The Lowest Common Denominator and you.

[JudoPorkChop]

Warning: This thread will contain political stances, opinions, and other things that will make the vein on your forehead throb, if not make your head pop. You have been warned.

Since that's done:

There was a discussion going on, largely lamenting the loss of intellectual discussion, elitism and whatnot going on. In this thread, there was an extreme disdain stated for pandering to the lowest common denominator, and a stated belief that such practices aren't to be praise, that striving towards elitism was to be a goal better aimed for.

Put simply, that is wrong.

Put elaborately: The lowest common denominator is the tie that binds. You can say that a message delivered using the LCD is "dumbing down". In doing so, you have already failed to relate to your fellow human beings. Why? It infers that the information relayed in such a manner is done for the consumption of the dumb, and no other reason.

Elitism breeds failure. This can be seen by examining the campaigns of recent politicians. Some of the more brilliant uses of the Lowest Common Denominator depended on its darker side, playing off of ignorance and fear. John McCain was stopped dead in his tracks when a rumor was released in the southern U.S. stating that he had an illegitimate black child. It was far from true, but the ignorant side of the LCD kicked in, and McCain's campaign for Presidency ended.

Hunting Bubba (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/716psthq.asp?pg=2), again.

Part of the reason that the nation is so polarized so divided, is that there was a dialogue that evaporated. While the intellectual elite are the elite, there was always an effort made to get whatever message out to everyone. This is not true today. Your average metropolitan or intellectual elitist will likely dismiss the "flyover" states as being full of ignorant, moronic "red-stater" hick-types, in a display of rampant hubris. Conversely, the people in Middle America will view the other side as godless, latte sipping, volvo driving bobos. Neither image is entirely true, and neither image is entirely false. But because of such, one will not talk to the other. Because neither thinks one is capable of understanding the other.

Here is where the LCD can do good. Whereas the elite can read raw data, and extrapolate and analyze, to get the message across, there needs to be simplicity. If you can say that No Child Left Behind's money isn't going to children or teachers but to fill an school administrator's pocket, there's no reason to drag out charts and percentages, no need to use further info to sharpen the point. The statement is point enough.

Precious few people understood that the British Parliament's imperial legislative authority was oppressive in nature without either reciprocal localized legislative authority or a delegation comprised of elected officials, but No Taxation Without Representantion was more than enough to get the ball rolling. Certainly one could petition and pamphlet, and have a very well composed manifesto to protest, but dumping the damn tea in the harbor worked just as well.

And that's just for political reasons. Things considered the realm of the intellectual suddenly become a lot more accessible through using the LCD to communicate. I can say that a Knight moves one space forward and one diagonally, or I can say it moves in an L. I can devise a rotating trident flanking move, feinting a retreat, or I can say we fake running away, circle around, and come out at three spots behind the target.

There is no need to strive towards intellectual elitism. The numbers alone should prove as much. If you're only of average intelligence, that means that at least 50% of the world is dumber than you. The elites, the top 20%, the top 10% would like the world to strive for what they are, and deride some for not trying. There is where the failure occurs. Nobody likes a know-it-all, and you can certainly learn from one, but why would you want to when he's calling you or your friends stupid for not being as smart as he is?

To reference a specific post:

In the same way I despise the fact that network news appeals to the lowest common denominator, I despise the fact that the mainstream internet believes in the same LCD.

Why is it that intelligence goes out of style and is pushed to the fringes?

Why do I have to watch C-Span in order to have any idea of what's going on in Congress? Why can't I actually get information on domestic and international policy from CNN beyond sound bites? It's because of the LCD.


It is because of the LCD, that appeal to the great unwashed that we have the President we do now, One side made no real effort to reach the culture of Middle America, and the other side did, playing on the fears of the LCD. While some are cursing the News and Internet for appealing to the lowest common denominator, someone is learning about the Army's extention of deployments in Iraq at the same time as looking into Jennifer Love Hewitt's concussion. While some may froth at CNN's sound bites, someone's learning for possibly the first time about something they previously had no interest in. Using the LCD you can educate the ignorant, stimulate the intellectually lazy to act... as I said, it is the common thread that ties everyone together, trancending race, class, intelligence, culture, any means of division can be worked around, where striving toward elitism will inevitably leave some behind, and the further you go into elitism, the more people you fail to reach, the more people you leave behind, for no matter how many words one uses to call someone stupid, or imply their inferiority, the message gets across.

As I said before the Lowest common denominator offers the greatest potential for communication, the greatest chance for common people to have common causes. The lowest common denominator has elected leaders and staged a coup when the leader isn't up to par. It can start wars or end them. Think, how many movements have been pushed and suceeded by just one lone person's actions? Not many. Ghandi was a lawyer, and certainly one of the more intelligent people around during his time. His actions changed how people rebel. But by himself, he would have been just one man who walked everywhere and starved himself. Further, his message appealed to the elite, and to the common. He could have been naught more than a rabble-rouser, and stirred the Indians to engage the British in combat. That wouldn't appeal much to the cognoscenti. He could have started a letter writing campaign, replete with pamphlets and petitions, and that would likely turn off some of the commoners with its passivity. What he did was show the commoners a way to act without excessive violence, and the elite an alternative means of expressing their displeasure over imperial rule without violence entering anywhere into the equation.

The lowest common denominator exists for a reason. It is what links the rich to the poor, the elite to the common, it is why you hear of Blacks saving klan members from mobs out to kill them. It is then why the Klan member leaves the group, because the common denominator showed that compassion and concern for preservation of human life is something that goes both ways, and is not the exclusive domain of any one demographic. To discard it because it reaches the ignorant, the willfully lazy, that is pure folly. What the elite most often fail to realize is that the LCD, while pandering to those you think are undesireable, is often the only method for you to reach them. Why close the door on that? What reason might you have to diseregard such a powerful tool?

[morganlefayw]

THANK YOU!!!!
'nuff said.

[stillbornsinger]

The issue is though that all mediums are being dumbed down, that is often a bad thing. Yes you can communicate to a broader audience but you are doing it at an expense.

I'll give an example from my own highschool experience. In my 9th grade english honors class we began a lesson on proper usage of commas. That is a very basic part of the english language, I asked the teacher why we were spending time on such a topic when there were much more advanced and interesting concept that we could be better spending our time on. Her response was that some of the class did not understand how to use commas properly.

So, what I got out of that conversation was that my honors class was being dumbed down to the so called LCD. I questioned why I was wasting my time with that class and other similar classes if all it meant was I had to do more work and not really gain any knowledge or challenge my brain. I saw the same pattern throughout the rest of my highschool experience where every class was catered to the LCD of the class. Many of the teachers even actively complained about the situation but were stuck with that teaching style. I ended up only taking honors classes that would put me with teachers that I knew refused to dumb their classes down, and who would be able to teach me something.

It was that dumbing down of classes that made my time in highschool more or less a waste with the exception of the social abilities I gained and a very select few classes such as Latin, government, and creative writing.

Before I entered my freshman year of highschool I took a class that was only open to people who were in the gifted program in our middle school. About 30 people enrolled and the course was titled "Skills for gifted learnes" or something similar to that. The people in that class were some of the smartest people I've ever met, and I felt downright dumb there at times.

Less than half of the people who were in that class graduated, the person who I believe was the smartest in that class was in prison for drug charges. Of the remained few people who graduated one was the validictorian and most of the rest graduated with honors and went on to good colleges.

I really believe it was that pattern of catering to the LCD that contributed to the wasted potential of the people who didn't graduate.



On the point you made about communicating to the LCD being a positive thing, it very well can be. But in todays world that often means the richest people are the ones who hold the microphone, and they don't always have whats best for the country in mind when they make their decisions and put their candidates into office.

[akitaka]

I like your sig, Judo.

Though there are exceptions, I do think that college learning is the most academically effective way of picking up material knowledge. Often this is because students go to it to gain something for themselves, whether it be a career, or well-paying job.
However, highschool, and education below it, lack the acknowledgement of learning individuality. Students are pitted in the same age group, grade, and subject matter. It doesn't occur to some that every kid learned in a some distinct matter; even if two kids learn by seeing, one might find color more appealing, while the other enjoying shapes.
With this, we branch out and find that there are more differences to some kid's learning patterns. If the teacher goes in one direction, he or she usually expects the whole class to follow, and succeed ("strive for excellence" mentality). This isn't the case, though; if the learning method does not confine to the kid's interest and/or type of information intake, there will be "failures".
Now in reacting to these "failures", rich elitist (and probable intellectuals) create the whole "no child left behind" fiasco. What the hell happens here, hmm?

The dumbing-down of kids who do well in classes. Not to mention boring them, and rehashing info they've already learned, while wasting the teacher's time.

It doesn't seem to occur to educational authorities that there's more to life than making every person "smart", and that kids learn differently. Apparently to them, education is all about books, knowing the lexicon definition of words, and making "knowledgable" arguments. In the whole, the way they say these things is like giving you a ripped-up photo, and asking what the picture is, when they could have just easily handed the damn thing to you in one piece.

It's as you stated:
Things considered the realm of the intellectual suddenly become a lot more accessible through using the LCD to communicate. I can say that a Knight moves one space forward and one diagonally, or I can say it moves in an L.

I feel that it's just senseless, selfish ego-boosting. Mainly this is because they put way too much self-interested emotion into the subjects. I could easily spit in their faces by telling someone of the sort that "they are being belligerent and intellectually self-centered", but then you fall into the same pit as them.

[CNagy]

You call the lowest common denominator the ties that binds, but ask anyone who understands what the term means and I'm pretty sure they'll consider themselves outside that classification. Lowest common denominator has a negative connotation, and it should be tolerated only as a necessary evil.

Also, nice signature... looks somewhat familiar... I don't mind you using something I wrote, but we writers are wired to not like it when someone takes one of our thoughts, in this case verbatim, and puts their own name on it.

[JudoPorkChop]

Well, yes, sometimes the LCD does waste the potential. But, had the teacher simply let those more skilled teach those lagging, the LCD comes back into positive use, as now the more advanced get to aid in instruction. Nothing like getting the students to teach a class to get them to learn how to use the LCD to get the lesson through to those who may be lagging.

[Spydr]

The issue is though that all mediums are being dumbed down

Says who and in comparison to what/when?

A lot of people like to claim that movies/television/music was better "back when", but I disagree. I think that the bullshit that the media has been shoving down our throats has always been about as equally lame. It just seems like things were better back then because the only things that survive from that era is the good stuff. The mediocre bullshit was quickly forgotten after a time.

[stillbornsinger]

Says who and in comparison to what/when?


Says me! :D

I think the highschool education of my parents and especially my grandparents were much better than the education provided to me by my highschool. When they were in school the expectations and material they were required to learn was of a much higher standard. Latin was a required course to be taken and they were required to learn much higher levels of math.

Now what, Algebra I and Geomitry were all that were required for us? And I think one year of a forign language, but that could be waivered to take other classes.

Also the news is dummed down from what it could be, I understand part of that is marketing and hey the money is with the masses and not turning people off as viewers but more information could be presented in the news much more efficiently... Watching FOX news now feels like slamming a brick against my head.

[Marblehead]

The LCD is something we have to deal with. It is duty of the educated to inform the less educated of facts that they might not know. All of us are educators if we take the time to be one. That is the virtue of humankind.

[Joe]

I've never heard the term 'Lower common denominator, can someone tell me what it is?

[JudoPorkChop]

Figurative use is as a rhetorical device in criticism of mass media. When the media is charged with appealing to the "lowest common denominator", it means they targeted the lowest expectations and broadest interests of an audience with a varying range of tastes. In this regard, it is often also used to mean the dumbest people or the least sophisticated.

Another figurative use is to describe negotiations and agreements which only cover the points where everybody's previous positions coincide.

[akitaka]

I think the highschool education of my parents and especially my grandparents were much better than the education provided to me by my highschool.
Keep in mind that school, back then, was also less familiarized as it is today. Back then it was a privelage (in many cases), so kids were more inclined to work harder, and it was something a little more fresh than the usual every day life. Until mid 1900's onward, I believe this was the case. Also, teachers nowadays do their job mainly as a pay-source; whereas in previous times (again, before the mid 1900s) more teachers did it because they had something to share.

That's just my trial balloon, though. HIS104 could be wrong.

[Snake eyeS]

Explaining that things are not worse because they are made more simple is a good argument, but it would hold greater force if you typed it in they so you could get the full audience, or is this an elite discussion only? for a dutchmen who hasnt had any schooling in english except what he taught himself playing online games and visiting boards like this, im having a bit of trouble trying to fully understand all your points. So as a selfappointed LCD(cause of the language barrier) it would be nicer to see this piece written in the form you explain as the "LCD way of talking/communicating". Just so that we all can bathe in your knowledge.

Ofcourse im not really asking you to do this, because the re-written article would be missing alot of tiny points bieng made, making the LCD way of talking not good for getting certain points across. hence making my argument against your way of looking at things: No, its not always good to communicate things trough/with the use of LCD. you have the chance you will be misleading people by not giving them the entire layed out truth burt a simple form of that.

I hope im a little bit on track cuz ive seen atleast 25 new words i have never seen before :)

We should thank mediums like the internet/t.v. cuz its making people smarter, as im living proof of.. not long and ill have a higher IQ then a brick!

[Joe]

Ah, sounds like sensationalism. I hate sensationalism, and now that I understand what LCD is, I hate that too.

It's a shame really, we went from grand early century mud slinging, and intense media coverage about important things, like Nixon's little debacle, to well, "Can you die from walking out your door and meeting a terrorist? Find out how to protect yourself from terrorists, at 9."

Between the news and '24', someone needs a major fucking beating.

[ruaidhri]

Thank you JudoPorkChop for starting this thread. Your argument requires serious thought not a quick emotional response.

Obviously, proper communication depends on your audience and your intent. The purpose of speaking, writing and drawing is to express not impress. The person you are attempting to communicate with must listen, understand and react as you intend in order for your communication to be successful. If you speak or write in a manner not understandable to your target than you’ve wasted both your and their time. You’ve also failed to communicate.

Does that mean that you should always write in a manner that the least educated person can understand? No, of course not. You need a more sophisticated vocabulary if you are giving a presentation before a symposium of theoretical physicists. You need to write at a higher level if you are submitting an essay in a college English class. But, if you’re writing an article for the local newspaper or newscast or you’re preparing or delivering a political speech it’s imperative that you find a level that’s appropriate without insulting, boring or driving away too much of your audience. I believe that’s somewhere in the 8th grade level. Some might call this “dumbing down.” Actually, it’s speaking to not at the intended audience. It’s communicating.

But, that’s simple isn’t it? Determine what your audience needs and give it to them. That’s a win-win situation isn’t it. The problem is that as your audience gets larger you end up communicating with the large middle ground while failing to reach those below because they still don’t understand and to those above that find your message insulting to their intelligence. Whose fault is that? Certainly, not theirs. There’s no crime associated with being slow or uneducated. Neither is there any crime associated with being intelligent or having a PhD. It is, in my opinion derisive to label someone as stupid because they fail to understand what your saying. It’s just as wrong, again in my opinion, to dismiss someone that believes your communication too simple and incomplete as an elitist snob. You’ve simply failed to communicate with that portion of your audience. Criticizing either those at the bottom or those at the top is merely picking a fight.

That’s why no one can really effectively communicate with everyone through words alone. Images, however, invoke emotions that often say far more than any words. Think back to September 11th. Close your eyes and you can see the plane plowing into the World Trade Center. You can see the people fleeing from the collapsed building. You can even feel the fear and anger and desire for revenge well up inside you.

With images we can manipulate people’s opinions. That’s what advertisers and politicians do every day. In the process they often distort the truth. Actually, truth and logic don’t necessarily play a role in image making. People believe what they see be it in front of them or on a screen or in their mind. Oftentimes image makers purposely misrepresent the truth for their own personal gains. They appeal to their audience's baser loves, hates, fears and desires. They create images where none exist to support their positions. They win the hearts and souls of their audience through deception. That also is addressing the lowest common denominator. Is it communicating? Yes, it most definitely is. Is it right? Is it desirable? It certainly can sell products. It can also win elections. It’s effective but then rape is an effective way of having sex. Just because something works doesn’t make it right or desirable.

We don’t live in a perfect world. We are bombarded with words and images every day. Many are deceptive. We’re not going to eliminate that. Should we throw up our arms in defeat and say “if you can beat ‘em, join ‘em?” Should we throw all logic and all truth into the wind? Is “winning” our only goal? Believe me, if that were the case, it would be the common man and woman that would have the most to lose because the manipulators are not the poor or the common.

Now, in regard to this forum. Should we write down to everyone? No, we’d piss a lot of people off if we wrote to everyone at a 3rd grade level. We wouldn’t be reaching the majority. Should we always speak or write as if we were giving a presentation before a room of theoretical physicists? No, most people would be shaking their heads wondering what we were saying. Neither extreme would be communicating. We need to find the lowest common denominator of our intended audience. I prefer to write around the 8th grade level. According to MS Word, this post is at the 7th grade level and is understandable to 64 percent of readers. Yes, I will fail to reach some readers but I don’t believe I’m insulting anyone. I’m certainly not picking a fight.