Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Baloney. Many casinos have gone bankrupt, even ones owned by people other than he who must not be named.
|
That is not because Americans are smart but because in business the motto is "location, location, location." For instance, the most economically depressed county, in New York, named Sullivan county had a casino open up meanwhile there is other better ones in the surrounding areas like Saratoga, Mohegan Sun and Atlantic city. So, consequently the Sullivan county casino is doing poorly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Also, I don't believe that intelligence = reader.
I think the main reason I don't watch television is impatience. I like a book better because I control the pace. That doesn't make me dumb, but it sure doesn't mean I'm smart.
Movies? Yes, I can watch them in the theater with my wife, as the lack of distraction, and reluctance to admit the cost of admission was wasted, makes me likely to stay. Fortunately, my wife Barbara and I have similar notions as to when it gets so bad that walking out is essential.
P.S. Having said that, I do admit to liking it when a child of ours reads.
|
There is definitely a strong correlation between intelligence and reading books. I know correlation does not equal causation but that is besides the point : the higher the intelligence the more likely people are to read e.g. Elon Musk and Bill Gates etc.. etc..
In the days before television and radio etc... a certain amount of information was acquired through spoken words and through observation. However, for intelligent and curious people that was never enough. They knew they had to read too, and they did read. There is some feeling nowadays that reading books is not as necessary as it once was because of radio, television, and youtube etc...have taken over many functions once served by print. But it may be seriously questioned whether the advent of modern communications media has much enhanced our understanding of the world in which we live. People may have more knowledge floating around their heads but knowledge is not as much a prerequisite to understanding as is commonly supposed. You don't have to know everything about something to understand it and sometimes too many facts get in the way of understanding. Modern people are inundated with facts to the detriment of understanding.
The media does packaging of intellectual views and is done by some of the best minds in our day. People are inundated with all kinds of complex elements--all the way from ingenious rhetoric to carefully selected data and statistics -- to make it easier for people to "make up their mind" with the minimum of difficulty and effort. However, the packaging of these elements are often done so effectively that people don't make up their minds at all. Instead they insert packaged opinions in their minds, somewhat like inserting a CD rom into a cd player. They push a button "play back" and then parrot the opinion back whenever it seems appropriate to do so. They have performed acceptably without having to think.
"Most men would rather die than think and many do." --Bertrand Russell
Many people think reading is passive like the above ^ methods of getting knowledge but this is false the highest levels of reading : Analytical and syntopical are highly active like the activity between a pitcher and catcher in the game of baseball but 82-87% of Americans read at an elementary level that is why authors like James Patterson are so popular.
If you doubt Americans are poorly educated in reading, math and science just look up America's PISA scores compared to nations like Finland and Japan etc... American schools are so bad that college students don't reach the mature stage of syntopical reading until graduate school college level but that is supposed the basic reading level of college in general.
There are five basic ways to sort truth from falsehood:
Check the reliability of the authors you read: A theologian is a less- reliable source of information than a scientist. 
Compare different sources of information on the same topic (books, magazines, webpages, etc.. this is the essence of syntopical reading basically), and note the areas of disagreement or omissions. Omissions often indicate bias, while points of disagreement should be investigated to see, if possible, who is really telling the truth. Sources with obvious bias need to be studied, since these will usually have the most telling criticisms of the other side.
Observe who is willing to debate, and who is not: The former are most likely to be telling
the truth, while the latter are probably trying to keep their lies from being exposed.
Observe whether the arguments are clear or obscure: the latter are a good indication of muddled thinking, and a likely marker of error.
If you yourself have a bias, be sure to study the accounts of those biased against your view: Your enemies will tell you things your friends would never think of -- or never dare to mention if they did.
Truth has no manners. It is no respecter of persons. It wounds kings as deeply as commoners. It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low. It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company. And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it. But those who do are granted many favors -- power, understanding, dominion, and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ignorant millions.