Johnson vs. Bauerlein, Round 2
In a comment on my previous Johnson-Bauerlein post, David A. suggests that a significant problem with Bauerlein’s gloom-and-doom studies — Look at all the things today’s teenagers don’t know! — is their lack of comparative context. Okay, so only 41% of American teenagers can name the three branches of government — or rather could, since that study (I failed to notice this earlier) was conducted a decade ago, well before the internet had fully asserted its dominance. So: what would have been the results of that study, or a similar one, in 1988? 1968? 1938? 1858? As far as I can tell, Bauerlein’s book doesn’t contain any comparative data of this kind. So what does that mean for his argument?
Looked at in one way, it’s a big problem. Bauerlein concludes his book by writing that the people he calls “the dumbest generation” “may even be recalled as the generation that lost the great American heritage, forever.” But if they aren’t any more ignorant than previous generations, and previous generations have not lost that heritage forever, then this claim seems (on the face of it) overblown. Now, perhaps they are more ignorant, but if so, Bauerlein’s neglecting to show that is a significant shortcoming.
However, you can look at all this in another way. You could argue that a healthy and properly-functioning democracy simply requires a better-informed citizenry than we have, or (given current trends) are likely to have. You could argue that if Americans fifty years ago were similarly uninformed about the basics of our government and the rights guaranteed by our laws and Constitution, that could help to explain acquiescence in the curtailment of civil liberties during the McCarthy era; or acquiescence in Jim Crow laws throughout the South; or acquiescence in dramatic wage differentials between men and women doing the same jobs.
Taking a slightly different tack, you could argue that a level of ignorance that was survivable in earlier periods is not survivable now, thanks to technological developments or globalization or whatever — but again, that would need to be argued.
So I don’t think a reasonable person can simply dismiss Bauerlein’s concerns; but I also don’t think Bauerlein has done as much as he needed to to hammer home his argument.
(I haven’t said anything about Steven Johnson, which makes the title of this post misleading, but I’ll get back to him soon.)
Or you could argue that today’s teenagers know what is most important for them to know. 50 years ago in the midst of the Cold War and the missile gap and with the draft it was much more important for teenagers to know their government. Today’s government is, at the federal level, less significant so knowing Web 2.0 is lots more significant. Given a scarce resource, time, rational beings will maximize their learning in the fields most important to their lives. And, while teens aren’t rational, they still maximize.
— Bill Harshaw · Jun 19, 07:03 PM · #
Hey Alan
Interesting post as always. The lack of comparative data is an important limitation in this analysis. ‘Dumbest’ does imply comparison, and the data doesn’t seem to hold water on this claim.
The argument for some implicit requirement of knowledge for citizens is a good one, but still lays outside the conclusion that ‘the internet is destroying us’ and would perhaps fit better with ‘the internet isn’t helping us’. I would imagine it would be possible to reach this conclusion if you couple this lack of knowledge with some type of cross-time comparison. But, is this what the internet ought to do, improve some objective knowledge store which would be measured through a branches of govt question? The view of the internet as a network of knowledge implies some type of storage outside of the individual of whom the question is asked, thus (arguably) making storage at the ego level less important (a debatable point in itself). Before this knowledge store was available in books, etc., but now it is more accessible.
A more interesting question (in my view) would be to see how individuals answer complex questions, and whether this has changed over time. For exmaple you could see how search is performed in the post-internet age (with the wikipedia, googles, and the like) as compared to the pre-internet age (with a whole different set of methodologies), and examine whether there are any qualitative differences in both the search patterns and the results obtained. An argument that would be more persuasive would be that the growth of the internet has developed within its users a set of heuristics that, while efficient, may lead to systematic biases in complex problem solving.
— Peter Boumgarden · Jun 19, 07:59 PM · #
Insofar as America is a more democratic place now than it has been in the past — direct election of the Senate, expanded franchise, ballot initiatives in many states, presidential primaries that are less governed by the parties than before, arguments for abolishing the electoral college — it seems plausible that lack of civic knowledge does matter more now than ever.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 19, 09:11 PM · #
I’ve heard quite a few anecdotal comments from professors that they’ve had to lower their standards, that they can’t require the same amount and/or difficulty of reading that they used to.
I’m suspicious of such complaints in general because they seem so much like the “Everything was better when I was younger; kids these days…” lament that’s as old as recorded civilization. On the other hand, it seems like a fairly objective standard: compare syllabi from various years. Even so, it’s just anecdotes.
On the third hand, the percentage of people getting a college education keeps going up. Where once colleges were educating the top 30-40% of students, they’re now educating the top 50-60% of students, so it’s not surprising that overall standards might drop somewhat.
— Michael Straight · Jun 19, 09:16 PM · #
In some strange but genuine way, it pleases me that so many people are ignorant of the government. It’s an authentic manifestation of the American individualism and libertarianism . . . As opposed to the sort of ideology espoused by Grover Norquist, which almost honors the state by loudly objecting to it (“The gentleman protests too much.”). That nearly half of American kids can’t name the 3 branches is probably the result of rational decision making that goes something like: “The government has an impact in my life, but ultimately I am responsible for my fate, so I’ll put energy into mapping the geography of ‘real life’ and pretty much ignore the ugly, foreign, bloated federal apparatus.”
— PRP · Jun 19, 10:37 PM · #
PRP — and, indirectly, Bill H. — I hope that’s not a “rational decision” like the decision to ignore the ugly, foreign, bloated crocodile that’s swimming towards me, on the grounds that, after all, I am responsible for my fate, not some stupid ol’ crocodile.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 20, 01:03 AM · #
There are a few lines of data in Dumbest Generation to support the comparative point, such as declining literacy levels of college graduates, surveys of college faculty that show they think the quality of students has gone down significantly, somewhat lower ratings of the verbal skills of recent hires by employers, a drop in reading scores since the early-90s, and, what is most important, the decline in leisure reading of books and newspapers.
But you’re right, Alan and Peter, that in terms of knowledge and skill outcomes the evidence is incomplete. We need more longitudinal studies, and right now the best we have are the NAEP exams, which show pretty much flat outcomes in history and civics.
— Mark · Jun 20, 02:44 PM · #
It may not be completely rational to ignore the government, but it’s a luxury that testifies to the strength of our political system. In many countries, if the wrong people are in power, you risk death, torture, the loss of everything you own. In this country, if the wrong people are in power, most of us risk either slightly higher tax rates or a little less funding for some of the services we receive. (Arguably, this is a testimony to the overall wealth of our society rather than the justice of the political system – the pie is so big, even the losers get some.)
— Michael Straight · Jun 20, 02:47 PM · #
I think Michael S. is right to say that the ability to ignore the government is “a luxury that testifies to the strength of our political system.” But it’s also possible that if a significant number of us take too much advantage of that luxury, it will ultimately evaporate, leaving us needing to know far more than we know in order to be good citizens.
— Alan Jacobs · Jun 21, 12:54 AM · #