…is rampant in the USA. Basically, you get free education here-grades 1-12. Yet, mots kids don’t want it.The dropout rate in inner city highschools is as great as 70%. what is the explanation? I certainly don’t know-it seems (to me) that the way out of poverty is education. :o
Stranger , I have to admit that was pretty damned brilliant.
People don’t ‘become’ ignorant. They start ignorant and have to be taught.
Marley23 In all fairness, politicians go to expensive hookers all the time. If someone wasn’t out to get him, he wouldn’t have been caught. Occam’s Razor would tell us that a high ranking politician getting caught for something people do on a daily basis, must have had someone pushing the story and making it into an agenda.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
..is rampant in the USA. Basically, you get free education here-grades 1-12. Yet, mots kids don’t want it.The dropout rate in inner city highschools is as great as 70%. what is the explanation? I certainly don’t know-it seems (to me) that the way out of poverty is education. :o
[/QUOTE]
Heh, it’s not that simple. They reject a broken system of rote indoctrination that doesn’t really educate people but pushes groups of trivia designed to facilitate the standardized tests. Most public school education IS in fact pointless or has done a poor job of getting kids to understand it’s importance. Teaching the importance of a skill is a relevant part of education. There isn’t a trend against education, there is a crappy product that is not meeting the needs it was designed to fulfill.
[QUOTE=AskNott]
The price of gasoline is tied to market forces, but not directly. When the price of crude oil goes up by $4 a barrel, gasoline prices immediately spike. The gasoline from that 104 a barrel oil won't hit the streets for 3 or 4 weeks. The price of gasoline goes up .40 a gallon on Thursday, and back down $.50 on Tuesday. We can call that market forces, but sometimes I think it’s more “whatever the market will bear” than “supply and demand.”
[/QUOTE]
Supply and Demand IS whatever the market will bear. That’s the whole point.
However, there’s a more direct answer. The money you pay for a gallon of gas has nothing to do with the amount they paid for it. That money’s done gone. Instead, the price you pay for gas reflects the cost of the oil company’s NEXT purchase of gasoline.
What you suggest would involve the company keeping track of the cash paid every gallon of crude they buy, linking this amorphous quantity to the simirly amorphous quantity of gas they eventually sell, and price accordingly, AND somehow keep seperate the vast cash reserves necessary to purchase more crude at unknown prices. And, at the end of the day, you will pay the same for gas, just at slightly different times.
Consider your ignorance fought. 
[QUOTE=mswas]
Marley23 In all fairness, politicians go to expensive hookers all the time.
[/quote]
And they get caught sometimes. See also Vitter, David.
I don’t think a Wall Street conspiracy is necessary in this case; I think powerful people often get arrogant, fuck up and ruin things for themselves with little outside help. I also find the “official” story (Spitzer’s bank noticed funny transactions, leading to an investigation and so on) credible without some kind of a Wall Street conspiracy. But I can see where reasonable people would disagree. What’s frustrating is arguing with someone’s friend, by proxy, when the person sitting there admits she knows nothing about what she is saying, but argues more and more vehemently all the same. She wasn’t interested in the facts. As far as she was concerned, Spitzer was a righteous defender of the little guy, so the greedy corporations got together to take him down. And I’m not just assuming this, she came pretty close to saying it.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I know we’ve recently recovered from a spate of “OMG Dopers are smrter than ANY1!” threads, and this really is honestly not meant to be another of those. But…donning flame retardant clothing
A person of average IQ is a lot dumber than you probably think. You are not one. I am not one. I haven’t seen anyone on this website who is one last more than a month, in all honesty. That doesn’t mean we’re *better *than anyone, but it does mean that our impressions of what “normal” is are way skewed high, because we interact with bright people on a daily basis. If you want to check out “normal”, have a stiff drink and go to Yahoo! Answers .
Have you tried teaching? I have, although not professionally. Just last week my chemistry teacher asked me to teach the lab portion of the 121 class. My job “teaching” was to review the main concepts, go over the general procedure, and help with any procedural questions (“How do I carry this hot crucible to the balance?” Answer: “Let it cool first. Then move it with crucible tongs…no, those are for test tubes, *these *are crucible tongs…and a wire mesh supporting it underneath.”) Mind you, before the day of lab, we all have to read the directions in the lab book and rewrite them all in our own words. I said *nothing *that was not in the lab book except, “Part B takes a long time, so get it set up before you start Part A.”
One pair tried to tell me that their 2 inch high ceramic crucible and lid weighed 24.843 kilograms. They could not see the error in this figure, even after I explained it.
Another told me their crucible and lid weighed 39.232 grams empty and 6.264 grams when filled with the unidentified crystals. Again, they couldn’t understand why I knew this couldn’t be correct.
An on, and on. This ain’t, as they say, rocket surgery. This is college level chemistry. They’re all applying to the nursing program in the fall, and most of them will probably get in. Not a single person in that classroom has an IQ less than 100, I’m sure. And yet they’re total fucking morons.
If they can’t grasp why a filled crucible should weigh more than an empty crucible, why on earth would you think they’d grasp the market forces’ impact on gasoline prices?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a good thing you’re wearing those asbestos underclothes.
Best as I can tell, the SDMB is not one iota smarter, on average, than any corner tap or barber shop. In fact, I suspect less, and probably much less.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
\That doesn’t mean we’re *better *than anyone, but it does mean that our impressions of what “normal” is are way skewed high, because we interact with bright people on a daily basis…
[/QUOTE]
And so on. This whole view of intelligence is, to me, fundamentally flawed. You’re right; most Dopers have a skewed perspective. But it’s not that they’re smarter; rather it’s that they believe the things about which they’re smart have more value. Or else that they think the basic universals they’ve divined are impressive because their parents taught them that every thought they ever had was wonderful.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
..is rampant in the USA. Basically, you get free education here-grades 1-12. Yet, mots kids don’t want it.The dropout rate in inner city highschools is as great as 70%. what is the explanation? I certainly don’t know-it seems (to me) that the way out of poverty is education. :o
[/QUOTE]
What pisses me off is when politicians mock educated people: “Oh, he’s just one of those Harvard educated elites from Massachusetts”. It used to be that people with a good education were admired rather than denigrated. What makes it worse is when the aw-shucks, faux-populists are themselves the product of prep schools and Ivy league Universities.
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, Obama was editor of the Harvard Law review, Wesley Clark was first in his class at West Point. These are real accomplishments and shouldn’t be something that you hide so you don’t look too “book-smart”. (I know there are brilliant Conservatives too, I just don’t know the particulars off the top of my head.)
[QUOTE=bump]
How do people become (and stay) so ignorant?
[/QUOTE]
Born so, anything more is a challenge.
[QUOTE=bump]
I mean, I hear people in one breath talk about how Wal-Mart is great because they “provide low prices; what people really want”, and then say in the next breath that they’re against govt. subsidies because “they cost people jobs”. (truth is, Wal-Mart isn’t necessarily the lowest price, and they cost people jobs, and subsidies may or may not cost people jobs, but removing them sure as hell will).
[/quote]
That is not ignorance, that is stupidity. Different phenomenon.
[QUOTE=bump]
Or people who got hoodwinked into variable-rate loans, or rent-to-own schemes.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I love my variable rate loan. It started out cheap, almost went up to what a fixed rate would have been, and has since been dropping like clockwork. Thanks, ABCP
You’re probably referring to those bait and switch low intro rate loans.
http://www.dfi.wa.gov/CS/ameriquest_facts.htm Ameriquest paid a settlement of 325 million dollars due to fraud and unfair practices. i guess they were not hoodwinking people.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Best as I can tell, the SDMB is not one iota smarter, on average, than any corner tap or barber shop. In fact, I suspect less, and probably much less.
[/QUOTE]
When I lived in Princeton I got my hair cut in the next chair over from an astronaut one day. But I don’t think many corner barber shops are at that level.
(Or have such a high percentage of Jeopardy contestants as we do.)
To respond seriously to the OP, consider the reading habits of much of the American public. So many read very little if at all. Few of those who do read books that will teach them things. Many read stuff that is utter crap (see: The Secret) and those are the ones who actually read.
I get my local paper and the NY Times. If I depended on my local paper for news, I’d be ignorant also. They take a few wire service stories and chop to fit. And I live in Silicon Valley. I used to get the Mercury News, but that got taken over by the owners of my local paper, and it is nose diving.
Most of the people who watch even the soundbites on the national news are old.
I can rant on about the lack of logic and reasoning ability, and innumeracy, but it’s late. C. M. Kornbluth appears to have been right about the future.
[QUOTE=bump]
I’m routinely amazed at the ignorance that surrounds me, both in my actual, face-to-face life and on the internet.
I mean, I hear people in one breath talk about how Wal-Mart is great because they “provide low prices; what people really want”, and then say in the next breath that they’re against govt. subsidies because “they cost people jobs”. (truth is, Wal-Mart isn’t necessarily the lowest price, and they cost people jobs, and subsidies may or may not cost people jobs, but removing them sure as hell will)
Another category is people on internet message boards (not SDMB in particular) who claim that the high price of gasoline is a plot by oil companies to raise prices, not market forces. :rolleyes:
Or people who got hoodwinked into variable-rate loans, or rent-to-own schemes.
How do they get this way? Is it intellectual laziness, or some kind of stupidity, or misinformation?
[/QUOTE]
In a broad sense, I would say it’s predominately (but not 100%) wishful thinking. i.e. people believe things not necessarily because they are true but because it satisfies some psychological need that they have.
For example, believing that there is a conspiracy among oil companies satisfies the need to blame somebody else for high gas prices. For many people, it’s psychologically easier to blame big evil corporations than to blame our own rather aggressive consumption.
As another example, some people believe that it’s wrong or unfair for the federal government to tax peoples’ income. Many of those same people believe that the federal government lacks the legal authority to tax peoples’ income. From a logical perspective, there is no reason why the two beliefs should be correllated, but my sense is that they are. Again, it would seem to be the result of wishful thinking.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
When I lived in Princeton I got my hair cut in the next chair over from an astronaut one day. But I don’t think many corner barber shops are at that level.
(Or have such a high percentage of Jeopardy contestants as we do.)
[/QUOTE]
I’m being whooshed, right?
Just because we keep telling each other we’re special doesn’t mean we’re actually special.
It’s long overdue that we deep six the myth that this place is somehow a reservoir of unbridled intellect.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
I’m being whooshed, right?
Just because we keep telling each other we’re special doesn’t mean we’re actually special.
It’s long overdue that we deep six the myth that this place is somehow a reservoir of unbridled intellect.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, don’t do that. The only reason I joined is because I like reservoirs full of unbridled intellect. The minute you tie a bridle on that there hoss, you break his spirit.
[QUOTE=bump]
What I was trying to clarify was how people stay so ignorant about things that are either easily deduced, absorbed readily from a variety of common sources, or easily discoverable if you’re doing your usual due diligence on something like home loan shopping.
[/QUOTE]
All of those qualities are highly variable from person to person.
Suppose I ask you to find the term in this list that doesn’t belong with the others: pig, falcon, chicken, apple, cow.
You would most likely say that apple doesn’t belong, because it’s a plant while the rest of the list is animals. Someone else might say that falcon is what doesn’t belong, because we don’t eat it.
Neither conclusion is inherently correct. They depend on the approach. The first approach depends on formal knowledge, while the second depends on practical knowledge. Neither answer is always “easily deduced”.
As for “absorbed reaily from a variety of common sources”, that doesn’t make something true. That the Moon Landings were a hoax is readily absorbed from a variety of common sources, but all of those common sources are worthless.
Decisions such as taking a variable-rate loan aren’t necessarily based on ignorance. A person who took such a loan in 2005 was basically gambling. If rates remained low, they would win. If rates popped up, they would lose. The fact that they gambled doesn’t indicate ignorance.
[QUOTE=Renob]
focusing on what is seen and ignoring what is unseen. Freeing up inefficient uses of money (whether through eliminating subsidies or through closing inefficient businesses) creates jobs by putting that money to a better use. Instead of going to businesses that are not making the best use of the money, it goes to businesses that make a more efficient use of it, creating wealth and jobs.
[/QUOTE]
I think we may be defining “people losing their jobs” differently. If by “people losing their jobs” when subsidies are eliminated <> net loss of jobs in the economy, then you’re right. I never tried to say that it wasn’t the case.
But, in the sense that the guy I was talking about was using it, he meant individuals losing their particular job; i.e. Joe Blow, sugar harvesting machine driver. Remove the sugar subsidies, and it’s likely that HE would lose his job, even if it means that there might be a net gain of 100 jobs at candy companies.
Back to the op… I wonder how much of it is just lack of information. People I know (educated, rational, generally non-ignorant people) are routinely amazed when I mention that generally, the price of gasoline is set by the individual stations, not by Big Oil, at least not directly.
As for how I do it, I’m curious, pretty much insatiably curious about many things. I tend to think “How does X work?” or “I wonder why X happens?” and then proceed to go look it up. If I get conflicting information (frequent in hobbyist type fields of interest like gardening), I generally go with the more scientific opinion, or if there isn’t one(like trying to find a recipe), go with the Wikipedia-style approach of finding the most common variant on that theme. I know that the accuracy of your source is as important as your own analysis. Garbage-in, garbage-out after all!