people migrating South within the USA.
Texas , for example, is growing in population at an incredible level because of the space and weather. It's getting very expensive in Dallas and lots of very rich people have moved there from the North East, again like your heros the Bush family. Similarly , lots of poor people from the south move north for employment.
In short, we can't take exam results from round the USA , draw a graph , and conclude that anyone not living near centres of higher education is stupid .