Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Will Bouwman]

...let's tackle her actual thesis.

The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument:

Ah yes...the old "it's systemic" crapola.

Her argument, in part, is quite literally that the American school system was based on a Prussian model designed to create an efficient workforce, and that subsequent reforms, either by accident or design, have reinforced that.
The US is not unique in that regard. You say:

This is, I hate to say, typical British-supremacy thinking. It's the same hubris and high-nosed ignorance that lost my country of origin "the Colonies" in the first place.

Now, a lot of countries have lost their colonies, but if by that you claim to originate from the UK, and spent at least some time in its educational system, you would understand that the school system, at the time you would have been in it, was divided into secondary modern schools, which taught girls home economics, and boys woodwork and metalwork; grammar schools, which taught management and bureaucratic skills, and public schools, which as a native of the UK you would appreciate means pretty much the opposite of what it means in the US, that taught children of the ruling elite how to be future members of the ruling elite. You would know that the majority of British children went to secondary moderns and that critical thinking is not essential to home economics, woodwork and metalwork.
Having said that, while you might think what is presented is

...typical British-supremacy thinking...

ad hominem by the way, had you spent any appreciable time in the UK, you would clearly recognise that the presenter is Australian.
You chide her:

But she conveniently overlooks how many conservatives and Republicans have rejected the foolish policies of the public school system, including NCLB.

That the "policies of the public school system" are "foolish", is precisely her point. What are you therefore saying of the majority of Americans who are not "conservatives and Republicans [who] have rejected the foolish policies of the public school system"? What do your critical thinking skills say about their critical thinking skills?

[Immanuel Can]

...let's tackle her actual thesis.

The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument:

??? That's the point, Will. I don't agree with her. It's called "refutation."

Ah yes...the old "it's systemic" crapola.

Her argument, in part, is quite literally that the American school system was based on a Prussian model designed to create an efficient workforce, and that subsequent reforms, either by accident or design, have reinforced that.

She's not actually right. The current public school model in America was instead largely derived from the "Sunday School" model produced in England, not from the Prussian model.

"Sunday schools originally emerged in the late 18th century as a bridge to formal education. Initiated in England by figures like Robert Raikes, these schools provided working-class children with basic secular education (reading and writing) alongside religious instruction, acting as a crucial precursor to universal public education." (Wiki)

Further here: https://research.lifeway.com/2018/07/17/sunday-school/

And here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26785118

The evangelical model focused on literacy, moral education and religious education, not on factory utility, as this woman has supposed. But that sort of wrong analysis is exactly what one expects to come from Marxist analysis, which tediously sees everything as derivable from class and industry. They never get historical analyses right, because they are feverishly devoted to Marx's axiom that "all history is the history of class struggle."

Any one-dimensional analysis of something as complex as historical causality is certain to be wrong.

Now, it turned out that providing basic literacy and civility to the young of the urban poor, which was actually being done by the Sunday Schools, turned out to be a better thing for industry, as well...and for the young people in question, too, because moral reform produces better people in every sphere. We might add that it made better citizens, on the whole, and also enhanced self-advocacy and upward mobility for the poor. But if you imagine that some "bourgeoisie" had the foresight or wisdom to conceive of public education, or any desire to carry it out, then you attribute to them more virtue than they have. But that more intelligent, civil people make better workers is not a surprise to anybody.

What would you prefer? An ignorant poor class? Would that be better than education? Has it turned out that being educated has produced more proles, or more middle-class people with democratic and self-advocacy skills, particularly in America? The facts confirm themselves here.

She needs to do better research. Once again, she's bounced off the surface. One element doesn't comprehensively account for an entire history of education in America, nor does it adequately characterize their present disposition or reasoning.

But she conveniently overlooks how many conservatives and Republicans have rejected the foolish policies of the public school system, including NCLB.

That the "policies of the public school system" are "foolish", is precisely her point.

That they are NOT conservative, and have been roundly REJECTED by conservatives is mine.

Contrary to her assessment, NCLB a case of Progressivist thinking leaking over into the Republican agenda, a fact you can see in its emphasis on total "inclusion" and "equity" at the expense of standards...but the conservative public are highly skeptical and negative about NCLB and all its related manifestations, and are opting in droves for alternate schooling plans, precisely because the public system, so beloved of Progressives, is corrupt with their nonsense.

A little research on the reactions since NCLB would have showed her that.

What do your critical thinking skills say about their critical thinking skills?

That many conservatives still do critical thinking.

But as you can see illustrated in the above, Progressivists only do Critical Theory these days, which is totally different from critical thinking, and has no relation at all to it. In fact, it's the dead opposite -- slavish devotion to cynical interpretations of the status quo, perpetually, and complete indifference to contrary facts.

In her case, she is totally credulous about the Leftist interpretation she's flogging, and shows no critical skills regarding it, at all. But she's very cynical, partial, prejudicial and inaccurate in her characterizations of Americans, and doesn't seem even slightly aware of how off-point her analysis is. One wonders if she's ever really known an American, apart from the depictions she gets on the internet.

[Will Bouwman]

...let's tackle her actual thesis.

The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument:

??? That's the point, Will. I don't agree with her. It's called "refutation."

Well no, disagreeing with someone is called disagreeing with someone. That is easy to do; refutation takes a bit more effort. First you have to demonstrate that you understand the argument that you wish to refute; then you have to provide evidence, or at least an argument, to undermine that which you wish to refute.

The current public school model in America was instead largely derived from the "Sunday School" model produced in England, not from the Prussian model.

"Sunday schools originally emerged in the late 18th century as a bridge to formal education. Initiated in England by figures like Robert Raikes, these schools provided working-class children with basic secular education (reading and writing) alongside religious instruction, acting as a crucial precursor to universal public education." (Wiki)

That may be so, but whatever the derivation of US schools, is it not true that once there was universal public education in the US, it was influenced by precisely the legislation cited? Quite apart from that, having attended an English Sunday School, I can say without fear of contradiction that they do little to encourage critical thinking.

Any one-dimensional analysis of something as complex as historical causality is certain to be wrong.

So, for instance, an analysis that is exclusively Christian is certain to be wrong.

That the "policies of the public school system" are "foolish", is precisely her point.

That they are NOT conservative, and have been roundly REJECTED by conservatives is mine.

So "a very, very large portion of the population" as the presenter says, remain in foolish public education.

...Progressivists only do Critical Theory these days, which is totally different from critical thinking, and has no relation at all to it. In fact, it's the dead opposite -- slavish devotion to cynical interpretations of the status quo, perpetually, and complete indifference to contrary facts.

Which one might reasonably describe as 'bloody stupid'. The case you are making is that some conservatives are capable of rejecting the public school system because it is corrupt with progressive nonsense. You lack the critical thinking skills to appreciate that, for different reasons, you agree with the presenter's stated point.

In her case, she is totally credulous about the Leftist interpretation she's flogging, and shows no critical skills regarding it, at all. But she's very cynical, partial, prejudicial and inaccurate in her characterizations of Americans, and doesn't seem even slightly aware of how off-point her analysis is. One wonders if she's ever really known an American, apart from the depictions she gets on the internet.

Clearly you need reminding of what she said:
"This video is not arguing that Americans are stupid. 335 million people have the same range of intelligence as any other population on Earth. The same distribution of IQ, the same capacity for brilliance, the same capacity for analytical thought. Some of the most rigorous thinkers, scientists, journalists and critics in the world, are American. What this video is arguing is that a system was deliberately built to prevent a very, very large portion of the population from developing and using the skills of critical thinking, self awareness and emotional intelligence, and that is a very different claim. And if you genuinely think all Americans are stupid, you are clearly deficient in critical thinking skills yourself, so you might not want to throw stones."
Your 'refutation' is just an ad hominem, anti 'Leftist/Progressivist' rant. I am bored of it and you. Do some critical thinking for once.

[Radagast]

There's a big difference between "being stupid" and "acting stupid". Most Americans are not stupid. However, a majority of American voters did something stupid in 2024, voting for Trump despite already knowing what he is like. Trump's one genuine talent is for creating division, and he leveraged this to win the votes of people who would otherwise not have given them to him under any circumstances.

[Immanuel Can]

...a majority of American voters did something stupid in 2024, voting for Trump despite already knowing what he is like.

Well, the alternative was a manifestly senile Biden, mobilized by Jill and who knows who, for what purposes. This much, the Dems are now admitting, that Joe was senile, and they knew Joe was senile...even though, when he was in office, they swore up and down that he was "as sharp as ever."

I'm not saying Trump was the best they could do. But they were being handed Kamala, who had been pushed into office without a primary, and who really couldn't graduate from primary school, let alone a Democratic primary, and her running mate, the corrupt Elmer Fudd, as we now know him to be.

So it's not like they were being offered a choice. You can't call them "stupid" or say they were "acting stupid" when the Dems gave them no option but to vote for the only alternative to what the Dems were foisting on them. It's a two-party system.

[Immanuel Can]

The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument:

??? That's the point, Will. I don't agree with her. It's called "refutation."

...refutation takes a bit more effort.

I've given you the evidence...you don't pay attention to it.

The current public school model in America was instead largely derived from the "Sunday School" model produced in England, not from the Prussian model.

"Sunday schools originally emerged in the late 18th century as a bridge to formal education. Initiated in England by figures like Robert Raikes, these schools provided working-class children with basic secular education (reading and writing) alongside religious instruction, acting as a crucial precursor to universal public education." (Wiki)

That may be so, but whatever the derivation of US schools, is it not true that once there was universal public education in the US, it was influenced by precisely the legislation cited?

This is exactly what I said. Here's some evidence: you ignore that I've given it to you, then you talk about it anyway, as if I've given you none. I can't make sense of that obstinacy.

Yes, it is so, I assure you.

Quite apart from that, having attended an English Sunday School, I can say without fear of contradiction that they do little to encourage critical thinking.

Well, maybe the one you went to didn't. I'm sorry if that's the case. But the experience of one man isn't data, of course.

Any one-dimensional analysis of something as complex as historical causality is certain to be wrong.

So, for instance, an analysis that is exclusively Christian is certain to be wrong.

Did you read? I never said "exclusively." What I pointed out was that it was not Prussian industrialists but English evangelical humanitarians that started the public school system. So your video's analysis is just plain wrong about that.

But to the point, the modern public school system in America was secularized in stages, over the fifty years or so, especially. So you can't blame Christians for its present failures: they have a much-diminshed influence -- nowadays, almost none -- in the form it's taking, including NCLB, as I have pointed out by pointing to the evidence of American conservatives rejecting the modern public system as corrupt and Progressivist...which, of course, it is.

And as for critical thinking in the modern system, it's completely gone, in favour of Critical Theory propaganda. And that's true even in universities in North America today. If you don't think Christians do enough to promote it, what do you say about the Progressivists? They don't practice it at all, in respect to themselves.

That the "policies of the public school system" are "foolish", is precisely her point.

That they are NOT conservative, and have been roundly REJECTED by conservatives is mine.

So "a very, very large portion of the population" as the presenter says, remain in foolish public education.

The public trust in education has various causes. One is that public education is cheaper and more readily available to all. Particularly poor parents often see it as the only option...and it may even be the only one they know of. The second is that when the public system was more functional, it built up a lot of public trust; that trust is not yet exhausted in America, but conservative parents are far ahead in the vanguard of those who are today thinking critically about public education and seeking alternatives. So if you want to accuse anybody of being in "foolish education," charge the Progressivists. They're the ones who love the teachers' unions, the collectivist system and the conformism.

...Progressivists only do Critical Theory these days, which is totally different from critical thinking, and has no relation at all to it. In fact, it's the dead opposite -- slavish devotion to cynical interpretations of the status quo, perpetually, and complete indifference to contrary facts.

Which one might reasonably describe as 'bloody stupid'.

Thankfully, America is not as Progressivist as Europe. It still has a large number of conservatives in it. That's not "bloody stupid": that's the only hope.

The case you are making is that some conservatives are capable of rejecting the public school system because it is corrupt with progressive nonsense.

You think this isn't exactly what's happening everywhere in the West? I can assure you it is. So you'd have to call the entire West "bloody stupid," and the Americans "less stupid," because at least they have some resistance to it. England and Europe seem to have just rolled over and drooled.

It seems you don't know Americans. You certainly didn't know the actual history of public education in America. But you do now, if you checked the websites I sent you, ranging from simple to academic. If you do, you shouldn't find her video so winsome. You should realize she really doesn't know the situation at all, and has ignored very telling data -- such as the evidence of the true origins of American public education, and its subsequent history of corruption by secularization and Progressivism, and the widespread, publicly-debated and growing conservative rejection of the system today.

You should also be aware that the push for "back to basics" education and enhanced critical thinking is today NOT coming from the Left, but from the American conservatives. It's the Left that is resisting all criticism of what they're doing in the public school system to indoctrinate kids in everything from sex to politics, instead of (as conservatives put it) "good ol' reading, writing and arithmetic." It's the Progressivists who have disabled the system by turning it into a factory for the production of little radicals and deviants, instead of for inculcating academic freedom, responsibility, meritocracy and critical independence.