On 1/14/2016 11:58 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the
level of your education. In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your
point across to everyone.

True, dat....

But if that lower level is warranted (as I am sure it is if smart guys
like Richard Nixon and Oral Roberts believed it was in their
time)....then, below a certain level, we are uncovering what seems to me
like a problem: limited thinking ability in the general populace.

Exactly. I have a colleague who contends that most people are incapable
of abstract thought -- and this in his assessment of *technologists*
(not "plumbers", etc.).

If you keep pandering to people who don't want to think about difficult
issues ("My brain hurts!"), then you teach them NOT to think about
difficult issues: "Just TRUST ME! I have all the answers!!"

Use a calculator for all your arithmetic needs and within a month,
you'll find you can no longer do long division, etc. If you don't
regularly pick apart arguments to expose their flaws/fallacies/assumptions,
then how quickly will you lose *that* critical ability?

I write phenomenally reliable software (!). I do this by CONSTANTLY
criticizing every assumption *I* make in my design of the softwa
"How would *I* break this -- intentionally or otherwise?" Colleagues
despair when I approach their products because they *know* I'll break
it within the first minute or two -- despite the fact that they've been
testing and "perfecting" it for months! They've lost the ability to
see the flaws in their own designs.

Has it always been that way ? Might the level actually be higher now
than 100 years ago ?

Read the Twain passage I cited in the ereader thread. Remember, twain
wrote for the public at large, not for the "elite". His readers may not
have been able to craft a sentence as elegantly as he -- but they
UNDERSTOOD what he was saying!

Interesting questions..... and I have no clue what the answers are...

But when smart demagogues start saying stupid things to win over stupid
people (OK....for the sake of PC: "Low-Information Voters")... it seems
to me like things are poised to go downhill.

Yes. If you think government is too big, doing too much, then wouldn't
you want a candidate to explain more -- so YOU could be more INFORMED
(thereby requiring LESS of your government)?

But, that assumes people *want* to be informed. IME, they want NOT to have
to bother thinking about most of these things. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRIVIAL!
If they *were* trivial, they'd be easy to think about AND easy to come
up with the "right" solution. Instead, people are willing -- eager! -- to
settle for specious reasoning ("Yeah, that SORT OF makes sense...") so
they can dismiss a difficult subject.

We've had "photo traffic enforcement" here for a number of years.
Originally, speed traps. Then, red light traps. There was a recent
citizens' initiative to ban this technology (for a variety of valid
reasons). The folks wanting to keep the (revenue generation) scheme
in place kept claiming their presence reduces accidents. And, sited
some statistics that *seemed* to support their claim.

OTOH, for the same time period, statistics in areas where the cameras
had been REMOVED didn't show an *increase* in the years since their removal.

Ooops! And, no one eager to explain the apparent discrepancy in
a meaningful way that would help voters decide.

Instead, the "unfairness" of the technology (there are lots of flaws
with the implementation -- clearly designed to maximize "return"
for the third-party vendor) was the overwhelming sentiment and voters
banned all such technologies by a 3:2 margin.

None of the stake holders felt qualified to present their case with
CLEAR FACTS! So, did they not understand the situation? Were they
inarticulate? Or, just plain WRONG??