I can't say I have ever met or known too many people in Australia who are not interested in these subjects, but they might articulate this interest differently. Do they read books on the matter or attend classes on the subject? No. Do they attend meetings or volunteer for political causes. No. Are they concerned about where their country is heading and who is in charge? Yes.

I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis. — javi2541997

The scholarly political theories we learned from higher education are only good inside the lecture halls. What we see in actuality is quite a different matter.

So arrogance, pride and brainwashing are the sources of social conflict? — Joshs

Well no, but I think those things will ensure social conflicts won't be solved by any other means than force, since communication is made impossible. And they're the tools which enable the elite to easily manipulate people. Via that route, what may start as a genuine social conflict is artifically inflamed and warped into something else - something which ultimately serves no one, except the ruling class, which will profit from never solving it.

If we discard moldy subject-based moralisms in favor of a more sophisticated account of human behavior based on reciprocal and joint interaction we can leave the personalized blame aside and focus on collective aims. — Joshs

I suppose the question is how such a reciprocal and joint interaction can take place when communication is deliberately made impossible.

As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. That just makes things worse. Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them? — T Clark

I perceive a large amount of people being manipulated by mass media.

I don't think it's contemptuous or disrespectful to talk about that, and I am merely trying to understand why this manipulation can take place.

If one wishes to mend society, then one must point out the flaws. Sometimes that can be painful.

[W]e are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena

Regarding the US, our political democracy without economic democracy is a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) which, from periodic national crisis to crisis, has been dismantling itself brick by brick since 1789 by disproportionately serving Capital at the expense of Labor and Nature (both of which are in revolt: reactionary populisms and global warming, respectively). A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate.

So traditional "verities" have become hypocrites' punchlines; commerce über alles has fragmented communities into barrios, barracks & bunkers inhabited by increasingly alienated, hedonic treadmill junkies (zombies); and 'the American system' freezes out most of the people and with every passing generation more and more people desire to burn it all down in order to warm their freezing children in its 'purifying bonfires'. It's just so much easier for most people to imagine The Apocalypse :pray: than to struggle for a viable, radical alternative to this acutely alienating, neoliberal status quo. Maybe it is already too late to postpone "American Carnage" ... :eyes:

I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell. — T Clark

:100:

I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis. — javi2541997

It's a spiral, isn't it? Government disappoints people, people disengage from government; a now less responsible government lets people down, people abandon government; government therefore is opened to corruption, people reject it; government becomes so rotten that it actively promotes fraudulent electoral process.
Some of this is due to poor design - lots of tinkering, but no structural upgrade since the 18th century - some due to the size and diversity of populations, and a very large part to financial interests.

Both are already lost in many nations, along with the US. — Vera Mont

I agree. I think the change is driven by global competition for finite resources and world markets and that technology has made our governments too powerful. That includes the bureaucratic technology that shifted power from individuals to governments. I would feel better if the changes were well understood along with increased understanding of the importance of culture.

What strikes me is that all of the responses so far except Joshs show contempt for our fellow citizens. Certainly this is not a sign of reason. We're all in this together, for better or worse. As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking." — T Clark

When the Social Security Act was passed in the US, it was agreed people would qualify by age, rather than making it a charity given only to the poor because of concern for human dignity. At the time it was better to starve to death than ask for charity, contrasted with today's attitude about being deserving and expecting something for nothing. My older books including grade school books have much to say about human dignity, and we used public education to advance a culture that embraced independent thinking, respect, and human dignity.

The 1958 National Defense Education Act lead to no longer transmitting the culture that we defended in two world wars. We replaced education for independent thinking with "group think". We ended education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. We are now as paranoid as Germany was. That means we hold an excessive need to be superior and in control. Instead of defending our privacy and liberty, we have turned to technology that collects our personal information and in subtle ways controls our lives. Culturally we are what we defended our democracy against, and people are going crazy and have become quite violent and this justifies the advancement of a police state. So much for letting military minds make our education decisions.

Thomas Jefferson and his educated peers understood the importance of education for democracy. Today we do not have that understanding.

Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate. — 180 Proof

Absolutely!!! And this is made possible by adopting the German model of bureaucracy. Before Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to give us Big Government, the US government was relatively weak. I am hoping with increased awareness of the bureautic changes and the importance of culture we can decrease the problem.

A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. — 180 Proof

I am not understanding your meaning. Are you saying it is not values that lead to shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair, and entropy? That does not make sense to me, so I feel confused.

We had different values because we educated for different values and manifested a culture that keeps democracy healthy. I remember the older people who all about honesty and human dignity. I think the great depression and world war, lead to unfortunate changes because of the difference between generations.

I never said it can be done at all. — Vera Mont

That makes this whole exercise beside the point except as a hell-in-a-handbasket kvetch.

I wish you all the success in the world! — Vera Mont

Oh, good. Thanks for that enthusiastic endorsement.

As I noted previously - No further questions; I rest my case.

People can share a common purpose without respecting each other. — praxis

I doubt that's true. I'll think about it some more.

The problem with uncritical thinkers and a desire for purpose is that they’re easily lead by people with divergent purposes. — praxis

As I see it, the criticism of "them" I've seen in this thread hasn't constituted critical thinking. Seems more motivated by fear, hatred, and contempt, just like we accuse them of.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily.

A true democracy - of the people, by the people, for the people, does not understand guns and gun powder, it understands education and even in its absence gets its way around by trying to understand the situation and coming to a non-violent and peaceful decision. — Beena

I don't think that's necessarily true. A lot of conservative gun owners I know have no trouble with what they consider reasonable gun control. On the other hand, many of them consider rights of gun ownership as important as freedom of speech. I don't go that far, but I can understand their reasoning.

As a registered Democrat, I think the problem is that the Democratic Party has played this wrong. A certain level of gun ownership in the US is fully established. It's strongly endorsed by the Supreme Court, so it's part of the Constitution. A large percentage of the people support it. Putting all our money on heavy restrictions doesn't get us anywhere but alienates people who otherwise belong in the Democratic Party.

I think you have big expectations on people... what a terrible mistake. — javi2541997

Democracy won't work without expecting a lot from citizens.

Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me.

A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate. — 180 Proof

Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it.

My older books including grade school books have much to say about human dignity, and we used public education to advance a culture that embraced independent thinking, respect, and human dignity. — Athena

My response to this kind of argument is always the same - this mythical society focused on dignity you describe allowed and supported the enslavement and oppression of human beings. It was only after the events you describe ended that things changed in a significant way. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves.

Well no, but I think those things will ensure social conflicts won't be solved by any other means than force, since communication is made impossible. And they're the tools which enable the elite to easily manipulate people. Via that route, what may start as a genuine social conflict is artifically inflamed and warped into something else - something which ultimately serves no one, except the ruling class, which will profit from never solving it. — Tzeentch

Excellent points!

For me, it is glaringly obvious that people have their opinions confused with facts and this is directly related to the change in education. This is really paradoxical because science benefits democracy, so everyone should learn the scientific method of thinking but in Texas the 2012 Republican agenda was to prevent training in the high order thinking skills, expressing concern that the training leads to children questioning their parents' authority. What went with that is Texas demanding science books teach creationism as equal to evolution, clearly demonstrating these Christians do not have a good understanding of the difference between science and mythology.

Let us be clear on the meaning of mythology.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
my·thol·o·gy
noun
1.
a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
"a book discussing Jewish and Christian mythologies"
Similar:
myth(s)
legend(s)
folklore
folk tales
folk stories
lore
tradition
stories
tales
mythos
2.
the study of myths.
"this field includes archaeology, comparative mythology, and folklore" — Oxford Languages

Around the world countries have a mythology that prepares people to be civilized and I know of no scientific reason to believe one religion is better than another, but the argument that we must study the Bible to be moral people is just wrong because there are so many sources for learning how to be better human beings.

Anyway, if we learn how to use logic and get in the habit of reasoning instead of just reacting, we can have a healthier society, a healthier democracy. And I must say Zeus was afraid with the technology of fire man would learn all the other technologies and then rival the gods. We are now technologically very smart but lost our wisdom.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily. — Philosophim

I'm not sure that I agree with your understanding of the appeal of guns, but I do agree that a lot of the motivation for our troubles is economic. The Democratic Party used to be the party of working people. We've lost that.

As I see it, the criticism of "them" I've seen in this thread hasn't constituted critical thinking. Seems more motivated by fear, hatred, and contempt, just like we accuse them of. — T Clark

As I see it, critical thinking needs to be critical of everything and everyone, including oneself.

Critical thinking can be motivated by fear, hatred, contempt, love, envy, and many other emotions and combinations of emotions.

Critical thinking can be motivated by fear, hatred, contempt, love, envy, and many other emotions and combinations of emotions. — praxis

I think your idea of critical thinking and mine are different.

It was interesting to read all the posts so far on this thread.
There seems to me to be two main camps, perhaps there always has been. I wonder if there always will be. Those who think the future remains very exciting and we will continue to improve the human experience, and those who think we are going to 'hell in a handbasket.' Reading that phrase reminded me it was the title of a Meat Loaf album, which reminded me of my favourite 'pessimistic' meat loaf song.
"I want my money back (Life is a lemon!)"
Song and lyrics below. I love the song but I am with those who look to the future with optimism.
I absolutely agree however that talk is very very cheap and actions speak much louder than words, so 'what are you gonna do about it,' IS INDEED, the most important question.


I want my money back
I want my money back
It's all or nothing
And nothing's all I ever get
Every time I turn it on
I burn it up and burn it out
It's always something
There's always something going wrong
That's the only guarantee
That's what this is all about
It's a never ending attack
Everything's a lie and that's a fact
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
And all the morons
And all the stooges with their coins
They're the ones who make the rules
It's not a game it's just a rout
There's desperation
There's desperation in the air
It leaves a stain on all your clothes
And no detergent gets it out
And we're always slipping through the cracks
Then the movie's over, fade to black
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
I want my money back
I want my money back
What about love
It's defective
It's always breaking in half
What about sex
It's defective
It's never built to really last
What about your family
It's defective
All the batteries are shot
What about your friends
They're defective
All the parts are out of stock
What about hope
It's defective
It's corroded and decayed
What about faith
It's defective
It's tattered and it's frayed
What about your gods
They're defective
They forgot the warranty
What about your town
It's defective
It's a dead-end street to me
What about your school
It's defective
It's a pack of useless lies
What about your work
It's defective
It's a crock and then you die
What about your childhood
It's defective
It's dead and buried in the past
What about your future
It's defective
And you can shove it up your ass
Oh, I want my money back
(Life is a lemon)
I want my money back
(Life is a lemon, life is a lemon)
It's all or nothing
And nothing's all I ever get
Every time I turn it on
I burn it up and burn it out
It's a never ending attack
Everything's a lie and that's a fact
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
And we're always slipping through the cracks
Then the movie's over, fade to black
Life is a lemon
And I want my money back
I want my money back
Back, back, back, back
I want my money back
I want my money back
(Life is a lemon)

I think your idea of critical thinking and mine are different. — T Clark

Well just out of curiosity, what is the proper emotion to motivate critical thinking? Do other modes of thought require specific emotional motivation?

My response to this kind of argument is always the same - this mythical society focused on dignity you describe allowed and supported the enslavement and oppression of human beings. It was only after the events you describe ended that things changed in a significant way. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves. — T Clark

I love the saying that the guardians of truth are confusion and paradox.

Let us be clear on the meaning of paradox.

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
"in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it" — Oxford Languages

Jefferson proposed slavery end on a specific date, giving everyone the opportunity to adjust to the change. He had slaves because that was the reality of his day, but he dealt with slavery not being compatible with us all being equal and having the same human rights.

Here is the fact...

Throughout his life, Jefferson privately endorsed a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all people born into slavery after a certain date would be freed and sent beyond the borders of the United States when they reached adulthood.

“This Deplorable Entanglement” | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello — THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION®

I feel insulted by your wording "mythical society" and that does not advance a discussion of truth. My opening is about paradox and our failure to be our ideal human beings is paradoxical and has been a problem since the beginning of humanity. I think the East deals with this problem better than Christianity.
We are not born knowing as much as we need to know and even when we learn a really good concept of being a better human being, it takes a long time and a lot of effort before being better becomes a habit. In all places and at all times there will be both the good and the bad, however, that does not mean culture is not important.

We are fully supporting "the enslavement and oppression of human beings" today. Only today it is not exactly a human that is oppressing us, but technology. It is totally color-blind and cares nothing about individual differences but it reduces us to complete powerlessness. I look forward to your argument.

We can perhaps expand a little upon my earlier post in which I talked about how people are goaded into integrating ideology into the sense of self, usually by instilling a sense of moral superiority.

The role of pride in this is that if one has to walk back on their ideology at any point, it would mean having to give up that sense of superiority with it.

Further, integrating ideologies into the self makes parting with such ideologies akin to amputating an arm or a leg. Ideologies being vulnerable as they are, this leaves its participants in a constant state of fear - fearful (and reactive, as you said, ) of anything that may rock the boat, like debate, like stubborn realities, etc.

This fear is subdued by creating echo chambers. In the absence of certainty, the next best thing is to get as many people to chant one's beliefs in unison. Perhaps when the whole world chants my 'truth', it will magically become so - or at least, it won't take as much effort to keep up the facade.


Individuals have essentially been tricked into accepting a massive psychological stake in these ideologies, which is of course how said ideologies bind people to them.

And they will stay bound, until circumstances become dire. People caught in this trap will simply refuse to admit they are wrong unless there truly is no other option.

Mass media, of course, ensures there is always another option. There's always another newspaper article to latch onto. Always another way to interpret the facts. Always another onto whom one can shift the blame when theories fail in practice.

The nature of reality ensures we can never be certain, and ironically that also means we can (almost) never be certain we are wrong.

One who seeks to delude themselves will never run out of ways to do so.


, how to best educate people in a way they develop critical (or better, 'autonomous'?) thinking skills is an interesting question. Perhaps intuitively one would look toward the education system to improve things, but perhaps the answer is simpler.

Socrates simply asked questions - an intuition so natural to the human condition that a child never even needs to be taught to do so. Without any instruction they will question their parents until the parents run out of answers.

Perhaps the question isn't how we can teach people critical thinking, but rather what is making them forget how to do it.

That makes this whole exercise beside the point except as a hell-in-a-handbasket kvetch. — T Clark

The fact that I don't think "the whole critical thinking, rational thing" is something that can be "accomplished"? Well, OK, but I certainly think much could be done to encourage people to think for themselves, and even more can be done to make factual, useful information generally available.
The handbasket comes in the form of powerful factions that oppose any effort in that direction.

Well just out of curiosity, what is the proper emotion to motivate critical thinking? — praxis

I think ideally it requires emotional equilibrium and calm.

The nature of reality ensures we can never be certain, and ironically that also means we can (almost) never be certain we are wrong. — Tzeentch

I love your thoughts! I have a very old book of logic that explains that is exactly why we should never be too sure of ourselves! That is why we should remain humble.

My concern is we have become as paranoid as Germany was. Meaning we are suffering from an excessive need to be superior and in control. We have worshipped technology as though it were a new God that can give us all the blesses the old God didn't give us. In the US today, who wants to be humble and who wants to say "I do not know"? Good honest people can not get jobs without appearing to be superior and in control. US Rep. Santos is on the hot seat today for embellishing his resume and buying the clothes he had to have to be competitive but such behavior has been a requirement for getting a job for many years. Some of us were taught not to brag about ourselves and that means not winning the competition with everyone who does what Santos did. We have to be superior and we have to be in favor of strong control, or we face some very difficult problems in the culture we have today.

how to best educate people in a way they develop critical (or better, 'autonomous'?) thinking skills is an interesting question. Perhaps intuitively one would look toward the education system to improve things, but perhaps the answer is simpler. — Tzeentch

I think the "higher order thinking skills" answeres your question.

What is higher order thinking?
Higher order thinking is thinking on a level that is higher than memorizing facts or telling something back to someone exactly the way it was told to you. When a person memorizes and gives back the information without having to think about it, we call that rote memory. That's because it's much like a robot; it does what it's programmed to do, but it doesn't think for itself.

Higher order thinking, or "HOT" for short, takes thinking to higher levels than restating the facts. HOT requires that we do something with the facts. We must understand them, infer from them, connect them to other facts and concepts, categorize them, manipulate them, put them together in new or novel ways, and apply them as we seek new solutions to new problems. Following are some ways to access higher order thinking. — Alice Thomas, Glenda Thorne

In some of my old textbooks, warn teachers not to pay too much attention to dates or names because their focus should be on a child's understanding of concepts. The name for this is the "Conceptual Method". We replaced that with the "Behaviorist Method" and the Behaviorist Method can be used for training dogs. IQ testing relies on a person's memory not exactly the ability to think things through or be creative.

Socrates simply asked questions - an intuition so natural to the human condition that a child never even needs to be taught to do so. Without any instruction they will question their parents until the parents run out of answers. — Tzeentch

And my love, that is essential to democracy and intellectual development. It is what separated Athens from the rest of the world. Socrates proved even an ignorant slave boy can reason through a difficult math question. Athenians argued human beings were created to think, as horses were made to run, and birds to fly. We can learn to be better human beings and we can learn the technologies Zeus feared we would learn, because it is the nature of man to reason. Okay, that is not the whole truth of man. We can also be highly emotional and stupid, but Confucious and Aristotle and others have a few things so say about living with our emotions, and everyone here knows of the Stoics.

That is a different line of thinking than believing a god intended for us to be like angels, but Eve ate the wrong fruit and ruined everything. I say this because I think Christianity is an enemy of education and democracy. Some Christians and some Muslims are okay with democracy but there is tension there. This all matters to the culture we have or by default the culture we do not have.

I think ideally it requires emotional equilibrium and calm. — T Clark

We should only think critically when emotionally balanced and calm?

It seems to me that critical thinking would be particularly useful when we're upset and therefore may not be thinking clearly. Rationality alleviates irrationality, in other words.

I feel insulted by your wording "mythical society" and that does not advance a discussion of truth. — Athena

I can see why you would disagree with me, but why would you be insulted by that? My point is that the society based on dignity and independent thinking you seem to think existed enslaved and oppressed people. It certainly didn't treat black people with dignity. Does independent, critical thinking lead to slavery? That would be ironic.

We are fully supporting "the enslavement and oppression of human beings" today. Only today it is not exactly a human that is oppressing us, but technology. — Athena

There are many bad things to be said about the way our society is running these days, but I find it hard to swallow that there was somehow some golden age in the past when things were better, and, Oh, by the way - we kept people in slavery. People owned people.

I certainly think much could be done to encourage people to think for themselves, and even more can be done to make factual, useful information generally available. — Vera Mont

Yes, but then much could also be done to build a sense of common purpose among our fellow citizens. As I noted, we can do something right now - treat people with respect.