[dmerks]

There is plenty of evidence indicating socio-economic status correlates with educational outcomes. Wouldn't you agree victims of disinformation are those least equipped to tell apart facts from fabrications? Isn't it the heart of the issue? The article unfairly refers to a "nation of idiots". Aren't many "idiots" responsible for electing the likes of the current American, English or Brazilian leaders. What is the solution? Taking the "idiot's" power away isn't democratic, it's a speedway to totalitanism. Protecting the "idiots" from disinformation is impossible: plenty of money sees benefits in compromising the people, it will find a way. Quality initial and continuing education is possible and democratic. Democratic societies are founded partly on the idea of the aware citizen. When are we victims of disinformation? When we decide to believe something that we know little about. It's easy: we all need a representation of the world. If all we are given are fabrications, we will never make it out of the cave. The idea is at least as old as Plato or the first democracy.

[_qulr]

> There is plenty of evidence indicating socio-economic status correlates with educational outcomes.

Of course, but not sure how that's relevant here.

> The article unfairly refers to a "nation of idiots".

Not sure that's unfair.

> What is the solution?

What if there is no solution? What if "Idiocracy" was accurate? Or "Planet of the Apes"? Science "fiction" is rife with stories about how humanity ended up destroying itself, especially via technology. It's not like we haven't seen this coming for a long time.

[dmerks]

> Of course, but not sure how that's relevant here.

The relevance is fairly obvious in my previous comments. See the child who knows of squirrels example. Here is an excerpt from the article that speaks for the relevance:

"For people, patching means education. And not the worker-prep kind of education where you learn how to be an obedient and productive office worker, but the kind that teaches the fundamentals of how things work—from physics to psychology, and from physiology to philosophy."

> Not sure that's unfair.

Many people grow up in terrible conditions and are never given a proper chance to acquire a decent education. It's not especially fair or helpful to insult them.

> What if there is no solution? What if "Idiocracy" was accurate? Or "Planet of the Apes"? Science "fiction" is rife with stories about how humanity ended up destroying itself, especially via technology. It's not like we haven't seen this coming for a long time.

Possibilities aren't definitive. Promoting hopelessness and fortune telling doesn't seem very appealing. It leads to negative outlooks and self-fulfilling prophecies that aren't in anyone's interest.

[_qulr]

> Many people grow up in terrible conditions and are never given a proper chance to acquire a decent education. It's not especially fair or helpful to insult them.

Hasn't it become painfully obvious by now that the upper class is full of "idiots" too? There's a kind of smug complacency that can arise from being comfortable. One is never forced to question one's assumptions.

You keep trying to pivot to poverty, but there's little reason to think that's the problem. I attended a well-regarded high school in a fairly wealthy suburb, and the ratio of "seat fillers" was about the same there as you'd see anywhere else. It just seems to be human nature, a normal distribution.

I'm not saying every education is the same. There are clearly better and worse schools. I'm saying that even when you give everyone in a group the same education, the results still tend to vary widely.

The reason I emphasize "seat fillers" is this: there are a lot of things you can teach a student by forced rote drilling. But it seems to me that critical thinking is uniquely not one of them. Isn't critical thinking the opposite of rote forced drilling? I wonder, then, how much critical thinking can even be taught to unreceptive students.