What screams "poorly educated"?
What screams "poorly educated"?
What screams "poorly educated"?
Being poor and idolizing the rich.
That’s by design
Being proud of not knowing things, and having no desire to change that.
Sometimes my friends laugh at me for how little I know about pop culture. I laugh back though. I wouldn't say I'm proud of it but it's just funny.
Being proudly ignorant of everything is bad. I will respect people who know they don't know things though, you can't know everything about everything. It's why people generally specialize in a field in an industry.
Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
Coping mechanism for the poor, they can't admit they're at the bottom and so it feels good to put other people down for nonsense reasons
Or it can be a strategy. A white sharecropper is just as poor as a black sharecropper, but the white sharecropper has a higher place in society.
💀
Some people can be very well educated but choose not to follow reason. For example polititions appealing to a voting base. Point is these things certainly say "what a twat" but doesn't necessarily reflect poor education.
Right-wing politics
People judging people's level of intelligence based on how they lean politically, for me.
You're right. A right-winger doesn't always adopt a right-wing ideology because of low intelligence. Sometimes, they adopt right-wing views just because they're evil instead!
The face of right-wing politics is wedge issues and conspiracy theories. It's not as if people are being judged for believing in a smart conservative fiscal policy because that is no longer something the modern Republican party represents.
You can probably actually do this reliably in cases where those political views work against the persons interests. It's not like people voting against their own interests is an uncommon phenomenon.
The irony.
What’s the irony here?
Thinking that someone without a formal education is somehow beneath you.
On the flipside, the belief that someone with a formal education is somehow beneath you or brainwashed for it.
Ten years ago I never would've believed that people like that exist, or that they think Science is evil for some reason
Basically judging people in groups doesn't work, you have decent and shit always wrapped together.
Everyone is below someone else somehow, since you use that word. I’m beneath my friend in film knowledge. I’m above my friend in gardening skill. In this sense, one can clearly be beneath someone else in education. Or height. Or travel experience.
You meant that regardless of education, we all have the same human worth. That’s true. But yeah you can absolutely be beneath me somehow
Not sure if you understood the assignment.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I think it's more narcissism than education. People who are educated can still not care about the environment and preserving public spaces.
Hmm, I can see what you mean. “I just don’t care”
“That’s why cleaners exist right?” “We are giving the cleaners something to do” “This is not my public space”
The sort of thing people would say when you ask why do they do this.
I’ve seen all sorts of people. People who throw rubbish out from their Mercedes sedan. People who throw their plastic containers onto the sidewalk from the motorbike while waiting for the green light.
Funny true story. A colleague of mine was having a smoke with a Japanese guy who was visiting our country on a business trip.
My colleague threw the cigarette butt onto the floor after finishing. The Japanese guy went to pick up the cigarette butt that my colleague threw on the ground, and threw it into the dustbin nearby. My colleague never felt so embarrassed seeing him do that.
That’s why I think it’s education and upbringing.
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist...
That's unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
What do you mean by "trusting in science"? Science isn't meant to be trusted, it's meant to be verified.
Given the reproducibility crisis occurring right now, nobody should be "trusting" in science as a matter of course- we should be verifying the decades of unverified research and dismissing the unverifiable research.
We fucked up the entire field of Alzheimer's research for nearly a quarter century by "trusting in science". We still bias towards publishing new research in academia over reproducing existing research. Science has a big problem with credibility right now and saying "oh just trust in science" isn't the solution.
Ok, but I do not have access to labratories or ways to run my proper experiments. Am I supposed to just stay on the fence about everything that I can't personally test, or should I trust in the consensus from the scientific community regarding stuff like climate change, virology, etc.?
Trust in the process of Science, not its insitutions.
The irony!
unfortunately my dad who has a diploma in engineering and is working in that field for probably 30y now is still prone to it.
Whoever spread those conspiracies should die a slow and painful death to experience a fraction of what they brought on to a lot of families and friends.
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
^ this right here
How…
Scientists don't have opposing views on thats specific thing*. It's an example used right up there with thinking the earth is flat.
One completely discredited study linked the combined MMR vaccine to a new, made up gastrointestinal disorder. That disorder was supposedly linked to autism. The guy who ran the study had financial ties to a company that manufactured a measles vaccine separate from MMR. He had a financial motive. He paid children for blood samples at his kid's party and bragged about it. He's a monster responsible for every death caused by the measles since his evil, fake, completely made up study came out.
You want to know what makes a person seem ignorant? Being anti-vax or buying into the abject nonsense that ASD is caused by vaccines.
Being a conservative and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Being a conservative
and accusing every progressive person of being a pedophile.
Could've stopped it there, the rest is implied.
I see you've met my neighbors.
The fuck?! Oh boy...
Oh boy...
That's what he said.
In my personal experience conservatives are more likely to be pedos, it's just they are all hypocrites.
Not being able to entertain ideas. "What would the world be like with 100% renewable energy?" "Would basic healthcare for every person help our country?"
I tried to explain the 4 day work week to someone that gets paid by the hour. You make the same money but work 4 days a week instead of 5. Insisted he got paid less. Had to explain like a Bingo card with a Free Space, 1 day he is paid even if he stays home.
I don't know if that's necessarily wrong of them. There isn't any precedent for hourly workers to be paid when they're not working. The "four day workweek" as described simply means that any time over 32 hours a week is overtime. Hourly workers in general don't really have a "workweek" anyway because they will often have multiple jobs or will work whatever shift they can pick up that works with their schedule.
They understood how the 4-day workweek works based on how the 5-day workweek works. I think maybe you need to listen more to them and try to understand your own proposition better.
When companies voluntarily implement 4-day workweeks, they are literally either cutting 8 hours or doing 10-hour shifts. They do not pay for hours not worked.
If you can't understand that 40 hours a week can be accomplished in 4 days instead of 5 days, than you are an idiot. It has nothing to do with your life experience. Its simple math.
I think it's good to note that while some of this is a failure to develop critical thinking, failure to entertain hypotheticals is OFTEN a trait for people with differing cognition. So don't assume they're poorly educated just from this, take it as a sign that the person thinks differently.
I've met and am friends with people who struggle with hypotheticals and education isn't the problem, just how their brain works.
Also, some hypotheticals don't consider the inherent problem of a situation or ignores context, and therefor aren't worth entertaining. Not all, just some. When that happens it's best to explain why the hypothetical doesn't work, which I suppose is entertaining it.
Because he's an hourly worker he's in the hourly mindset. You'd have to say your hourly rate would go up but only if you worked 32 hr/wk.
I like the idea of the 4 day workweek and would absolutely advocate for it, but I'm not sure how I personally would be affected by it. I do rotating 12 hour shift work to operate a power plant. I flip between 36 and 48 scheduled hours, 5 to 5 flipping between days and nights with a few days off between to flip my sleep schedule.
Would my OT start after 32 hours instead of 40? Would my company hire more people to schedule me between 24 and 36 hour weeks as a result? Because I'm not sure they'd be down with paying 4 hours OT on the cheapest weeks of my labor, and 16 hours OT every other week. So they probably have me work less, but does this result in a one time 25% raise and then fall off over time as no further raises come?
Idk, I would be fine either way because of how I budget, but I think these are valid questions that most hourly workers should be concerned about. I don't think it's such a simple concept, and companies will almost certainly find loopholes to exploit to fuck us like they did for the ACA.
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers...
Racists benefit from worker's rights too.
Not when they vote for parties that fight against workers' rights
A toolbox generally belongs to one person. I see it on people's lockers too.
💀
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn't really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
Since we are rating if a person is racist or not based on the actions/words of the person they voted for, isn't everyone who voted for Biden racist as well?
Maybe it's a sticker war? Unions vs Trump?
Being a baby. What do they even know?
I have literally never met a more uneducated cohort. Absolutely shameful.
Mb it's that period from your past life when you still deleting files to have space for you new one.
They just don't have the communicative havility to tell us, then ya forget.
My new religion is this(it has some inspiration from previous ones but hey, tell me one that didn't)
taking Ayn Rand's work seriously. five seconds of critical thought and her entire philosophy comes crashing down
One thing that few people seem to accept when saying that they believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that you are supposed to pay people what they are worth, not what you can negotiate with them.
For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, it is made explicit that Rearden pays his mill workers far above typical salaries because it is worth it to him to have the best staff working in his mills. Rearden is also the kind of person who isn't going to make racist or sexist jokes because he wants the best person regardless of sex or color.
What Objectivist is that moral?
That's actually the root of all social philosophies: they require decent people.
No matter which system you take, capitalism, communism, anarchism, monarchy, democracy, etc. they all would work perfectly fine, if people wouldn't be stupid, selfish and about 1% downright psychopaths. And I'm not even talking about real crimes. In your example it would be perfectly legal, to pay the workers the absolute minimum possible, but it would be a dick move.
At the end of the day, a system always has to answer the question: How do you reign in assholes? That's it. Designing a system based on Jesuses is trivial.
💀
Parents feeding their baby cola in bottles and smoking while pregnant are two things that usually cause me to make assumptions
Smoking in general. An expensive habit of self-harm for short term "feels good."
You'd be surprised how many PhD-holders do coke/meth.
And to get rid of the craving for a bit. I say this while smoking a removed (glad I can say this without risk of admins banning me). I should probably quit l.
Do you see this often?
My cousin was taken off her mother because of the cola thing.
More times than I can recollect
My baby likes it though, and smoking is better than me injecting. What more do you want?
Being proud of not owning books
Or being confident about disliking reading in general, whether be it fiction or scientific literature.
Hey, if you're not proud of not owning a copy of mein kempf that's on you buddy.
It's "Kampf" ... I have tried to read a few pages... It's unreadable drivel.
Fun fact: The book wasn't available in Germany for decades, because upon Hitler's suicide the copyright fell to the State of Bavaria. That recently expired and now you can find some heavily annotated versions.
Not understanding the marginal tax rate.
I see so many educated people not realising this. The maths involved is something we learnt in ~ 5th grade, and I distinctly remember doing exercises on marginal rates in primary school in maths class. It's even simpler than compound interest - which is a staple of maths class later on.
Yet so many people say there's a problem with the education system that it doesn't teach practical skills like these. It clearly does, kids just don't remember it. Maybe it's because they don't need to use this knowledge until almost a decade later.
I don't remember ever having done this in school. In any case, the math is easy, yes. The hard part is knowing the rule that the government put in place for taxing you, and that's something you just have to know. You can't logic your way to it.
Not using smooth functions for tax calculations.
They think opinions are facts.
Or the other way around.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't realize that only my opinions are facts.
Black/white thinking. Everything is either bad or good, the problem or the solution.
Thinking everything is gray is also an uneducated response to this kind of thinking. Too many people refuse to stand up for a point because they think that 'all sides are bad' or 'well the good side isn't perfect'.
Understanding that things are nuanced is not the same thing as not having opinions.
You can acknowledge that drinking alcohol can cause addiction, act as a social lubricant, and decide if you want to drink. You can even have an opinion on what you think alcohol's role in society should be and what should be done to prevent drunk driving.
Yes, but the important part is understanding the flaws of what you are standing up for.
Yeah, everything is nuanced, that just doesn't mean that there are no right options.
Intelligence and maturity is holding a view while also recognizing that there are flaws in that viewpoint.
No matter what subject you're talking about, there are flaws in every stance. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take a stance, but too many people act like they have to be 100% behind their stance in order for it to be valid
A Big Mouth Billy Bass that's been hacked with a recording of someone screaming "POORLY EDUCATED!"
C/angryupvote
Reckless driving, speeding, having a loud car, having a lifted pickup truck.
Truck balls
Tbh if i saw truck balls before they were popular, i would think they are pretty funny
I have to disagree.
Speeding screams impatient 🤷
How does enjoying a vehicle make you uneducated and lifted trucks do have a purpose for offroadjng the ones with massive wheels are dumb though
Racism.
Not wanting to tax the rich because "I might be rich one day".
This also screams "I am a selfish and self-centered person".
Refusing to accept that they are wrong.
Anti vaxxers
To be honest, I disagree. It'd be logical if that was true, because that's what you'd expect, but I've met plenty of counterexamples. People who were well educated in some subject and therefore assumed that they know everything better. I've found that for a certain group of people, having a bachelor's or master's degree makes them overestimate their ability massively. Some of them you could at least partially convince with facts, but I've also met a few of them who has gone completely off the deep end. Well educated doesn't always mean intelligent
Yeah I think a lot of people equate education with overall intelligence, and that’s just not how it works.
I’ve personally known an anti-vaxxer with a PhD, MDs who wrote at a middling grade 8 level, and a literal rocket scientist who never could figure out his email lol
Highly educated people can be brilliant in their specific fields of study, while being absolute morons in other areas. They just had all the right opportunities, money, and the time/skills/ability to study, memorize, and pass tests.
I actually know at least a couple high school grads whom I’d consider more broadly intelligent than some of the MD & PhD holders I’ve worked with over the years.
Racist and intolerance to people different than them
Utter confidence in an area without expertise and without room for doubt or challenge.
Associating with arbitrary groups, such as football fans, nationalists, wearing certain clothing brands
That's a good one.
Being a republican. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican, but your average republican voter is a mouth-breathing fucking idiot.
I don't think evetybody, i think some rich white egoistic man might also be republican, but besides that, probably yes.
While I don't always agree, I can see how people can justify fiscally conservative policies. I tend to swing left, but arguing for small government isn't without merit. The problem is with socially conservative policies. The republican party is no longer the party of small government, but is instead the party of bigotry and hatred for their fellow Americans. I wish I had the option of voting for multiple parties, but unless I suddenly decide that I want to regress to 1920s social policies, Democrat is the only semi-sane option.
Depends on what the motivation is. There are fiscal conservatives that think it is a responsible thing to do and then there are the fiscal conservatives trying to pull the ladder up behind them. Fuck the latter. Agree to disagree with the former.
Being a
republicanfirst-party voter. Sure there are some educated grifters who decide to label themselves as republican or democrat, but your averagerepublicanfirst-party voter isa mouth-breathing fucking idiot.terribly misinformed.
FTFY
Sorry tard boy, both sides aren't the same.
Trying to push mlm schemes like essential oils
Unfortunately I think MLMs trap plenty of educated people. It's just a blind spot.
I can't blame people for wanting to be their own boss or making some extra money. Sad to see that taken advantage of.
"Let's go Brandon!" Bumper stickers.
Oof, yes. I feel second hand embarrassment whenever I see someone sporting one of those. Maybe it worked at the time, but now it's just overplayed.
Same with "Fuck Trudeau" stickers and flags in Canada... ALWAYS on an oversized pavement princess truck, driven by a "but think of the children!" idiot who can't figure out the irony.
Not being curious. Education should never stop. You should constantly be seeking intriguing books, new ideas, different perspectives. Once you've lost your curiosity or pridefully believe in one opinion and one way of thinking, no matter your schooling, you have at that moment become poorly educated.
Not listening to other people's opinions and ideas
shut up
Almost downvoted you as an instinct
That's probably the reason the person in question isn't educated in the first place lol
Believing that capitalism lifts people out of poverty.
oh but it does
why would you expose yourself like that
"Whataboutism", or if you are unfamiliar with the term:
"The act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse"
People that use this mechanism are "poorly educated" and unable to hold a conversation and they should just be mocked by whatabouting even harder, so they can maybe understand that they're dumb and that's not how you should debate.
Example of the last argument I had recently with my dumb c*nt father:
AKA changing the topic to avoid learning anything.
Honestly, in your example, you sound like, as you put it, a dumb cunt. The purpose of "whataboutism" is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent's position. Your dad pointed out that a politician on your side did something equally deplorable to the one you'd called out on his side. Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation about the nuance and differences between your chosen politicians, perhaps coming to better understand each other, you chose to devolve to nonsense, intentionally killing the conversation. That screams poorly educated (but possibly with an expensive education that makes you feel superior enough that you don't bother to question yourself and your ideals).
The purpose of "whataboutism" is to point out hypocrisy in your debate opponent's position.
No, it is not. It would be if the argument was, for example, "which candidate is better" or "who should I vote for". But that wouldn't be "whataboutism" either, it would be just "point out hypocrisy".
If we are talking about just that single person (not even in a political way) and you bring up someone else just to deviate the attention, that is whataboutism and it's poison for the mind.
Rather than respond to that and have a reasonable conversation...
People that use this mechanism don't whant to have a "reasonable conversation", they just want to be right at all cost, even by sabotaging the debate. If you want to engage with them feel free to waste your time. I value mine more than that.
Plus keeping the argument going will make relationships worse: I voluntarely crash arguments like that with my father because yes, I do think that he's a dumb cunt, but at the end of the day I still want to say him "I love you nonetheless".
Well. No.
Whataboutism as an argument is about chasing the lowest possible ethical standard. You'll always find someone worse. That doesn't mean it's ok.
Even worse, they're always exaggerated comparisons, such as "zomg, hunter Biden was using drugs". Well, did you vote for hunter? And almost consistently, the sources being used aren't reliable sources. And once those claims are fully rebuked, they move on to the latest nonsense (there are a lot of scared whistleblowers out there who the allegedly mentally weak "sleepy Joe" Biden is apparently threatening lol).
And this seems to be mostly a Right wing attitude
religion and the belief in the supernatural/paranormal. also the belief in conspiracy theories.
conspiracy theories i agree with, but religion? organized religion, definitely. joining a religion with a hierarchy signals that you want someone else to give you all the answers, which is very much a mark of poor education. but religious beliefs are not an automatic marker of poor education, as long as they're sincerely held, don't supersede science, and are frequently revisited and revised based on personal experience and knowledge. even basic, broad frameworks like animism or some parts of Buddhism can help you make sense of the world when science can't help you
When science has not yet provided an answer, the solution is to keep searching. The answer is not, “oh, God, must’ve done it!” Beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, are not knowledge, but merely how one may wish things to be. Wishes are not truths.
💀
Nationalism
Wearing camo and American flag shit in public. Honestly just having American flags on anything now pretty much is the same as that read hat
It's pretty shitty how those loud people have ruined something that used to be awesome.
Was nationalism ever awesome? From an outside perspective it was quite disturbing and worrying.
america was never awesome, I'm sorry to break it to you
Believing the earth is flat
Ironically, defending arguments using scientific studies and experiments, but not being able to think critically about the methodology used or what the results mean. Too often people will cite scientific literature based off the title and MAYBE skim it. Trying to have a discussion with them will usually result in them calling you anti-science.
A good example is the pseudo-scientific belief common within incel circles that women can store and absorb dna from past sexual partners and that their children can then have more than one genetic father (an excuse to shame sexually active women while fear mongering about cuckoldry). If you track down the source the study actually explicitly explains exactly why this isn't the case.
I'm going to forget that I read this comment and continue living in the moment before I knew this was a thing.
Any reference to "common sense", which really means "what I believe". Violating it is used as a universal rebuttal for any intellectually sophisticated argument.
Which sucks because it's diluting the meaning of the phrase, and there are still many situations where it does/should apply.
Referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect in casual contexts. Most people who refer to it, have not really read about it enough to be qualified to use it.
I mean, you can sum it up in a sentence. Is it really that complex?
"People with poor knowledge, experience or skill in an area tend to overestimate their ability in that area."
Is your beef that people tend to conflate lack of skill or knowledge with low intelligence, which is not what the DK effect says?
I'm assuming they get told they suffer from DK a lot haha
Your summary is correct. However, most people use the Dunning-Kruger effect to describe individuals with low intelligence as arrogant. Another issue is that most people as soon as they learn about the effect think that they’ve become immune to it.
Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you're referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it's a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
I wouldn't say it shows a lack of education. If anything it's more prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of unhelpful "executive" education.
Everyone educated on the topic understands that it’s a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.
The irony of this is that those who aren’t “educated on the topic” do not realize that by describing the Dunning-Kruger effect as the law of “overconfident stupid people”, they themselves have become subjects of the effect.
What I was trying to say is that the Dunning-Kruger effect being misrepresented as something that only applies to “stupid people” is often done by people who are themselves undereducated on its topic. The DK effect applies to everybody.
People who are proud about their lack of knowledge on a topic as if that somehow means that they were not programmed prior to the encounter.
I’ll take “poorly educated” over “educated and unwilling to learn or grow.”
That's the same thing to me. Parents and teachers failed to educate them in how to be curious.
Not learning from history.
Also trying to sweep the nasty parts of history (basically most of it) under the rug.
I'm going to interpret poorly educated as badly educated as opposed to just not.
Imo the best sign of someone who has been brought up wrong is a total inability to tell the difference between what is legal and what is moral. Don't smoke weed because its illegal. Those homeless people shouldn't have slept outside if they didn't want to be arrested. Nazis should be allowed to march in the ghetto. I've heard all of those from people that have been raised wrong. They don't have any capacity for care, and they're basically just robots fullfilling whatever function they've been told is expected of them. Their hobby is watching tv. They have a wife that they never talk to.
Empathy is part of being educated. A capacity to consider the perspective and emotions of others. We're supposed to be taught that in school, but the amount of people who grow up to be like this shows how badly we are failing.
One of the fastest ways to garner dislike from me is to say something disparaging about the homeless.
I like homeless people. They're very approachable and as someone with poor social skills they are easy to become friends with.
Imo the best sign of someone who has been brought up wrong is a total inability to tell the difference between what is legal and what is moral.
Is this moral? Probably not, depending on your moral premises (it is for me). Is this legal? Yes. Should it be illegal? No.
immoral because he threw the chicken away?
Breaks for brakes, loose for lose.
Listening to loud music without giving a shit about the neighbours.
Being poor or lower middle class and voting for right wing/conservatives. You essentially give away your hard earned money and give it to ultra rich and worsen the quality of your life.. usually because the right wing scares people to be afraid of other people and new phenomena.
"People who don't support my party are stupid"
Is a pretty big "poorly educated" sign.
I didn't say that. I just said poor and lower middle class. If you are millionaire or billionaire and want to maximize your wealth, you definitely should vote for the conservatives as they transfer money from the poor majority to you.
having this opinion
Alright, lets have you and @squirrel_bear@sopuli.xyz both cite your education level. We can get an empirical read on this. Thanks for volunteering.
Getting on an unsafe submarine
Being intolerant of those who don't think like you do.
Using an apostrophe in plurals. Don't know why but this one drives me insane.
Also they're/there/their and you're/your
Break/brake
Write one long block of text, no punctuation, capitalization or paragraph breaks.
Maybe it's okay for something short, like texting, but proper grammar and punctuation are kind of necessary for the longer chunks of text.
I personally find your/you’re very tricky for whatever reason.
Like, I know which one I’m supposed to use, but I occasionally find myself using the wrong one every now and then for some inexplicable reason.
Yes. Especially when typing. Hand writing tends to filter the confusion out more.
ATM's. CPU's. DVD's.
Everyone knows the real plural is ATM machines.
Per say is a giant pet peeve of mine.