Jump to content

BBC Pointless (or how dumb is our nation?)


Recommended Posts

Mods this isn't really about the tv programme, but is a general chat about idiocracy.

 

I like the quiz programme Pointless, it's like a reverse Family Fortunes and rather than rewarding contestants for getting the easy answers it rewards contestants for getting the more obscure ones.

 

Sometimes it is quite scary though, rather like a public information film, it sends a warning about how dumb we are.

 

100 people were asked:

 

Name some Cabinet posts in the Government.

 

As I was thinking to myself what the least popular answers could be, I was quite surprised at the low numbers for Home Secretary, Transport etc, and others given by the contestants.

 

I must admit that when the pointless answers were given I thought to myself that I'd never have said that, but ... when the most popular answers were given ... wait for it ...

 

58 out of 100 people didn't know that Chancellor of the Exchequer was a post!

 

56 out of 100 people didn't know that the Foreign Secretary, or even that the Prime Minister, is a Cabinet post!!!!

 

:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just have no interest in politics whatsoever, and just don't care about how the Governement is structured!?

 

I don't have any interest in politics whatsoever, but come on, 56 out of 100 people didn't know that the Prime Minister is a Cabinet post! That's not having no interest, that's just dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the most popular answers were given ... wait for it ...

 

58 out of 100 people didn't know that Chancellor of the Exchequer was a post!

 

56 out of 100 people didn't know that the Foreign Secretary, or even that the Prime Minister, is a Cabinet post!!!!

 

:o

 

Without knowing the exact wording of the question, you can't say if it was 58/100 people "didn't know", or "didn't answer". If someone from Pointless came and asked me to "name some members of the Cabinet", I certainly wouldn't answer "Prime Minister", I'd be wanting to give some answers which I didn't think the panelists could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without knowing the exact wording of the question, you can't say if it was 58/100 people "didn't know", or "didn't answer". If someone from Pointless came and asked me to "name some members of the Cabinet", I certainly wouldn't answer "Prime Minister", I'd be wanting to give some answers which I didn't think the panelists could.

 

The British Prime Minister has traditionally been referred to as ‘primus inter pares’, which means ‘first among equals’ and demonstrates that he or she is a member of the collective decision-making body of the Cabinet, rather than an individual who has powers in their own right. The Prime Minister is first among equals simply in recognition of the responsibility held for appointing and dismissing all the other Cabinet members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without knowing the exact wording of the question, you can't say if it was 58/100 people "didn't know", or "didn't answer". If someone from Pointless came and asked me to "name some members of the Cabinet", I certainly wouldn't answer "Prime Minister", I'd be wanting to give some answers which I didn't think the panelists could.

 

The question is put the public, not in a manner to defeat the contestants, but simply "you have one minute to name as many cabinet positions as possible", or "one minute to name as many snooker champions as possible".

 

Now it is quite likely that 80% of the population would know that Steve Davies was one answer to the latter, but the actual result would only be 70% due to the way the question is asked and the time constraint.

 

With that in mind, I wouldn't expect 100% to name the Prime Minister when naming as many Cabinet posts as they could, but I was still shocked that it was only 44%. It wasn't that on in isolation though, it was the low numbers for all the Cabinet posts. It was clear that a significant number couldn't name any at all.

 

This is clearly a trend that Alexander Armstrong makes frequent reference to on the programme, that politics, history, literature, science and geography receive such low points, whilst soap operas, reality TV etc receive such high points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coincidentally I watched this programme on the same day I posted this on another thread:

 

You have reminded me that after hearing about the death of Bob Holness the other day, I ended up watching a few episodes of Blockbusters that were posted online.

 

I was amazed at the depth of knowledge of these teenagers from 20 years ago compared to those that I know now.

 

This produced an interesting reply from L00b which I entirely agree with:

 

Well, possibly a big factor back in the 80s and before, and even up to not so long ago (mid 90s?), was that there was no Internet (to the current extent), no Wikipedia, less mass media (TV channels, Youtube, etc.) and the like, and kids still had to read books and 'teach themselves' by experiment, by and large.

 

With a corresponding (entirely logical) amount of learning (...which I would distinguish from 'glanced/heard about/watched/etc.').

 

IMHO, the "thinking" or "knowledge" has eventually gone on to be too "pre-chewed" and levelling by the lowest common denominator too prevalent/permeating classroom ethics too early...But don't get me started about modern education methods and mass media in general :D

 

A good teacher/education system teaches kids to think for themselves first and foremost, and fosters curiosity - regardless of the subject(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.