Knowing, not knowing, and "confident boobery"

.....A week ago (What Do Americans Know?), Newsweek reported the results of a poll that it conducted that was designed to gauge what “U.S. citizens know on a broad range of topics.”
.....Since we've been focused on American boobery lately, I figured we might take a look at this poll. First, here are some of the poll’s questions and results (correct answers are in bold):

• Do you happen to know the name of the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court?


15 Yes, John Roberts
7 Yes, other name given

77 No/Don't know/Can't name anyone

1 Refused

• As far as you know, what is Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's religion? Is he a Christian, a Muslim, or something else?


61 Christian

13 Muslim

7 Something else

19 Not sure/Refused

• Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?


Yes 34

No 56

Don't Know 10

• Which of the following is the TOTAL national debt at this time?


15 About 3 trillion dollars

15 About 5 trillion dollars

22 About 7 trillion dollars

32 More than 9 trillion dollars

16 Don't know

• Which of the following is the holiest place in Islam?


30 Jerusalem

56 Mecca

1 Medina

3 Islamabad

10 Don't know

• Which of the following is NOT a play written by William Shakespeare?


4 Hamlet

4 Macbeth

20 The Merchant of Venice

58 The Crucible

14 Don't know

TRIVIA, SENSE OF PROPORTION:

.....It seems to me that some of Newsweek’s “knowledge” questions were really “trivia” questions: "Which of the following is the most-watched episode ever of a primetime TV series?"

.....Further, this Newsweek bunch seems perfectly happy to mix the unimportant with the important. Surely it is important for Americans to know who the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is. But is it important for Americans to know when TV broadcasts will switch over to digital or just how many children this year will see their parents divorce? Don't think so.

.....At least one of Newsweek's questions was incoherent:

• In which of the following areas do you think stem cell research would be MOST useful?


17 Spinal injuries

4 Brain injuries

2 Blindness

69 In all of these areas

8 Don't know

.....According to Newsweek's pollsters, SC research will be “most" useful in all three of the three areas named.
.....That makes no fucking sense.

.....Some of the poll's results are appalling, I suppose:

• 34% of respondents thought that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks, and 10% didn't know. (It is, of course, a crucial fact of our present political reality that many Americans were misled about this by the Bush Administration. How can 44% still be out to lunch?)
• 44% of respondents didn’t know the importance of Mecca to Muslims.

"KNOWING" FALSELY: THE CONFIDENT BOOB FACTOR

.....It’s one thing to not know something and to know that one does not know. It is quite another—it is far worse—to “know” something falsely.
.....With regard to the question of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 84% didn’t know the answer (John Roberts), but the vast majority of these people knew that they didn’t know. (I'm impressed.) The rate of “false knowing” was only 7%.
.....BUT—now look at many of the other questions. Very often, one finds a very high rate of “false knowing” (i.e., a high rate of confident boobery). For instance, consider this question:

• China and India have the largest armies in the world. Which one of the following countries do you think has the THIRD largest army?


.....I don’t know about you, but I would be very clear that I just don’t know the answer to this question. I could guess (I would have been wrong), but why would I do that? My answer is: I don’t know.
.....Here’s how people answered:

29 North Korea

22 Russia

39 United States

1 Australia

9 Don't know

.....I’m impressed that 29% got this one right. 9% acknowledged their ignorance. Those people are like me.
.....Now, assuming that respondents were aware that they could just say “I don’t know” (is that a bad assumption?), the data here suggest that 62% (i.e., 22+39+1) of respondents had “false knowledge.” 9% knew that they didn't know, but Sixty-freakin'-two percent thought they knew when in fact they did not know.
.....Who are these people? Where do they come from? HOW CAN I AVOID LIVING AMONG THEM?

If Truth is so valuable, why is there so much B.S.?

.....On Saturday, the LA Times wrote about a crazy little Sunday morning radio show—featuring two well-regarded Stanford U professors—called “Philosophy Talk.” (Yeah, these philosophy professors will give it some thought):

.....…It was just another Sunday morning for Ken Taylor and John Perry, who dissect life's big mysteries on "Philosophy Talk," believed to be America's only live weekly call-in radio show dedicated to the philosophical.
.....In this celebrity-soaked era, when Americans seem to spend more time pondering whether Britney Spears' underwear exists than whether God does, these two Stanford philosophy professors take on everything from the weighty to the winsome.
.....On this June morning in the little broadcast booth at KALW-FM (91.7), "Philosophy Talk" tackled the problem of evil—or, as Perry put it, quoting Epicurus: "If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
.....They've prodded political correctness, postmodernism and prostitution. They've wondered aloud: "Can science explain consciousness?" "If Truth is so valuable, why is there so much B.S.?" "What are numbers?" "What is a child?"
…
....."Philosophy Talk" is Perry's brainchild, and a very old child indeed. Until he met Taylor 15 years ago, he said, "I couldn't get any other suitable partner who didn't think it was a completely loony idea. . . . Unlike me, Ken not only has ideas, but he acts on them."
.....Which is probably why the two men began working together. They got seed money from Stanford, made two pilots and sent them to KQED, San Francisco's top-shelf public radio station. They were unceremoniously turned down. [The second-shelf public radio station, however, accepted.]
…
.....The show began airing weekly in January 2004 and has since been picked up by Oregon Public Radio, which airs Taylor and Perry statewide. They can be heard on stations in New York, Louisiana, Colorado and British Columbia, and on KUCR in Riverside. Listeners everywhere can tune in online at www.philosophytalk.org.
…
.....Taylor: "I think that our culture, our public discourse especially, is utterly debased. . . . It's meant to manipulate rather than enlighten and inform. . . . It's a disease that we've caught. Philosophy is one elixir, one magical elixir for helping to cure that disease."
.....Perry: "Ken, I knew Socrates. And you're no Socrates. But we do our best."
.....Taylor: "Think of our first episode: Bush's doctrine of preemptive self-defense. A doctrine is supposed to be kind of a systematic body of evidence and belief that kind of hangs together. . . . But that so-called doctrine is a bunch of, well . . ."
.....Perry: "Hooey."
.....Taylor: "Yeah."
…
.....It was [one listener’s] query about animals and the evil they endure that led to the most spirited exchange among Taylor, Perry and their guest this day, University of Colorado philosophy professor Michael Tooley.
.....Tooley: "If [God] created a being that's capable of suffering and then put it in a sort of hellish world where it would suffer almost all the time, it would seem to me to be morally wrong . . . "
.....Perry: "Maybe God created us to be the kings and queens of creation, but do we really want to worship a God who created so much suffering among animals? . . . "
.....Taylor: "There's two different possible conclusions: One is, there isn't a God. At least there isn't a benevolent, all-knowing, all-perfect God. And one is, even if there is a God, it is not worth our worshiping him . . . So Michael, which is it?"
.....The short answer? There is no short answer….

• LA OBSERVED has taken notice of Orange Coast magazine's "best of" issue, highlighting its choice of "best columnist" (Frank Mickadeit). But it also mentions OC's "best literary blog," namely, the REB's The Mark on the Wall.

Check it out: The Morning Reading: Independence Day

• For a horror story about a Massachusetts community college, go to ‘Reign of Terror’ at MassBay? (in this morning's Inside Higher Ed).

• For some fun, see "Bill-O's rant remix" video on Keith Olbermann's site: Remix of O'Reilly

• This week's Guardian Science Weekly podcast concerns women in physics, dark matter, and the underappreciated Alfred Henry Wallace.

Give cats & dogs the vote; Walter Knott video

.....Yesterday, I posted about the cluelessness of voters. The evidence clearly suggests that many or even most American voters are sans clue. This seems to be especially true among the so-called "Republican base," a remarkably stupid group.
.....But among our sacred cows as Americans is the notion that voting is good; not voting is bad. Somehow, how one votes—whether, for instance, one is informed or rational—doesn’t matter.
.....This way of thinking is like some kind of New Age philosophy, seems to me. It's about feeling good and ignoring reality.

.....Generally, if there is a way to increase voting rates, people are immediately for it.
.....—Unless, of course, they foresee that their political party will be hurt. Then, all of a sudden, the issue of voter competence, among others, arises. They get all logical.
.....And, of course, if your party sees a benefit, it’ll be especially enthusiastic about the measure. The "competence" argument and every other argument will be rebutted.

16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD VOTERS?

.....In today’s San Francisco Chronicle (State Republicans cool to youth-voting bills), we learn of some (California) Assembly bills “designed to bring more young people into the voting booths”:

.....One of the measures would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to "preregister" to vote, while the other would allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election if they will be 18 by the date of the next general election. Both bills have prompted straight party-line votes, with no hint of GOP support.
.....While Democrats sponsoring the bills say they are merely good-government measures, studies show that their party would get a major election-day boost if more young voters cast ballots.

.....Republican Anthony Adams opposes the bills essentially because, he argues, when you’re young, you’re clueless:

....."I'm a pretty conservative guy now, but when I was 17 I was a raging liberal," Adams said. "You start to see problems as you get older. As you get older, you get wiser."
…
....."Our concern is that we want an informed and worldly electorate, and here we have these kids in high school and they're trying to get a grasp of the world," Adams said. "The assumption is that they're not able to make informed decisions, so we have to have a legitimate cutoff" date.

.....Naturally, California Democrats, including Assemblyman Gene Mullin, see the matter differently. Young people are often more informed, he says:

....."These young people are in school and hearing discussions of issues in their classes," he said. "Republicans are afraid we're going to register a lot of Democrats, but most teenagers tend to register in the party of their parents."
…
.....The Democratic bills would not give a boost to Republicans, Democrats or any other group, said Assemblyman Curren Price Jr., D-Inglewood…"This is a step we can take to encourage voting involvement at an early age," he said. "People who get involved at a young age are more likely to become regular voters."
…
.....Price described his bill as "a way of tapping into the interest young people have expressed this year," while not mentioning that much of that excitement was bolstering Democratic campaign efforts….

REVIEWING THE LOGIC:

.....Let’s review some of the above reasoning, shall we?

.....Republican Adams opposes the new measures because (1) when one is young, one is unwise; wisdom is acquired only much later in life, and voters should be wise; (2) when one is young, one is liable to be attracted to liberalism.
.....But if Adams’ first point were correct, then shouldn’t Adams be advocating, not just preventing 17-year-old voting, but raising the voting age substantially? Obviously. How come he isn’t doing that? Make sense, man.
.....During the Democratic primary, we kept hearing that, the older the voter, the more likely he/she supported Clinton over Obama. Surely (I say half-jokingly), this refutes Adams’ point about wisdom and age!
.....That the young are attracted to liberalism, if true, is irrelevant, of course, unless it can be established that liberalism is “wrong” and non-liberalism is “right.” Tsk, tsk.

.....Democrat Mullin counters the Republican arguments and position by arguing that (1) young people are often more informed that their elders; (2) no, the new voters will not be especially Democratic, since teenagers tend to register in the party of their parents.
.....Mullin is full of shit. The notion that young people are especially informed flies in the face of the facts provided by endless polls. That teenagers tend to register in the party of their parents does not counter the Republican worry (that there will be more Dems than Repubs registering), since, obviously there are more Dems than Repubs among existing parent/voters. C’mon.
.....(Of course, the Republican "worry" isn't an argument. We cannot reject a measure that increases voting rates on the grounds that we dislike how the new voters vote!)

.....Mr. Price argues, apparently, that the measures are good because they will increase voting rates in the long run. But, of course, this assumes that increasing voting rates per se is a good thing. There's that sacred cow again. I may be a vegetarian, but that's one cow that oughta be slaughtered.
.....Further, Price's point ignores the “competence” point that seems to be at the heart of the Republican position. (Maybe Price deals with it elsewhere. Dunno.)

.....My own view is that the Republicans have a point: much evidence indicates that young voters are especially clueless. But since the vast majority of voters—especially Republican voters—are already profoundly clueless and vulnerable to various irrationalities (e.g., pursuing incompatible measures), we're just squabbling about how to arrange the deck chairs on this electoral Titanic.
.....So, in my opinion, we should give dogs and cats the vote. No age limit.

WALTER KNOTT ON VIDEO:

.....I happened across a brief video—looks like it was produced in the early or mid-60s—promoting Knott’s Berry Farm, the amusement park, and the politics of its creator, Walter Knott. It starts with a few seconds of typical right-wingery from Walter that will be of interest to local history buffs. (Go to O.C. History Roundup.)
.....Knott, who died in 1982 (at age 93), was an important figure in the development of Orange County as a “bastion of conservatism.” He was an important early supporter of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
.....He was also a John Bircher. Scary dude.

GEORGE CARLIN CONTRA THE PUBLIC; CONTRA VOTING

Chunk's Saturday travelogue

Today was one of those too-hot summer days in So Cal that makes you realize that you're living in a desert. It was a bit hazy, maybe smoggy, but not like when I was a kid. Nothing like that.

I had to go twenty miles up the road to Orange, and so I figured I'd bring my camera along and see what I could see.

I took old Santiago Canyon Road. Stopped by mysterious Black Star Canyon:



When I got to Orange, I figured I'd stop in Old Town. Drove by my old house, built in 1903:


It's the one on the left. I'm told that, fifty years ago, it was a house of prostitution. By the time I lived in it, in the late 80s, the neighborhood was pretty wholesome. Still is. I think a gay couple lives in the house now. They added the white picket fence. I like it.

It was hot, boy. Naturally, on Prairie Home Companion, this week from the Windy City, they were doing a version of Robert Johnson's "They're Red Hot":

Hot tamales and they're red hot, yes she got 'em for sale
Hot tamales and they're red hot, yes she got 'em for sale
I got a girl, say she long and tall
She sleeps in the kitchen with her feets in the hall
Hot tamales and they're red hot, yes she got 'em for sale, I mean
Yes, she got 'em for sale, yeah

As I recall, Johnson, the great bluesman, was a fan of Bing Crosby. Crazy, ain't it?

Here are some shots of downtown, near the Plaza:





Much of the "plaza" area was built well before the turn of the century, by which I mean, not 2000, but 1900. Cool.

Couldn't help myself. I went into some of those shops—the one's with basements. I could hear the floors creaking. I kept thinking, "I almost never come here. It would really suck if there were an earthquake right now." I love these old buildings, but visiting them is a gamble, like hiking into an active volcano.

Bought some cool retro toys for young Adam and an old Pyrex measuring cup (my cleaning lady broke my old "Fluffo" cup). Check it out.


I dunno if you can read it (below), but, at the bottom of the cup, it says: "For household and photographic use only." Huh?


I guess I'd better wash it really well before I use it. Who knows what kinda chemicals somebody put in there. Probably mercury, cyanide. Who knows.

Sure, voters generally are stupid, but conservative voters are mega-stupid

.....As I’m sure you know, newspapers are going down the drain, and they’re going down fast, man. In the last year or so, we’ve heard about serious downsizing over at the OC Reg and the LA Times. People are scrambling to keep their jobs. It’s sad.
.....It’s also sad to see what some of these papers are willing to do to juice up their readership. The OC Register seems to have decided to focus on “cute baby” contests. The Reg is pandering to silliness and stupidity, and since this is Orange County, that's bound to work.
.....Yesterday, the Reg asked people a question guaranteed to elicit the stupid: “What does patriotism mean to you?”
.....Actually, despite the title, the Reg really asked a slightly different question: “How do you define patriotism?” Some people, of course, provided perfectly intelligent, albeit hackneyed, answers. Patriotism, said one woman, is standing up for what you believe in. OK.
.....Naturally, lots of people approached by the Reg didn’t really answer the question, evidently understanding it instead as a prompt to say “patriotic” things. For instance, according to a Westminster resident, patriotism means “freedom.” “We're free to do what we want, most of the time,” he says.
.....That’s some definition of patriotism, boy. I wish they’d have asked me. I woulda said, “patriotism is my Chrysler 300.” I woulda asked the reporter if he wanted a Coke, whereupon I would have handed him a bone.
.....A Santa Ana man defines patriotism as “This country is the best place to be in the world.”
.....Well, OK. These people were probably pretty rattled by the reporter and camera person. We don’t want to read too much into their answers.
.....Still.

ASSERTIVE/CONFIDENT + IGNORANT = STUPID

.....Most people aren’t really stupid, of course. But, clearly, most people are very ignorant. Maybe they’ve got an excuse—they’re awful busy, etc.—but, without question, they don’t know their asses from holes in the ground.
.....What's worse, most of ‘em don’t seem to be aware of their ignorance. I say that because they’re often pretty confident in their “stupid” views. They assert them boldly, loudly. They're like little Bill O'Reillys.
.....Obviously, most voters are ignoramuses. Election campaigns are incredibly stupid, and voters are clueless. Mostly. I suspect that I'm stating the obvious. But this is a problem, right? Democracy doesn't work when people are stupid. It goes seriously off the rails.

.....Have you heard about Jeff Shenkman’s new book? Shenkman is an associate professor of history at George Mason University and he’s the founder/editor of GMU’s History News Network. His latest book is Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American. According to Publishers Weekly,

Shenkman … makes the provocative argument that as American voters have gained political power in the last 50 years, they have become increasingly ignorant of politics and world affairs—and dangerously susceptible to manipulation. The book provides a litany of depressing statistics—most Americans cannot name their representatives in Congress, only 20% hold a passport, 30% cannot identify the Holocaust—as Shenkman inquires whether Americans are capable of voting in the nation's or even their own best interests. …[H]is concern is genuine and heartfelt. …[He] illustrates how politicians have repeatedly misled voters and analyzes the dumbing down of American politics via marketing, spin machines and misinformation….

.....It must have been easy to write this book. But Shenkman seems like a smart guy. Some impressive people, including our pal John Wiener, have praised the book.
.....Shenkman’s made the rounds, I guess, on the usual talk shows. Here he is on the Daily Show (June 11):



.....One thing Shenkman doesn’t say on his “Daily Show” appearance is that there’s an asymmetry in our stupidity. Sure, there’s assertive ignoramutude clear across the political spectrum, but, as you move toward the conservative end, you get lots more stupidity. For instance, a majority of the people who reelected George W Bush thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. (The people who voted for Kerry weren't nearly so clueless.) Really.
.....Lots of ‘em still think that.
.....They’re mega-stupid.

• Here's a video in which Shenkman lays out his view (in the new book) more systematically: Just how stupid are we? He discusses the Iraq war and the history of American elections.

• Bryan Caplan, an economist, offers a theory regarding the irrationality of voters. For a review of Caplan's book (The Myth of the Rational Voter), see Fractured Franchise (in the New Yorker).

• I do not doubt that one can be conservative and intelligent. I do not regard the relative stupidity of "conservative voters" as an argument against conservatism. Still, in all honesty, I continue to be mystified that apparently intelligent people ever saw anything in George W. Bush other than a lout. I mean that. It is a puzzle. Can you help me out?

The 4th in the canyons

Trabuco Canyon's 43rd Fourth of July parade: Yeah, that's pretty typical out here. I think that's their one and only fire truck (way up in Trabuco Canyon proper).


Silverado's Fourth of July: that ain't their only VW bug.


A Fourth in Lake Forest: I include this one only because they decided to take a pic of my niece and nephew (Sarah and Adam). That's the spirit, kids! July 4 happens to be Adam's B-day. He's 4.

Chancellor Mathur blights another 4th of July parade

This is a very brief video of Mathur's appearance today at the Lake Forest Fourth of July Parade. Somebody sent me literally two seconds of video. I stretched it to two minutes. So it's two seconds of video and 1:58 of credits. (Just kidding.)

The YouTube video includes secretly taped audio of a Lake Forest resident who was evidently displeased by Mathur's presence in the parade. He curses like a m*ther-f*cker. It's pretty scandalous, I'd say.

The banner on the car mentions Mathur's usual companion, Trustee Tom Fuentes. Fuentes, however, was not in the car, unless he was in the trunk. He'd been replaced with a lovely Saddleback College athlete. Don't know her name.

Mathur's car was followed by a big Wienermobile. I think the city of Lake Forest was saying to Mathur, "You, sir, are a big wiener."

I'm sure of it. Check out the pics below (sent to me by a famous lesbian couple, friends of mine; someday, they'll be marchin' in that parade).