Should complex issues be dumbed down?

[castille]

Do you believe complex issues should be dumbed down so the masses can understand them? Or should they be made even more complex, so only those with industry knowledge can understand them, while leaving the rest of the population in the blank?

For example, let's say we're discussing macroeconomics. Do we make the concepts a bit "stupider" so 95% of the population can understand them, or do we keep them complex so only economics professors and businessmen can get it?

[Scribbler1]

If the choice is understanding NOTHING or at least grasping the fundamentals, you should definitely "dumb it down". This doesn't mean the people who WORK in a given field should be thinking in those terms but when lay people have at least a slight knowledge of a subject it makes it a LOT easier for the experts to explain it to them if need be.
In other words, if the average Joe wants to know about computers he is unlikely to take a three year college course to get that knowledge. But if he watches a few shows on the science channel he will usually get all the education he needs.
A great example is the "roomful of mousetraps" demonstration of nuclear fission. It doesn't tell you EVERYTHING but it sure paints a vivid picture.

Of course a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing with some people and some subjects but I think that's a different discussion.

[Starboy]

I don't think that complex issues should be dumbed down. I think that people will rise to what is required of them. I think that dumbing down is how we got to this place. I do think that many "experts" are fond of jargon and this jargon is often used to obfiscate what they are saying. In many ways there has been a great deal of foolery going on and it has happened right in front of our noses because "experts" that want to fool people fall back onto jargon to do it.

That said, certainly the "experts" need to make their cases and points accessible to everyone with a modicum of intelligence. The funny thing about a great deal of so called difficult knowledge is that it is not all that difficult at all, only strange or unfamiliar. When you don't know something it can appear strange and inaccessible but once you learn it, you wonder what the big deal is. The vast majorities of people have no trouble understanding that the earth is mostly spherical and from that understand what the ramifications of this are. We teach it to twelve year olds. But three thousand years ago it was a mystery.

That said, what I am seeing in many people is not so much ignorance but the lack of the ability to think. I don't know what the schools are doing, but testing for facts alone is not much of an education if you have no idea as to what to do with them.

Starboy

[Paavo]

Simplifying matters in order to inform others is an obvious necessity, it's just a matter of who does it for whom, and is he who simplifies being objective about it.

If I need to inform a client of mine that making his website run on a server that supports the latest version of the PHP engine for some funcional purposes, I won't go into details with him or her, because it'd take the whole day to go through the knowledge behind the matter. I just tell him or her that "well, it won't work properly without it."
Now, I can spin the whole issue to make things easier for me, while costing the client more money, for example. If I spin it, I'm not being objective because I have something to gain from it.

The people who are simplifying matters of importance to a public that -- for practical reasons -- can't grasp the details, needs to be as objective as possible, that is, should have nothing to gain from slanting the explanation/simplification.

[SVMc]

It's too general of a question.

There's a difference between dumbing down and basic principles. The nuclear physician, macro economic professor, psychologist, website degsigner and so on, were all children at one point who took an interest in an area learned the basic principles and then refined their knowledge beyond that of the average person not in the feild. So basic principles and higher theorums have thier own place in all disciplines, it just depends on how much you want to know on any topic.

(damn interruptions may reply later)

[ericsp23]

This is a good question that has, ironically enough, a complex answer IMO (at least more complex than a simple yes or no). When an expert in a particular field has a new idea, he should publish it using the accepted jargon of his field so as to communicate his ideas to his peers in the most efficient possible way. At this point, the idea still needs to be discussed among other experts in the field so that a consensus can be reached regarding its validity, so expressing the idea in terms that a layman can understand at this point is not necessary. If an idea becomes accepted among the experts, then it may be necessary for someone to rephrase the new idea in a way that the layman can understand. Usually, just stating the basic principles in simple language will suffice, but sometimes, for very complex ideas, it may be necessary to "dumb things down." Usually in those situations however, it isn't really necessary that the layman have a very detailed understanding of what the experts are talking about.
A good example is the theory of quantum mechanics. It is an extremely complex theory, and there is a small portion of the general public who is interested in learning about it. There are many good books that attempt to explain the basic ideas of the theory in terms that the layman can understand, but in the end, if the laity fails to grasp the ideas, it really doesn't matter.

[bishop]

aside from the fact that trying to turn a complex topic into one that can be consumed by the masses is an oxymoron - the funny thing is, you can dumb down a complex topic like macroeconomics or programming and some/many people still won't understand what you're talking about.

you can try to generalize the topics and hope that some people will catch on, but if they have trouble with that, they're never going to understand the complexities of the topic. and what you have in that case, like scribbler alluded to, is someone who knows a tiny bit about something who could behave as if they really know what they're talking about. then you end up with fools like bush thinking he knows how to manage an economy, while experts like greenspan are constantly telling him what his policies are doing to the economy.

[MerlinsByte]

Should complex issues be dumbed down?

Merlin writes; I think that all science, religion, all learning, should be made available to anyone who desires to learn. That includes making it understandable. All science art and religion can be understood by anyone with the desire to learn, and has an IQ over 40.

[dolzaina]

Quote by: Starboy The vast majorities of people have no trouble understanding that the earth is mostly spherical and from that understand what the ramifications of this are. We teach it to twelve year olds. But three thousand years ago it was a mystery.

I realize this is beside the point, but in actuality Pythagoras thought that the world was a sphere, and Aristotle provided physical proof for this belief. (Both of whom lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago)

[mr.perfecto]

How complex an issue is depends on how deeply you examine it. Unless including the additional complexity serves a purpose, it should not be introduced. As long as a person is free to inquire into such things himself, and the information isn't witheld to intentionally trick someone, an issue should only be made as complex as the listener needs it to be.

If you want to explain how to operate an automobile, you don't really have to explain how the intake manifold works.

[Catch 22]

while experts like greenspan are constantly telling him what his policies are doing to the economy.

Problem with having “experts” like greenspan is that they invariably are rich folks from elitist backgrounds. An expert greenspan may be but he’s also there to support the upper class and has his own class biases. Thus his expert status is pretty much nullified. For example, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that privatization of SS is not a good idea. But greenie is 100 percent behind with his "expert" opinion. should we then back greenspan? I say no.

[bishop]

i disagree.. keeping social security as-is is not a good idea. like i posted in the social security thread, i don't think that bush is going about this necessary reform the right way - although i'm inclined to prefer a reform over nothing.

greenspan has, and still is, a big deficit hawk. he's also urged caution on long term structural deficits, which social security is a prime example. i also disagree with the notion that greenspan operates to serve the interests of the elite. an obvious example would be the recent interest rate cuts he made.. thousands/millions of middle class homeowners were able to refinance their mortgages (or simply get mortgages at ridiculously low rates) thanks to his rate cuts. a clear example of a decision by greenspan that benefitted the middle class.

[Catch 22]

i disagree.. keeping social security as-is is not a good idea. like i posted in the social security thread, i don't think that bush is going about this necessary reform the right way - although i'm inclined to prefer a reform over nothing.

Nothing wrong with ss if bush hadn’t raided the fund for his tax cuts. Sure we would be facing a deficit eventually, but with the surplus as it was, most economists estimated we’d have till 2030-2040. By then we’d be over the biggest part of the population hump and could probably take a few simple measures (like adjusting payroll taxes) to meet the shortcomings. Besides, in the 80s we had an imminent ss disaster on our hands and we fixed it, 30 to 40 years is certainly plenty of time to come up with something.

greenspan has, and still is, a big deficit hawk. he's also urged caution on long term structural deficits, which social security is a prime example. i also disagree with the notion that greenspan operates to serve the interests of the elite. an obvious example would be the recent interest rate cuts he made.. thousands/millions of middle class homeowners were able to refinance their mortgages (or simply get mortgages at ridiculously low rates) thanks to his rate cuts. a clear example of a decision by greenspan that benefitted the middle class

well firstly in order to rule in benefit of the elite you need to have a functioning economy. The housing market and it’s low interest rates are what kept us from a major recessions instead of a long term economic slowdown. Thus keeping industry afloat and it's pockets secure. Moreover, because of the low interest rates, people have gone bonanza into debt, which will eventually line the pockets of bankers in a big way come 5-10 years from now.

You can also look at it from a class conflict analysis standpoint . You could postulate that by expanding middle class home ownership and bettering their position, the elite reinforce their position. The American state has continuously used a pattern of co option, bringing in just enough poor people into it’s camps with minor enticements to stave off rebellion. And creating a solid middle class that would serve as buffer between the rich and poor and be the “posse” of the rich when they came to beat back rebellion and crush dissent. Thus you see by bettering middle and low middle classes with the rate cuts, the elite keep their support in the class war.

[bishop]

Nothing wrong with ss if bush hadn’t raided the fund for his tax cuts. Sure we would be facing a deficit eventually, but with the surplus as it was, most economists estimated we’d have till 2030-2040.

what surplus? there was no such thing - congress uses the surplus money every year to pay for its wasteful projects. then it replaces this money with bonds. this practice, essentially duplicating the amount of money in social security per annum, is highly inflationary and piss poor economic/financial policy. research the topic a bit, you'll easily find that there is nothing in this so-called trust fund.

the problem should be fixed before it becomes a crisis. all bush has to do is remove the $7,500/year tax cap and MUCH of the projected problems will be pushed back several decades. the time saved by doing that will then permit a gradual reformation program to go into effect, saving the system for the long-term.

well firstly in order to rule in benefit of the elite you need to have a functioning economy. The housing market and it’s low interest rates are what kept us from a major recessions instead of a long term economic slowdown.

isn't a slowdown better than a depression from the perspective of the middle class american??? plus, the fact that people have gone way into debt is their faults, not the fed's. much of the argument about higher consumer debt ignores the fact that unlike past years, the present-day american family generally has two people working, earning much more than families of the past. therefore, they can assume more debt. i do agree, in general, that the debt levels are too high though. but i place the blame on the people taking on unecessary debt because nobody forced them to spend what they didn't have.

the notion that simply because greenspan's policies help the economy - presumably helping the rich more than the middle class - is a weak argument. especially in light of realized benefits for middle class workers (such as the ability to refinance their mortgages at drastically lower rates).

[Catch 22]

what surplus? there was no such thing - congress uses the surplus money every year to pay for its wasteful projects. then it replaces this money with bonds. this practice, essentially duplicating the amount of money in social security per annum, is highly inflationary and piss poor economic/financial policy. Research the topic a bit, you'll easily find that there is nothing in this so-called trust fund.

There was a projected 2.9 trillion dollar social security surplus before the bush years. Bush raided it to provide for his 3 trillion-dollar tax cut plan. Thus it’s not far fetched I have researched the topic before I wrote a damn position paper for debate team about it a few years ago.

isn't a slowdown better than a depression from the perspective of the middle class american???

Yes it is but that’s besides the point. Rich people don’t like depressions anymore than you or I. They destabilize the capitalist system raising probability of revolt, they lower the elite’s incomes and depressions force elite interests to siphon off some of their cash in order to buy off the middle and upper lower classes. Thus it’s very much in the interests for the rich to keep the economy from collapsing.

plus, the fact that people have gone way into debt is their faults, not the fed's. much of the argument about higher consumer debt ignores the fact that unlike past years, the present-day american family generally has two people working, earning much more than families of the past. therefore, they can assume more debt. i do agree, in general, that the debt levels are too high though. but i place the blame on the people taking on unecessary debt because nobody forced them to spend what they didn't have.

Whether or not people going into greater debt is their fault is not the issue here. It’s whether lowering interests (which do entice people into greater debt that’s common sense) is beneficial to greenspan’s class interests. I think it’s pretty obvious that a high consumer debt will be very beneficial to his class interests, as it directly helps large banking firms.

the notion that simply because greenspan's policies help the economy - presumably helping the rich more than the middle class - is a weak argument. especially in light of realized benefits for middle class workers (such as the ability to refinance their mortgages at drastically lower rates).

It’s not a weak argument at all, nor is it my only argument. As you completely ignored in my last post, the capitalist system has a history of building an entrenched middle class of varying size. This middle class serve elite interests beucase it’s a buffer between the rich and a possibly dissident poor. Buying off the middle class with some low interest rates fits this pattern exactly. Now, if you really want to see if greenspan is a “good guy” I would think his polices affecting poor people would be more apt.

[Ali]

Well, since they are complex, simplifying them would just dilute them thereby loosing all its steam. So I don't think its worth it, If it was something for the masses it wouldn't have been all that complex now, would it?

We are talking strictly on hypothetical basis now, if it were say on a specific issue my opinion could be different.

[rcne]

The steps taken to 'dumb' down issues that have been undertaken in recent history has for the most part failed.

By simplifying in an effort to convey ideas to the masses, all that has been accomplished is that the average level of understanding has dropped.

It is a pointless exercise, the masses that we are trying to reach are incapable of understanding complex issues.

Brief one liners are a good way to convey the gist of an idea, beyond that most people just don't care.

The social experiment to raise the level of understanding among the populace has only resulted in decreasing the overall intelligence of the populace.

The divide between the those capable of understanding complex issues and those incapable continues to grow.

If the desire to understand is not there, mentally and emotionally, no level of simplification will achieve the result of educating the masses.

[Vee]

Its not an either/or thing.

Complex issues should be dumbed down initially so the masses can grasp the fundamentals as said.

Once done, you can increase the complexity slowly overtime to bring about understanding as a whole