Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don't know things though, you can't know everything about everything. It's why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
It’s a grift. They (for the most part) don’t care about race and identity politics, they want to keep us arguing with each other so we can’t see behind the curtain.
Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say "what a twat" but doesn't necessarily reflect poor education.
It should be a nice challenge for you. How are you going to solve Afghanistan? has a long, complicated history, with many parties from different political ideologies ruining the nation.
The US was trying to "solve" Afghanistan through violent means which not only have failed for 20 years, but the conflict of today has been stoked even earlier by the US financing the current terrorists and calling them "anti-Soviet freedom fighters". So no, a right wing answer to the conflict has been proven by history to be utterly idiotic and only beneficial to american capital.
You just gave me a new one: "people who refer to someone's political opinion as "evil" just because they don't personally agree". It's not like we're discussing Nazis here man.
I hate this cowardly bullshit right wingers use to make themselves feel oppressed. If I say you're a wretched animal who doesn't deserve human dignity, and you say I'm wrong, I could point it right back at you. Fuck off with that. What are the disagreements? This isnt a water cooler talk about a TV show, this is the life, suffering and death of millions. Yeah I don't personally agree that the poor and hungry should die on the street while rich fucks hoard houses, and if you think otherwise, I'm completely comfortable calling you evil, because you are.
It's that their 'opinions' are of who should or should not have rights, for me. And the fiscally conservatives who are the exact same thing but with extra steps.
If you choose a perspective that outwardly chooses to harm people, and you are not of low intellect, then you are simply choosing to harm people. That is evil. Choosing to bring harm to people over other alternatives is wrong, bad, and as an ideology, evil.
The face of right-wing politics is wedge issues and conspiracy theories. It's not as if people are being judged for believing in a smart conservative fiscal policy because that is no longer something the modern Republican party represents.
Yeah, no it's pretty fair assessment of the party. You as an individual may have different beliefs, but your differing beliefs don't represent the party and their rhetoric.
FFS the ex president convinced a mob of people that the election was rigged and they stormed the Capitol Building looking to capture/kill the legislators who were confirming the results. If a republican president of the United States doesn't represent the republican party then who does?
You can probably actually do this reliably in cases where those political views work against the persons interests. It's not like people voting against their own interests is an uncommon phenomenon.
It's very possible to vote against your own interests for the good of society though- a billionaire might vote to increase taxes on himself, for example.
One of the many issues with the majority of right-wing voters in the US is that the votes they cast are against both their best interests and the interests of society, and that's what makes them evil and/or stupid.
I don't disagree with you. I'm not trying to say that voting against ones own interests establishes a necessary connection with low intelligence or that people can't vote against their own interests for other reasons fwiw. I'm mainly meaning to point out how we might be justified regardless of actual political positions today in trying to assess intelligence via political leanings and/or voting choices.
“That’s why cleaners exist right?”
“We are giving the cleaners something to do”
“This is not my public space”
The sort of thing people would say when you ask why do they do this.
I’ve seen all sorts of people. People who throw rubbish out from their Mercedes sedan. People who throw their plastic containers onto the sidewalk from the motorbike while waiting for the green light.
Funny true story. A colleague of mine was having a smoke with a Japanese guy who was visiting our country on a business trip.
My colleague threw the cigarette butt onto the floor after finishing. The Japanese guy went to pick up the cigarette butt that my colleague threw on the ground, and threw it into the dustbin nearby. My colleague never felt so embarrassed seeing him do that.
Not being able to entertain ideas. "What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?"
"Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?"
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don't know if that's necessarily wrong of them. There isn't any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they're not working. The "four day workweek" as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don't really have a "workweek" anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
If you can't understand that 40 hours a week can be accomplished in 4 days instead of 5 days, than you are an idiot. It has nothing to do with your life experience. Its simple math.
So here's what I'm talking about, we have a legally mandated 8-hour workday. It's not implied that you're changing that to a 10-hour workday.
Also, if you've never worked a 10-hour day, maybe you don't quite understand how much harder than 8 hours it is for most people- because fatigue compounds faster than a linear rate.
So someone who is paid hourly and assumes you're retaining the 8-hour workday isn't likely to understand how they're getting paid for 40 hours while working 32.
And literally everything has to do with lived experience. Listen to people and try to understand their position. Being educated isn't the same thing as being intelligent and knowing how to understand different perspectives.
One of the main ideas behind the 4 day work week is that workers have become much more efficient, but with no compensation for that increase in efficiency. A worker in 2023 is going to get a lot more work done in the sane 8 hours than someone in the 70s/80s due to increases in technology, automation, software, etc.
Pair that with the fact that the lions share of profits head upwards in business (ie, CEO/management compensation has increase way more than hourly workers), then it stands to reason that we can afford to pay those workers that extra day if we equalize the pay increases across the board instead of concentrating it in the ownership.
That doesn't explain at all how a waiter who is being told to work 32 hours instead of 40, or 10 hour shifts instead of 8, is making more money or is otherwise better off.
If there's another policy like raising the minimum wage or UBI that's required to make this work, it should be stated.
I think it's good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don't assume they're poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I've met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn't the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don't consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren't worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it's best to explain why the hypothetical doesn't work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I'm not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I'm not sure they'd be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don't think it's such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
Since we are rating if a person is racist or not based on the actions/words of the person they voted for, isn't everyone who voted for Biden racist as well?
People who voted for Biden, yes. Establishment liberals are almost unanimously racist. However, most of Biden's votes were actually votes against the overt, unapologetic racist, rapist, and pedophile on the other side.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
I would think it's more about knowing how to trust it. See some news article about "This study said X", don't take it as fact. See a study that has been done numerous times by different groups that corroborate a result and you can have a much higher degree of trust in it. There is a reason the scientific method is a continuous circle, it requires a feedback loop of verifying results and reproducibility. The current issue is clickbait headlines getting the attention, people see it's "Science" and blindly trust it and it becomes a religion like any other.
What do you mean by "trusting in science"? Science isn't meant to be trusted, it's meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be "trusting" in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer's research for nearly a quarter century by "trusting in science". We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying "oh just trust in science" isn't the solution.
Ok, but I do not have access to labratories or ways to run my proper experiments. Am I supposed to just stay on the fence about everything that I can't personally test, or should I trust in the consensus from the scientific community regarding stuff like climate change, virology, etc.?
The proper scientific answer to that question is not to trust or not trust. You should absolutely do your own testing, whether that means asking good questions of the experts, reading the existing research carefully, up to and including reproducing the experiment yourself where practicable.
If an experiment is impossible to reproduce, then you should be asking yourself what good its results are.
That is an impossible standard for folks to live by. I can't do that, and neither can you.
When I say I "trust in science" I'm talking about the process and the method. Which means I trust the results when people follow that process. i also trust that the answers may change if there's new information, because that's part of the process.
I don't have the equipment to perform all those experiments. Even if I did, I wouldn't trust the results because I don't have the education to set up, run, and interpret an experiment more complicated than improving my chili recipe.
So, in much the same way that I trust a mechanic to fix my transmission and a.plumber to fix my pipes, I trust a scientist to follow the scientific method.
And what part of what I said made you think I don't know that?
I'm aspedantic as anyone, but at this point you're being antagonistic. Either you legitimately don't know you're doing it, or you're intentionally trying to make people feel stupid. But you definitely know what people mean when they say they "trust" science.
Please stop. You're making pedants like me look bad.
Why assume I'm being pedantic? The social media landscape is littered with "I fucking love science" clickbait, "amazing nature" accounts that are literally AI generated photos, hell, the entire fields of evolutionary psychology and nutrition ought to be a wholesale indictment of our contemporary scientific establishment.
This isn't pedantry, I am serious as a heart attack.
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
Scientists don't have opposing views on thats specific thing*. It's an example used right up there with thinking the earth is flat.
Onecompletely discredited study linked the combined MMR vaccine to a new, made up gastrointestinal disorder. That disorder was supposedly linked to autism. The guy who ran the study had financial ties to a company that manufactured a measles vaccine separate from MMR. He had a financial motive. He paid children for blood samples at his kid's party and bragged about it. He's a monster responsible for every death caused by the measles since his evil, fake, completely made up study came out.
You want to know what makes a person seem ignorant? Being anti-vax or buying into the abject nonsense that ASD is caused by vaccines.
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It's not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of "dark triad" traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That's a hard problem to solve.
That's pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.
"Asshole" is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you're implementing.
Whether your system fails because one "dark" person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn't really matter at the end - the system failed.
So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.
Largely it doesn't. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.
I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.
And to get rid of the craving for a bit. I say this while smoking a fag (glad I can say this without risk of admins banning me). I should probably quit l.
If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.
Because it’s not a slur, it’s literally the word for a cigarette and that’s it. I’m not celebrating anything I’m just glad I don’t have to go back and edit my comments to avoid a completely unwarranted ban.
In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don't feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It's fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don't accidentally hurt someone?
In England it is literally the word for a cigarette. I don’t know what to tell you, most people call it that here. It has no relation to the slur and has different origins. Next you’re going to tell me I can’t have faggots and mash for dinner tonight because you might cry.
Also how inconsiderate of the bbc for using the word faggot on one of their own YouTube channels https://youtu.be/pVHbWHGVYaU
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It's even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there's a problem with the education system that it doesn't teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don't remember it. Maybe it's because they don't need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don't remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that's something you just have to know. You can't logic your way to it.
It's "Kampf" ... I have tried to read a few pages... It's unreadable drivel.
Fun fact: The book wasn't available in Germany for decades, because upon Hitler's suicide the copyright fell to the State of Bavaria. That recently expired and now you can find some heavily annotated versions.
Thinking everything is gray is also an uneducated response to this kind of thinking. Too many people refuse to stand up for a point because they think that 'all sides are bad' or 'well the good side isn't perfect'.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol's role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn't exactly what I was pointing to. It'd be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a "gray area" and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It's not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different "lenses" and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Postmodernism is about subjectivism and suspicion of reason as a concept. Everything is up for interpretation, nothing is certain, objectivity is impossible, etc. It's an ideology that's hostile to the concept of any sort of totalizing truth.
Yeah, everything is nuanced, that just doesn't mean that there are no right options.
Intelligence and maturity is holding a view while also recognizing that there are flaws in that viewpoint.
No matter what subject you're talking about, there are flaws in every stance. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a stance, but too many people act like they have to be 100% behind their stance in order for it to be valid
I’m with you on all except for the top, and if you’re down, I’d like to hear more about your opinion on supernatural beliefs. If you told someone 500 years ago that there is a minuscule and invisible world all around us where the laws of physics break down, that would have been considered lunacy or witchcraft. Today, we commonly accept quantum physics as a part of our normal reality.
Of course, there are instances where people are clearly engaging in delusional thinking, but there are also plenty of examples of people who have had experiences that they are struggling to explain, and they are progressively building a hypothesis to explain it. Is it more rational to deny your own experiences to make your worldview fit the commonly accepted consensus? Or is it better to keep an open mind and continue to investigate if you can?
I ask primarily because I know I hold a few woo woo beliefs, but I try to refrain from making drastic decisions based on it. I’ve often wondered if some of the things I’ve experienced would be explained in the distant future, because I can loudly attest to the perceived realness of the experience when you’re having it. If you see, feel, and smell an elephant in the room, it’s a little hard to ignore it even if everyone else says it isn’t there.
This got longer than I anticipated, but I look forward to hearing your response if you have time.
What are the “woo woo beliefs” that you hold? If they’re semiplausible “what ifs” to explain the unexplainable that you yourself hold with a grain of salt… seems reasonable. If they’re more “omnipotent, conscious being in the sky explains all things unexplainable”… far less reasonable.
My woo woo beliefs are that I am relatively sure that there are either external or deeply primordial metaconciousnesses that we can access through altered states—meditation, magick, and/or drugs. Though it is not something I can prove scientifically at this point, I have done a fair amount of experimenting with automatic writing as well as spent dozens of hours with people exploring the same sorts of phenomenon, and I’m relatively confident that there is some real thing happening during these communications, even though I can’t explain it.
For the things I’ve experienced to be a coincidence would almost be more unlikely than for there to be an unexplained force at play, especially when I later gathered stories from other earnest seekers who had nearly identical mind blowing experiences, straight down to the order of events, feelings, and realizations.
So though I can’t prove it, I’ve seen enough to want to know more, and I am relatively convinced that it is not just illusion because the evidence I have observed directly and indirectly screams otherwise.
Being a republican. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican, but your average republican voter is a mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
What type of speeding cause driving fast on back roads in the middle of no where at night isn't impatient it's racing and speeding on the highway often isn't impatient because everyone around you is going 15 over the limit
I can agree having a loud car every day is inconsiderate but having a regular car and one that you take out on the weekends to go to shows and have fun isn't to me idk though kinda a car nerd prolly a bit skewed.
I don't think driving fast in a fairly controlled situation is really reckless driving, legally it qualifies as it but not really being reckless
Is anything that's dangerous stupid and not really dangerous with no traffic and going the speed limit when no one else is is actually more dangerous than going the speed of everyone around you
To be honest, I disagree. It'd be logical if that was true, because that's what you'd expect, but I've met plenty of counterexamples. People who were well educated in some subject and therefore assumed that they know everything better. I've found that for a certain group of people, having a bachelor's or master's degree makes them overestimate their ability massively. Some of them you could at least partially convince with facts, but I've also met a few of them who has gone completely off the deep end. Well educated doesn't always mean intelligent
Yeah I think a lot of people equate education with overall intelligence, and that’s just not how it works.
I’ve personally known an anti-vaxxer with a PhD, MDs who wrote at a middling grade 8 level, and a literal rocket scientist who never could figure out his email lol
Highly educated people can be brilliant in their specific fields of study, while being absolute morons in other areas. They just had all the right opportunities, money, and the time/skills/ability to study, memorize, and pass tests.
I actually know at least a couple high school grads whom I’d consider more broadly intelligent than some of the MD & PhD holders I’ve worked with over the years.
Not being curious. Education should never stop. You should constantly be seeking intriguing books, new ideas, different perspectives. Once you've lost your curiosity or pridefully believe in one opinion and one way of thinking, no matter your schooling, you have at that moment become poorly educated.
"Whataboutism", or if you are unfamiliar with the term:
"The act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse"
People that use this mechanism are "poorly educated" and unable to hold a conversation and they should just be mocked by whatabouting even harder, so they can maybe understand that they're dumb and that's not how you should debate.
Example of the last argument I had recently with my dumb c*nt father:
Me: You shouldn't idolize that politician, he evaded literally billions in taxes and that befalls on citizens like you
Dumb c*nt father: Yeah? And what about that other politician?
Ironically, defending arguments using scientific studies and experiments, but not being able to think critically about the methodology used or what the results mean. Too often people will cite scientific literature based off the title and MAYBE skim it. Trying to have a discussion with them will usually result in them calling you anti-science.
A good example is the pseudo-scientific belief common within incel circles that women can store and absorb dna from past sexual partners and that their children can then have more than one genetic father (an excuse to shame sexually active women while fear mongering about cuckoldry). If you track down the source the study actually explicitly explains exactly why this isn't the case.
Any reference to "common sense", which really means "what I believe". Violating it is used as a universal rebuttal for any intellectually sophisticated argument.
conspiracy theories i agree with, but religion? organized religion, definitely. joining a religion with a hierarchy signals that you want someone else to give you all the answers, which is very much a mark of poor education. but religious beliefs are not an automatic marker of poor education, as long as they're sincerely held, don't supersede science, and are frequently revisited and revised based on personal experience and knowledge. even basic, broad frameworks like animism or some parts of Buddhism can help you make sense of the world when science can't help you
When science has not yet provided an answer, the solution is to keep searching. The answer is not, “oh, God, must’ve done it!” Beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, are not knowledge, but merely how one may wish things to be. Wishes are not truths.
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
Your summary is correct. However, most people use the Dunning-Kruger effect to describe individuals with low intelligence as arrogant. Another issue is that most people as soon as they learn about the effect think that they’ve become immune to it.
All it does for me is double down the imposter-syndrome.
I'm not good at this... People keep hiring me, maybe I'm alright at it. Dunning-Kuger is a thing, maybe my "people keep hiring me" ego is making me blind.
And yet, every day I do cool things, I learn new cool things, I redo old things with my new knowledge
But still... I'm just pretending
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I notice it's prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of "executive" education. Whether they are poorly educated or not... I leave to the reader.
Everyone educated on the topic understands that it’s a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.
What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.
People who think their dialect or language style is grammatically correct and others are wrong, because they don't personally known the grammar rules of any other dialect or language. They don't understand that language is alive and evolving and that the purpose of language is communication.
Personal use of proprietary software in the 2020s.
Or running a company to be completely dependand on dozens of unreliable and expensive proprietary software vendors.
It depends on how you interpret "educated". If including things that aren't learned on school: I think that fallacies, rushed certainties and decontextualisation scream "this individual was so poorly educated that they never learned how to think."
I think that everything else can be derived from the above, shitty moral premises, or a mix of both.
regurgitating talking points from a third party and the inability to distinguish between divisive issues and issues of difference. I
am a college professor and pastor and when I teach theology there is a crazy high instance of people who just spit out exactly what their favorite celebrity pastor says and immediate decide that it trumps whatever you are saying. Then they are unwilling to yield any bit of their position and get offended that you disagree.
disagreements do not need to be so divisive. The constant need for affirmation shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about
Doesn't this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I'd consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.
"You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up, too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you're at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances." - Stephen Fry, 5:00.
It made a lot of sense back when you had to type texts by pushing the same buttons multiple times. Now that smart phones have swipe to type and autocorrect, it is not a good excuse.
Nah it didn't even make sense back then. I could type full sentences with T9 easily, to the point that I wouldn't even need to look at the phone except to double check what I wrote before sending a text.
It's not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we're old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.
Addiction is everywhere, but cigarettes are unique. It’s no secret that cigarette companies deliberately get people addicted, and then let them die, simply because it’s profitable.
You KNOW you’re being used. Voluntarily paying to make it happen is stupid.
I’m sympathetic towards older folks who got hooked when the companies were still lying to the public, but anyone who started smoking in the last few decades is a moron.
Might not be a popular take but having an undefendable position like creationism does not necessarily mean "poorly educated." There are apologists who have learned proper reasoning skills and use their education to bend reality as much towards their will. I think most people would consider Jesuits and the like to be very educated but also very wrong.
As far as signs that someone is poorly educated, there are people who make up "big words" to give the impression of having a better education to other poorly educated people. Which backfires when someone with an actual large vocabulary walks into the room.
Went on a trip a while back with a relative, here are some of the things that they belived/behaved like(sorry for the long text):Needless gossiping and thinking that other people's achivements threaten your credibility. Anger/apathy/being dismissive as default, snarky useless remarks, belittling other people any chance possible, trying to seem superior through "presenting intelectual", playing "the devil's advocate" just to look edgy and be unnerving, beliving propaganda over science, not apologising when needed, lacking self awareness and being selfish constantly, not going to therapy&health check ups, making poor spirited jokes about other people, not respecting people's space, touching them without permission,being disrespectful on purpose to other people(and to yourself), and the phobias(homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, xenophobic),misoginistic,misandrist, ableist, rascist,antisemitic,heavily nationalist attitude, thinking the world revolves only around you and that other people are just tools&objects, not cleaning after yourself, expecting other people to take care of things for/accompaning you as if they have an obligation, thinking violence settles things, refusing to pay people because "it's for exposure" and "they should do it for the experience/self fuffilment", loud music in public spaces(please use headphones), dismissing people's religious practice just because it isn't exactly how you would do it, pressing other people to live the life you want to but not living the life you want to live yourself, being needlessy pessimistic and cynical about the future(guilty), not being bewildered about earth and not wanting to learn or practice random things(who has time to be hateful when you see a beautiful leaf that has just sprouted?), lack of wanderlust.
This is one of those grammatical errors that is so common that it is almost not a grammatical error anymore. It is so pervasive in podcasts, movies, TV shows, etc. that I just gloss over it nowadays
Sounds werid as hell, right? That's what's wrong with that sentence. I is a subjective pronoun, not an objective pronoun. Adding "my friend and" in front of it doesn't change that.
I understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people, and it doesn't matter for sentence clarity, but it sound weird AF to some folks.
Because of all the 'um actually' corrections from people whenever they'd say "Tom and me bought drinks." And not just to the point one starts thinking it's always "Tom and I" - I've had people 'correct' my 'to Tom and me', as well, because they think "Tom and me" is always incorrect.
This is also why I don't make a big deal about correcting others' grammar; it's often a tool people use to feel smarter (and thus superior) to other people. Language is a communication tool; if I know what you mean and there's limited ambiguity then I don't much care if you said 'would of' instead of 'would've'; and certainly not enough to interrupt a conversation to correct it.
Besides, between autocorrect, typos, and the brain's weird word-association tricks, a linguistics professor is capable of making significant grammar mistakes and not even notice, even if they'd know they were wrong if pointed out. So swooping in to tell them "hey you did this thing slightly wrong" in lieu of engaging with their intended point is not meaningful contribution.
Yes exactly. I didn't mention it above but it seems like the people who use "and I" incorrectly are the same ones trying to sound smarter by being more "proper" or formal. I agree people should just focus on the content of the message. I would not correct anyone in real life, but secretly inwardly it drives me crazy.
Insisting things like tax returns or household maintenance should be taught in school.
The goal of Education is not to train you to fit into the system you happen to grow up in, but should provide the foundation (litaracy, STEM, art …) and awaken the curiosity in yourself to become lifelong learner.
That will develop society, and not a bunch of drones doing their tax returns and changing tires every season.
The most important thing you can learn, is how to learn. One of the things that most upsets me is when I hear someone say they can't do something "because no one ever taught me how". It's not your teachers/parents job to teach you how to do everything under the sun.
Ignorance is nigh-inexcusable in today's society, with so many sources of information at our fingertips. That's where the "poorly educated" part comes in for me - folks who don't know how to search for and evaluate information.
At minimum; school should give you the tools to be able to figure out how to do taxes/basic house maintenance/etc. But also, sometimes people need a little extra help; and we should have some sort of system to help people learn those things.
I mean it would also help if we had a functional tax system in the US that wasn't deliberately made overly complicated to encourage people to pay for tax filing services.
Damn, I overenunciate (compared to my local accent) some sounds because otherwise people have a harder time understanding my speech. Not that I have a speech impediment, I just talk fast, mumble through some words out of hurry and I'm kinda quiet. People have noted that I do that but it's only to make sure people understand what I'm saying, having to repeat myself makes it uncomfortable for both of us.
Thinking about different languages in the terms of "useful" or "useless" according to the number of speakers they have.
Edit: What I mean specifically is not for someone to want or not to personally learn a language, but if the existance in itself of a language is more or less valuable according to how many people speak it (per example and as I explained below, believing that Occitan's existance is useless because there's already French to talk to Occitan people with, who already understand it). Yes, this happens.
Being poor and idolizing the rich.
That’s by design
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Sometimes my friends laugh at me for how little I know about pop culture. I laugh back though. I wouldn't say I'm proud of it but it's just funny.
Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don't know things though, you can't know everything about everything. It's why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
Coping mechanism for the poor, they can't admit they're at the bottom and so it feels good to put other people down for nonsense reasons
Or it can be a strategy. A white sharecropper is just as poor as a black sharecropper, but the white sharecropper has a higher place in society.
💀
It’s a grift. They (for the most part) don’t care about race and identity politics, they want to keep us arguing with each other so we can’t see behind the curtain.
Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say "what a twat" but doesn't necessarily reflect poor education.
People judging people's level of intelligence based on how they lean politically, for me.
I guarantee you hold right wing views on certain things.
How are you going to solve Afghanistan?
It should be a nice challenge for you. How are you going to solve Afghanistan? has a long, complicated history, with many parties from different political ideologies ruining the nation.
The US was trying to "solve" Afghanistan through violent means which not only have failed for 20 years, but the conflict of today has been stoked even earlier by the US financing the current terrorists and calling them "anti-Soviet freedom fighters". So no, a right wing answer to the conflict has been proven by history to be utterly idiotic and only beneficial to american capital.
like?
You just gave me a new one: "people who refer to someone's political opinion as "evil" just because they don't personally agree". It's not like we're discussing Nazis here man.
So the same could be said about the left-wing ideology because it "consists" of Leninism? How is this making any sort of sense to you?
Don't bother arguing with them, they're from sh.itjust.works. Probably a right-wing douche.
Well said! Although I doubt the the guy has enough critical thinking to understand what you're saying.
Leninism is good, actually.
Come to Lemmygrad, we can teach you a thing or too. Just adhere to the rules.
I hate this cowardly bullshit right wingers use to make themselves feel oppressed. If I say you're a wretched animal who doesn't deserve human dignity, and you say I'm wrong, I could point it right back at you. Fuck off with that. What are the disagreements? This isnt a water cooler talk about a TV show, this is the life, suffering and death of millions. Yeah I don't personally agree that the poor and hungry should die on the street while rich fucks hoard houses, and if you think otherwise, I'm completely comfortable calling you evil, because you are.
Now I know why you don't have any friends. People aren't low iq or evil just because they have a different opinion man.
It's that their 'opinions' are of who should or should not have rights, for me. And the fiscally conservatives who are the exact same thing but with extra steps.
If you choose a perspective that outwardly chooses to harm people, and you are not of low intellect, then you are simply choosing to harm people. That is evil. Choosing to bring harm to people over other alternatives is wrong, bad, and as an ideology, evil.
The face of right-wing politics is wedge issues and conspiracy theories. It's not as if people are being judged for believing in a smart conservative fiscal policy because that is no longer something the modern Republican party represents.
That's a gross blanketing.
Yeah, no it's pretty fair assessment of the party. You as an individual may have different beliefs, but your differing beliefs don't represent the party and their rhetoric.
FFS the ex president convinced a mob of people that the election was rigged and they stormed the Capitol Building looking to capture/kill the legislators who were confirming the results. If a republican president of the United States doesn't represent the republican party then who does?
Oh, American Conservatives.
Americans, pleeeeease, say if it's America or not before making such statements.
You can probably actually do this reliably in cases where those political views work against the persons interests. It's not like people voting against their own interests is an uncommon phenomenon.
It's very possible to vote against your own interests for the good of society though- a billionaire might vote to increase taxes on himself, for example.
One of the many issues with the majority of right-wing voters in the US is that the votes they cast are against both their best interests and the interests of society, and that's what makes them evil and/or stupid.
I don't disagree with you. I'm not trying to say that voting against ones own interests establishes a necessary connection with low intelligence or that people can't vote against their own interests for other reasons fwiw. I'm mainly meaning to point out how we might be justified regardless of actual political positions today in trying to assess intelligence via political leanings and/or voting choices.
The irony.
What’s the irony here?
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I think it's more narcissism than education. People who are educated can still not care about the environment and preserving public spaces.
Hmm, I can see what you mean. “I just don’t care”
“That’s why cleaners exist right?” “We are giving the cleaners something to do” “This is not my public space”
The sort of thing people would say when you ask why do they do this.
I’ve seen all sorts of people. People who throw rubbish out from their Mercedes sedan. People who throw their plastic containers onto the sidewalk from the motorbike while waiting for the green light.
Funny true story. A colleague of mine was having a smoke with a Japanese guy who was visiting our country on a business trip.
My colleague threw the cigarette butt onto the floor after finishing. The Japanese guy went to pick up the cigarette butt that my colleague threw on the ground, and threw it into the dustbin nearby. My colleague never felt so embarrassed seeing him do that.
That’s why I think it’s education and upbringing.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
I see you've met my neighbors.
Could've stopped it there, the rest is implied.
The fuck?! Oh boy...
That's what he said.
In my personal experience conservatives are more likely to be pedos, it's just they are all hypocrites.
Not being able to entertain ideas. "What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?" "Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?"
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don't know if that's necessarily wrong of them. There isn't any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they're not working. The "four day workweek" as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don't really have a "workweek" anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
If you can't understand that 40 hours a week can be accomplished in 4 days instead of 5 days, than you are an idiot. It has nothing to do with your life experience. Its simple math.
So here's what I'm talking about, we have a legally mandated 8-hour workday. It's not implied that you're changing that to a 10-hour workday.
Also, if you've never worked a 10-hour day, maybe you don't quite understand how much harder than 8 hours it is for most people- because fatigue compounds faster than a linear rate.
So someone who is paid hourly and assumes you're retaining the 8-hour workday isn't likely to understand how they're getting paid for 40 hours while working 32.
And literally everything has to do with lived experience. Listen to people and try to understand their position. Being educated isn't the same thing as being intelligent and knowing how to understand different perspectives.
One of the main ideas behind the 4 day work week is that workers have become much more efficient, but with no compensation for that increase in efficiency. A worker in 2023 is going to get a lot more work done in the sane 8 hours than someone in the 70s/80s due to increases in technology, automation, software, etc.
Pair that with the fact that the lions share of profits head upwards in business (ie, CEO/management compensation has increase way more than hourly workers), then it stands to reason that we can afford to pay those workers that extra day if we equalize the pay increases across the board instead of concentrating it in the ownership.
That doesn't explain at all how a waiter who is being told to work 32 hours instead of 40, or 10 hour shifts instead of 8, is making more money or is otherwise better off.
If there's another policy like raising the minimum wage or UBI that's required to make this work, it should be stated.
Because he's an hourly worker he's in the hourly mindset. You'd have to say your hourly rate would go up but only if you worked 32 hr/wk.
I think it's good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don't assume they're poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I've met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn't the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don't consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren't worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it's best to explain why the hypothetical doesn't work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I'm not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I'm not sure they'd be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don't think it's such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...
Racists benefit from worker's rights too.
Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers' rights
Priorities, right?
Which party shut down the rail union strike?
Fair enough.
Which party supports Right to Work laws?
Yeah yeah, Republicans are objectively worse for workers.
Don't pretend like the other party is pro-worker, though.
A toolbox generally belongs to one person. I see it on people's lockers too.
💀
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
Since we are rating if a person is racist or not based on the actions/words of the person they voted for, isn't everyone who voted for Biden racist as well?
People who voted for Biden, yes. Establishment liberals are almost unanimously racist. However, most of Biden's votes were actually votes against the overt, unapologetic racist, rapist, and pedophile on the other side.
Where do you get that from?
policy
Maybe it's a sticker war? Unions vs Trump?
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
That's unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
I would think it's more about knowing how to trust it. See some news article about "This study said X", don't take it as fact. See a study that has been done numerous times by different groups that corroborate a result and you can have a much higher degree of trust in it. There is a reason the scientific method is a continuous circle, it requires a feedback loop of verifying results and reproducibility. The current issue is clickbait headlines getting the attention, people see it's "Science" and blindly trust it and it becomes a religion like any other.
What do you mean by "trusting in science"? Science isn't meant to be trusted, it's meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be "trusting" in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer's research for nearly a quarter century by "trusting in science". We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying "oh just trust in science" isn't the solution.
Ok, but I do not have access to labratories or ways to run my proper experiments. Am I supposed to just stay on the fence about everything that I can't personally test, or should I trust in the consensus from the scientific community regarding stuff like climate change, virology, etc.?
The proper scientific answer to that question is not to trust or not trust. You should absolutely do your own testing, whether that means asking good questions of the experts, reading the existing research carefully, up to and including reproducing the experiment yourself where practicable.
If an experiment is impossible to reproduce, then you should be asking yourself what good its results are.
That is an impossible standard for folks to live by. I can't do that, and neither can you.
When I say I "trust in science" I'm talking about the process and the method. Which means I trust the results when people follow that process. i also trust that the answers may change if there's new information, because that's part of the process.
I don't have the equipment to perform all those experiments. Even if I did, I wouldn't trust the results because I don't have the education to set up, run, and interpret an experiment more complicated than improving my chili recipe.
So, in much the same way that I trust a mechanic to fix my transmission and a.plumber to fix my pipes, I trust a scientist to follow the scientific method.
That's what "trusting science" means.
The scientific method isn't an epistemological framework, it's a framework for practicing science.
And what part of what I said made you think I don't know that?
I'm aspedantic as anyone, but at this point you're being antagonistic. Either you legitimately don't know you're doing it, or you're intentionally trying to make people feel stupid. But you definitely know what people mean when they say they "trust" science.
Please stop. You're making pedants like me look bad.
Why assume I'm being pedantic? The social media landscape is littered with "I fucking love science" clickbait, "amazing nature" accounts that are literally AI generated photos, hell, the entire fields of evolutionary psychology and nutrition ought to be a wholesale indictment of our contemporary scientific establishment.
This isn't pedantry, I am serious as a heart attack.
Trust in the process of Science, not its insitutions.
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
The irony!
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
^ this right here
How…
Scientists don't have opposing views on thats specific thing*. It's an example used right up there with thinking the earth is flat.
One completely discredited study linked the combined MMR vaccine to a new, made up gastrointestinal disorder. That disorder was supposedly linked to autism. The guy who ran the study had financial ties to a company that manufactured a measles vaccine separate from MMR. He had a financial motive. He paid children for blood samples at his kid's party and bragged about it. He's a monster responsible for every death caused by the measles since his evil, fake, completely made up study came out.
You want to know what makes a person seem ignorant? Being anti-vax or buying into the abject nonsense that ASD is caused by vaccines.
taking Ayn Rand's work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
It's not enough to reign in assholes, the system has to be designed in such a way that carriers of "dark triad" traits (i.e. the usual bad faith actors in a system) are still incentivized to contribute to or improve society without gradually dismantling it to increase their wealth/power/status. That's a hard problem to solve.
💀
That's pretty much what I meant, or at least an aspect of it.
"Asshole" is an umbrella term for me that means every anti-social behavior or more general, behavior against the spirit (not the text!) of whatever ideology you're implementing.
Whether your system fails because one "dark" person can manipulate 100s to do bad things for him or 100s of persons do small bad things every day doesn't really matter at the end - the system failed.
So you have to find a way to reign this behavior in. Psychopaths react similar to every other person, just way more extreme.
How does that differ from the current way things are done? (especially in the US)
Largely it doesn't. There are some boundaries, like minimum wages and maximum working hours, etc. But according to the hypercapitalists, even those minimums are already undue influence by the government.
I think capitalism is the outlier there. Some atleast expect knobheads but the free hand of the market or something is supposed to take them out of business.
But it doesn't seem to expect "knobheads" manipulating the hand.
💀
Being a baby. What do they even know?
Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions
Smoking in general. An expensive habit of self-harm for short term "feels good."
You'd be surprised how many PhD-holders do coke/meth.
And to get rid of the craving for a bit. I say this while smoking a fag (glad I can say this without risk of admins banning me). I should probably quit l.
If you knew saying that word could cause pain in others, why would you say it and further celebrate it? OP may not have meant their question this way, but your comment is how I identify people with poor emotional intelligence.
Because it’s not a slur, it’s literally the word for a cigarette and that’s it. I’m not celebrating anything I’m just glad I don’t have to go back and edit my comments to avoid a completely unwarranted ban.
In the English speaking world, it is a slur regardless of whether or not you use it as slang for a cigarette. Do you really believe that using a word is more important than making sure others don't feel marginalized? Emotional intelligence is partly about empathy and using that to recognize harmful behavior. A sign of maturity and positive personal growth is realizing that your behavior causes others to feel unwelcome and correcting that behavior. It's fortuitous that, in a thread about signs of poor education, we are having this discussion. Criticisms are learning experiences, not made with malice; malice is purposefully saying something harmful and celebrating it. Will your life truly be ruined by substituting that word so you don't accidentally hurt someone?
In England it is literally the word for a cigarette. I don’t know what to tell you, most people call it that here. It has no relation to the slur and has different origins. Next you’re going to tell me I can’t have faggots and mash for dinner tonight because you might cry.
Also how inconsiderate of the bbc for using the word faggot on one of their own YouTube channels https://youtu.be/pVHbWHGVYaU
Do you see this often?
My cousin was taken off her mother because of the cola thing.
More times than I can recollect
I know I've found a great community here if this is the top answer.
Could've, should've, would've
You wouldn't've.
💀
Not understanding the marginal tax rate.
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It's even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there's a problem with the education system that it doesn't teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don't remember it. Maybe it's because they don't need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don't remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that's something you just have to know. You can't logic your way to it.
Not using smooth functions for tax calculations.
Being proud of not owning books
Or being confident about disliking reading in general, whether be it fiction or scientific literature.
Hey, if you're not proud of not owning a copy of mein kempf that's on you buddy.
It's "Kampf" ... I have tried to read a few pages... It's unreadable drivel.
Fun fact: The book wasn't available in Germany for decades, because upon Hitler's suicide the copyright fell to the State of Bavaria. That recently expired and now you can find some heavily annotated versions.
I prefer Mein Bamf, Nightcrawler's treatise on teleportation.
What about if they frequent the library instead? :)
They think opinions are facts.
Or the other way around.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't realize that only my opinions are facts.
Black/white thinking. Everything is either bad or good, the problem or the solution.
Thinking everything is gray is also an uneducated response to this kind of thinking. Too many people refuse to stand up for a point because they think that 'all sides are bad' or 'well the good side isn't perfect'.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol's role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
I like your example but it isn't exactly what I was pointing to. It'd be like someone calling arresting drunk drivers a "gray area" and choosing not to vote at all on a bill in favor of that. Which of course there are nuances there, but they are nuances that often are irrelevant to the overall conversation and should not inhibit decision making.
I get that, but those were the kind of nuances and perspectives that I was talking about. You can think that drunk driving is a bad thing that should be prevented, without resorting to black/white thinking like: drunk drivers are bad and they should be thrown in jail.
Maybe they should be, but what is the downsides of that policy? What is the reduction in drunk driving and drunk driving accidents expected to be? Who are the drunk drivers and when do they drive drunk? What do they do in other places/countries? Anything about our country/area in particular that causes people to drive drunk? Is there anything else we could do that is more effective and/or less expensive? Could an alternative solution be to run busses through the night? Involve parents? Require alcolocks to be installed in cars?
It's not about whether you are a good or a bad person, or about what your beliefs or values are. In my experience, poorly educated people are just more likely to think in absolutes, which makes sense, because analytical thinking and the ability to view things through different "lenses" and from different perspectives, is something they try to teach you in school.
Believing that everything is nuanced, though, is absurd.
Everything is nuanced, it's just that some things are more or less so, and sometimes the nuance exist but is completely irrelevant.
If everything is nuanced, then "everything is nuanced" must also be nuanced. As such, not everything is nuanced.
Take your post-modernism and shove it :P
How does that relate to post modernism? Give me some resources so I can self crit properly if I am wrong in my statement.
Postmodernism is about subjectivism and suspicion of reason as a concept. Everything is up for interpretation, nothing is certain, objectivity is impossible, etc. It's an ideology that's hostile to the concept of any sort of totalizing truth.
As a materialist I kinda hate it.
Yeah, everything is nuanced, that just doesn't mean that there are no right options.
Intelligence and maturity is holding a view while also recognizing that there are flaws in that viewpoint.
No matter what subject you're talking about, there are flaws in every stance. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a stance, but too many people act like they have to be 100% behind their stance in order for it to be valid
Yes, but the important part is understanding the flaws of what you are standing up for.
Not wanting to tax the rich because "I might be rich one day".
Racism.
FTFY ;)
I’m with you on all except for the top, and if you’re down, I’d like to hear more about your opinion on supernatural beliefs. If you told someone 500 years ago that there is a minuscule and invisible world all around us where the laws of physics break down, that would have been considered lunacy or witchcraft. Today, we commonly accept quantum physics as a part of our normal reality.
Of course, there are instances where people are clearly engaging in delusional thinking, but there are also plenty of examples of people who have had experiences that they are struggling to explain, and they are progressively building a hypothesis to explain it. Is it more rational to deny your own experiences to make your worldview fit the commonly accepted consensus? Or is it better to keep an open mind and continue to investigate if you can?
I ask primarily because I know I hold a few woo woo beliefs, but I try to refrain from making drastic decisions based on it. I’ve often wondered if some of the things I’ve experienced would be explained in the distant future, because I can loudly attest to the perceived realness of the experience when you’re having it. If you see, feel, and smell an elephant in the room, it’s a little hard to ignore it even if everyone else says it isn’t there.
This got longer than I anticipated, but I look forward to hearing your response if you have time.
💀
What are the “woo woo beliefs” that you hold? If they’re semiplausible “what ifs” to explain the unexplainable that you yourself hold with a grain of salt… seems reasonable. If they’re more “omnipotent, conscious being in the sky explains all things unexplainable”… far less reasonable.
My woo woo beliefs are that I am relatively sure that there are either external or deeply primordial metaconciousnesses that we can access through altered states—meditation, magick, and/or drugs. Though it is not something I can prove scientifically at this point, I have done a fair amount of experimenting with automatic writing as well as spent dozens of hours with people exploring the same sorts of phenomenon, and I’m relatively confident that there is some real thing happening during these communications, even though I can’t explain it.
For the things I’ve experienced to be a coincidence would almost be more unlikely than for there to be an unexplained force at play, especially when I later gathered stories from other earnest seekers who had nearly identical mind blowing experiences, straight down to the order of events, feelings, and realizations.
So though I can’t prove it, I’ve seen enough to want to know more, and I am relatively convinced that it is not just illusion because the evidence I have observed directly and indirectly screams otherwise.
A Big Mouth Billy Bass that's been hacked with a recording of someone screaming "POORLY EDUCATED!"
C/angryupvote
That'll teach them not to mark it "serious replies only"
Racist and intolerance to people different than them
Being a republican. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican, but your average republican voter is a mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.
Truck balls
Tbh if i saw truck balls before they were popular, i would think they are pretty funny
Throwing trash out the window of your vehicle.
I have to disagree.
Speeding screams impatient 🤷
What type of speeding cause driving fast on back roads in the middle of no where at night isn't impatient it's racing and speeding on the highway often isn't impatient because everyone around you is going 15 over the limit
Some of the smartest people I know work on cars regularly 🥲
Reckless driving is dumb but having a loud car is just inconsiderate.
I can agree having a loud car every day is inconsiderate but having a regular car and one that you take out on the weekends to go to shows and have fun isn't to me idk though kinda a car nerd prolly a bit skewed. I don't think driving fast in a fairly controlled situation is really reckless driving, legally it qualifies as it but not really being reckless
Reckless is situational. A posted MPH sign does not dictate that. Well, I suppose only legally speaking 😉
Racing is stupid and dangerous. Speeding because others are too is opportunistic impatience.
Is anything that's dangerous stupid and not really dangerous with no traffic and going the speed limit when no one else is is actually more dangerous than going the speed of everyone around you
How does enjoying a vehicle make you uneducated and lifted trucks do have a purpose for offroadjng the ones with massive wheels are dumb though
"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.
Utter confidence in an area without expertise and without room for doubt or challenge.
Anti vaxxers
To be honest, I disagree. It'd be logical if that was true, because that's what you'd expect, but I've met plenty of counterexamples. People who were well educated in some subject and therefore assumed that they know everything better. I've found that for a certain group of people, having a bachelor's or master's degree makes them overestimate their ability massively. Some of them you could at least partially convince with facts, but I've also met a few of them who has gone completely off the deep end. Well educated doesn't always mean intelligent
Yeah I think a lot of people equate education with overall intelligence, and that’s just not how it works.
I’ve personally known an anti-vaxxer with a PhD, MDs who wrote at a middling grade 8 level, and a literal rocket scientist who never could figure out his email lol
Highly educated people can be brilliant in their specific fields of study, while being absolute morons in other areas. They just had all the right opportunities, money, and the time/skills/ability to study, memorize, and pass tests.
I actually know at least a couple high school grads whom I’d consider more broadly intelligent than some of the MD & PhD holders I’ve worked with over the years.
Refusing to accept that they are wrong.
Trying to push mlm schemes like essential oils
Unfortunately I think MLMs trap plenty of educated people. It's just a blind spot.
I can't blame people for wanting to be their own boss or making some extra money. Sad to see that taken advantage of.
Not listening to other people's opinions and ideas
That's probably the reason the person in question isn't educated in the first place lol
shut up
Almost downvoted you as an instinct
rofl
Not being curious. Education should never stop. You should constantly be seeking intriguing books, new ideas, different perspectives. Once you've lost your curiosity or pridefully believe in one opinion and one way of thinking, no matter your schooling, you have at that moment become poorly educated.
"Whataboutism", or if you are unfamiliar with the term:
People that use this mechanism are "poorly educated" and unable to hold a conversation and they should just be mocked by whatabouting even harder, so they can maybe understand that they're dumb and that's not how you should debate.
Example of the last argument I had recently with my dumb c*nt father:
Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands
That's a good one.
Ironically, defending arguments using scientific studies and experiments, but not being able to think critically about the methodology used or what the results mean. Too often people will cite scientific literature based off the title and MAYBE skim it. Trying to have a discussion with them will usually result in them calling you anti-science.
A good example is the pseudo-scientific belief common within incel circles that women can store and absorb dna from past sexual partners and that their children can then have more than one genetic father (an excuse to shame sexually active women while fear mongering about cuckoldry). If you track down the source the study actually explicitly explains exactly why this isn't the case.
Nationalism
Any reference to "common sense", which really means "what I believe". Violating it is used as a universal rebuttal for any intellectually sophisticated argument.
religion and the belief in the supernatural/paranormal. also the belief in conspiracy theories.
conspiracy theories i agree with, but religion? organized religion, definitely. joining a religion with a hierarchy signals that you want someone else to give you all the answers, which is very much a mark of poor education. but religious beliefs are not an automatic marker of poor education, as long as they're sincerely held, don't supersede science, and are frequently revisited and revised based on personal experience and knowledge. even basic, broad frameworks like animism or some parts of Buddhism can help you make sense of the world when science can't help you
When science has not yet provided an answer, the solution is to keep searching. The answer is not, “oh, God, must’ve done it!” Beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, are not knowledge, but merely how one may wish things to be. Wishes are not truths.
💀
Getting on an unsafe submarine
Believing the earth is flat
People who are proud about their lack of knowledge on a topic as if that somehow means that they were not programmed prior to the encounter.
Wearing camo and American flag shit in public. Honestly just having American flags on anything now pretty much is the same as that read hat
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”
Not learning from history.
Also trying to sweep the nasty parts of history (basically most of it) under the rug.
Referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect in casual contexts. Most people who refer to it, have not really read about it enough to be qualified to use it.
I mean, you can sum it up in a sentence. Is it really that complex?
"People with poor knowledge, experience or skill in an area tend to overestimate their ability in that area."
Is your beef that people tend to conflate lack of skill or knowledge with low intelligence, which is not what the DK effect says?
"Mount Stupid" vs everyone thinking they're above average
I'm assuming they get told they suffer from DK a lot haha
Your summary is correct. However, most people use the Dunning-Kruger effect to describe individuals with low intelligence as arrogant. Another issue is that most people as soon as they learn about the effect think that they’ve become immune to it.
All it does for me is double down the imposter-syndrome.
I'm not good at this... People keep hiring me, maybe I'm alright at it. Dunning-Kuger is a thing, maybe my "people keep hiring me" ego is making me blind.
And yet, every day I do cool things, I learn new cool things, I redo old things with my new knowledge
But still... I'm just pretending
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I notice it's prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of "executive" education. Whether they are poorly educated or not... I leave to the reader.
The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.
What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.
That's meta.
MAGA Hats. Those people are dumb by choice. And that's less forgivable than people who just don't know any better.
Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.
Using an apostrophe in plurals. Don't know why but this one drives me insane.
Also they're/there/their and you're/your
People who think their dialect or language style is grammatically correct and others are wrong, because they don't personally known the grammar rules of any other dialect or language. They don't understand that language is alive and evolving and that the purpose of language is communication.
Breaks for brakes, loose for lose.
Just pointing out that not everybody who can't spell shit is poorly educated.
Dyslexia, ADHD, having a different native language, ducking autocorrect, ... Lots of reasons.
Those who always put loud music or talk as if they were alone in the bus/public places. Always the same people
Being intolerant of those who don't think like you do.
Personal use of proprietary software in the 2020s. Or running a company to be completely dependand on dozens of unreliable and expensive proprietary software vendors.
Per say is a giant pet peeve of mine.
Would of. Mother. Fucking. Would of.
Literally.
It depends on how you interpret "educated". If including things that aren't learned on school: I think that fallacies, rushed certainties and decontextualisation scream "this individual was so poorly educated that they never learned how to think."
I think that everything else can be derived from the above, shitty moral premises, or a mix of both.
regurgitating talking points from a third party and the inability to distinguish between divisive issues and issues of difference. I
am a college professor and pastor and when I teach theology there is a crazy high instance of people who just spit out exactly what their favorite celebrity pastor says and immediate decide that it trumps whatever you are saying. Then they are unwilling to yield any bit of their position and get offended that you disagree.
disagreements do not need to be so divisive. The constant need for affirmation shows that you actually have no idea what you are talking about
Using terms like 'u', 'ur', etc when writing. No one charges by the letter, it's simply lazy.
Doesn't this depend on the stylistic environment of the text? Personally, I'd consider it alright given that the sender and the receiver are in a casual relationship. It only makes one seem uneducated if they are using it in a more formal, or perhaps a public context.
Your comment reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote.
"You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up, too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you're at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances." - Stephen Fry, 5:00.
This is exactly the way I think about it!
If I know someone personally and they text me with abbreviations and such like that. I do judge them for it.
Come on guy’s
Some people still don't have unlimited texts, which literally does charge by the letter.
So, what does it have to do with poor education?
It made a lot of sense back when you had to type texts by pushing the same buttons multiple times. Now that smart phones have swipe to type and autocorrect, it is not a good excuse.
Nah it didn't even make sense back then. I could type full sentences with T9 easily, to the point that I wouldn't even need to look at the phone except to double check what I wrote before sending a text.
Confuses to, two and too.
Also their, there and they're
Cigarettes
Nah, addiction plagues the well and the poorly educated. I was acquainted with a couple of Nobel prize winners who smoked like chimneys.
It's not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we're old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.
Addiction is everywhere, but cigarettes are unique. It’s no secret that cigarette companies deliberately get people addicted, and then let them die, simply because it’s profitable.
You KNOW you’re being used. Voluntarily paying to make it happen is stupid.
I’m sympathetic towards older folks who got hooked when the companies were still lying to the public, but anyone who started smoking in the last few decades is a moron.
Outrage posting
Well we definitely have a lot of reddit in this thread. Reminds me why I looked for alternatives in the first place.
Might not be a popular take but having an undefendable position like creationism does not necessarily mean "poorly educated." There are apologists who have learned proper reasoning skills and use their education to bend reality as much towards their will. I think most people would consider Jesuits and the like to be very educated but also very wrong.
As far as signs that someone is poorly educated, there are people who make up "big words" to give the impression of having a better education to other poorly educated people. Which backfires when someone with an actual large vocabulary walks into the room.
Confusing THEN and THAN. Credibility immediately drops.
Coming to absolutes and never admitting your faults
I used to think it was people saying 'fustrated' instead of 'frustrated'.
Went on a trip a while back with a relative, here are some of the things that they belived/behaved like(sorry for the long text):Needless gossiping and thinking that other people's achivements threaten your credibility. Anger/apathy/being dismissive as default, snarky useless remarks, belittling other people any chance possible, trying to seem superior through "presenting intelectual", playing "the devil's advocate" just to look edgy and be unnerving, beliving propaganda over science, not apologising when needed, lacking self awareness and being selfish constantly, not going to therapy&health check ups, making poor spirited jokes about other people, not respecting people's space, touching them without permission,being disrespectful on purpose to other people(and to yourself), and the phobias(homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, xenophobic),misoginistic,misandrist, ableist, rascist,antisemitic,heavily nationalist attitude, thinking the world revolves only around you and that other people are just tools&objects, not cleaning after yourself, expecting other people to take care of things for/accompaning you as if they have an obligation, thinking violence settles things, refusing to pay people because "it's for exposure" and "they should do it for the experience/self fuffilment", loud music in public spaces(please use headphones), dismissing people's religious practice just because it isn't exactly how you would do it, pressing other people to live the life you want to but not living the life you want to live yourself, being needlessy pessimistic and cynical about the future(guilty), not being bewildered about earth and not wanting to learn or practice random things(who has time to be hateful when you see a beautiful leaf that has just sprouted?), lack of wanderlust.
me myself
and I
Brought instead of bought.
Boarder
Over their I saw a cat. It was licking it's paws.
I hate autocorrect for constantly changing my “its” to “it’s”.
(I just had to fight it to get the above “its”)
💀
expired
Using "I" as the object instead of the subject, like saying "The waiter brought drinks to my friend and I."
This is one of those grammatical errors that is so common that it is almost not a grammatical error anymore. It is so pervasive in podcasts, movies, TV shows, etc. that I just gloss over it nowadays
What exactly is wrong with that sentence?
Try this:
Sounds werid as hell, right? That's what's wrong with that sentence. I is a subjective pronoun, not an objective pronoun. Adding "my friend and" in front of it doesn't change that.
I understand that it doesn't matter to a lot of people, and it doesn't matter for sentence clarity, but it sound weird AF to some folks.
Idk sounds pretty good to I.
Why is this so common? It drives me nuts.
Because of all the 'um actually' corrections from people whenever they'd say "Tom and me bought drinks." And not just to the point one starts thinking it's always "Tom and I" - I've had people 'correct' my 'to Tom and me', as well, because they think "Tom and me" is always incorrect.
This is also why I don't make a big deal about correcting others' grammar; it's often a tool people use to feel smarter (and thus superior) to other people. Language is a communication tool; if I know what you mean and there's limited ambiguity then I don't much care if you said 'would of' instead of 'would've'; and certainly not enough to interrupt a conversation to correct it.
Besides, between autocorrect, typos, and the brain's weird word-association tricks, a linguistics professor is capable of making significant grammar mistakes and not even notice, even if they'd know they were wrong if pointed out. So swooping in to tell them "hey you did this thing slightly wrong" in lieu of engaging with their intended point is not meaningful contribution.
Yes exactly. I didn't mention it above but it seems like the people who use "and I" incorrectly are the same ones trying to sound smarter by being more "proper" or formal. I agree people should just focus on the content of the message. I would not correct anyone in real life, but secretly inwardly it drives me crazy.
Yeah, that's exactly what makes it sound poorly educated to me.
idk, I notice the opposite to happen more often: e.g. "me and John went to the bar last weekend"
Generally not getting a lot of deeper jokes or references about important topics
Seeing a pirate use unsafe sites
Insisting things like tax returns or household maintenance should be taught in school.
The goal of Education is not to train you to fit into the system you happen to grow up in, but should provide the foundation (litaracy, STEM, art …) and awaken the curiosity in yourself to become lifelong learner. That will develop society, and not a bunch of drones doing their tax returns and changing tires every season.
The most important thing you can learn, is how to learn. One of the things that most upsets me is when I hear someone say they can't do something "because no one ever taught me how". It's not your teachers/parents job to teach you how to do everything under the sun.
Ignorance is nigh-inexcusable in today's society, with so many sources of information at our fingertips. That's where the "poorly educated" part comes in for me - folks who don't know how to search for and evaluate information.
At minimum; school should give you the tools to be able to figure out how to do taxes/basic house maintenance/etc. But also, sometimes people need a little extra help; and we should have some sort of system to help people learn those things.
Those are foundational skills like math and reading. Accounting exists and mechanical repair exists. They aren't teaching you those specific fields.
I mean it would also help if we had a functional tax system in the US that wasn't deliberately made overly complicated to encourage people to pay for tax filing services.
When someone says "I seen".
No, you saw. Or you have seen.
It's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
In my country, educated just means you came from money, and did some busy work. Largely idiots tbh.
'emails'
'the ask'
'the spend'
Painting an orange car blue or a blue car orange. Unmitigated pants-on-head savagery.
people who think overenunciating everything makes them a better class of human
Damn, I overenunciate (compared to my local accent) some sounds because otherwise people have a harder time understanding my speech. Not that I have a speech impediment, I just talk fast, mumble through some words out of hurry and I'm kinda quiet. People have noted that I do that but it's only to make sure people understand what I'm saying, having to repeat myself makes it uncomfortable for both of us.
It certainly makes you more comprehensible to people who don't speak English as their native tongue.
I would say "not the grammar" since many users are not native English speakers and have learned it as a second (or third, fourth...) language. 💁♂️🌏
Using less instead of fewer. Fewer is quantitative, Less is qualitative. Fewer rain drops, less rain.
Thinking about different languages in the terms of "useful" or "useless" according to the number of speakers they have.
Edit: What I mean specifically is not for someone to want or not to personally learn a language, but if the existance in itself of a language is more or less valuable according to how many people speak it (per example and as I explained below, believing that Occitan's existance is useless because there's already French to talk to Occitan people with, who already understand it). Yes, this happens.
Lately?
People on the internet using the word tankie.
You're opinion is crap.
Yo momma
Accurate
Believing socialism lifts people out of poverty.