Thursday, May 20, 2010
Idiots Savant
In the days before Political Correctness and the introduction of “Savant Syndrome” there was a very descriptive term, “idiot savant,” which referred to a person that was mentally deficient yet displayed extreme ability in a very narrow field, such as mental arithmetic. The reason this was descriptive, was that at one time, there was a gradation of mental ability that has been made taboo by the gurus of offensiveness. People were normal, sub-normal, stupid, morons, idiots, and imbeciles in decreasing order of mental acuity. It was a somewhat precise scale, about 10-15 points on the intelligence scale separated each level. The term “savant” comes from the French verb savoir. A person of great knowledge was referred to as a savant.
I bring up this term because of a phenomenon I am observing more and more frequently these days, what appear to be very intelligent and accomplished people in a particular field, seeming to understand less and less about life in general. In a very narrow, specialized area they operate quite competently, even brilliantly, yet fail to cope with some of the more common and trivial issues.
The most obvious and prevalent examples are show-business celebrities. They act, dance, and sing brilliantly, yet when they open their mouths on any issue, sound like complete fools. They seem unable to know right from wrong, or to have any kind of stable relationships, all things that average people have a very good grasp on.
Another group that qualifies as contenders for this designation is the host of college professors that seem to think that academic freedom only applies to the ideas they approve of, and certainly not to their students. They forget the simple dictum that freedom is not divisible, it either is, or is not, and that if they espouse the suppression of ideas they don’t like, that sometime in the future, it will be their ideas that are suppressed.
What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about. Students learn a profession, but never are educated in the classic sense of the word. They have no concepts of anything to judge with. They do not think in terms of principles or guidelines, but only in concrete facts of here and now with no context around them. These students go into the world armed with facts and slogans and no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of other facts and slogans. There are no standards, no principles, no absolutes, only competing ideas, all of which are considered equal by default.
People listen to TV news or read stories in the newspapers and accept it as possibly authoritative. (This does seem to be changing in the sense of not trusting the sources as completely honest or unbiased.) What is worse, the stories from those sources are being written by people with no more knowledge than the readers about the topics they are writing on. Without context and grounding and the ability to analyze even in rudimentary ways, the readers are misled with no way to prevent it.
What once was a fluke, an aberration in the order of things, is being created by our education system. Those who would lead us,or that we might look to lead us, once upon a time, people of common sense, even if political animals, now quote great detail about things with no comprehension of the underlying principles and processes. The would be followers hear the mass of facts and have no way of evaluating. In effect,we are becoming a nation of idiots savant.
I bring up this term because of a phenomenon I am observing more and more frequently these days, what appear to be very intelligent and accomplished people in a particular field, seeming to understand less and less about life in general. In a very narrow, specialized area they operate quite competently, even brilliantly, yet fail to cope with some of the more common and trivial issues.
The most obvious and prevalent examples are show-business celebrities. They act, dance, and sing brilliantly, yet when they open their mouths on any issue, sound like complete fools. They seem unable to know right from wrong, or to have any kind of stable relationships, all things that average people have a very good grasp on.
Another group that qualifies as contenders for this designation is the host of college professors that seem to think that academic freedom only applies to the ideas they approve of, and certainly not to their students. They forget the simple dictum that freedom is not divisible, it either is, or is not, and that if they espouse the suppression of ideas they don’t like, that sometime in the future, it will be their ideas that are suppressed.
What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about. Students learn a profession, but never are educated in the classic sense of the word. They have no concepts of anything to judge with. They do not think in terms of principles or guidelines, but only in concrete facts of here and now with no context around them. These students go into the world armed with facts and slogans and no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of other facts and slogans. There are no standards, no principles, no absolutes, only competing ideas, all of which are considered equal by default.
People listen to TV news or read stories in the newspapers and accept it as possibly authoritative. (This does seem to be changing in the sense of not trusting the sources as completely honest or unbiased.) What is worse, the stories from those sources are being written by people with no more knowledge than the readers about the topics they are writing on. Without context and grounding and the ability to analyze even in rudimentary ways, the readers are misled with no way to prevent it.
What once was a fluke, an aberration in the order of things, is being created by our education system. Those who would lead us,or that we might look to lead us, once upon a time, people of common sense, even if political animals, now quote great detail about things with no comprehension of the underlying principles and processes. The would be followers hear the mass of facts and have no way of evaluating. In effect,we are becoming a nation of idiots savant.
// posted by Bill @ 9:41 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
"What is worse, the stories from those sources are being written by people with no more knowledge than the readers about the topics they are writing on."
I actually laughed when I read this, because I was reminded of the game show "Jeopardy," which sometimes features celebrity contestants. By far the poorest performers during such celebrity matches are the TV journalists. Not long ago, CNN's Wolf Blitzer put his ignorance on painful display as he missed question after question in a few different current events-related categories.
"What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about."
Are you perchance familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? We had to study this during one of my education courses back in undergrad. It's definitely applicable here. Bloom offered a "taxonomy" of cognition, which he originally schematized as a six-tiered pyramid.
The bottom tier was knowledge, i.e., the ability to memorize and regurgitate brute facts and other bits of information. Next up was comprehension, i.e., the ability to restate a bit of knowledge in one's own words (e.g., when asked to define a vocabulary word). The third tier was application, which is self-explanatory. The fourth tier was analysis, which is our ability to parse phenomena and determine how parts interrelate. The fifth tier was synthesis, i.e., the putting-together of parts in new configurations, the retooling of interrelationships, and the discovery of unconventional connections. At the top was evaluation, which relates to things like quality and value.
Some thinkers dispute whether evaluation really belongs at the top of the pyramid (a discussion for another time), but my point is that, after Bloom formulated his taxonomy, it became exceedingly clear to educators that-- just as you say-- very little was happening in the classroom that rose above the second-tier cognitive skills. Even today, many teachers in a wide variety of subject areas test their students with multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank formats. Very few challenge their students with essay questions (or oral interviews) that oblige test-takers to wrestle with relationships and their implications. That's unfortunate. And the culture pays a price.
I actually laughed when I read this, because I was reminded of the game show "Jeopardy," which sometimes features celebrity contestants. By far the poorest performers during such celebrity matches are the TV journalists. Not long ago, CNN's Wolf Blitzer put his ignorance on painful display as he missed question after question in a few different current events-related categories.
"What has occurred is that our education system over the years has reduced knowledge to isolated collections of facts, not integrated systems of ideas to be discussed and thought about."
Are you perchance familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? We had to study this during one of my education courses back in undergrad. It's definitely applicable here. Bloom offered a "taxonomy" of cognition, which he originally schematized as a six-tiered pyramid.
The bottom tier was knowledge, i.e., the ability to memorize and regurgitate brute facts and other bits of information. Next up was comprehension, i.e., the ability to restate a bit of knowledge in one's own words (e.g., when asked to define a vocabulary word). The third tier was application, which is self-explanatory. The fourth tier was analysis, which is our ability to parse phenomena and determine how parts interrelate. The fifth tier was synthesis, i.e., the putting-together of parts in new configurations, the retooling of interrelationships, and the discovery of unconventional connections. At the top was evaluation, which relates to things like quality and value.
Some thinkers dispute whether evaluation really belongs at the top of the pyramid (a discussion for another time), but my point is that, after Bloom formulated his taxonomy, it became exceedingly clear to educators that-- just as you say-- very little was happening in the classroom that rose above the second-tier cognitive skills. Even today, many teachers in a wide variety of subject areas test their students with multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank formats. Very few challenge their students with essay questions (or oral interviews) that oblige test-takers to wrestle with relationships and their implications. That's unfortunate. And the culture pays a price.
I don't think that makes them idiots it just makes them average - listen to most political discussions in pubs. There is no reason why entertainers should know more politics than the average person. Journalists should but they are primarily employed to propagandise. As for professors it very much depends on what they are professors of - I have unlimited respect fro professors of mathematics, physics or engineering but most in the media seem to be professors of somthing with the words "environmental" or "social" in the title & I would far sooner believe the bin man. He may not be smarter but he is not paid to lie.
Neil, I appreciate your coming by and making a comment. The idea was not to focus on "idiot" but the idea of "idiot savant" a person very gifted in one field and poorly equipped in anything else. Your professors of physical and mathematical sciences become "idiots savant" in the sense of this essay, if they try to use their position of professorship to speak authoritatively outside their field of expertise.
The point was to show that there is little or no thinking going on in most discourse any more, but simply a repetition of facts and slogans, and regurgitation of position papers.
Average people used to think about things regardless of their total knowledge and would want things to "make sense". I see little of that anymore, especially in the media where it should be occurring all the time.
And I do like your characterization of the environmental or social titled professors. That and so-called gender or race studies in the US are nothing but con games anymore. Their goal is power.
Post a Comment
The point was to show that there is little or no thinking going on in most discourse any more, but simply a repetition of facts and slogans, and regurgitation of position papers.
Average people used to think about things regardless of their total knowledge and would want things to "make sense". I see little of that anymore, especially in the media where it should be occurring all the time.
And I do like your characterization of the environmental or social titled professors. That and so-called gender or race studies in the US are nothing but con games anymore. Their goal is power.
<< Home
