Is this video "real" in the sense that the videographer was able to find, amongst a very large crowd, a few samples of ignorance; which would make it 'deceptive' in that it removes the shock value. Did he interview, for example, 200 people to come up with only 5 ignorant? This would lessen the shock value.
Or, did he find 5 samples of ignorance, out of 25, which would be 20% of the audience, making it alarming regarding ignorance in our country?
I do not know the answer.
Would you try such a test in your home town?
I did, yesterday, while getting gas and the attendant said, "I'm a fourth year college student and it would be pretty sad if I didn't know who we gained our independence from, and just some basic facts about the date and things."
He named the country, the date, and the major players in the struggle for independence from a large, distant oppressive government.
What do you think?
I have an opinion but it is more based upon reading the writings of college grads, including those with master-level degrees, as to what has happened to education in America, than anything else. Behind the writings, discussions, including having conducted more than 6,000 interviews since 2002, has helped formulate an opinion, but although that which is in writing is far less, it impacted me more.
I recognize nationalized or standardized test scores have dropped consistently the last few decades and the "casey anthony jury" mentality is popular.
In profiling, this can be a 'curve ball' to be aware of.
I find that adults with only high school educations, who graduated high school, for example, prior to 1980, often show better English than today's grads and post-grads. When profiling, this can be difficult because I have to add:
* "intelligent, educated" with more emphasis upon age, because a 63 year old, for example, graduated high school in 1970, and will often write quite well, not only in spelling and usage, but even in punctuation, rivaling post-grad work today, in just using the semi-colon, itself.
"Relentlessly Gay" analysis showed Julie Baker to be intelligent and the age/education factor would not have been as easy as it was, if not for her other Face Book writing. Her use of capitalization, which may be presented to a jury after the money is withdrawn, was intentional; not in error, as it spoke to poetic license, which itself, speaks to intelligence. Recall "Tarantula" and some of Allen Ginsberg's writing and punctuational changes for impact.
Yet, is this video 'authentic', in that it did represent the populace? Does it alarm you?
I did note that none answered with names sounding like "Mohammad" showing a lack of listening, or belief, in the president's statement regarding our founding fathers.
The Pavlovian response, right to the stomach, to certain "politically incorrect" topics does show the effectiveness of propaganda, as well as highlighting that truth, or even accuracy, is more complex than simple, rote repetition.
It is difficult to depart from "Lizzie Borden took an ax..." or "The Scarlett Letter", or even the abbreviated Gettysburg Address, from the reality that takes more effort to understand.