Is this why everyone thinks America is stupid?

[Capitalism Forever]

Well you can't tell who is moron by their physical appearance [...] Do avoid the confusion brought up by using the same word, I'd say, judging from the clip she appears to be a moron.

Well, now I'm conflicted! On the one hand I'm relieved that your answer is not "yes," as that would have meant you found morons attractive. But on the other hand, I really don't know what to make of the premise you offer instead: the premise that looking like a moron is something different from looking like a moron. "Look" and "appear" are synonyms. "To look like a moron" means the same as "to have the appearance of a moron," which means the same as "to appear to be a moron." The English language simply does not recognize the mind-body dichotomy--and with good reason: it does not exist.

If you really believe that you cannot draw conclusions regarding someone's personality from his physical appearance, you might be in for a shock when you get to Part Two, Chapter I of The Fountainhead. You will find the resolution in Chapter VI of Part Two:

"What's the matter with both of you, Ellsworth? Why such talk--over nothing at all? People's faces and first impressions don't mean a thing."

"That, my dear Kiki," he answered, his voice soft and distant, as if he were giving an answer, not to her, but to a thought of his own, "is one of our greatest common fallacies. There's nothing as significant as a human face. Nor as eloquent. We can never really know another person, except by our first glance at him. Because, in that glance, we know everything. Even though we're not always wise enough to unravel the knowledge. Have you ever thought about the style of a soul, Kiki?"

"The ... what?"

"The style of a soul. Do you remember the famous philosopher who spoke of the style of a civilization? He called it 'style.' He said it was the nearest word he could find for it. He said that every civilization has its one basic principle, one single, supreme, determining conception, and every endeavor of men within that civilization is true, unconsciously and irrevocably, to that principle. . . . I think, Kiki, that every human soul has a style of its own, also. Its one basic theme. You'll see it reflected in every thought, every act, every wish of that person. The one absolute, the one imperative in that living creature. Years of studying a man won't show it to you. His face will. You'd have to write volumes to describe a person. Think of his face. You need nothing else."

She IS pretty though, I'll give her that. If thats what you mean?

Do I mean "she is pretty" by saying "she does not look like a moron-by-choice" ? Well, that depends on what your standards for being pretty are. If my threshold for being interested in a woman were set at her not being a moron by choice, then I suppose my saying "she does not look like a moron-by-choice" would imply that I thought she was pretty.

But, failing that, what I mean is just what I say: that from her attributes and actions I have observed, I conclude that she probably is not a moron-by-choice. And, since she is acting like a moron in that clip, the emphasis is on "by choice." So: from her attributes and actions I have observed, I conclude that the cause of her moronic behavior does not lie in her choices, but rather in the poor quality of the education she has received.

[Capitalism Forever]

She had never been prepared properly by her teachers to answer such questions with grace, as is expected of beauty queens, so she had to suppress the urge to say "What the hell kind of dumb unanswerable question is that?", and instead she had to ad lib a poor quality save the world type answer that a kid who had gone to public school would have gotten down pat.

Oh, it does not work like that! The public school system is not geared to teaching you to speak well--not even to speak well about "saving the world" through altruism. A public school does not teach you to do anything well. All it does is destroy the children's minds. A destroyed mind won't be able to give coherent-sounding alturistic answers, only incoherent altruistic mumbling--which is precisely what this poor girl produced.

[softwareNerd]

Okay, curiosity got the better of me. According to this site, "Caitlin Upton is a 17-year-old senior at Lexington High School. " (I think that's the right kid. This appears to be the school in question. It appears that CF's bet might win.

[Thales]

Thales said I deduced wrong. But this is all the information avaible to me. So, until further evidence is shown, I'll conclude she is a moron or at the least had a very very stupid "brain-fart" moment completely televized.

No, I said you've deduced beyond the evidence. That's rarely a good idea. You don't have enough evidence to conclude much of anything about her. Well, perhaps now you do, since softwareNerd has provided a link to her website. But, I have to give DarkWaters credit, since her strong devotion to altruistic causes supports his point.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Thales

[Thales]

You're right, next time I see a girl in a beauty pagent answer a question with one of the stupidiest things I've ever heard

This has many explanations. You, apparently, want to believe the worst about her, so you've decided that she's stupid.

-- I'll be God. That way I can take everything from her conception to the maggots sucking on her bones into considerationt to pass judgement and say "You're stupid." Also, I'll never blame her doing nothing to stop her own stupidy.Also, next time someone walks up to me and rants about how Capitalism is raping the Third World I'll give them a hug and tuck myself into the cozy notion that the existence of the public education system hindering his every action to the point that he couldn't pick up a book and read something different for himself.

Even here you’re extrapolating wildly. None of what you say above applies to my point. You should pass judgment, I agree. My point is take a page out of Sir Isaac Newton's book, his method was to stick close to the facts.

So heres what I learned tonight:Pretty people=smart people. It's never your fault that your an idiot. Got it. Anything else?

There are many classes of people:

Some people are highly attractive and not very intelligent.

Some people are highly attractive and highly intelligent.

Some people are not attractive and not very intelligent.

Some people are not attractive and highly intelligent.

et.al.

We know she's attractive, but we can't conclude a great deal about her intelligence. We have evidence that she may not be intelligent, or may not be good under pressure, or perhaps there is another explanation. If we got to know her we could learn more about her and classify her better.

[DavidOdden]

Her second try on The Today Show.

[K-Mac]

Her second try on The Today Show.

Well at least she sounded more polished and practiced. I guess that's good???

[Capitalism Forever]

Her second try on The Today Show.

Thanks for posting that. It pretty much confirms everything I concluded about her based on the first clip: that she is quite an average girl, both in terms of intelligence and appearance; that her mind is not at all passive; and that, with some preparation, she is well capable of expressing her thoughts coherently. I guess those who love to look down on America based on some superficial impressions are bound to be disappointed when they come to see the full picture.

Shame on the Today Show hosts, though, for preaching so much about "being big enough to laugh at oneself" !

[Inspector]

Well at least she sounded more polished and practiced. I guess that's good???

But - and I think you're insinuating this as well - her answer was basically just as empty as before. And I think that her expression of utter shock at the question is telling, too. I mean it's not a shocking question to a thinking person. It would only be shocking if you never expected to be asked to think.

I still think I see many things that could be the result of our anti-conceptual progressive education system. Whether or not the word "idiot" applies in this case is kind of beside the point. I see a person unable to think in important ways.

[Thales]

But - and I think you're insinuating this as well - her answer was basically just as empty as before.

Her answer was logical. She said that she was not aware of it, that she and her friends are able to find America on a map, and that if others aren't, then geography should be emphasized more. What's wrong with that?

And I think that her expression of utter shock at the question is telling, too. I mean it's not a shocking question to a thinking person. It would only be shocking if you never expected to be asked to think.

She was on stage, under pressure and the question was a bad one. It was a bad question, because 1> she may not have been aware of the problem (which she admitted in the interview), and 2> in order to answer it you need factual information to assess, otherwise all you're doing is speculating wildly. In effect, you can't answer the question without knowing more about the situation.

I still think I see many things that could be the result of our anti-conceptual progressive education system.

That's likely true, but I'm more inclined to blame the person who came up with the question, because the question is definitely anti-conceptual, in that it did not include enough information for anyone to give an informed response.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Thales

[DavidOdden]

There is another explanation for her performance: the assertion made in the question is false. 94% of young Americans in the Roeper-Geographic poll can do so (p. 26).

[Chops]

There is another explanation for her performance: the assertion made in the question is false. 94% of young Americans in the Roeper-Geographic poll can do so (p. 26).

The study you linked only pertains to young Americans, while the question in the pageant does not make the "young" distinction. I would not be terribly surprised to find out that most youth can find it on a map, yet many adults would fail at such a task. It's fresher in the minds of the children than adults (think about the show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader").

Then again, I don't have any facts about the study mentioned in the question, so my thoughts are just conjecture, but at the very least, it is worthwhile to mention the discrepancy between the question and the Roeper study.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Chops

[DavidOdden]

The study you linked only pertains to young Americans, while the question in the pageant does not make the "young" distinction.

That's true; still, despite my best and considerable efforts, I have not been able to come up with a shred of evidence to support the claim made by the question. And as we know, education has been going downhill, so if you fold in the 25-50 crowd you'll probably get a better educated bunch (more of whom will have taken a geography class).

Actually, it's interesting that then did a study in 2002 and the result was that 89% of the subjects in the 18-24 group could locate the US. I think it's unlikely that this reflects a real difference over 4 years, and instead I think there's something about the particular studies that bears close scrutiny. Annoyingly, they don't report the results for the 25-34 year olds on that question, but they do note an age correlation -- that the younger group does worse on some questions.

[Inspector]

Her answer was logical. She said that she was not aware of it, that she and her friends are able to find America on a map, and that if others aren't, then geography should be emphasized more. What's wrong with that?

Answering a symptom of the systemic breakdown of our education system with "well, emphasize that more" is rather empty. A five year old could come up with an answer like that. It shows absolutely no insight into the subject whatsoever.

She was on stage, under pressure

That's her job, to be on stage under pressure. But we're past that, since she has now had a chance to think about it.

In effect, you can't answer the question without knowing more about the situation.

<taps nose>

[Thales]

Answering a symptom of the systemic breakdown of our education system with "well, emphasize that more" is rather empty. A five year old could come up with an answer like that. It shows absolutely no insight into the subject whatsoever.

You expect her to delve deeply into the matter? I think that's a bit over the top.

That's her job, to be on stage under pressure.

Anyone can succumb under pressure, and the bad question didn't help. Professional athletes often have the jitters during a big game, such as in the World Series, and don't play as sharply, despite years of training. It's common.

But we're past that, since she has now had a chance to think about it.

Yes, and came up with an entirely reasonable response.

<taps nose>

If you're implying it's obvious, then I disagree.

That's true; still, despite my best and considerable efforts, I have not been able to come up with a shred of evidence to support the claim made by the question. And as we know, education has been going downhill, so if you fold in the 25-50 crowd you'll probably get a better educated bunch (more of whom will have taken a geography class).

Actually, it's interesting that then did a study in 2002 and the result was that 89% of the subjects in the 18-24 group could locate the US. I think it's unlikely that this reflects a real difference over 4 years, and instead I think there's something about the particular studies that bears close scrutiny. Annoyingly, they don't report the results for the 25-34 year olds on that question, but they do note an age correlation -- that the younger group does worse on some questions.

I would have thought that as you get older, beyond your teen years, you learn more geography, not less. I had heard, some time ago, that an alarmingly large percentage of high school students couldn't find Mexico on the map.

[Moebius]

You expect her to delve deeply into the matter? I think that's a bit over the top.

Well I mean you would reasonably expect at least an answer with a concrete point instead of a bunch of random babbles.

Anyone can succumb under pressure, and the bad question didn't help. Professional athletes often have the jitters during a big game, such as in the World Series, and don't play as sharply, despite years of training. It's common.

The question wasn't bad when you consider the intent. It was not designed with a correct answer in mind. It would be far too broad a topic to be discussed in three minutes on stage. It is only designed to see how the contestants would react -- in essence the quickness of their wit.

And yeah, she did succumb to pressure. I don't think that makes her stupid, although she doesn't seem particularly bright either.

[Thales]

Well I mean you would reasonably expect at least an answer with a concrete point instead of a bunch of random babbles.

Inspector was referring to the answer she gave on the Today Show, link provided by David Odden, post #31.

The question wasn't bad when you consider the intent. It was not designed with a correct answer in mind. It would be far too broad a topic to be discussed in three minutes on stage. It is only designed to see how the contestants would react -- in essence the quickness of their wit.

Perhaps, I don't know. I have my doubts, because these sort of anti-conceptual questions are all too common.

And yeah, she did succumb to pressure. I don't think that makes her stupid, although she doesn't seem particularly bright either.

She does seem average, as far as we can tell, then again I knew a guy in high school who talked r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y almost to the point where it was painful to have a conversation with him. Going by that you might have concluded he wasn't too bright. Wrong, he was academically a supremely high performer, and this was in a tough private school, not a public school.

[Inspector]

You expect her to delve deeply into the matter? I think that's a bit over the top.

I think you should read Lisa VanDamme's articles in The Objective Standard. Young people are capable of being insightful, if they have any actual knowledge.

Yes, and came up with an entirely reasonable response.

She came up with an entirely vacuous response.

If you're implying it's obvious, then I disagree.

I'm implying that you are entirely correct to say you can't answer the question without knowing more about the situation. And that is precisely the point: she knows nothing and her answer was empty.

[Mammon]

Her second try on The Today Show.

Let me use a comment from the link you posted to illustrate my point.

Listen, after the big Matt and Ann suckup session, Ann announced in passing that Miss USA was an NBC Universal production. They don't want their image being tarnished by a borderline retarded contestant, hence the big high five you-go-girl-re-assure-athon. PUKE. Get with it America, the young and ignorant can coast through the ranks as long as they're attractive enough. No wonder the world hates us.

Lets face it she was coached and prepared before appearing on the today show. Yet another example to the youth of America on how not to take responsibility for ones actions. Kaitlin should have said, "it was a question that needed more thought in order to answer, I honestly didnt know how to answer it." But instead I didnt understand, not my fault, etc. As for Matt, While I'm sure he's flubbed a line, I dont believe he's ever acted that ignorant

I do think it's a safe bet to say she was coached on the second try. I mean, lets do some 6th grade disection on this.

"My friends and I all can find the U.S. on a map" -- Saying this makes her look like she is not stupid.

"Geography should be more emphasized" -- Well, no flipping poo* so should education. Within the time between the first and second tries that's ALL she could come up with? That and the horriably predicatible "don't blame me" "not my fault" "everyone makes mistakes" ... This attitude has been popping up a lot lately. That's the whole point. That's why people hate America because a vast majority of Americans ARE superficial and don't take responsibilty for their own actions, for their own existence.

It might be like that everywhere but, here are media seems to gloat and be proud of it even force feed it to everyone. This is the same point I made in the other thread.

I knew it would happen the second I saw the video. I knew the girl would be on the major media outlet(s) and be apologizing for her actions and instantly granted forgiveness.

*Toned down for the sensibilities of our traditional family values minded Christian audience.

Edit: There is also another element here. The response. I'll get into that later, I was just kind of reminded of it.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Mammon

[RationalBiker]

*Toned down for the sensibilities of our traditional family values minded Christian audience.

We have a Christian audience? Okay, who left the door open...

[Thales]

I think you should read Lisa VanDamme's articles in The Objective Standard. Young people are capable of being insightful, if they have any actual knowledge.

I've read many articles by her on CapMag, and you're right, a superior education is very much possible, but this is something I've known.

She came up with an entirely vacuous response.

Her response addressed the facts. If that's vacuous, then you have a different idea of vacuous than I have.

If you tell me her response wasn't deep and insightful, I'll agree, but I won't agree it was vacuous.

[K-Mac]

*Toned down for the sensibilities of our traditional family values minded Christian audience.

Ha ha ha!

[Moebius]

She does seem average, as far as we can tell, then again I knew a guy in high school who talked r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y almost to the point where it was painful to have a conversation with him. Going by that you might have concluded he wasn't too bright. Wrong, he was academically a supremely high performer, and this was in a tough private school, not a public school.

I mean, talking really slow doesn't really indicate intelligence. What he actually said was probably a better indicator.

But then again, back in high school even the smartest kids sometimes say the most retarded shit.

[Capitalism Forever]

That's why people hate America because a vast majority of Americans ARE superficial and don't take responsibilty for their own actions, for their own existence.

Not the people I know. They hate America because it stands for (what is left of) capitalism--for having to take responsibility for your life rather than let the state be "responsible" for you. "People" think that a "socially just" government like the ones we have in Europe is the key to a nation's prosperity; that welfare, civilization, and even life itself, are impossible without a welfare state--and they resent the fact that America has consistently been proving them wrong. They hate America for being the good, to the extent that good currently exists in the world.

[Inspector]

Her response addressed the facts. If that's vacuous, then you have a different idea of vacuous than I have.

What facts did it address? What fact about why some students don't know geography did it address?

If you tell me her response wasn't deep and insightful, I'll agree, but I won't agree it was vacuous.

It wasn't that it "wasn't deep and insightful;" it's that it had no insight whatsoever. None. It demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the subject at all. As I said, a five-year-old could have given that answer. It's a kindergarten-level answer. You shouldn't let the fact that most politicians in this country answer at that level fool you.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Inspector