Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Will Bouwman]

A much more nuanced and informative video than the title suggests. A pity, since it is bound to alienate precisely the people who most need to watch. But then, as the video explains, through no fault of their own, they are unlikely to listen anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MubNsh3rs

[Immanuel Can]

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect.

It tells us what critical thinking is, but instead credulously spouts Critical Theory -- all the old nonsense about "unregulated capitalism" being the source of evil, and the president simply being an idiot (as opposed to him being calculating or tactical, say), that it's "anti-intellectual," and blah, blah, blah...we've all heard it before, but it's no less shallow now.

America is highly pragmatic rather than theoretical. That's not "anti-intellectual" or "devoted to settled truths," but rather dedicated to things that show real-world results instead of mere speculative ideologies. She imagines they're just conformist and obedient to authority, whereas Tocqueville, who knew so much more than this woman, realized they are actually "a nation of joiners" -- of those who long to be part of a larger community -- citizens in a united nation, rather than mere individuals. This is much more perceptive as a way to understand America.

She's right about the history of eugenics, but they were largely a Leftist and Evolutionist preoccupation...selective breeding for elites...something from which, we must note, neither Germany nor England were immune at all, as a little historical memory would remind us. She rejects the American suspicion of elites, which is actually well-founded.

She really does want us to see America as completely wrong-headed and simple. But if she were right, America would never have been as clever, inventive, creative, entrepreneurial and effective as it has been. This woman is a self-satisfied midwit, not an intellectually-sharp analyst.

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. Failing to understand Americans is a favourite European indoor sport, but results in much hubristic rhetoric and nothing more. When one fails to understand America, and indulges in contempt instead, one is poorly equipped to see the real liabilities and strengths of America -- and hence, one has no workable understanding of what one is dealing with.

One can keep thinking like this: but if one does, one has understood nothing at all, really. One has just had one's bigotry reinforced with some lofty language and some smug platitudes. That's the real reason Europe never understands America: they indulge in contempt for things that are not like them, especially because they despise American unsubtlety, national pride, success, enthusiasm, lack of restraint, frankness, military activity and involvement in their own world...but they don't actually have a good alternative to offer.

[Will Bouwman]

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect.

The thing with analysis is that, if it is not contradicted by at least one fact, it is a potentially correct analysis. It is for instance, a demonstrable fact that George W. Bush signed the 'No child left behind' legislation. You've seen the analysis, do you have a fact that refutes it?

[Immanuel Can]

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect.

The thing with analysis is that, if it is not contradicted by at least one fact, it is a potentially correct analysis.

Well, her 'analysis' has been challenged.

It is for instance, a demonstrable fact that George W. Bush signed the 'No child left behind' legislation.

Yes, and as I pointed out, the Progressivists in America were just as keen on eugenics as Europe was, and maybe more so, in some ways. But we all learned about that, didn't we? Both have proved to be disasters. I don't deny either; though I think that the NCLB act is more a product of the Progressivist valourizations of "equity" and "inclusion" than anything that fits any conservative agenda. Rather, conservatives in the US are famous for being "back-to-basics" folks, the precise opposite of the NCLB enthusiasts. And as for over-testing, America's bad, but places like England or China are even worse. This, we have to put down to the naive idea that disparate educational results can always be explained through testing, and that teaching and learning are standardizable activities. And they're not.

You can see I'm not defending America in all ways. But her evaluation of things is unnuanced, wrongheaded and stereotypical in the highest degree. Only somebody who already dislikes Americans or has limited experience with America would not know she's unbalanced.

You've seen the analysis, do you have a fact that refutes it?

It's not an "analysis." It's more of a story construction. She's taken a few superficial appearances and common prejudices of Europe, and simply magnified them and reinforced them. She's cynical about America, but not even a touch critical about Progressivist ideology; she just repeats it dopily. That isn't critical thinking; that's ideological possession.

Moreover, there's nothing very deep or accurate, or remotely fair in her summary. For example, she points out the fact of American individualism, and then forgets she just did that, and starts to say that they're unwilling to challenge authority. For a country born in revolution, that would surely be a surprising read. She has just not thought deeply enough about her subject, and that's what happens when one fails to take the object of one's analysis with any degree of seriousness. She's self-satisfied. That will have to be enough for her.

I peg her as a person of middle-level capacities, one with a slightly better-than-average vocabulary and enough mental juice to impress the average watcher, but not enough perspicuity to be truly insightful and accurate...and unfortunately, with a higher estimate of her analytical skills than this product will justify us believing.

Your conclusion, "they are unlikely to listen anyway" is about a tidy summary of hers. And it expresses everything that is wrong, stunted and inadequate about European understanding of Americans. That sort of thinking is also why Americans remain baffling to Europeans, and why Europeans lose so many diplomatic battles with the US. They don't understand Americans, and they don't want to. They don't believe Americans listen or think...and they believe that because it makes them feel superior. But they're going to continue to lose to the Americans, precisely because of that arrogance.

[Will Bouwman]

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect.

The thing with analysis is that, if it is not contradicted by at least one fact, it is a potentially correct analysis.

Well, her 'analysis' has been challenged.

And it is entirely appropriate that it should be; a point I'm sure the presenter would embrace, as that is precisely what critical thinking entails. Of course one can challenge analysis, the hard part is challenging facts. Do you think the facts she presents are wrong? If so, what facts can you offer to support your thesis?

[SpheresOfBalance]

A much more nuanced and informative video than the title suggests. A pity, since it is bound to alienate precisely the people who most need to watch. But then, as the video explains, through no fault of their own, they are unlikely to listen anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MubNsh3rs

It's a BLOODY STUPID question, Will Bouwman!

First she starts out stating her opinions, not the facts. Hint... It's actually best to start with the facts.

We had been trying to support 'Free Trade', which was great, but now, not so much.

She's talking about how much the UK relied on that trade, and is now getting fücked because she relied on it. If you don't want to get bit by something that is given to you, because it gets taken away, don't take it in the first place. Then you won't miss it.

First I want to be clear, I'm a firm believer in sharing, (trading), it's the best way to stop the war crap, Russia being the exception.

But she can't blame us for following us. She can only blame herself. So she should be more concerned with her government and voting for the people that want to be more independent.

And why do all you stupid people want to group all Americans into one entity? just like everywhere, we're all individuals. I blame it all on Americas Electoral College, gerrymandering, lobbyists, and private money. In other words Bribery.

And I fücking hate the selfishly rich Americans, that will do anything to cheat the working people to fill their pockets, as if they really 'need' more money. I hope you all realize that money was only created so the lazy people won't have to work and can have more than the rest. All those, would be, self-important idiots.

But of course I see that the Trumpians are idiots, those selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish, selfish, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me'ers have got to go and make way for the selfless, selfless, selfless, selfless, selfless, selfless, selfless, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, WE, We'ers!!!!!!!!

[Will Bouwman]

It's a BLOODY STUPID question, Will Bouwman!

First she starts out stating her opinions, not the facts. Hint... It's actually best to start with the facts.

Is it a fact that it's a bloody stupid question, or your opinion?

[Impenitent]

Why? because Supertramp was bloody well right...

-Imp

[seeds]

"Why are Americans so bloody stupid?"

It's from years of steady and repetitive practice, me old bean.

And I think we've mastered it, wouldn't you agree?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Of course one can challenge analysis, the hard part is challenging facts. Do you think the facts she presents are wrong?

No, she mentions real events, in many cases...she just doesn't at all understand what they indicate, and she interprets them wrongly. For example, when she mentions NCLB, it's a real thing, and it was started under a Republican administration. But she conveniently overlooks how many conservatives and Republicans have rejected the foolish policies of the public school system, including NCLB. And while Progressives in America continue to campaign for the sanctity of keeping all children under their teachers unions in the public system, American conservatives are opting in unprecedented numbers for charter schools, home schooling and other forms of non-collectivist education. She doesn't even mention that, and doesn't even try to explain it. It doesn't fit her belief that conservatives are behind NCLB. So she just ignores it.

Thus, she selects facts she thinks support her thesis, that Americans are "so bloody stupid," but it's the interpretations she takes on them that she relies on to support her view, not the facts themselves. And she leaves out other facts that would be unhelpful to her thesis -- whether out of ignorance or guile, it's not mine to say. But she certainly hasn't got a deep understanding of America, its history, or its national character. All she's got is a shallow first-take, at best.

Ask yourself this: if we grant her her whole thesis, what do we get out of it? That these Americans, who unquestionably have become the most influential people on the planet right now, are merely "bloody stupid." How does that help us? What do we really learn from believing that? How will it help us make a difference? And even on the face of it, is it plausible that the explanation for why they've ended up as so powerful over us in the world is that they are "bloody stupid"? If so, we must be even more "bloody stupid," because we've ended up chasing their coat tails.

Now, if you want somebody who really did get America, and who is far more often quoted by academics than this woman is, read Alexis De Tocqueville. He also has his reservations about the American psyche, but at least he is better able to make sense of what thinking they're actually doing.

[Walker]

The stupidness of the question is either opaque or ironic.
The link likely is an expansion of either.
That, plus the bias of the invitation, generates no need to listen.

[Will Bouwman]

Thus, she selects facts she thinks support her thesis, that Americans are "so bloody stupid,"

That is not her thesis:

"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."

As I said, it is a much more nuanced and informative video than the title suggests. I think she makes a compelling case for her actual thesis. If all you want to argue against is the headline, your work is done.

[Immanuel Can]

Thus, she selects facts she thinks support her thesis, that Americans are "so bloody stupid,"

That is not her thesis:

"This video is not arguing that Americans are stupid.

That's certainly the title, as you have pointed out. But it's an inept one, as you also pointed out.

However, let's tackle her actual thesis. Throughout the video, her conclusions are all quite harmonious with that titular theme, you will find: she concludes that Americans are conformist, that they don't question authority, that they don't think critically, that they are religious zealots, that they are insufficiently self-aware, that they are anti-intellectual...it goes on, and on, and on that way. And you, in your objection, list the same sorts of synonyms as the basis of her thesis: that Americans lack "critical thinking, self awareness and emotional intelligence," as you put it. So you're echoing her thesis...and the title...using synonyms.

Now, it never occurs to her to step back, and take a good look, and say, "If these people behave this way, for this long, there must be some rationale that would make this way of life appealing to me, if I were in their shoes." Instead, she washes it all with the conclusion that they're just less clever, or less astute -- or even less compassionate and moral, perhaps -- than are Europeans. For her, they're just an inferior breed from an inferior nation that doesn't realize it's inferior.

It's sickeningly smug.

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.

Ah yes...the old "it's systemic" crapola. That's straight from the Critical Theory playbook, and she's to oblivious even to realize she's buying into that nonsense. But let's knock that flat.

"Systems" are always made by people. Human beings aren't, as CT ideologues suppose, merely "constructed" out of their environment, but are rather constructors OF that environment. If bad "systems" exist, it can only be because bad PEOPLE exist. And CT ideologues never have any explanation for the source, origin or even the concept of evil. They just imagine "systems" magically appeared, construct everybody, and yet can be morally condemned...even though they don't believe in any objective reality to morality.

It's all very self-contradicting, really...and they imagine that somehow they, themselves, had cognitively transcended all "systems," and become "woke" from their delusions -- the same delusions everybody but them is supposed to labour under, and which they attribute to people like Americans in general.

Now, what should she do, instead of thinking that way? She should open her mind to seeing the world from an American perspective. Starting from the assumption that people are people, wherever they are, she should ask how the peculiarities of America reflect normal human nature. She should be charitable in her perspective, in other words, rather than gloating that Europeans are, in every important dimension, a sort of superior humanity, and imagining that the Americans are simply somehow inferior in all the ways she imagines. And if she did that, she might actually come close to understanding what an American really is, and how human beings, in general, can be both led and misled in various ways...including herself.

The result? She might actually have some empathy with Americans, and actually see herself in them. But that would require humility, rather than hubris. And hubris is more pleasing to midwits than is any gain in real understanding. Real understanding takes too much patience, too much information, too much inclusion of contrary possibilities, and too much willingness to revise than she apparently has time for.

[Dubious]

Throughout the video, her conclusions are all quite harmonious with that titular theme, you will find: she concludes that Americans are conformist, that they don't question authority, that they don't think critically, that they are religious zealots, that they are insufficiently self-aware, that they are anti-intellectual...it goes on, and on, and on that way. And you, in your objection, list the same sorts of synonyms as the basis of her thesis: that Americans lack "critical thinking, self awareness and emotional intelligence," as you put it. So you're echoing her thesis...and the title...using synonyms.

Based on the demented maggot they voted for...one who qualifies as a traitor and not only as a corrupter, the conditions you pointed out would be a fair assessment regarding the intelligence of a huge number of moronicons. There is also no question that many Americans were brilliant specimens of brain power without mentioning all the imports, mostly from European countries, who later became American citizens. But it remains to be said, there is something in the American psyche which devolves to cultist all too easily which the more intelligent Americans have themselves warned against. And who are these cultists? As usual, mostly evangelicals.

[mickthinks]

And hubris is more pleasing to midwits …

… as Manny himself never tires of demonstrating.