Uneducated and ill-informed?

[Sandie78]

Do you feel it is possible for someone to disagree with your political viewpoint without being uneducated/ill-informed/ignorant? In other words is it possible for someone to be educated, well-informed, etc. and disagree with your political viewpoint?

[LyLMyssChaos]

I totally think it's possible for someone to be intelligent, informed, educated and still disagree with my political viewpoint. We all have different priorities, standards and values. That is why there are so many different political parties. I think the world would be a very mundane place if everyone agreed on everything.

[looch]

Yes, i actually think that more often that not, people that disagree with each other can express themselves in meaningful ways. Not all disagreements spiral into name calling and insults.

[bookworm]

Yes. But it's rare :p .


Seriously, off the top of my head I can think of a couple of posters with whom I usually disagree, but whose reasoning I generally respect.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Of course.

[miel]

Do you feel it is possible for someone to disagree with your political viewpoint without being uneducated/ill-informed/ignorant? In other words is it possible for someone to be educated, well-informed, etc. and disagree with your political viewpoint?

This is a very strange question. Of course! Who wouldn't think that? Is there any person who agrees with me exactly? So I would basically be saying the entire world was uneducated and ill-informed. That would be absurd.

One reason for arguing with people about politics is to learn things. That's why I do it. I'm quite happy to learn that I was wrong, when I'm wrong.

[msnicolea]

Of course. There are intelligent, well-informed people across the political spectrum, and the inverse is true as well. If I refer to someone's post as ill-informed, than it's because I think it's ill-informed. I would say the same thing if a liberal poster said something like "it's obvious to me, based on the one book I've read about the subject, that all Republicans hate black people."

There are many, many people on these boards who present educated, thoughtful arguments on a variety of topics.

[Sandie78]

Thanks, just curious.

[LyLMyssChaos]

But just how "educated" is educated? I mean, does someone have to have only book smarts, or does life experience come into play? I think it is very narrow minded to say that someone is "ill-informed" or "uneducated" just because they may not use your (general) information sources of choice. Does that make any sense? People choose to get their information from a variety of sources, and I don't think it's appropriate to tell someone that they are "uneducated" or "ill-informed" because of where they get their information. All media has a slant of some kind, whether it's to the left, or right, pro or con of an issue. For example, there are sources, that I have repeatedly seen people refer to, that I choose to use, only with other sources, because I find they are biased. But I don't tell the other person how wrong their choice of source is. I merely find evidence elsewhere that either disproves what the incorrect information was, or that proves whatever position I'm trying to get out there. It is impossible to know what life experience people have/have not encountered, and I think to discredit that life experience is just wrong. We all allow different things that we experience to shape our view and opinions, it's called having a "world view." Just because someone else's experience is different than yours, doesn't make it any less valid.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I think it is very narrow minded to say that someone is "ill-informed" or "uneducated" just because they may not use your (general) information sources of choice.
Did someone say that?

[LyLMyssChaos]

Did someone say that?

It has often been implied, not only to myself, but to other posters. For example, I don't know how many times I've read the phrase "oh well that source isn't credible, why don't you see if "insert source of choice here" has anything, then maybe I'll believe it. I think that sources are sources, and an individual should take whatever information that they come across and form their own ideas/opinions on the subject. Which I have often read is "encouraged" but when someone does that and comes to a different conclusion, they are often told that they need to look at different sources, or that they are just flat out wrong. I think that is why sometimes when a debate is occuring you will get participants who just merely say "this is what I believe and I'm not changing what I believe."

[chrisinluv]

If I do not agree with the content of a post, I don't assume that the person is uninformed (uneducated, blah blah blah). Sometimes I do wonder what life experiences have contributed to them forming their attitudes. To me, that is a normal reaction.

I'm sure this is a bit of a stretch, but in a way I feel like I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of scorn. Back in the days of the WC, long before I got married, people used to start threads complaining about how other people typed. I didn't read most of them, because I never care how people "talk" online. I enjoyed seeing the different speech and grammar expressions. But once I read that some people would actually put others who posted in all lower case on "ignore." It really pissed me off, because they were making plenty of assumptions of me, as I always posted in lower case. They said it was lazy. It showed that a person didn't know how to type or write. It was just plain annoying. It wasn't true for me, but it hurt to know that this is what a person would think if one of my annoying posts popped up in a thread (if I weren't already on ignore). But now I guess I see where they were coming from. I guess capitalization is the right thing to do, so why not do it? :) I started capitalizing quite naturally, as I grew out of my e.e. cummings obsession.

When I was much younger I probably would have written others off as ignorant, but in time, my eyes have been opened on countless occasions to my own ignorance and lack of life experience and education, to have kept on judging others that way all the time. I have actually grown to like that feeling when I am somehow able to look at a problem from a completely different viewpoint. Sorry to say, it doesn't happen too awfully much, though. :o I seem to love using the word "idiot," especially when I'm in the car.

Since I'm posting, I might as well use a real political issue as an example, one that I just thought of. I was talking to my brother on the phone yesterday, and he brought up a funny story about my very best friend from childhood, who was going to be one of those people who is a friend forever. My best friend, who I played Barbies with in elementary school, hung out with on and off in jr high and high school, lived with as roommates on and off in our young adult lives, and who was in my wedding and served as a witness to such- was gay. Unfortunately for us, he passed away not too long after the wedding. If I had not grown up with someone, witnessed his growth, his struggles, his natural tendencies and the failed attempts to try to make himself straight, I have to ask myself- would I be the person I am today. Hell no! I probably had to see that stuff first hand in order to have a clue what a person might go through in those shoes. I can take every aspect of every person who is not like myself, and say, "Well. I don't know what it's like, so how can I judge?" But sometimes, I wish others would do that, too.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

It has often been implied, not only to myself, but to other posters. For example, I don't know how many times I've read the phrase "oh well that source isn't credible, why don't you see if "insert source of choice here" has anything, then maybe I'll believe it. I think that sources are sources, and an individual should take whatever information that they come across and form their own ideas/opinions on the subject.
I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense that, if you want people to respect your opinion on something, you should make sure that you have examined unbiased information on the subject. If I come into a conversation about, say, the war on terror, I would hardly expect people to find my opinion credible if my only source of information is wsws.org.
Which I have often read is "encouraged" but when someone does that and comes to a different conclusion, they are often told that they need to look at different sources, or that they are just flat out wrong. I think that is why sometimes when a debate is occuring you will get participants who just merely say "this is what I believe and I'm not changing what I believe."
If it appears that someone gets their information from only biased sources, then it's entirely understandable their they're going to be told to look at different sources. And I'm not directing that at conservatives. There are liberals who do it too. I no more respect the opinion of someone who relies on information solely from Michael Moore and The Village Voice for their arguments than someone who relies on information solely from Ann Coulter and the National Review.

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree that someone asking for information from an unbiased/less biased source = someone asking for their "preferred" source.

[flygirl]

I appreciate an informed, intelligent debate with someone who has different view points as I. It's the best way to learn.
People choose to get their information from a variety of sources, and I don't think it's appropriate to tell someone that they are "uneducated" or "ill-informed" because of where they get their information.Some sources are more acurate and less slanted than others, and the problem forms when one regularly gets information from sources that have been proven not credible. The most well-informed are those who explore various slants on an issue and form a balanced opinion.

[msnicolea]

If it appears that someone gets their information from only biased sources, then it's entirely understandable their they're going to be told to look at different sources. And I'm not directing that at conservatives. There are liberals who do it too. I no more respect the opinion of someone who relies on information solely from Michael Moore and The Village Voice for their arguments than someone who relies on information solely from Ann Coulter and the National Review.

ITA. In fact, I rarely use blatantly liberal news sources when citing things (although I listen to them a lot)--I rely on agencies (the CDCs for example), academic journals and more balanced news reports such as CNN, The NYT (which is NOT a liberal mouthpiece, as some like to call it) or some European newspapers. I also love NPR, but I know how that will go-over here.

[LyLMyssChaos]

ITA. In fact, I rarely use blatantly liberal news sources when citing things (although I listen to them a lot)--I rely on agencies (the CDCs for example), academic journals and more balanced news reports such as CNN, The NYT (which is NOT a liberal mouthpiece, as some like to call it) or some European newspapers.

I think this is where personal opinion comes into play. I think that CNN is FAR from balanced. They have an extremely liberal slant and bias to what they report. I feel that way about almost all of the major news networks here in the United States. I don't know too much about European newspapers, so I can't comment on them.

[batgirl]

Boy this is an interesting thread....

I would say that there are both uneducated and ill-informed as well as educated and well-informed on this forum (both dems and repubs, both "religious" and not). I really like debates with well informed people offering opposing views, since it helps me to become more well informed about a particular topic. Unfortunately, the uneducated and ill-informed don't see themselves as such, contantly chiming in with their, um, "opinions"... when you call them on it (i.e. ask for statistics they provide you with a link to a biased blog ...might as well quote the National Enquirer...) digging their heels in deeper... stubborn ignorance is so hard to debate...

[flygirl]

LMC, I agree that CNN's "news magazine" shows, like Anderson Cooper, have a bit of a liberal slant, but much of the actual straight news reporting is pretty fairly balanced. If you get the majority of your information from Fox and more extreme right sources, CNN will appear VERY slanted. That is where the suggestion of "ill-informed" comes from. If you listen to both Fox & CNN with an open mind, you'll recognize that there is a balanced middle ground.

If you are really interested in being well-informed, listen to (or read) NPR (npr.org) and the BB (http://www.bbc.co.uk/)C for awhile. The main NPR station in your area: is 91.7 (http://michiganradio.org/). It plays both NPR and BBC shows; check out the webpage for the show schedule (it's a great one, by the way; I'm jealous!).

[LyLMyssChaos]

LMC
If you are really interested in being well-informed, listen to (or read) NPR (npr.org) and the BB (http://www.bbc.co.uk/)C for awhile. The main NPR station in your area: is 91.7 (http://michiganradio.org/). It plays both NPR and BBC shows; check out the webpage for the show schedule (it's a great one, by the way; I'm jealous!).

Uggh, I am very familiar with NPR, and I just, I'd rather not get into that here. As for the BBC, I really haven't listened to them much.
I just find it odd that other's assume I'm less informed because after hearing what sources like CNN and NPR have to say, I determine that I don't agree with them. When I find sources like Fox News, SkyNews and other independent sources, and I do agree with them, so I use them to support my views when having a debate. People make the assumption that I only look to one source because that is what I mention for support when debating. I may not be the greatest debater, but I certainly don't feel I'm un-informed.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Uggh, I am very familiar with NPR, and I just, I'd rather not get into that here. As for the BBC, I really haven't listened to them much.
I just find it odd that other's assume I'm less informed because after hearing what sources like CNN and NPR have to say, I determine that I don't agree with them. When I find sources like Fox News, SkyNews and other independent sources, and I do agree with them, so I use them to support my views when having a debate. People make the assumption that I only look to one source because that is what I mention for support when debating. I may not be the greatest debater, but I certainly don't feel I'm un-informed.
I don't think anybody is saying you can't shop around for a source for opinion pieces- the problem is if you're shopping around for facts. If a person doesn't like CNN or WaPo or another moderate source because they don't like the factual information being presented... Well, maybe they're not uninformed, but they're very likely in denial or deluding themselves.

[flygirl]

It depends on the shows you listen to. There are left-slanted and right-slanted shows on NPR, but most of the actual news shows are very straight.

The question isn't about what you agree with, it's about what is the truth. To me, the best source of information is a discussion between two intelligent, respected experts about the implications and impact of an event or situation, WITHOUT rhetoric.

[flygirl]

Dangit LF! I'm always one step behind you :p.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Dangit LF! I'm always one step behind you :p.
;) I'm working very hard on procrastinating this morning.

[LyLMyssChaos]

The question isn't about what you agree with, it's about what is the truth. To me, the best source of information is a discussion between two intelligent, respected experts about the implications and impact of an event or situation, WITHOUT rhetoric.

I'm glad that you feel this way, but unfortunately, it has not been my experience with a few people. Take for example, the recent discussion about Partial birth abortion aka Intact dialation and extraction. Someone asked what exactly happened during the procedure and I found NUMEROUS sources that all explained the same procedure. A few posters disagreed with my sources because they were "pro-life" but I felt that it didn't matter because we weren't discussing if the procedure was right or wrong, but rather what the procedure entailed.

[msnicolea]

I'm glad that you feel this way, but unfortunately, it has not been my experience with a few people. Take for example, the recent discussion about Partial birth abortion aka Intact dialation and extraction. Someone asked what exactly happened during the procedure and I found NUMEROUS sources that all explained the same procedure. A few posters disagreed with my sources because they were "pro-life" but I felt that it didn't matter because we weren't discussing if the procedure was right or wrong, but rather what the procedure entailed.

That just isn't the case. All the descriptions weren't the same--many used inflammatory and prejudicial language. The point was that there were many sources out there that described the procedure accurately and fairly, and yet you chose to repeatedly cite sources that used the most inflammatory language. That was my "beef." You were asked by multiple posters to post information from more balanced sources--and you then posted another anti-choice source., which I guess you thought was pro-choice because of its name, but obviously didn't read.

[flygirl]

unfortunately, it has not been my experience with a few people...Oh, I agree; I don't think it happens enough. But it *is* available on just about every subject, you just have to look for it .

I didn't read the partial-birth abortion discussion, so I can't comment on that. But I agree with Nicole that just as you can find people who discuss a fact acurately, you will find 10 times as many who try to spin it.

[jnettie]

I think that the internet can be a great tool, but it is also a source of some very very bad information. The thing is, anyone can have a website, you just have to buy the domain. And google searches aren't in order by quality, I think it's either by # of hits or because the website pays a fee to pop up on the first page.

I'm going to use a completely non-political example to illustrate why one needs many sources.

I'm doing research right no on Gilbert and Sullivan (the guys who wrote the operetta "Pirates of Penzance" and "The Mikado" just in case you don't know). I used internet sources as a way to point me towards books. I hardly used any for actual information unless it was something official - like the website for the Opera company they worked with in England. Then, I probably looked through 40-50 books, read at least 10 in full.

There was a point in G&S's relationship where they did not get along. People who were music historians writing books usually sided with Sullivan (the composer of the music) on the fights while theater historians sided with Gilbert (who wrote the scripts and lyrics). Even something as simple as the history of a musical has to be researched carefully, thinking through each source's position before I present my own written analysis of the history.

Whether you rely on purely "liberal" sources or "conservative" sourses, you are limiting your knowledge. You have to learn how language can be used to incite emotions rather than inform. You need to gather information from many sources, read, then analize for yourself. Reading or listening to sources you already agree with isn't good.

My DH does not allow any of his student to use internet sources for the papers they write. When he did, he recieved some of the worst papers ever written! It's not that his students were stupid, the just didn't know how to differentiate between a bad internet source and a good one.

[msnicolea]

Good point, jnettie!

[lawyerlee]

Do you feel it is possible for someone to disagree with your political viewpoint without being uneducated/ill-informed/ignorant? In other words is it possible for someone to be educated, well-informed, etc. and disagree with your political viewpoint?
Yup. And, unfortunately, sometimes people who agree with my viewpoint seem to fall under one of those labels. There's at least one in every bunch. Ya gotta love that! ;)

[laurenc]

as a scientist, i want the truth, whatever and however that truth might be. as a human, i'm going to have emotions about what that truth is. but the scientist side will always win out for me, because that's my job -- to seek the truth, whatever and however that truth might be.

i will admit that when i am debating with someone and they disagree with me, they need to give me evidence supporting their argument otherwise i am going to feel that they are uninformed. not miseducated or uneducated, not ignorant, but simply uninformed. if they can support their argument with statistical information, hard data, etc., then i can't consider them uninformed, and we might be able to have a productive debate comparing and contrasting our various pieces of evidence. but if they cannot provide statistical data, and i can, and you still stick to your point, then you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you're informed. but that's just me. i can be pretty stubborn. :)

(i do realize that statistics and data themselves are not unbiased. however, they are generally better representatives of the overall truth than one person's one particular life experience.)

[pocket]

I think this is where personal opinion comes into play. I think that CNN is FAR from balanced. They have an extremely liberal slant and bias to what they report. I feel that way about almost all of the major news networks here in the United States. I don't know too much about European newspapers, so I can't comment on them.

I agree that CNN is far from balanced, but my perception is that they more frequently are biased towareds the conservative viewpoint. I feel that way about all the major news networks.

[msnicolea]

I agree that CNN is far from balanced, but my perception is that they more frequently are biased towareds the conservative viewpoint. I feel that way about all the major news networks.

lol--I fel that way about CNN, too--I use it as my source form the "not-too-far right." ;)

[pocket]

i do think that someone can have an education and still be pretty ignorant. for example, if you didn't get a liberal arts education, and studied a hard science or engineering or architecture, you might not have had time to learn about history and political science. You might not have read the western canon. it's hard for me to imagine having such a huge hole in your life, but that's just my bias. i'm sure lots of people wonder how i got this far in life with such rudimentary knowledge of american geography. i can accurately complete blank maps of SE Asia and West Africa, but i couldn't find Kansas on a blank map, and last time I was in cincinatti i had to ask someone what state i was in.

[wendalah]

it's hard for me to imagine having such a huge hole in your life, but that's just my bias. i'm sure lots of people wonder how i got this far in life with such rudimentary knowledge of american geography.

“Every man is my superior in some way, and in that, I learn of him.”--Emerson

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

“Every man is my superior in some way, and in that, I learn of him.”--Emerson
Heh- at first glance I read that as a quote from Eminem. I almost fell out of my chair.

[jnettie]

Thank you, msnicolea!

I just thought of another example.

One of DH's students wrote a paper about SIDS. She quoted a statistic that said something like "1 in 5 babies dies of SIDS." Now, if you even think about this for a second, this means that 1/5 of all births results in a death from SIDS, not including a whole host of other illnesses that babies die from. That means that we'd have to have a really high infant mortality rate in this country!

So, DH looked at her source. It was a internet site for a SIDS fundraising charity. Their purpose is to raise money to stop SIDS, so they used this statistic - an incorrect statistic. It seems like this would be a good source, but in reality it provided very bad information.

[wendalah]

Heh- at first glance I read that as a quote from Eminem.

Hey, even Emerson could learn from Eminem! :D

[msnicolea]

“I am whatever you say I am; if I wasn't, then why would you say I am.”
~ Eminem

[mamahammer]

Of course there are well-informed, educated people on both sides of the issues!

I do understand the need to ask the question, though. I don't think it's a phenomena exclusively found here on CC, but it isn't uncommon around these parts to here something to the effect of, "If you would just read X, you wouldn't ever think Y." I think it's easy to say that (general) you believe there to be educated, well-informed people who disagree with (general) you. It's harder, though, to recognize those people in a debate and acknowledge that their differing opinion, even when examining the same information, doesn't make them stupid, immoral, or illogical.

[kedzieb]

i think there are educated people who disagree with my beliefs. but i also think we usually hear from the loudest, not the most well-informed, opposition. if you're truly well-informed there are usually far more than 2 sides to be on for most issues.

[BTB]

One of DH's students wrote a paper about SIDS. She quoted a statistic that said something like "1 in 5 babies dies of SIDS." ... So, DH looked at her source. It was a internet site for a SIDS fundraising charity. Their purpose is to raise money to stop SIDS, so they used this statistic - an incorrect statistic.

Jumping in half-assed here, since I don't know DH's student from Eve nor her website from Google, but had a random thought: is it possible this was an innocent mistake on the student's part?

Maybe it's my turn to be naive, I'm sure there are organizations that will torture the crap out of facts to suit their purposes, but I do find it hard to believe, if this is a national fundraising organization a la First Candle, that pulling random stuff from thin air like that would really bode well for them. Surely, someone will call them on it, and then they just look ridiculous.

The overall U.S. infant mortality rate (deaths <1 yr old) is running around 6.5/1000. The overall U.S. SIDS rate is 0.5/1000 but there are subsets - for example, in Sacramento County, it's 1.2/1000 - which is within spitting distance of 1:5 U.S. infant deaths are from SIDS. I can see how a student in a hurry to finish a paper might accidentally state that as the obviously incorrect 1:5 U.S. infants dies of SIDS and then it takes on a whole new meaning....

[/halfbaked thought and talking out my arse]

[jnettie]

First, I don't correctly remember the stat, so I picked a random number that seemed to me, the non-scientist of the family, super high and ridiculous.

Second, he teaches Natural Science to college students. Most of the students in his class actually have very little writing and research skills - many come from the NYC public school system and go to his school because they have a policy that they accept anyone who applies from NYC public schools. So, these are kids who want a college education, but don't come as equipt as students from wealthier families and schools.

Anyway, this particular student actually cited the source of his information - so it was easy to see where the information came from. Unfortunately, I don't know this instant what the site was or what the stat was, and I highly doubt DH still has the paper, but my ultimate point was that the internet provides some bad information.

Man, did I just prove my point by illustrating my own ignorance? ;) I need to stick to my own experiences with research! My Gilbert and Sullivan example was praised, but as soon as I went to something I didn't know 100%, I get called on it! :D

Ok, just asked DH what he remembered and he thinks the stat was more like 1 out of 3 babies dies of SIDS. That's a 33% infant mortality rate just for SIDS! But he doesn't think he has the paper anymore. If I can twist his arm to find it for me, I'll post the site.

[BTB]

but my ultimate point was that the internet provides some bad information.

That we can totally agree on! I've seen people die of potentially curable, early-stage cancer because there are websites out there that are very convincing that dandelion thistle is the way to go and chemotherapeutics and radiation treatments are "known to be useless by the medical community but are such great money makers that"...

And even more unfortunately, even when the internet does provide accurate information, it rarely comes with the experience and background knowledge necessary to appropriately apply that knowledge.

Just speakin' out on potential behalf of SIDS charities, since the majority do a fantastic job and the reduction in the SIDS rate is among the great public health triumphs of the past decade. :)

[jnettie]

Agreed! And as someone who also works for charities, I wouldn't want bad information out there to sour people on donating as well. And I wouldn't want people to think that all charity groups doctor their information for their own benfit. This was a unique case.

Actually, and not to go too OT, I get really frustrated with fake charities or groups that use bad information or operate illegally. There's a homeless group that illegally collects from people on the subways here in NYC. They use scare tactics to get people to donate money like: "but for the grace of God, homelessness can happen to you." So, I checked them out on the BBB. Turns out, they don't operate legally - no board of Trustees, no financial reports, not registered with the state, etc. AND the people who collect the money keep most of it for themselves! There is no way to track the money people drop into their pringles cans, so they can pocket it with no problem.

Gee, maybe this isn't so OT...it's on topic in that one should research charities before they donate! :)