Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I've speculated there is a correlation
Topic Started: Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM (356 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law. When I spoke if this here on this venue and was thurough blambasted by the usual suspects.

Even now, I still speculate there is a correlation between a lack of everyday common sense and learned peope, and the financial news only reinforces this notion for me.

A case in point is an editorial I just read about the current economic mess and those who were head of the organizations that perpetraited it...
Quote:
 
THANK 'BEST & BRIGHTEST' FOR CRISIS
By RAY KERRISON

December 23, 2008 --
AN elderly neighbor of mine asks, "Have you noticed that the worst economic crisis of our lifetime was set off by people with the highest education? If they're all so smart, how come they're so dumb?"

I hadn't thought of it that way, but he has a point.

The meltdown began with the subprime-mortgage folly, when the political establishment pushed the real-estate industry and its bankers to grant mortgages to buyers who couldn't afford them.

The chief architects of the disaster were the officers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, urged on by politicians and monitored by negligent regulators.

Here's a list of some of the main players and their academic credentials:

James Johnson: He was Fannie Mae's chairman and CEO from 1991 to 1998, boasting that the company was doing well and "serving a public function at no cost."

It was then discovered that Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses, allowing Johnson and his cronies to walk away with huge bonuses. Johnson took down $21 million.

His credentials: A master's in public affairs from Princeton University, later a member of its faculty.

Franklin Raines: Served as Fannie's chairman and CEO from '98 until he took "early retirement" in '04, when he was accused of promoting massive accounting shenanigans enabling him and others to earn huge bonuses.

Raines left with a $90 million payout. He set in motion the subprime avalanche resulting in charges of "pervasive and willful" earnings manipulation, lax controls, perverse incentives, unjust bonuses.

Raines is a graduate of Harvard Law and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

Jamie Gorelick: Vice chairman of Fannie from '97 to '03, serving alongside Raines. In an interview with Business Week in 2002, Gorelick said, "We believe we are managed safely. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." A year later, regulators accused Fannie of a $9 billion accounting scandal, of which she was a prime beneficiary.

She walked away with $26 million.

Gorelick's education: A BA (magna cum laude) from Harvard and a JS (cum laude) from Harvard Law.

Richard Syron: Chairman and CEO of Freddie Mac until he was terminated on Sept. 6. Like the rest, he made a killing while the ship was sinking beneath him. In 2007 alone, he took home $19 million in cash, stocks and other compensation.

Four years ago, Syron was warned by his own risk officer that Freddie Mac was embracing too much risk underwriting shaky mortgages. He brushed it aside.

Syron graduated from Boston College with a BA and earned advanced degrees in economics (can you believe it?) from Tufts University.

Rep. Barney Frank: One of Fannie and Freddie's biggest boosters in Congress. In 2003, when the Bush administration recommended tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank rejected the idea out of hand, saying: "They are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Famous last words.

Frank graduated from Harvard.

Sen. Chuck Schumer: Second only to Frank in the Congress in his unwavering support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Three years ago, when Fed chief Alan Greenspan warned of problems with the two institutions, Schumer replied, "Fannie and Freddie have problems, and there are ideologues who want to undo it. But there are ways to fix the problems . . . When the sink is broken, you don't want to tear down the house."

Last July, Schumer raised an alarm on the solvency of a mortgage bank, IndyMac, setting off a panic among depositors, who withdrew $1.3 billion from the bank. Financial analyst Jerry Bowyer charged that Schumer had set off "the second largest bank failure in US history."

Schumer got his BA at Harvard and JD at Harvard Law.

Sen. Chris Dodd: The No. 1 recipient in Congress of campaign funds from Fannie and Freddie. When they were about to crash with a thud heard round the world, Dodd said, "They are fundamentally sound and in good shape. To suggest they are in major trouble is not accurate."

Dodd has a BA from Providence College and a JD from the University of Louisville.

The question arises: How could so many learned men and women, endowed with so many honors from America's highest institutions of learning, set in motion the financial catastrophe that now grips the nation?

Conclusion: The evidence here is overwhelming that a superior education can certainly rake in big money - tens of millions of dollars, in fact - but sadly it is no guarantee of competence, judgment, prudence, trust or integrity.

Especially in politics.

Ray Kerrison has been a Post columnist for 20 years.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12232008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/thank_best__brightest_for_crisis_145511.htm

So, with all these supposedly smart people running things, just how did all this happen again?

I yes, I forgot, according to the New York Times, it was that dumb as a sack of bricks tricky trickster President Bush, and we will only solve these problems by using the same set of people who got us here in the first place.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


I'm appalled, Dwayne, that you would ever suggest that "intellectuals", "academics", "experts", "specialists", "bankers", "politicians of good social conscience", or the "wealthy upper classes" could possibly ever get us into trouble.

Especially when they are adhering to proper financial and political "dogma" in where "approval" is more important than "logic". (mass ideology ?) Was not Greenspan the current Einstein of the financial world ? Where were all the "intellectual giants of economica and investment theory ?" How does this kind of collapse just rush up in the rear-view mirror and rear-end our prosperity into the ditch ?

In my recent exploration to attempt to understand our current financial crisis, and how we got here, I've been more horrified by the actions and behaviour of those who supposedly understand the "system" of money as opposed to the "ignorant, unwashed masses", or even naiive politicians; either liberal or conservative. While I agree that many in Congress had a role in this, the sum is bigger than the parts.

This is part of a greater organized manipulation of the international banking system, and once again, the only means of exploring that is to see who benefits the most from an international financial meltdown.













Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ I hate saying it, because it sounds ideological and conspiratorial, but just look at the political patronage of the above mentioned people and you'll have a major clue as to who benefits.
Edited by Dwayne, Dec 24 2008, 01:47 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
B...b...b...but they CARE! They'll even tell you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
"The meltdown began with the subprime-mortgage folly, when the political establishment pushed the real-estate industry and its bankers to grant mortgages to buyers who couldn't afford them. "
The dirty little hidden fact in all of this is never told.

These factors and these people all ENABLED others to do this by using ARMs on suckers who they knew would default.
That goes beyond what Uncle Sam Forced banks to do. Here is an example from true life I can share with you.

Example:
Jose finds a guy called "No Mo Rent" on TV. This guy looks like a WWE pimp with broads sitting next to him.
The rality of Jose's situation is that he can't make the 800 dollar rent he is in now and I think may be behind in his monthly rent payment.
The fact that he gets an offer from a Lender at all gives legitimacy to this typical argument posted above but here is the kicker folks. They know exactly who and what he is and they offer him an ARM.(Adjustable Rate Mortgage). :ermm:
Basically that means you are reliably unreliably risk so we will justify your rent going from 900 bucks amonth in the first year to 1200 in the second year. What are you going to do when the Balloon comes up next year?
Quick, ask Jose's wife about that at the time and she says, "Well I guess he'll have to get promoted or get a better job."
The Point is Lots of people made money closing sales. Banks sold their whatevers. :censored: got forclosed on and some people are still smart enough to know the system.It may be that so much money could be made by exploiting these suckers that this is why it all started.
My point is don't :censored: Jose with an ARM because you can.
Look at Jose, Decide what you think he can pay and keep him there.
Doing hiss ass with an ARM is greedy, excessive and possibly immoral.

We see the consequencesl
Edited by fireh8er, Dec 25 2008, 02:04 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law. When I spoke if this here on this venue and was thurough blambasted by the usual suspects.

Even now, I still speculate there is a correlation between a lack of everyday common sense and learned peope, and the financial news only reinforces this notion for me.

A case in point is an editorial I just read about the current economic mess and those who were head of the organizations that perpetraited it...
There is no bases for beliving such nonsense.

If "common" sense is a learned through experince phenomenon; than their is nothing with in a life style of further education that would preclude an indivudal from experincing life as any other individual would. It would only stand to reason that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population.

Futher one could argue that a learned individuale has a greater opportunity to experience more in life than an unlearned individual; suggesting that common sense would be more prevalent in this group.But that is downgraded by the adjective "common", as for something to be "common" it must be present through out the masses.

If "common" sense is something one is born with; an aptitude for understanding common issues; than their is no question that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population. Some born with the common sense will chose to go on to further education and others will not.

In both cases there is nothing to suggest that the learneded would some how loss their ablity for common sense.

This axum seems to be held up by nothing more than wishful thinking and chreey picked examples.


Quote:
 
AN elderly neighbor of mine asks, "Have you noticed that the worst economic crisis of our lifetime was set off by people with the highest education? If they're all so smart, how come they're so dumb?"

I hadn't thought of it that way, but he has a point.


In fact no he does not; what he has is a gross missunderstanding of the crisis and is making an affermation with nothing to judge it against.

First if we are to asume that this crisis was created by the people in our soscity with the highest education (which is a gross misunderstanding of players invloved in the first place) than so what? Does this person have any proof that the less educated members of society would have done any better? Most likly they would have done a lot worse not understanding the intricises of the situation. The fact that most people buy and sell securites as if they they where bargin huntting at the mall is all the proof one needs to know the less educated would have faired far worse if they where at the helm.

Second; the corporate fat cats of the world and their lakies in goverment should never be confused with the people in society with the highest education. It takes more than just education to get into these leadership positions; the axium "its not what you know, but who you know" is a lot more apt here. In fact the talent skills that get an individual to these positons is seldom born form their education.

Edited by Dandandat, Dec 25 2008, 01:11 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Dandandat
Dec 25 2008, 12:54 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law.
There is no bases for beliving such nonsense.

If "common" sense is a learned through experince phenomenon; than their is nothing with in a life style of further education that would preclude an indivudal from experincing life as any other individual would. It would only stand to reason that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population.

In both cases there is nothing to suggest that the learneded would some how loss their ablity for common sense.

This axum seems to be held up by nothing more than wishful thinking and chreey picked examples.
I strongly agree with "Kevin's Law" and I think there's a valid explanation.

It requires quite a bit of time and focus to excel in a specific field. Doing so leaves less time for other pursuits.

It's not that the person with a doctorate couldn't, for example, change the oil in his car by himself, it's that he has never needed to.

Also, people have different learning styles. Some people best learn by reading while others do better with hands-on experience. I know an extremely educated person who couldn't figure out anything more difficult than a light switch without directions. As far as intelligence goes, he's off the charts. However, when it comes to common sense he very well might be off the charts ... in the other direction.

This is not to say that ALL learned people lack common sense, but it is not uncommon. Perhaps it's just something we notice more often since it's surprising to us when a "smart" person doesn't know something that most of us consider to be common knowledge or common knowledge.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
"The meltdown began with the subprime-mortgage folly, when the political establishment pushed the real-estate industry and its bankers to grant mortgages to buyers who couldn't afford them. "
The dirty little hidden fact in all of this is never told.

These factors and these people all ENABLED others to do this by using ARMs on suckers who they knew would default.
Not giving Jose a loan could be considered discriminatory and create legal problems for the bank. Requring banks to make risky loans is the root of this problem.

From the lenders perspective, ARMs and balloon payments are the only loans that financially feasible for risky borrowers.

You're correct about the brokers. It's not their money and they get their fees paid up front regardless of the loan being paid back.

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
That goes beyond what Uncle Sam Forced banks to do.
Can you elaborate on this?

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
My point is don't give Jose an ARM because you can.
Look at Jose, Decide what you think he can pay and keep him there.
What can he afford? Probably a less expensive apartment.

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
Doing him with an ARM is greedy, excessive and possibly immoral.
And possibly the only way to get him into a home.

Owning a home is, and should be, the American dream. There are many advantages to home ownership such as family stability, lower crime rates ... ever significantly less litter. Helping people purchase a home is a good idea and something the government should be involved in.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Dandandat
Dec 25 2008, 12:54 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law. When I spoke if this here on this venue and was thurough blambasted by the usual suspects.

Even now, I still speculate there is a correlation between a lack of everyday common sense and learned peope, and the financial news only reinforces this notion for me.

A case in point is an editorial I just read about the current economic mess and those who were head of the organizations that perpetraited it...
There is no bases for beliving such nonsense.

If "common" sense is a learned through experince phenomenon; than their is nothing with in a life style of further education that would preclude an indivudal from experincing life as any other individual would. It would only stand to reason that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population.

Futher one could argue that a learned individuale has a greater opportunity to experience more in life than an unlearned individual; suggesting that common sense would be more prevalent in this group.But that is downgraded by the adjective "common", as for something to be "common" it must be present through out the masses.

If "common" sense is something one is born with; an aptitude for understanding common issues; than their is no question that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population. Some born with the common sense will chose to go on to further education and others will not.

In both cases there is nothing to suggest that the learneded would some how loss their ablity for common sense.

This axum seems to be held up by nothing more than wishful thinking and chreey picked examples.


Quote:
 
AN elderly neighbor of mine asks, "Have you noticed that the worst economic crisis of our lifetime was set off by people with the highest education? If they're all so smart, how come they're so dumb?"

I hadn't thought of it that way, but he has a point.


In fact no he does not; what he has is a gross missunderstanding of the crisis and is making an affermation with nothing to judge it against.

First if we are to asume that this crisis was created by the people in our soscity with the highest education (which is a gross misunderstanding of players invloved in the first place) than so what? Does this person have any proof that the less educated members of society would have done any better? Most likly they would have done a lot worse not understanding the intricises of the situation. The fact that most people buy and sell securites as if they they where bargin huntting at the mall is all the proof one needs to know the less educated would have faired far worse if they where at the helm.

Second; the corporate fat cats of the world and their lakies in goverment should never be confused with the people in society with the highest education. It takes more than just education to get into these leadership positions; the axium "its not what you know, but who you know" is a lot more apt here. In fact the talent skills that get an individual to these positons is seldom born form their education.

I won't argue with you on this for one simple fact, you don't have my experiences...

You've likely never sat there listening to an officer in the Navy describe a problem he's experiencing with a RADAR set on his airplane only to find out he never turned it on...

You've likely never had to work for an executive officer who complained he can't check his email only to find out he wasn't connected to the network...

You've likely never had to deal with a structural engineer who didn't understand the difference between an engineering workstation running AIX and a desktop pc running Windows and why his CATIA v4 wouldn't work on both...

You've likely never had to convince a plastic surgeon who thought the best security procedure for his practice was to leave the passwords blank that that wasn't a viable solution...


It seems to me, the more a person identifies themselves among those I am satirizing, the more they'll take offense to my observation and consequently will wish to downplay my opinion.
Edited by Dwayne, Dec 25 2008, 04:27 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
RTW
Dec 25 2008, 01:52 PM
Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
"The meltdown began with the subprime-mortgage folly, when the political establishment pushed the real-estate industry and its bankers to grant mortgages to buyers who couldn't afford them. "
The dirty little hidden fact in all of this is never told.

These factors and these people all ENABLED others to do this by using ARMs on suckers who they knew would default.
Not giving Jose a loan could be considered discriminatory and create legal problems for the bank. Requring banks to make risky loans is the root of this problem.

From the lenders perspective, ARMs and balloon payments are the only loans that financially feasible for risky borrowers.

You're correct about the brokers. It's not their money and they get their fees paid up front regardless of the loan being paid back.

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
That goes beyond what Uncle Sam Forced banks to do.
Can you elaborate on this?

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
My point is don't give Jose an ARM because you can.
Look at Jose, Decide what you think he can pay and keep him there.
What can he afford? Probably a less expensive apartment.

Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 12:21 AM
Doing him with an ARM is greedy, excessive and possibly immoral.
And possibly the only way to get him into a home.

Owning a home is, and should be, the American dream. There are many advantages to home ownership such as family stability, lower crime rates ... ever significantly less litter. Helping people purchase a home is a good idea and something the government should be involved in.


Not giving Jose a loan could be considered discriminatory and create legal problems for the bank. Requring banks to make risky loans is the root of this problem.
Agreed. It is also the Carte Blanche excuse people used to push the blame around while they made money pushing around these pooch mortgages KNOWING FULL WELL they would not get stuck holding the worthless notes.

That goes beyond what Uncle Sam Forced banks to do.
Can you elaborate on this?


The Government enabled these people to find suckers and make money packaging and reselling these time bombs to broader and larger entities.

Helping people purchase a home is a good idea and something the government should be involved in.
I disagree with that statement RTW its probably not ' in' context but if the Government can't police the crooks they open opportunities for then they are both the creator and the owner of the problem. Good intentions can likely not see the evil men can divise and scheme toward cash.


My point is don't give Jose an ARM because you can.
Look at Jose, Decide what you think he can pay and keep him there.What can he afford? Probably a less expensive apartment.


The point is that if Jose is struggling at 800 per month, he has been gainfully employed for 16 years straight, he can make 800 to 900 per month.
ARMing him to 1200 after one year is disaster. Thats irresponsible Lending and I don't think any Democrats said that they thought Banks should do that.

They should have stayed the BLEEP out of it al togethor.

Was it the "fair lending act" legislation under Clinton? What was it that started this?
That Legislation as well as the DEEDS of those who made $$hLoads of dough on this opportunity are all to blame. But hang the crooks first. The arbitrary swindling brokers. :evilfire:

From the lenders perspective, ARMs and balloon payments are the only loans that financially feasible for risky borrowers.This makes me sick to my stomach.
Poor desparate Lenders, those borrowers are so gosh darned risky.....

I mean, Jose, you know hes just not that, you know, risk free, I mean what if he defaults one day?I know, lets raise his rate to Umblickteen million after twelve months to cover our ass! :hug:

:frust:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Sgt. Jaggs
Dec 25 2008, 08:17 PM
Not giving Jose a loan could be considered discriminatory and create legal problems for the bank. Requring banks to make risky loans is the root of this problem.
Agreed. It is also the Carte Blanche excuse people used to push the blame around while they made money pushing around these pooch mortgages KNOWING FULL WELL they would not get stuck holding the worthless notes.

That goes beyond what Uncle Sam Forced banks to do.
Can you elaborate on this?


The Government enabled these people to find suckers and make money packaging and reselling these time bombs to broader and larger entities.
I don't disagree, I just see the other point of view as well.

Brokers, the people who made money making worthless loans, probably submitted loan applications for the same type of borrowers prior to any government legislation. The only difference is that they knew the loans would be turned down and all they pocketed was the application fee. The difference is not in the actions of the brokers, but the government requiring lenders to make such loans.

The brokers aren't the ones who creates adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), balloon payments, or stated income loans. The lenders did. They had to. They were required to make risky loans. Their choice was to create new loan types/packages or go out of business.

Few wholesalers carry their own loans. They sell them. Loans are often sold and resold many times. Pooling (hiding) the bad loans in "mortgage based securities" was a way to pass the buck. The government required wholesalers to make the loan but did not require them to carry those loans.

Banks didn't want to make bad loans. The "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) and subsequent legislation that required them to. It was governmental regulations that got us here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator

RTW
Quote:
 
Few wholesalers carry their own loans. They sell them. Loans are often sold and resold many times. Pooling (hiding) the bad loans in "mortgage based securities" was a way to pass the buck. The government required wholesalers to make the loan but did not require them to carry those loans.

Banks didn't want to make bad loans. The "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) and subsequent legislation that required them to. It was governmental regulations that got us here.



I'm beginning to see as well, that these procedures were practically forcing institutions, banks, and brokers into a sort of Ponzi scheme; or at least deferment of loans into a future "neverland". Create a dummy investment institution, sell or transfer loans to it, and then declare bankruptcy, seemed to be another technique. It's unfortunate that the honest as well as the dishonest got screwed together.

So how do we create a "never again" situation ?






Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ You hit the nail on the head.

The fact of the matter is, those procedures were put in place by politicians, so doesn't it make since to look at who brought it about specifically?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
RTW
Dec 25 2008, 01:44 PM
Dandandat
Dec 25 2008, 12:54 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law.
There is no bases for beliving such nonsense.

If "common" sense is a learned through experince phenomenon; than their is nothing with in a life style of further education that would preclude an indivudal from experincing life as any other individual would. It would only stand to reason that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population.

In both cases there is nothing to suggest that the learneded would some how loss their ablity for common sense.

This axum seems to be held up by nothing more than wishful thinking and chreey picked examples.
I strongly agree with "Kevin's Law" and I think there's a valid explanation.

It requires quite a bit of time and focus to excel in a specific field. Doing so leaves less time for other pursuits.

It's not that the person with a doctorate couldn't, for example, change the oil in his car by himself, it's that he has never needed to.

Quote:
 
It's not that the person with a doctorate couldn't, for example, change the oil in his car by himself, it's that he has never needed to.


It is residuals to assume that. The person with a doctorate didn’t get his doctorate till his mid to late 20s. assuming he had been driving since the age of 16 that’s 10 or more years of car use before the doctorate. Not knowing the individuals background you can not assume he has always had the means to have someone change his oil before he got his doctorate.

Since you already admit that “It's not that the person with a doctorate couldn't,..” than it is ridiculous to assume that because he has his doctorate that he cant…


Quote:
 
Also, people have different learning styles. Some people best learn by reading while others do better with hands-on experience. I know an extremely educated person who couldn't figure out anything more difficult than a light switch without directions. As far as intelligence goes, he's off the charts. However, when it comes to common sense he very well might be off the charts ... in the other direction.

This is not to say that ALL learned people lack common sense, but it is not uncommon. Perhaps it's just something we notice more often since it's surprising to us when a "smart" person doesn't know something that most of us consider to be common knowledge or common knowledge.


This I can understand; it comes down to the individual not the pursuit of education. But we as observes take more note when its the learned people who demonstrate a lack of common sense.
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 27 2008, 03:32 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dwayne
Dec 25 2008, 02:51 PM
Dandandat
Dec 25 2008, 12:54 AM
Dwayne
Dec 23 2008, 06:31 PM
I've speculated via an axiom I made up one time, that higher education might create people who excel in a particular field of study, but results in a person who is ignorant overall... In particular, they are ignorant about things outside of their respective field. Someone I worked with who agreed with me call it, Kevin's Law in honor of Godwin's Law. When I spoke if this here on this venue and was thurough blambasted by the usual suspects.

Even now, I still speculate there is a correlation between a lack of everyday common sense and learned peope, and the financial news only reinforces this notion for me.

A case in point is an editorial I just read about the current economic mess and those who were head of the organizations that perpetraited it...
There is no bases for beliving such nonsense.

If "common" sense is a learned through experince phenomenon; than their is nothing with in a life style of further education that would preclude an indivudal from experincing life as any other individual would. It would only stand to reason that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population.

Futher one could argue that a learned individuale has a greater opportunity to experience more in life than an unlearned individual; suggesting that common sense would be more prevalent in this group.But that is downgraded by the adjective "common", as for something to be "common" it must be present through out the masses.

If "common" sense is something one is born with; an aptitude for understanding common issues; than their is no question that the prevalence and magnitude of "common" sense would disapate evenly through out the population. Some born with the common sense will chose to go on to further education and others will not.

In both cases there is nothing to suggest that the learneded would some how loss their ablity for common sense.

This axum seems to be held up by nothing more than wishful thinking and chreey picked examples.


Quote:
 
AN elderly neighbor of mine asks, "Have you noticed that the worst economic crisis of our lifetime was set off by people with the highest education? If they're all so smart, how come they're so dumb?"

I hadn't thought of it that way, but he has a point.


In fact no he does not; what he has is a gross missunderstanding of the crisis and is making an affermation with nothing to judge it against.

First if we are to asume that this crisis was created by the people in our soscity with the highest education (which is a gross misunderstanding of players invloved in the first place) than so what? Does this person have any proof that the less educated members of society would have done any better? Most likly they would have done a lot worse not understanding the intricises of the situation. The fact that most people buy and sell securites as if they they where bargin huntting at the mall is all the proof one needs to know the less educated would have faired far worse if they where at the helm.

Second; the corporate fat cats of the world and their lakies in goverment should never be confused with the people in society with the highest education. It takes more than just education to get into these leadership positions; the axium "its not what you know, but who you know" is a lot more apt here. In fact the talent skills that get an individual to these positons is seldom born form their education.

I won't argue with you on this for one simple fact, you don't have my experiences...

For there to be a correlation and a law as you describe it; than it can not only live up to your own experiences. It would have to be a general truth that we can and have all experienced. All you are describing is the people you have met in your life. Maybe you need to associate with people with more common sense. Maybe there is something about you that leads you to have the experiences you have had.


Quote:
 
You've likely never sat there listening to an officer in the Navy describe a problem he's experiencing with a RADAR set on his airplane only to find out he never turned it on...


Strangely enough I have but it was not a radar; my company makes IFF equipment.

But come on; I can't imagine there is a person alive who has not had a brain fart moment ever in their lives. If this officer did this all the time; than maybe it would speak to his common sense, but even the best of us does something stupid once and awhile.

Quote:
 
You've likely never had to work for an executive officer who complained he can't check his email only to find out he wasn't connected to the network...


How old was this executive; there is a whole group of people do to their age who are computer illiterate doe to lake of exposure through out their lives. Its wrong to assume their lacking in intelligent because they can’t take for granted a tool that others can. I’m a good engineer; but I don’t know how to use a slide rule; its not because I lake engineering sense, its just a tool I have never had to use so have never learned to use.


Quote:
 
You've likely never had to deal with a structural engineer who didn't understand the difference between an engineering workstation running AIX and a desktop pc running Windows and why his CATIA v4 wouldn't work on both...


How is that even an example of common senesce? Sounds more like he not having the same specialization in computer technology that you do. It goes back to the last response; just because this person can't take for granted a tool that you can, does not speak to their common sense.


Quote:
 
You've likely never had to convince a plastic surgeon who thought the best security procedure for his practice was to leave the passwords blank that that wasn't a viable solution...


It continually seems as if you are judging other by your own choice of specialization and calling it a lack of common sense. Once again not ever one has had the same expose to computers or need for them as you have; it is not unreasonable for them to have both common sense and a lack of computer knowledge.

Computer knowledge is not yet with in the realm of common sense; it may be in hand full of decades, but not now. .


Quote:
 
It seems to me, the more a person identifies themselves among those I am satirizing, the more they'll take offense to my observation and consequently will wish to downplay my opinion.


Or perhaps when you state opinions that are obviously flawed on a message board where people come to debate such things than the flaws of your opinions will be brought up.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus