Society/Culture The distrust of education

[Gethelred]

I am.
As you often do yourself.
Public schooling had no been discussed until you mentioned it to be intrical to your thread. You make things up on the run to suit whatever agenda it is your are pushing, or read further between the lines if you will.

See my edit before I respond to this post.

 

[the_interloper]

I've only ever really encountered "you are right wing, you must not be educated". I haven't encountered the opposite.

What I have encountered from the right is "that isn't education, it's indoctrination".

Having said that, all my points stand.

Decent bump of a post from two weeks ago, though.

As I've said before being "educated" or not isn't binary, clearly it depends what you're educated on. You can have a conservative with many degrees who may be called "uneducated" for their view on a variety of issues, this might be regarding abortion let's say, but their education was in business and economics.

Business and economics don't really teach you about ethics regarding pregnancy termination of course, usually someone's views on this would come outside of the education system, often it's religious.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I've only ever really encountered "you are right wing, you must not be educated". I haven't encountered the opposite.

Given how slow the right were to get on board with climate change (or even something as basic as recognising that homosexuality is natural), I can see why. Their distrust for science that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions is well-known.

What I have encountered from the right is "that isn't education, it's indoctrination".

Again, their distrust for science that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions is well-known.

Having said that, all my points stand.

Your second paragraph didn't follow from your first. The first showed that humans can interpret things in different ways, even if they have received the same education, so education isn't some sort of factory producing hive minded clones. I think everyone on the left would agree with that.

The second paragraph is some diatribe about the left using "education" as a pejorative. I don't understand how it's connected to the first paragraph.

Decent bump of a post from two weeks ago, though.

So?

 

[The Punter]

Johnny Bananas

I think there is more opportunism and "dancing with the one who brung you" in that "distrust of the science" of climate change. See faux tradie Canavan as an example. The sexuality thing I'm not getting into on here.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Johnny Bananas

I think there is more opportunism and "dancing with the one who brung you" in that "distrust of the science" of climate change. See faux tradie Canavan as an example. The sexuality thing I'm not getting into on here.

Nowadays, perhaps it's opportunism. But historically, climate denial, and a disregard for the environment in general, has long been a part of western conservative parties, with the lone exception of Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Have a look at the academic qualifications of the members of Australia’s most “common sense” media network:

Peter Gleeson: High School Dropout

It's ok to be uneducated.

You say that, but Gleeson just got found out as a serial plagiarist. Maybe some formal education would have helped him realised that's not on?

 

[QuietB]

... because you don't trust them, their outcomes, what they're saying to have a resemblance to reality.

You're absolutely doubting the validity of research. You're doubting the merits of the process by which these people - the ones who are actually experts - arrive at their conclusions.

Let's ask a different question: why should the public get to ignore expertise?

It is not that they don't trust them, or that they doubt them. Trump knows he is full of s**t, but his methods serve a means to an end.

It is simply inconvenient to their ambitions, and it is much easier to discredit/dismiss education and science and research than it is to counter it.

In fact, with a complicit (owned) media and the levers of power it is outright simple to discredit and dismiss education and science and research. And that is why we end up with "inner city latte sippers", "unelected bureaucrats", "cultural marxism" and whatever else.

Why would you waste your time trying to outwit someone clearly smarter than you when it is so easy to discredit them and simply dismiss them?

So here we are

 

[Gethelred]

It is not that they don't trust them, or that they doubt them. Trump knows he is full of s**t, but his methods serve a means to an end.

It is simply inconvenient to their ambitions, and it is much easier to discredit/dismiss education and science and research than it is to counter it.

In fact, with a complicit (owned) media and the levers of power it is outright simple to discredit and dismiss education and science and research. And that is why we end up with "inner city latte sippers", "unelected bureaucrats", "cultural marxism" and whatever else.

Why would you waste your time trying to outwit someone clearly smarter than you when it is so easy to discredit them and simply dismiss them?

So here we are

That is but a single side of the puzzle.

It absolutely makes sense for the powerful to try to discredit the experts that disagree with them, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for those without power or wealth to do it as a matter of course or against their interests. My question is far more directed at people who are not million/billionares, because it's their distrust that is ostensibly the problem.

The wealthy can buy a political party, but they cannot compel people to vote for them.

 

[QuietB]

That is but a single side of the puzzle.

It absolutely makes sense for the powerful to try to discredit the experts that disagree with them, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for those without power or wealth to do it as a matter of course or against their interests. My question is far more directed at people who are not million/billionares, because it's their distrust that is ostensibly the problem.

The wealthy can buy a political party, but they cannot compel people to vote for them.

This is the entire Fox News/Trump/boris strategy. First you divide them. Then you try to get just enough of them on your side to win. You flood the zone with confusion until the point people give up, then you appeal to their grievances.

This is the thing that conservatives do really effectively. They reduce everything to some binary debate that creates an us against them divide. MAGA, Brexit.....

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is the entire Fox News/Trump/boris strategy. First you divide them. Then you try to get just enough of them on your side to win. You flood the zone with confusion until the point people give up, then you appeal to their grievances.

This is the thing that conservatives do really effectively. They reduce everything to some binary debate that creates an us against them divide. MAGA, Brexit.....

Why do you think the leftist attempts to do the same don't work as well? (eg the 99% vs the 1%, people vs corporations)

 

[QuietB]

Why do you think the leftist attempts to do the same don't work as well? (eg the 99% vs the 1%, people vs corporations)

I think the left are intent on having all (or at least a lot more) debates - they simply refuse to concede to the lowest common detonator.

This in turn makes them an easy target. All the time we see conservatives not only trying to create wedge issues between left and right, but highlighting wedge issues between left and left. And the left are more than prepared to have the argument with each other - First Nations Persons recognition is going to be a ripper. The left will tear themselves apart and the Conservatives will stand back and throw barbs from the side. It will all end in inevitable confusion - and then probably no change.

Meanwhile the right only need to be disciplined on whatever binary, usually irrelevant, issue they have chosen at the time. "Kids overboard", "Carbon Tax", "Stop the Boats", "Better Economic Managers (myth)", etc etc

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I think the left are intent on having all (or at least a lot more) debates - they simply refuse to concede to the lowest common detonator.

This in turn makes them an easy target. All the time we see conservatives not only trying to create wedge issues between left and right, but highlighting wedge issues between left and left. And the left are more than prepared to have the argument with each other - First Nations Persons recognition is going to be a ripper. The left will tear themselves apart and the Conservatives will stand back and throw barbs from the side. It will all end in inevitable confusion - and then probably no change.

Meanwhile the right only need to be disciplined on whatever binary, usually irrelevant, issue they have chosen at the time. "Kids overboard", "Carbon Tax", "Stop the Boats", "Better Economic Managers (myth)", etc etc

Interesting. I wonder if there's a way the left can split the right similarly. Climate change was a useful one for dividing the hard conservatives from the moderates (Canavan fell straight into the trap during the election campaign). Could immigration be another arena for this to happen?

 

[QuietB]

Interesting. I wonder if there's a way the left can split the right similarly. Climate change was a useful one for dividing the hard conservatives from the moderates (Canavan fell straight into the trap during the election campaign). Could immigration be another arena for this to happen?

Educated people who believe in evidence don’t want that though. They want to have the arguments and debate.

Conservatives are increasingly satisfied with their own beliefs. As long as they believe something it can be true. And the last thing they want to do is test those beliefs. If you don’t agree you are not one of them. The game is not convince everyone. The game is convince enough to win an election.

Conservatives are happy to educate engineers and bankers who just beaver away at their task, but want to shut down the humanities and the arts. This is exactly what they did with the university fee restructuring under Morrison. The only point of that was to help stack the numbers in their favour.

Conservatives don’t distrust education. They don’t like it because it creates people who are less likely to be conservative. Education is simply an inconvenience to to them - unless you can control the syllabus - ie. substitute your belief system for evidence - which the Morrison government was fully committed to.

 

[bigbank]

It’s a great and most frustrating point about the left tearing itself apart due to the belief that a unanimous truth can be arrived at by debate or some discourse. I think conservatives see just how impossible that is and so they go straight for easy emotions.

I kinda see the education thing like there’s simply more people who are less formally educated and who go off the vibe and feel of politics, conservatives know this and lean into it. I’d like to think that we could reach a point where enough people are formally educated enough that conservatives can’t play the way they like to play.

 

[Taylor]

On another topic, has there been any talk from Labor of rectifying that disgusting act from the previous shambles of a government, when out of the blue they hugely upped the cost of Arts degrees?

Was there ever a more blatant and vindictive Up Yours from the proudly philistine Coalition?

That's the one they said provided funding for 39,000 more places and also included increasing fees for commerce and law degrees.

... but they reduced the price for degrees that lead to jobs such as teaching, nursing, engineering and other science degrees.

 

[Chief]

Yes: the STEM subjects requiring labs and equipment get a discount, the other subjects requiring books and a whiteboard got a huge increase.

It's totally upside down. Why not subsidise STEM and leave humanities and arts alone?

Not that there's many humanities courses left.

 

[Taylor]

Yes: the STEM subjects requiring labs and equipment get a discount, the other subjects requiring books and a whiteboard got a huge increase.

It's totally upside down. Why not subsidise STEM and leave humanities and arts alone?

Not that there's many humanities courses left.

The purpose of government funding for higher education is to produce higher paid tax payers into the economy. I would think that law is a degree with one of the highest not working as a lawyer after graduation courses due to the glut of degrees pumped out each year.

It's not a pathway for self validation that need never be paid back.

Subsidising stem and leaving arts and humanities alone would be to not offer government fronted payments on the non stem subjects, making them unaffordable for people who don't see a high paying job post graduation.

 

[Chief]

The purpose of government funding for higher education is to produce higher paid tax payers into the economy.

And there is the problem.

 

[Taylor]

And there is the problem.

I'll turn it back on you and suggest that expecting the society to fund your hobby and provide for your survival while you aren't contributing to it is a greater problem.

We eventually will end up in a WNBA situation. In that you can argue for the existence of such things, and argue for a social value for them, but if the people aren't actually getting a value from it and not turning up for it then it doesn't actually have the social value.

 

[Chief]

expecting the society to fund your hobby

Whatever. Learning to think isn't a hobby. Law isn't a hobby. Journalism isn't a hobby.

STEM isn't the only thing worth our time and attention.

The pommy posh get to fwah fwah that they are schooled in the classics and that makes them better and more qualified to lead. Funny.

 

[QuietB]

I'll turn it back on you and suggest that expecting the society to fund your hobby and provide for your survival while you aren't contributing to it is a greater problem.

We eventually will end up in a WNBA situation. In that you can argue for the existence of such things, and argue for a social value for them, but if the people aren't actually getting a value from it and not turning up for it then it doesn't actually have the social value.

But the extreme of that is shut down everything that is not profitable. So no arts (Liberals have pretty much already shut that down) no research (Liberals have pretty much already shut that down) no environment (Liberals have pretty much already screwed that) etc.

But corporate profits will be up.

I think you will find people want a little more than that. If you look really hard (or that much at all) you might even find that the people who benefit most from corporate profits are the most miserable of all.

 

[Kwality]

And there is the problem.

Lifters & Leaners.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'll turn it back on you and suggest that expecting the society to fund your hobby and provide for your survival while you aren't contributing to it is a greater problem.

We eventually will end up in a WNBA situation. In that you can argue for the existence of such things, and argue for a social value for them, but if the people aren't actually getting a value from it and not turning up for it then it doesn't actually have the social value.

Whatever. Learning to think isn't a hobby. Law isn't a hobby. Journalism isn't a hobby.

STEM isn't the only thing worth our time and attention.

The pommy posh get to fwah fwah that they are schooled in the classics and that makes them better and more qualified to lead. Funny.

I've been reading lately about the Universal Basic Income concept and I'm fast concluding the notion that everyone has to work in order to live is horseschitte. And I've worked hard all my life.

 

[Taylor]

But the extreme of that is shut down everything that is not profitable. So no arts (Liberals have pretty much already shut that down) no research (Liberals have pretty much already shut that down) no environment (Liberals have pretty much already screwed that) etc.

But corporate profits will be up.

I think you will find people want a little more than that. If you look really hard (or that much at all) you might even find that the people who benefit most from corporate profits are the most miserable of all.

If people want it but don't want it except for free then they don't really want it, they just enjoy it.

Entertainment makes billions every month. There's certainly a market for what people like.

 

[Taylor]

Whatever. Learning to think isn't a hobby. Law isn't a hobby. Journalism isn't a hobby.

STEM isn't the only thing worth our time and attention.

The pommy posh get to fwah fwah that they are schooled in the classics and that makes them better and more qualified to lead. Funny.

And soccer only needs one goal keeper. Not 20.

The issue isn't that people want to study whatever they want, it's that the government doesn't need to carry the investment risk for someone who has less chance to holding down a job that will actually pay back that loan.