Society/Culture Fat, happy and stupid: Is Australia getting dumber?

[Sweet Jesus]

Sure, go ahead.

That belongs in another thread.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I am requesting that you actually put your brain to work buddy , saying a shows stupidity is evident is something that someone who doesn't want to put his mind to work would say . It's a lazy cognitive reflex that doesn't require deep thought .

You're right, buddy. It doesn't require "deep thought" for me to identify Bride and Prejudice as trash.

Given that you are so badly putting your view across , I think it would help you explain yourself by giving a list of shows that people should be watching .

I am happy for you to agree or disagree with my comments as they stand.

However, if you claim you simply do not understand what I've said to date, I don't see how me posting a list of shows I deem good/bad will make any difference. It's not necessary for me to make my argument. Rather, it would simply open up a tangent.

I suggest you activate your brain a bit better with regard's to this topic and stop saying a show is stupid because it just is and people who watch it are stupid because they just are .

If you think Bride and Prejudice is not self-evidently stupid, that's fine too. I don't see much value in offering a blow-by-blow explanation of why it's rubbish.

Like I said, you are free to agree or disagree with what I've posted to date. If, as you claim, it simply doesn't compute, that's your issue, not mine.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Singling out media consumption as some sort of tell-all about an entire nation is always a little simplistic.

You don't think it's a significant bellwether?

I accept it's imperfect.

There's some incredibly violent pornography that goes to print in mainstream publications in Japan - are they getting more sexually deviant?

Japanese attitudes toward sex deserve their own thread.

 

[SM]

Technology has made the next generation lazier and dumber than my generation was - phones auto-correct, laptops spell check, Google has taken the place of short term memory retention meaning that in general knowledge and intelligence is being blunted. It's sad to see.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I used to think that way, but I don't know. Intelligence is complex. Sometimes you get well informed, well educated academics who are just useless when it comes to everything outside of the world of book smarts, then you get people who lack book smarts but have a lot of life skills, then you get people who have a mixture of both. Academia and the working class can compliment each other with valuable insights from the former and essential skills from the latter but unfortunately they seem to clash a bit and this is probably why social circles don't generally seem to have a lot of variation in education levels. Australia's education rankings fell last year, though, so it's little surprise that the media has been able to manipulate a lot of people with relative ease. Critical and analytical thinking skills should be taught to children in all schools.

That's all well and good.

But I'm not suggesting everyone should spend their lives buried in academia. There's something to be said for "different strokes for different folks". I accept people will have different interests and different tastes. Nor do I think you have to be university-educated to be "intelligent".

However, I take issue with the most inane areas of the culture that simply have no redeeming value. They militate against intellectual curiosity, encourage passivity and contribute to a general dumbing down. Why does this bar have to get lower and lower? Can't we insist collectively on some standards of what's simply too dumb for consumption?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Technology has made the next generation lazier and dumber than my generation was - phones auto-correct, laptops spell check, Google has taken the place of short term memory retention meaning that in general knowledge and intelligence is being blunted. It's sad to see.

I think that's untrue.

Whenever I've read over older generations' writing, I've noticed it is as equally imperfect as my generation's is.

On your last point, however, I do often wonder what it would have been like to live in a bygone era where you couldn't simply Google things that you didn't know. I suppose having an Encyclopaedia would've been the next best thing? It almost seems painful to know that if you were arguing something mundane with your friend, you wouldn't have been able to resolve the dispute with a quick search

However, I take issue with the most inane areas of the culture that simply have no redeeming value. They militate against intellectual curiosity, encourage passivity and contribute to a general dumbing down. Why does this bar have to get lower and lower? Can't we insist collectively on some standards of what's simply too dumb for consumption?

It's definitely a cultural thing that's instilled from childhood.

I remember in my early years of high school, people would act like you were weird if you admitted to enjoying reading. In one class, I was the only person who openly stated that I enjoyed reading while everybody else cowered from it.

I don't know if it's the same outside Australia, but I definitely think that Australians are averse to the intelligentsia.

People seem to care more about 'larrikanism' than they do about about reasoned and informed opinion. I don't think it's that far-fetched to use someone like Mark Robinson as an example of this.
.

 

[SM]

I think that's untrue.

Whenever I've read over older generations' writing, I've noticed it is as equally imperfect as my generation's is.

On your last point, however, I do often wonder what it would have been like to live in a bygone era where you couldn't simply Google things that you didn't know. I suppose having an Encyclopaedia would've been the next best thing? It almost seems painful to know that if you were arguing something mundane with your friend, you wouldn't have been able to resolve the dispute with a quick search

.

I think you're confusing the generation I'm referring to as I suspect you and I are likely from the same generation (unless you're still at school?).

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I think you're confusing the generation I'm referring to as I suspect you and I are likely from the same generation (unless you're still at school?).

You're probably right.

I just assume(hope) that things aren't getting that bad.

 

[SM]

You're probably right.

I just assume(hope) that things aren't getting that bad.

My fiancee's siblings range from 10-16 in age, and while that's just one family, I've seen plenty of others that make me concerned. There'll still be that top 10% or 5% who are intelligent and reasoned, but I feel like the numbers are rapidly diminishing.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I do often wonder what it would have been like to live in a bygone era where you couldn't simply Google things that you didn't know. I suppose having an Encyclopaedia would've been the next best thing? It almost seems painful to know that if you were arguing something mundane with your friend, you wouldn't have been able to resolve the dispute with a quick search.

Reminds me of this cartoon I saw a while back:

I'm just old enough to remember having to delve into the Funk & Wagnalls back in primary school. By high school we were using Altavista and Yahoo Search, then Google came along and changed everything.

 

[Gough]

Reminds me of this cartoon I saw a while back:

I'm just old enough to remember having to delve into the Funk & Wagnalls back in primary school. By high school we were using Altavista and Yahoo Search, then Google came along and changed everything.

We had a set of F & W's at home, I used to cycle into the city a lot, and use the State Library to research when I was a kid.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

His earlier work (Selfish gene, Blind watchmaker) yes, but in some of his later work and Twitter account he seems to be proselytising. And this is interesting. God (according to Dawkins) has absolutely nothing to do with all the "issues" that stem from religion, and these same "issues" can be observed in any ideology with an in-group (good people), out-group (bad people), and power asymmetry (group dynamics). So if Dawkins presents some people as people of the outgroup and bad people, and his own ingroup as the good people he is setting up a system that demonstrates all the same "issues" of religion.

The thing is, nobody can remove the 'human' factor from religion. It is a structure organised by people, for people, and over other people and I believe it all started when Man made God/s in his own image to personify that central power structure.

Belief and faith, they can be individual things. It's only when organised socio-political cladding is built up around them, that's when the fires start.

 

[Kurve]

However, I take issue with the most inane areas of the culture that simply have no redeeming value. They militate against intellectual curiosity, encourage passivity and contribute to a general dumbing down. Why does this bar have to get lower and lower? Can't we insist collectively on some standards of what's simply too dumb for consumption?

Yummie Mummies is simply too dumb for my consumption but a pregnant woman might get something out of it. Bride and Prejudice is the same, I don't watch either of them but someone who's interested in raising their emotional IQ might. So I think it's for this reason a friend of mine who incidentally is a professor with a bunch of letters in front of her name does watch it.

 

[RupieDupie]

The thing is, nobody can remove the 'human' factor from religion. It is a structure organised by people, for people, and over other people and I believe it all started when Man made God/s in his own image to personify that central power structure.

Belief and faith, they can be individual things. It's only when organised socio-political cladding is built up around them, that's when the fires start.

Yep, I agree, religion should be more inwardly focussed on spirituality and growth.

Edit: and further to this, say if in a population there are 75% of people believing that if all household carbon emissions were reduced by 5% that the world will be X much better this goal could be achieved by the 75% reducing there carbon emissions by just over 5%, but if the same number of people Twittered this statistic rather than acted on it, the problem remains. The same could be thought of in the casebook of religion, if 75% of a population believed that by "doing good" the population would be a better place, they should probably practice it rather than preach it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Bride and Prejudice is the same, I don't watch either of them but someone who's interested in raising their emotional IQ might.

Sorry, what?

 

[Freo Big Fella]

You don't think it's a significant bellwether?

I think popular culture has a tendency to reflect people's interest in base level pleasures and instincts. Fifty years ago it was the Beatles who were a sign of societal collapse, sixty it was Elvis, eighty it was Cab Calloway.

It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have more higher-end interests. A good mate of mine holds a particularly high end mining engineering job (something involving lithium extraction) that took years to qualify for, but also likes Ed Sheeran and Yummy Mummies and says she doesn't want to think when she listens to radio.

I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies and Game of Thrones. Entertainment is a release valve for people rather than the be all and end all.

I accept it's imperfect.

FWIW I agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem - just think it's driven more by political discourse (particularly fringe stuff on social media) than pop culture.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies

Can't wait for Avengers Infinity War.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think popular culture has a tendency to reflect people's interest in base level pleasures and instincts. Fifty years ago it was the Beatles who were a sign of societal collapse, sixty it was Elvis, eighty it was Cab Calloway.

Yeah, and look how far we've fallen.

It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have more higher-end interests. A good mate of mine holds a particularly high end mining engineering job (something involving lithium extraction) that took years to qualify for, but also likes Ed Sheeran and Yummy Mummies and says she doesn't want to think when she listens to radio.

I haven't seen Yummy Mummies. What is it? Do I want to know?

I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies and Game of Thrones. Entertainment is a release valve for people rather than the be all and end all.

That's popcorn. That's not necessarily the "awful s**t" I have in mind. The stuff I object to is several orders of magnitude worse than the stuff you're mentioning.

I'm not a complete elitist.

FWIW I agree that anti-intellectualism is a problem - just think it's driven more by political discourse (particularly fringe stuff on social media) than pop culture.

The coarsening and dumbing down of pop culture is a symptom.

And apparently no one ever draws the line and says: "Hang, on, this is just too s**t. It's actually bad for people."

Or, at least, not enough people draw that line for the free fall to stop.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

I haven't seen Yummy Mummies. What is it? Do I want to know?

vvvvv

the "awful s**t" I have in mind.

I think FTA TV in Australia is a particularly poor example at the moment - they're so s**t out of luck that anything they produce has to be an immediate slam dunk with an increasingly shrinking market.

The coarsening and dumbing down of pop culture is a symptom.

I don't think it's necessarily coarsening and getting dumber at every level though - it's just fragmenting. It's easier for people to pursue specialist cultural interests - whatever those might be - at a very individual, specialised level that isn't really reflected in the mass market.

The pool is getting shallower because more people are getting out, so to speak.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I think popular culture has a tendency to reflect people's interest in base level pleasures and instincts. Fifty years ago it was the Beatles who were a sign of societal collapse, sixty it was Elvis, eighty it was Cab Calloway.

If you go back a bit further popular entertainment was to see people hanged! As recently as 1936, Rainey Bethea's hanging in Kentucky attracted a crowd of 20,000.

The tabloid press has always sold copy on sensational sleazy stories of bishops, actresses and politicians.

I don't see the retrograde movement in our society.

It doesn't necessarily mean they don't have more higher-end interests. A good mate of mine holds a particularly high end mining engineering job (something involving lithium extraction) that took years to qualify for, but also likes Ed Sheeran and Yummy Mummies and says she doesn't want to think when she listens to radio.

I'm someone who's reasonably well educated and politically engaged, but also a sucker for Marvel movies and Game of Thrones. Entertainment is a release valve for people rather than the be all and end all.

Sometimes it's good to switch off. My favourite brain dead activities are watching the darts and snooker on TV and playing Cookie Crush.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yep, I agree, religion should be more inwardly focussed on spirituality and growth.

Edit: and further to this, say if in a population there are 75% of people believing that if all household carbon emissions were reduced by 5% that the world will be X much better this goal could be achieved by the 75% reducing there carbon emissions by just over 5%, but if the same number of people Twittered this statistic rather than acted on it, the problem remains. The same could be thought of in the casebook of religion, if 75% of a population believed that by "doing good" the population would be a better place, they should probably practice it rather than preach it.

Too right. There's an old saying in the protest movement - "Think global, act local". You can't get much more local than the Self, so that's the place to start. Do no harm. Reduce your own footprint. And so on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't think it's necessarily coarsening and getting dumber at every level though

In the areas that supposedly have broad appeal.

it's just fragmenting. It's easier for people to pursue specialist cultural interests - whatever those might be - at a very individual, specialised level that isn't really reflected in the mass market.

I think I made this point in the OP. The Australian market is so small that anything a little bit different struggles to get a big enough slice of the pie.

It means that content gets pitched right up the middle, and increasingly this involves dumbing down.

 

[Kurve]

Sorry, what?

That none of you involved in the above query know what an emotional IQ or intelligence is and why it's important that you do is interesting.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That none of you involved in the above query know what an emotional IQ or intelligence is and why it's important that you do is interesting.

This makes even less sense.

 

[Fryman]

Our whole system in Australia is just a lesson in dysgenics.

If you wanted to create a country that got dumber every generation then how would you do it?

First, we need to disincentivize the civic minded, low time preference, high IQ individuals from having lots of kids.
1. Hmmm...how about we make higher education so costly that it's incompatible with having kids at a young age
2. Then lets create an over inflated housing market so too much of their money is tied up in a mortgage to afford kids
3. The finishing blow is to tax the crap out of them to pay for the ageing boomers

That took care of the smart ones. Now we just have to create a system of incentives to have low IQ/ poor character citizens create more kids.
Can anyone think of ways the government encourages the poor to have more kids?

And the icing on the cake, if even the poor don't breed enough, you can then just import all sorts of trash from around the globe citing falling birth rates and a need for GDP as an excuse.