college grads a minority

[marshwiggle]

I think the educated liberal elites who know best are just as much subject to tribal identity politics as the non-college grad anti-vaxxers.

(Except, naturally, our tribe is better and righteous and holds the moral high ground, etc. etc.)

HOF for this one.

I'd like to point out that NON-covid anti-vax sentiment (e.g. "vaccines cause autism") is higher among college "educated" people. There are probably numerous other examples of ridiculous stuff believed more by "educated" people, but that's the first one that comes to mind.
 

[Parasaurolophus]

When I was a grad student, there was a prof on my campus holding evening  public lectures on how the arc could actually have been real (with dimensions etc).  Any critical thinker will recognize that a literal interpretation of Noah's arc is ridiculous, yet there it was....

At least it might make for an interesting engineering problem, à la cartoon physics? (Unless, of course, the interpretation is 'some farmer saved his donkey and chickens with a raft during a flood'.)

[marshwiggle]

There are probably numerous other examples of ridiculous stuff believed more by "educated" people, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

Sorry for responding to my own post, but supposedly "educated" people describing Canada and many other countries as "socialist" is another example. (And who are the primary audience for "Goop" products? Not your master mechanic....)

[Puget]

I think the educated liberal elites who know best are just as much subject to tribal identity politics as the non-college grad anti-vaxxers.

(Except, naturally, our tribe is better and righteous and holds the moral high ground, etc. etc.)

HOF for this one.

I'd like to point out that NON-covid anti-vax sentiment (e.g. "vaccines cause autism") is higher among college "educated" people. There are probably numerous other examples of ridiculous stuff believed more by "educated" people, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

Before the current anti-covid vax stuff (which in the US is highly politicized obviously), anti-vax attitudes and skepticism toward modern medicine in general definitely followed a U curve, occurring on both the left and right (again, in the US, not sure about other countries), and high and low ends of educational attainment. 

[marshwiggle]

I think the educated liberal elites who know best are just as much subject to tribal identity politics as the non-college grad anti-vaxxers.

(Except, naturally, our tribe is better and righteous and holds the moral high ground, etc. etc.)

HOF for this one.

I'd like to point out that NON-covid anti-vax sentiment (e.g. "vaccines cause autism") is higher among college "educated" people. There are probably numerous other examples of ridiculous stuff believed more by "educated" people, but that's the first one that comes to mind.

Before the current anti-covid vax stuff (which in the US is highly politicized obviously), anti-vax attitudes and skepticism toward modern medicine in general definitely followed a U curve, occurring on both the left and right (again, in the US, not sure about other countries), and high and low ends of educational attainment.

The U curve is definitely the issue. The increased skepticism with more education doesn't necessarily track with a good statistical understanding of the risks.  In other words, while being more "educated" makes people more aware of potential problems, it doesn't make them more aware of how to put those problems in a proper scientific context. The fact that someone can claim to be "highly" educated without that kind of knowledge is bad for society.

[Kron3007]

When I was a grad student, there was a prof on my campus holding evening  public lectures on how the arc could actually have been real (with dimensions etc).  Any critical thinker will recognize that a literal interpretation of Noah's arc is ridiculous, yet there it was....

At least it might make for an interesting engineering problem, à la cartoon physics? (Unless, of course, the interpretation is 'some farmer saved his donkey and chickens with a raft during a flood'.)

If it were framed that way, sure, but it most definitely was not...and he is not an engineer.

[jerseyjay]

Now of course this man knows I have a PhD, a car full of books, and have been a college professor, and he has great respect for me ( I am also about 8 years older than he is).  But my point here is that his great experience and skills with cars, etc., cannot be compared with my education (or probably even a BA from a good liberal arts college or R1 uni, perhaps even some lesser schools) in terms of developing a) critical thinking skills b) the knowledge base needed to use those critical thinking skills to make real decisions about matters of public policy, evaluation of evidence, etc.   Really, it just can't.   

I don't know the OP's auto mechanic, and I really don't know the OP. So I cannot speak to the specifics. However, I do not think that having a PhD makes one--automatically--more qualified to discuss public policy. Yes, there are intellectual skills that come from having a doctorate (writing, evaluating evidence, maybe speaking), but there are also intellectual skills that come with being an auto mechanic (problem solving, dealing with the public). Here is a list of PhDs who have been in public service (as it were). They are by no means equivalent in terms, but my point is that having earned a PhD does not make you a good leader. If all these people were together in the same room, it might make for interesting conversation. But I would not want them to be my leaders.

New Gingrich (PhD Tulane)
Joseph Goebbels (PhD from University of Heidelberg)
Khieu Samphan (PhD from Sorbonne)
Henry Kissinger (PhD from Harvard)
George McGovern (PhD Northwestern)
Enoch Powell (not a PhD but a skilled classicist)

More specifically, the OP's discussion with his auto mechanic sounds like a discussion I had with a part-time professor (PhD from an Ivy League school, several books and articles, fluent in three languages) about Covid.

2) The other thing I am considering is that this attitude on the part of these non-college grad Americans is developing due to tribal identity politics, a view that 'we have to own the libs, down with those elitists who want to tell us they know best, etc.'

But it seems like the OP could also be read--a good PhD term!--as trying to articulate--again, a great PhD term!--its own form of "tribal identity politics".

[kaysixteen]

Hmmmm.... thanks again:

1)  I stand shamefacedly corrected wrt the notion that the ability of people to follow nutty thinking is only something that the lesser educated are susceptible to.   That is false.  What I think is *not* false is the idea that college education does indeed inculcate both superior critical thinking skills and the increased widespread knowledge base (much better if the college education is liberal arts) needed to use those critical thinking skills to their best advantage. 

2) Who amongst us, in 2022, would consider voting for a non-college educated person to be President?

[Katrina Gulliver]

2) Who amongst us, in 2022, would consider voting for a non-college educated person to be President?

Why not? You're coming off like a real snob in this thread.

[Wahoo Redux]

2) Who amongst us, in 2022, would consider voting for a non-college educated person to be President?

Great question.

This is where we are honest.

I am reminded that Donny Drumph has a bachelor's from the Wharton School (he brags about it constantly as he stands up for the working men and women)...

"I went to the Wharton School of Finance, the toughest place to get into. I was a great student,"

...nevertheless, I would probably want someone with the laurels in the Oval Office.

[dismalist]

One third of House members and one half of Senate members have law degrees. Fewer would be better.

[marshwiggle]

Hmmmm.... thanks again:

1)  I stand shamefacedly corrected wrt the notion that the ability of people to follow nutty thinking is only something that the lesser educated are susceptible to.   That is false.  What I think is *not* false is the idea that college education does indeed inculcate both superior critical thinking skills and the increased widespread knowledge base (much better if the college education is liberal arts) needed to use those critical thinking skills to their best advantage. 

Kay, I'm sure all of us could enumerate MANY people with advanced degrees, including those with PhDs in the liberal arts, who exhibit little to no critical thinking skills in many life situations. It's hard to believe you're not being satirical with these sweeping statements.

[secundem_artem]

Hmmmm.... thanks again:

1)  I stand shamefacedly corrected wrt the notion that the ability of people to follow nutty thinking is only something that the lesser educated are susceptible to.   That is false.  What I think is *not* false is the idea that college education does indeed inculcate both superior critical thinking skills and the increased widespread knowledge base (much better if the college education is liberal arts) needed to use those critical thinking skills to their best advantage. 

Kay, I'm sure all of us could enumerate MANY people with advanced degrees, including those with PhDs in the liberal arts, who exhibit little to no critical thinking skills in many life situations. It's hard to believe you're not being satirical with these sweeping statements.

It's not only liberal arts types Marshie.  Most of my career has been spent working with people with professional doctorates - MD, DO, PharmD etc.  They are all as smart as a tree full of owls in their day jobs.  But an awful lot of them are as thick as 2 short planks once they've left the office/clinic/hospital. 

My father in law (god rest his soul) was an electrician with a 10th grade education.  Yet, he was comfortable talking to the well educated as well as those further down the educational spectrum.  I suspect this is because he was always curious.  He wanted to know stuff, do stuff and experience stuff.  And it made him a guy I miss 40 years after his all to early death.

[marshwiggle]

Hmmmm.... thanks again:

1)  I stand shamefacedly corrected wrt the notion that the ability of people to follow nutty thinking is only something that the lesser educated are susceptible to.   That is false.  What I think is *not* false is the idea that college education does indeed inculcate both superior critical thinking skills and the increased widespread knowledge base (much better if the college education is liberal arts) needed to use those critical thinking skills to their best advantage. 

Kay, I'm sure all of us could enumerate MANY people with advanced degrees, including those with PhDs in the liberal arts, who exhibit little to no critical thinking skills in many life situations. It's hard to believe you're not being satirical with these sweeping statements.

It's not only liberal arts types Marshie. 

No argument there; I was just responding to Kay's "much better if the college education is liberal arts" comment.

Most of my career has been spent working with people with professional doctorates - MD, DO, PharmD etc.  They are all as smart as a tree full of owls in their day jobs.  But an awful lot of them are as thick as 2 short planks once they've left the office/clinic/hospital. 

My father in law (god rest his soul) was an electrician with a 10th grade education.  Yet, he was comfortable talking to the well educated as well as those further down the educational spectrum.  I suspect this is because he was always curious.  He wanted to know stuff, do stuff and experience stuff.  And it made him a guy I miss 40 years after his all to early death.

My grandfather only had a Grade 8 education, but he was one of the wisest people I ever knew. I miss him too.

[Wahoo Redux]

Any simple answer to these sorts of debates will come up short.

For instance, there is this on climate change beliefs and education which would seem to suggest that cognitive bias and political orientation are what dictates how people think.

Studies show that education has rather modest effects on climate change beliefs when we look at society as a whole (e.g. Hornsey et al., 2016; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016). Instead, when we examine political groups separately, it turns out that for people on the political left the conventional wisdom is correct: the more educated they are, the more likely they are to believe that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans. In contrast, for the political right, education has modest effects on climate change beliefs and some findings even suggest that the educated are less likely to think that climate change is occurring, is caused by humans, or that we should do something about it (e.g., Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017; Hamilton, 2011; Kahan et al., 2012). These paradoxical effects of education led some to conclude that targeting education or public understanding of science is of little use when it comes to changing climate change beliefs. Learning about these findings was intriguing: how is it even possible that people who are better equipped to understand science endorse scientific knowledge to a lesser extent than those who have lower levels of education?

This phenomena, and this very discussion, simply illustrates how the culture wars are affecting our modes of thinking.