No, it’s part of being intelligent. I believe Richard Feynman wrote about how he once was in a speed contest doing simple mathmatic calcualtion against someone with an abacus. He discovered that although the guy with the abacus always got the right answer, he did so at the expense of time, having to use the abacus in a methodical manner. That’s the equivalent of looking something up. Feynman, on the other hand, knew certain things from rote, and he could use this information to arrive at the answer faster than the guy with the abacus.
I once tried to buy a $5 meal from a fast food restaurant. That’s it, a single $5 item.
Guy behind the counter rung it up and said “$7.00 please.”
Me: “What?”
Counter Guy: “That’s $7.00”
Me: “How do you get that from a $5.00 item?”
Counter Guy: “Tax.”
Me: “Tax? 40% tax?”
Counter Guy: “That’s what the cash register says, ‘tax’.”
Me: “40% tax? That can’t be right.”
Counter Guy: “It’s right. It says tax. $7.00 please.”
Me: “you have 40% tax in this town?”
Counter Guy: “All I know is that it says $7.00.”
Me: “Goodbye.”
(actually, I think I was pretty mean to the dumbass after that, but I’m not proud about that so let’s just say I smiled and walked away, ok?)
Guy had no idea that he was asking for a 40% tax.
Sure, he also had no ability to consider information critically, but he also just depended on the machine to do the work for him. It’s not enough to be able to depend on looking up information all the time if you lack the capacity to understand if that information is correct or not. A bit of base knowledge acquired by rote memorization is useful.
Sure, but that’s a skill relevant to his profession. If you are doing something where you’d be constantly looking up the same information and presuming that data wasn’t changing from day to day, you’d be foolish to not memorize it. But that’s not your average case and more importantly there’s no knowing what’s going to be a useful skill to hard code into your brain until you’ve decided a particular profession. And then it’s only worthwhile for those things which you are doing constantly. The number of senators in the US is a factual tidbit that matters to almost no one but legislators and political theorists.
It takes more time to memorize knowledge that you’ll never need at all or only need to know once. In that case, it’s the most expedient to never look it up until you actually need to.
Dear God, how can democracy work if we don’t understand how the Senate works. Maybe it’s not important that there are two Senators per-state, but is it too much to expect that someone knows there are the same number from each state, or that the House of Representatives is proportional, or that there are three branches of government?
The trick, of course, is to know what it is that you need to know. The University of Chicago Hospitals (where I did my last clinical rotation) recently sacked a bunch of nurses. They knew they needed to sack someone because of their budget, but in order to choose who, they set the nurses through several patient care scenarios…without a computer. Those who knew their stuff stayed, and those who couldn’t make up a care plan but had just been following the check boxes on their computers were sacked. True, as a nurse, I can look just about everything up when I need to, but Mr. Jones isn’t going to hold on to that hemorrhage while I check if I should apply pressure or a tourniquet. (answer: pressure) And if their computers failed, those nurses who couldn’t make a care plan without it were putting their clients in serious jeopardy.
Actually, you completely missed the point of Feynman’s story. He didn’t solve the problems using rote memorization, he solved them using a FEW facts that he had learned, and using those facts as shortcuts. And the abacus doesn’t cost time – it’s always faster, as long as the problems are not too difficult. As the problems in the story grew more difficult, Feynman’s ability to analyze the problem intelligently became more critical, and the abacist’s speed and skill became less of a factor. Feynman’s secondary point was that the abacist did not think about what he was doing, which produces faster results on simple problems, but is a disadvantage on difficult problems. (His main point was that being lucky can make you look like a genius. The problem in question was finding a cube root, which must be a bitch on an abacus, and the gentleman was justifiably proud of his ability to do it. It’s even more of a bitch to do it in your head, but the number chosen by the referee was, I think, 28, which is so close to 3 cubed that Feynman was able to blurt out the answer in a few seconds.)
I don’t see that this story illustrates your point, either. Both the cashier and the abacist were simply not in the habit of thinking, and in the long run, that will cost you.
Although, to be fair, your last province was added pretty darned recently (1999, if I recall).
When I took first-year physics in college, we had to turn in our scratch paper along with the tests (nothing but the test paper, the scratch paper, and our pencils was allowed on the desk). We had a test that involved figuring out the volume of a sphere. I couldn’t remember the formula, but I was taking calculus at the same time, so it was easy to derive. The prof marked my answer wrong because I hadn’t memorized the formula.
I pointed out that the ability to derive the formula was a much more valuable skill to retain later in life, but he said that’s not what he was testing for. Grrrr.
Actually, “democracy” means enough people understand those things.
I’m often surprised how often absolutes creep into ideas about democracy, when almost by definition, it’s a simple majority that need to believe in any given idea.
One theme that kept creeping up into the early days at dailykos was the idea that the intelligensia felt that everyone should follow what they said simply because they were “smarter.” That’s not what democracy is about, and probably every dictatorship started with the same idea.
If stupid people are in the majority, there’s nothing the smart people can do about it…which, I believe is how it was meant to work. In my experience, the only thing harder than educating stupid people is convincing smart people they are wrong.
The FF also didn’t think women, slaves or poor people should vote either. But, they were smart enough to put in the rules so that these could be changed by the majority later.
Imho, that’s what is missing when people remember the FF’s: they were smart enough to realize they might not be smart enough.
You are probably thinking about the creation of the territory of Nunavut, which is not a province. The three territories don’t have Constitutional powers, the way provinces do; they’re sort of like the USA’s overseas territories, like Guam. The creation of Nunavut (by splitting it off from the Northwest Territories) was sort of like the U.S. subdividing Puerto Rico into two separate administrative divisions, but without making either a state.
I wouldn’t expect most Americans to know how many territories the USA has, but I’d expect them to know there are 50 states (another factoid a lot of Canadians don’t know; 52 is a popular answer.)
Not really. All the voter is asked to do is to look at the potential representatives who come before him and determine which of the bunch he most trusts to represent him. Unless you think we’re going to revise our system of government anytime soon, knowing how it works isn’t really all that necessary for most people. He has 2 senators for 6 years regardless of whether he votes for the Democrat or the Republican.
We can’t win. Once in Mexico someone didn’t like it when I said Norte Americano because they are in North America as well. Ditto on American. Then I tried Estados Unitos and was informed that Mexico is really Estado Unitos de Mexico.
In Canada (and Mexico as well in general) they are too polite to care.
Well, technically speaking, only one-fourth of the population is “below” average. Since most abililty tests establish that 50% of the population is “average” the percentile ranks defining this group therefore run from the 25th to the 75th.
I remember having a contentious discussion with a pretty bright guy (county attorney), who couldn’t wrap his mind around the fact that a person scoring at the 27th %ile on an ability test was still within the “normal” range. It was OK, since he was buying the drinks.
I will be delighted to inform him the next time he tries to one-up me with that line.
You have my undying gratitude. And I will let you know how that works out, bearing in mind that in some cases it is wiser to be in harmony than to be correct.
