No, you would not become a uber-intellectual if you memorised
the lineup of world leaders. However, you have nothing to gain
from your failure to do so, and nothing to lose by taking the
time to be acquainted with them as you encounter their names,
it certainly couldn't hurt in the future.
As for my own intellect, that is irrelevant to the discussion, and
I don't think you can make the point any clearer by informing
me of my pseudo-intellectual properties ... twice.
Knowing of world politics, by itself, mechanically, (i.e. memorising the names of world leaders) of course does not increase your
awareness. It's really unfortunate to see another stereotype
reveal itself as an accurate generalisation, by way of your
approach. If you "memorise things", indeed, you are no more
enlightened. If you maintain an overall awareness and understanding (impossible concepts, I know), however, there
are much benefits to be reaped.
Practises that involve quantifying knowledge, and questioning its usefulness merely in terms of material gain (Canadians dumping wheat over the border?) indicates that those notions are
obviously beyond you -- this is understandable, of course -- but, as someone conscious of this sub-standard methodology,
would it not be reasonable to expect you to attempt to transgress those boundaries and learn something? No, instead
you retaliate with personal aggravations, further reducing your
credibility in any kind of academic discussion on this matter.
Politics by themselves are irrelevant; it is the overall understanding of the world around you that make you an informed person. Please try to understand this (*gasp*)
differing perspective, or at least lend it an ear -- it would
be only to your benefit.
Signal SIGSIG received. Signature too long.
[ Parent ]