Hacker News Reader

>the USA and UK, and their recent democratic decisions.

As long as people (especially educated liberal leaning people) keep framing recent elections as "dumb people elected Trump cause they're dumb," we're going to keep getting Trumps in the elected office. One of the loudest things communicated in the last election in America is that people who don't vote like you are tired of the patronizing, condescending and presumptuous tone. Rather than characterizing the outcome of the last election as "uneducated people elected an asshole", it might do well to understand the concerns of the people who elected him, rather than dismissing them offhand.

I hear this argument a lot. Just because something is inflammatory, doesn't mean it isn't true [1]. It also doesn't mean discussing it will cause it to happen again. It also doesn't mean that we can't also look into the causes and concerns of said people and the vote.

Improving education allows people to develop skills for a changing job market, as well as recognise that some promises [2] were suspect from the start. My opinion is that these were two contributing factors to vote result.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

[2] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indy100.com/article/7-brexi...

Education has far less to do with being educated than the word might allude to.

Having a university degree is no guarantee against a stupid electorate.

The thing though is that a university degree does confer some amount of critical thinking on most of its graduates. I'm rather skeptical that every college graduate is guaranteed to be a smart, critical thinking, nuances person. But I do feel comfortable in saying that most are. And even those that aren't, have been exposed to people who are, have created social networks etc.

So I don't think being a college educated Republican/Conservative is a contradiction. The difference is the college educated person is more likely to believe in facts and reasoned arguments than appeals to passion, or native tribalism. They are more likely to have more faith in institutions, including democracy.

I think its hard for someone who went to college to relate to a person who hasn't been in terms of what kind of effect college has on their lives.

Critical thinking is a talent not something you learn at the university. People of all shapes and sizes form alle parts of society has it. It starts way earlier than university too.

There is a much magical thinking going on at university level as many other places in society. Further more critical thinking is often mistaken for constructive thinking which is another rather big issue with universities. Universities are mostly about analysis not about creating which leaves a gaping hole in the real world.

I have worked with my share of academics and non-academics. There is no noticeable difference between them generally speaking. Only when it comes to subject matters do we differ in our naivety and hasty conclusions but the ability to think critical is IMO something very different.

> I have worked with my share of academics and non-academics.

Unless you have a different definition of "academics", this doesn't seem to me like you're arguing for anything. By "non-academics", are you talking about "not-gone-to-college"?

And I'm not going to continue this discussion either way, since we seem to be operating on anecdotes. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. I would add though that I'm not asserting that a University automatically imbibes critical thinking, just that it exposes students to it, whether it be their professors or peers. A college education expands your worldview, but certainly it can be achieved in other ways (travel, reading etc.)

Yes I am talking about not-gone-to-college.

There is anecdotal evidence and then there are anecdotes. I am simply questioning the idea that university are somehow turning people into critical thinkers if they weren't before.

Critical thinking is a skill. You have to practice it like you practice music. And just like music simply being exposed to piano playing doesn't make you a piano player.

> Critical thinking is a skill. You have to practice it like you practice music. And just like music simply being exposed to piano playing doesn't make you a piano player.

Actually, this is a good point. Yes, I agree 100% it doesn't automatically make you a piano player. But it might make you appreciate piano music and pianists more. It might make you interested in how piano music evolved over time etc.

Sure but the world doesn't get better because everyone know a bit of history. Not until it's internalized does it truly add value (and even there it's a slippery slope)

I totally agree. It's a surrogate marker for something that is much harder to measure.

But again I must come back to the simple thing that appointing a PHD as a minister for science means very little because politics aren't science or business for that matter. Politics are humans prioritizing various intersociety related issues and many of these prioritization are scientifically or rationally absurd but are the right solution for the collective.

The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see. Canada isn't benefitting anymore than Finland is. There are bigger factors that count.

> The very idea that better educated people make better decisions in politics is simply wrong as far as I can see.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" --Thomas Jefferson

But also a country that values education is more likely to value the opinion of an expert, more likely to question a promise or political sound bite.

E2E encryption is a good example of the divide between politics and the science. I'm not saying that the computer scientists have the answer here, but ignoring what they say is not the way to come to a policy that will benefit the country.

Regarding the Jefferson quote, John Adams (surprise!) didn't agree:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Point being, you'll need more than a Jefferson quote to establish your point that information is sufficient for a competent electorate.

Fair point. However, being well-informed is seen to be important in being able to make a decision in other areas of life (legal system, medical treatment).

I agree though that there are cultural differences of opinion on this.

Being a expert in Law does not make you an expert in life. Politics is about the life for all of us. Rich and poor, well educated and white trash.

Ok I get your point, and I agree. The vote is for everyone, and everyone is able to assess how happy they are with what is going on.

I'm not sure Brexit or Trump are going to do any good for the poorly educated and poor, however. Both were protest / anti-establishment votes, which fell nicely into the hands of the privileged.[1]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b3d62bcc-7713-11e7-90c0-90a9d1bc9...

They aren't going to do worse for those already in trouble. Obama didn't solve those problems neither is the EU. The challenges we are facing are structural (we need less and less people to do more and more work) making everyone PHD's will not change that.

> They aren't going to do worse for those already in trouble.

Wow, you know, I've heard a lot of "lets burn it down", "lets put an outsider in there!", "lets shake it up!" from a lot of different places, but this is basically their thinking, isn't it? They don't see any tangible differences to their own lives with either candidate, but would love to "stick it in the face of those damn liberal snowflakes".

EDIT: however, I tend to imagine if those who are suffering so much were a little bit more educated, they would proactively seek better opportunities, or at least not let their quality of life get eroded so much and just sit there.

Go and check out the statistics for large parts of academia it's not jobs galore. Some are doing well but most areas aren't really.

Your arguments don't make sense. Am I not being clear? I thought I was.

I'm NOT saying that being more educated == being an academic. Getting an education trains you for more than just a career in academia. How many times do I need to say it out explicitly for you to understand this simple point?

Again there is a difference between fundamentals and then optimizations. The point i am trying to make is that it doesent matter whether you are number #1 or #30 what matters is whether your population on average is educated

In regards to your third paragraph, I would posit the opposite causality occurs as well - in a country where academia is seen as an honorable profession for morally upstanding people, people with integrity are more likely to pursue academics, and as a result there are fewer examples of dishonesty by these same experts [1]. Of course, this dynamic can cause a vicious cycle in any field, politics being a common example.

[1]https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scienti...

> their recent democratic decisions.

> for example, has appointed someone with a PhD as minister for science [2], a doctor as minister for health [3] etc etc.

You elect ministers in direct elections? Otherwise it's like watching prime minister in a restaurant and announcing "Democracy has decided! We are having chicken risotto tonight!"

No we don't. But if the public do not care for experts, then there is no political incentive to appoint, or listen to, experts.