tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

I don't know...

tuatara Loc: Orig. NZ - currently SF area

And why is that? , not picking on you, just curious.

deanfl Loc: Georgia

Thank you, everyone, for taking the time to post a comment. I enjoyed reading the responses.

Tex-s

Because AOC claims to know EVERYTHING about global warming, which she has never formally studied, but claimed not to know about certain foreign affairs and details pertaining to policy....which was her major in college.

don't get me wrong, though. I'm sure AOC is playing hysteria for all it's worth and is fearful of showing her actual ignorance on topics for which she SHOULD be informed.

Mr Bill 2011 Loc: southern Indiana

I know enough to know I don't know everything. Before I retired, I was always concerned that I didn't know as much as my coworkers. I wonder if that meant that I really was near the top of my field. I should have asked for a big raise!

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

"Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Not many people know that." DJT

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Then they slept through their US History class. Every text book I ever used for teaching that period of history had the information that Lincoln was the first Republican President, and most mentioned he was only the second Republican to run for president. They also made a point of the Republicans being essentially a one issue party when formed. Anti-slavery, or more to the point against slavery spreading to any of the territories as they became states. There were rabid abolitionists in the party but the official platform and Lincoln's personal platform was stop it spreading but don't go after ending it in the states where it was legal. Instead work on getting those states to end slavery on their own. This was to avoid a civil war. For a couple of decades, even before the old Whig party fell apart and the Republican party formed in 1854 a series of compromises prevented secession and civil war. At one point it was the anti-slave states of New England and the north east talking secession.
Lincoln kept saying he personally was against slavery and was against the spread of slavery but would leave slavery alone in the states where it was already legal as a matter those states should hopefully end on their own. The pro-slavery Southern Democrats who controlled most of the Southern slave states did not believe him and states started seceding even before he took office. President James Buchanan not only did nothing about this but for most of his political career more or less tried to either ignore slavery or advocated it was not important and not up to the federal government.
After the war started Lincoln became convinced that slavery needed to be ended immediately as part of the war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union troops, any slaves that could run away and make it to Union controlled areas and any slaves held by those in rebellion (more or less symbolic since that couldn't be enforced until the Union Army captured any area). It freed not one slave in Union states. He did encourage slave owners in Union states or those state governments to free their slaves and make it illegal. Slavery in Union states and territories where it had been legal was formerly ended by the 13th Amendment in 1865.
As a child in Western Kentucky I knew my Great Grandfather, born in 1865-died in 1956 and he used to talk about his family. During the war they were more or less a miniature of the country. His father and two blood uncles, two uncles by marriage and one aunt's father-in-law fought in the war. Three on each side, and one uncle spent the war refusing to enlist in either army and dodging the draft because he refused to fight family. The three who fought for the Confederacy were rabid States Rights believers who did not own any slaves and were more or less against it on a personal basis. One of them died during the war. The two uncles who fought for the Union were rabid Unionists and personally against slavery. The aunt's father-in-law, who fought for the union, was the only one who had ever owned a slave. He had defied the law and educated his two slaves (husband and wife), educated their children, the husband worked as the manager of his farm and business, even leaving him in total charge when he traveled on business and when he enlisted in the Army. He had come to believe that slavery should be ended and offered the couple their freedom before the war but they chose to stay his slaves since that way they had more protection of the law through him. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued he immediately freed the couple and made the husband formerly his business manager.

Lemon Drop Kid Loc: Greeley, CO

I am dumb, and I know it, What does that mean?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

No one ever accused DJT of knowing about anything other that NY real estate and bankruptcy.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Most of us tried to keep this non-political.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

... and yet twice the backwards ball cap guy bagged AOC without a reprimand from you. It looked like open season to me.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I did say most. Twice? All I noticed was his long comment about her expounding on things she doesn't seem to know much about and claiming once to not know anything about the subject her bio says she has degrees in. I didn't think anything of it since I have seen her on the news talking about climate change in a way that demonstrated she plainly knew little about it (but most people on both sides of that argument know very little about the subject, they just have opinions) and when I heard her claim to not understand or know about foreign policy and economic affairs my thought was "Huh! I thought she had a degree in those two fields?". Of course doing that kind of stuff just makes her a politician. She could use a few lessons in how to organize her thoughts before speaking. But that just makes her a millennial. And I don't blame the millennials, I blame a lot of their teachers. I worked with young teachers who couldn't carry on an organized conversation or talk as if they were educated. One I knew was a math teacher - knew math fields whose names I can't pronounce but had very poor language skills and knew almost nothing about history or government.

I will give you an apology since when I saw your comment I was already in a bad mood. I am moving furniture, cleaning and mopping, doing a minor repair on my car and trying to get some yard work done. PS: I am lazy, but promised the wife I would clean up my cave (aka family room). She says I am half Neanderthal anyway. I don't want her upping the %.
Then there is the one cat that keeps coming to the toddler gate that keeps the dogs here in the family room with me and teases them just to hear them bark. Sort of blows my eardrums out the other ear working just a few feet from them.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Cheers, shifting furniture is always tedious and I have no tolerance for backwards ball caps on men. We'll never mention this again.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Interesting video but the obvious question is: How does Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger know that what they are saying is true? They cannot know everything in the universe, therefore there might be a piece of information that renders their conclusion false. Even they are caught on the horns of their own dilemma.

However the subject goes much deeper than that, folks hold (whether they realize it or not) basic presuppositions that govern how they evaluate any information that they take in...it governs their conclusions. It's unavoidable. And that includes Dunning and Kruger. If they were reasoning logically they'd have to admit that though they state this conclusion as a true fact, it actually can't be pronounced a true fact.

The ONLY logical escape from this issue is that unless you know everything that there is to know in the universe (impossible) then the alternative is that you must know a being that knows everything in the universe who has made it possible to know some things with certainty. (And that's God, one attribute of whom is Omniscience.)

But wait! you say...lots of folks reason just fine without invoking "God"....right?

They do, but they do so only because God exists. They borrow from the Christian worldview while they pronounce that the Christian worldview is false. It's a bit like breathing air all while pronouncing the falsity of the reality of the existence of air. It doesn't matter if they profess belief in air to be able to breath.

Now, watch them come out of the woodwork and tell me that belief in a "magical man in the sky" is lunacy while they continue to tell me what they "know" as if they can possibly know it for certain. (including the "fact" that belief in a magical man in the sky is lunacy)

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

We agree on the ball caps, only two legitimate reasons to do that, a catcher's or other protective mask or shooting with a scope on the rifle-the bill hits the scope or blocks your view.

Have a good day, now the wife and I are going looking for a good late model car. She wants champagne features at a beer budget. But thankfully we are down to 4 cars at three dealers at a price I am willing to pay.