Ship of Fools: Inclusivity and dumbing down

Thread: Inclusivity and dumbing down Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027027

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I understand 'dumbing down' to mean a diminishment of excellence to reach those who have no appreciation of it.

I dislike the expression as it's sometimes used in a way which indicates snobbery. Is it condescending to offer what people will appreciate, in the hope that it will lead on to greater appreciation?
Is it OK to 'dumb down'?

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

Inclusivity need not mean "dumbing down". It should mean smarter teaching.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, dumbing down is an awful phrase, but I think that an element of simplication is OK in teaching, and presumably, elsewhere.

I used to teach linguistics to undergrads, and I used to take postgraduate topics, (e.g. the psychological reality of Chomskyan universal grammar), and sort of water them down a bit, and slap a bit of lipstick on them, plus jokes, in order to make them palatable. If I had taught it to sixth-formers, I would have made corresponding dilutions and cosmeticizations.

I would say this is a standard teaching technique, in fact.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

So much is simplified these days for ease of access, in so many areas of life, that it sometimes comes across as if written for the hard of understanding. And if you make everything simple and easy, nobody ever has to stretch, or aspire, or exert themselves to understand anything. Some of it distinctly comes across as basically pitching stuff at the lowest common denominator.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it OK to 'dumb down'?

You have to meet people at their level.

If you're a couch potato and want to get fit, you don't just get up one day and run a marathon. You don't walk into an elementary school and write Einstein's field equations on the blackboard, and if you have a roomful of people who are just beginning to pray in silence, you'll start with a short silence.

To me, "dumbing down" would be removing the "complicated" bits from discussion at all. "Dumbing down" would be insisting that the likes of Paula Radcliffe should run at my pace, and should take a breather every ten minutes.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I used to teach linguistics to undergrads, and I used to take postgraduate topics, (e.g. the psychological reality of Chomskyan universal grammar), and sort of water them down a bit, and slap a bit of lipstick on them, plus jokes, in order to make them palatable. If I had taught it to sixth-formers, I would have made corresponding dilutions and cosmeticizations.

I would say this is a standard teaching technique, in fact.

Yes. And its not called "dumbing-down", its called "teaching".

"Dumbing-down" would be if you thought the hard stuff didn't matter, so no-one got taught it, even those who were willing and able to learn it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.

Couldn't it just as easily be showing respect for the general intellectual level of a prospective audience?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Do we think God might have had a similar problem by becoming incarnate? How many times in the gospels is it evident not just that the multitudes didn't get the point, but the disciples were not much better?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The OP exhibits a form of poisoning of the well, and involves a kind of dumbing down of the idea of pedagogic simplification!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I would consider "dumbing down" being explaining in a patronising way. To teach people at their level does not necessarily mean that the material has to be dumbed down, it means it has to be taught at the recipients level.

This can be done without patronising. In fact, the best teachers can do this in a way that really enhances the recipient. Dumbing down tends to mean that the teacher has little respect for those they are teaching. To my mind, that diminishes the teachers more than the taught.

It is quite possible to be inclusive and not dismissive.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.

Hear! Hear!

And one of the most hatesome occasions of dumbing down happens during that execrable exercise of patronization called the Children's Sermon.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.

My instant response to this comment, CL, was to scoff and mock (in my mind, I mean). But I could well be reacting against something you didn't actually mean. [Hot and Hormonal]

Would you - and others - perhaps give one or two examples of what you'd consider to be dumbing down, in the church context? Thanks in advance. [Smile]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
One of the most hatesome occasions of dumbing down happens during that execrable exercise of patronization called the Children's Sermon.

I've never heard the term used in reference to Christian worship, and I wasn't sure if this is what the OP was hoping to discuss.

It's more often heard in the context of education, where it's supposedly backed up by an anti-elitist, 'all shall have prizes' mentality. Regardless of where we stand on the challenges in education, I'm not convinced that the modern church has inherited exactly the same theoretical underpinnings, so adopting the language of 'dumbing-down' for this environment might be rather confusing.

Having said that, I know what you mean. It's clearly not easy for preachers to pitch 'all age worship' it at the right level for everyone.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
One of the most hatesome occasions of dumbing down happens during that execrable exercise of patronization called the Children's Sermon.

I'd have to agree-- as would most kids I've asked.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never heard the term used in reference to Christian worship, and I wasn't sure if this is what the OP was hoping to discuss.

This very popular book certainly does.

[code]

[ 24. March 2014, 21:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah - dumbing down to reach out? I see. This suggests that dumbing down is an evangelistic strategy. However, not all churches are as intentional about their evangelism to be able to use that as an excuse!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah - dumbing down to reach out? I see. This suggests that dumbing down is an evangelistic strategy. However, not all churches are as intentional about their evangelism to be able to use that as an excuse!

That is where and why teaching is needed, not lecturing. AFAIK only the former is mentioned as a Spiritual Gift.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah - dumbing down to reach out? I see. This suggests that dumbing down is an evangelistic strategy. However, not all churches are as intentional about their evangelism to be able to use that as an excuse!

Well, note the author (Marva Dawn) calls it "reaching out
without dumbing down". iow, she, like others here, hears "dumbing down" as a negative, and is suggesting that she's figured out how to be "inclusive" without dumbing down.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm sure it is indeed possible to reach out without dumbing down. But The fact that the author mentions dumbing down at all suggests that this is a big challenge for some churches.

However, my point was that for many churches (of the type I'm most familiar with) evangelism isn't a huge priority, so dumbing down for that particular reason is unlikely to be a problem. But it might occur for other reasons.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, my point was that for many churches (of the type I'm most familiar with) evangelism isn't a huge priority, so dumbing down for that particular reason is unlikely to be a problem. But it might occur for other reasons.

Dawn is writing primarily to American evangelical churches, where evangelism is pretty much the prime driving factor for everything, including any "dumbing down".

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I take your point. I'm not sure if this is what Raptor Eye was getting at, though. In the UK, claims that churches are offering a poor diet of teaching and preaching are made in several different directions. I don't think it's an evangelical v. mainstream/liberal thing.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

How complex/complicated/difficult should it be then? I'm pretty well-educated (five degrees, one in theology) and there have been occasions when I have not understood what the heck a preacher was trying to say because they used superduper theological jargon.

I think you need to consider your audience, which is a golden rule of communication. Most parishioners don't have a long theological background from which to make sense of complex theological argument. Again, I'm reminded of Trinity Sunday - every year when I was growing up, I experienced the complete mystery of the Trinity, and it remained a mystery, even with the best of preachers (our vicar was excellent).

I think if you remove the pejorative "dumbing down," and reposition it as "considering your audience," you might have some chance of communicating effectively.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I agree with Arabella Purity Winterbottom. Many do not consider their audience.
Some seem to use technical jargon/club language to try and impress others or seem spiritual. If you cannot express ideas in the language of the audience you are communicating something other than content.

Propositional truth statements are good shorthand and quick communication for those in the club (church) but narratives speak more to a person's experience. And I don't think narratives are inherently dumbing down.

[ 25. March 2014, 01:18: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The OP exhibits a form of poisoning of the well, and involves a kind of dumbing down of the idea of pedagogic simplification!

This is my read also.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I'm just back from 12 days in the UK with my elderly mother and yesterday went straight into a board meeting with a very important discussion which left me reeling as I hadn't had enough time to adjust back culturally and I didn't communicate as well as I would have liked....

As others have said, I think it is all about how we do the communicating not the content. "Dumbing down" suggests to me that we are making judgments about other people's capacity. Whereas , as a teacher in many different contexts I've always thought it was about presenting the same content in the most appropriate and attractive way for each context so that people might consider interacting with it/ learning from it/ applying it to their lives.

To my mind, taking the trouble to craft my communication is an important part of inclusivity.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
To my mind, taking the trouble to craft my communication is an important part of inclusivity.

Oh yes, completely. I posted upthread that it would be great to get a few concrete illustrations of what people mean by 'dumbing down', because if they simply mean 'crafting your communication style / method according to the context' then I'm all for dumbing down!

The Silent Acolyte mentioned children's talks as one area in which dumbing down can often happen. What does this mean though? Do children like or dislike children's talks, and if they dislike them why is that? Is it because they're too simplistic and dumbed down or for some other reason?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

You don't 'dumb down' by making things accessible!

You don't dumb down a building by making it accessible to wheelchairs. You don't dumb down books by printing them in braille. You don't dumb down the curriculum by making it accessible.

It's certainly not about teaching to the 'lowest common denominator' - it's about adjusting your teaching style to the learner. Good teachers do this minute by minute, not just in the planning.

Some children have dyslexia and are very intelligent. Get them to learn as non-dyslexic children and you won't see that intelligence - they will become bored and disruptive. Teach them in accessible ways and they will shine.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The Silent Acolyte mentioned children's talks as one area in which dumbing down can often happen. What does this mean though? Do children like or dislike children's talks, and if they dislike them why is that? Is it because they're too simplistic and dumbed down or for some other reason?

I'd have the thought the the problem is age range. If you pitch your sermon perfectly for a seven year old, all those younger and older will find it a less than perfect fit, the same is true of any age upto adulthood. Almost always, the majirty will not be the age you pitch at, regardless of which age you chose.

Trying to get something that works in parallel is, I think, much more difficult. In childrens film and tv, that is intended as 'family viewing' it is generally done with a combination of double entendre and nostalgia to keep the adults and older children onboard - together with intermittent prattfalls for the youngest to laugh at.

I doubt you can directly translate this approach to worship and preaching. I suppose - folk enjoying a nativty play and carol service by tiny tots is pulling for nostalgia and cuteness, but that won't work every time.

[code]

[ 25. March 2014, 07:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

If you pitch your sermon perfectly for 'a' seven-year-old, I can guarantee that there will be several other seven-year-olds it misses completely. Seven-year-olds are not a homogenous mass.

Also, preachers who don't know much about children tend to underestimate them. Children spend a large chunk of their lives in formal education. They are capable of understanding quite complicated ideas and they are very quick to notice when someone is patronising them.

They are also less tolerant of bad preaching than adults; if you are used to being taught by someone who has a clear purpose in mind and has thought through exactly how they are going to transfer the knowledge in their brain to yours, you are not going to put up with someone rambling aimlessly for 20 minutes about things vaguely connected to the Gospel reading.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Jane R - your post above speaks to several of my hobby-horses about how we do church. Of course seven year olds are not a homogeneous mass who will all derive equal benefit from the same sermon (likewise, neither will all 4 year olds, 15 year olds, or indeed adults).

I also agree 100% about children being less 'polite', and would this has significant benefits. The politeness and social customs that most adults have learnt mean that, IMO, many bad sermons and unhelpful teaching activities generally (teaching is about far more than sermons, another bugbear of mine!) don't get called out for what they are.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Some of it distinctly comes across as basically pitching stuff at the lowest common denominator.

If we don't pitch at least some stuff at the lowest level, then how can we make sure everyone understands us?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

One of the things I like about my church is that there is the sermon, pitched at the level of the reasonably educated adult, then there is a presentation / play by the children with a very simple message. Because it is presented BY the children, rather than FOR the children, it is not at all patronising. And the simple message is clear to all, including those who would find a formal sermon difficult to grasp. (For example, it is very popular with a group of mentally handicapped people, from a local residential home, who come to church each week.) However, sometimes the strangest thing happens - the children's message, whilst on the surface very simple, is at times very profound, and even the clergy admit that it is, at times, more effective at getting a difficult concept across than the more learned sermon!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I reach my audience at their level.
You simplify things for convenience.
That person is dumbing it down.

Aiming lower than the cognitive level of your audience is certainly a mistake, but so is aiming too high. Personally, and I not boast of this, I have a history of committing the latter, and it is a problem.

I suppose nobody calls it "dumbing down" unless you're obviously teaching below the potential comprehension level of your audience. But sometimes you do have to make accommodations for context.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I take your point. I'm not sure if this is what Raptor Eye was getting at, though. In the UK, claims that churches are offering a poor diet of teaching and preaching are made in several different directions. I don't think it's an evangelical v. mainstream/liberal thing.

Thank you all for your thoughts. I wanted to keep it broad, and have found the different perceptions interesting.

I think it's an important issue for all churches, if they want to reach out: to the people who come occasionally as well as those who currently don't come at all.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

My fundamental point is that the variability in comprehension across the age range 3 to 16 is higly likely to be much wider than that of the adult congregation ( which will probably be a bell curve round average ), and that if you are not pitching to average adult, you will always be pitching to a smallish minority.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.
Hear! Hear!

And one of the most hatesome occasions of dumbing down happens during that execrable exercise of patronization called the Children's Sermon.

I suspect that the beneficiaries of the Children's Sermon are not the children to whom it is ostensibly addressed, but the adults who think it's cute to see the children gathered around Father on the altar steps. And that they feel themselves thereby exempted from the duty of educating their children in the faith is probably not incidental, either.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If you know your crowd, to whom you're speaking, does this not make it different? If you have prepared tightly, then the crowd doesn't seem to be engaged, do you change on the fly?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I have experience of this in another field, my hobby as a railway modeller. At present, the annual exhibitions put on by most clubs are suffering from diminishing attendances. Partly this is just general social change about the place of railways, and indeed of physical modelling rather than virtual/computer games, but one analysis suggests that for typical modern families the shows have become… er… boring compared to other modern entertainments.

One response to this situation is seen in clubs like my own – although in our case it wasn’t initially a deliberate response, but simply because our annual exhibition is done for the national Methodist children’s charity, Action for Children. We consequently have not only a need but a responsibility to entertain lots of local families who may not be railway minded the rest of the year, so that they will keep coming back knowing they will enjoy it.

Our shows therefore have above average of ‘family-friendly’ exhibits such as layouts you can actually drive or otherwise interact with, often but not always featuring a certain blue tank engine. Where allowing touching isn’t sensible, we still expect exhibitors to very much be willing to ‘show and tell’ about what they’re doing. As well as being fairly successful in keeping a high audience at our own exhibition, our ‘flagship’ layout recently came home from the National Model Railway Exhibition, no less, with a trophy for innovation; and one of the cited reasons for the award was our out front ‘story-tellers’.

If you can stand horror movies, google up ‘Romiley Model Railway Show You Tube’ and you will see pics of our show a couple of years back and a clip of me in action with my own ‘visitor participation’ layout, which was obviously appreciated despite a slight glitch in that particular ‘run’.

Other clubs are beginning to follow the same route; but others aren’t, and often the reasons they give are that they are ‘serious modellers’ and don’t want to ‘dumb things down’. One major club recently staged their annual event, and when the show manager produced a poster with ‘that tank engine’ on it, there was nearly a minor war in the club.

Now I certainly have seen efforts at ‘something for the children’ which constituted not only ‘dumbing down’ but also tacky modelling and all too often weren’t all that exciting either. But there is a good way to do it. One way is to ask relevant questions. In the railway context these include things like

“Do you realise how old people have to be to remember when British Railways was a steam railway?” (answer, for useful memories, you’ve probably got a bus pass) or

“Do you realise how little modern people have anything to do with railways, and how horrendous that experience often is?” (answer, again, too many modellers don’t realise) or

“Do you realise that these days just showing model trains doesn’t automatically make for a ‘family event’? Do you realise that these days you’re competing for the family audience with museums which are no longer, as my classmates used to joke, dead ‘mausoleums’ but lively places with lots of interaction and pro-active explanation going on, and free entry?" (One year I went to a model rail show which had a Friday evening opening, and earlier I had been to Imperial War Museum North with a special of the ‘Horrible Histories’ version of WWI. Even I came close to finding the museum more interesting that day!)

With layouts like my own we aim to ‘put on a show’ which not only means the visitors get to drive the trains, but we do a lot of serious explaining as well, at an appropriate level for the guest driver (and I’ve had at least one who wasn’t even three yet!); meanwhile another member of my team is out front talking to the young driver’s family and the general public both about our exhibit and about modelling generally.

Now obviously a model railway show and church are different kinds of event - we certainly aren’t there just for trivial entertainment, to start with – but a lot of this kind of thinking is surely applicable to church, with suitable adjustment.

As regards the ‘Children’s Sermon’ thing, one line of thought I increasingly meet is that churches should rather take the attitude of classical Jewish practice, whereby children are considered adult at 13 or thereabouts, and are expected to take part in the main services. Correspondingly this would be a challenge to the churches that the services should be attractive and challenging to the 13-year-olds, but not lose their high quality teaching for the adults – that is, NOT be ‘dumbed down’. (I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't also be separate 'teen-appropriate' activities, of course)

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Good analogy, Steve.

The other side of the story is when you have a very erudite section of your audience/congregation, and they forget that others don't have their education. I remember once running a Lenten study in which we were looking at images of the crucified Jesus. My intention was to get people talking about their response to the images. It was quite a diverse bunch of about 15 ranging from senior public servants to an ex-member of a biker gang.

The session was completely hijacked by a retired minister whose response was entirely sermonising. When another participant started to wonder about the impact of having nails driven into your hand, he jumped on her and told her off for having such a facile response. And so it continued for another painful hour. Afterwards, most of the group said to me that they would like to have the session again if we could guarantee the exclusion of the retired minister.

I'm sure he thought it was all dumbed down, but the end result was that everyone else, including me, felt thoroughly told off and miserable.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I can relate to both situations, thank you Steve and Arabella.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, my point was that for many churches (of the type I'm most familiar with) evangelism isn't a huge priority, so dumbing down for that particular reason is unlikely to be a problem. But it might occur for other reasons.
Dawn is writing primarily to American evangelical churches, where evangelism is pretty much the prime driving factor for everything, including any "dumbing down".

To my mind, an excellent case in point is Rick Warren's suggestion that communion be removed from the standard worship service because it makes "seekers" uncomfortable. [Help]

--Tom Clune

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, my point was that for many churches (of the type I'm most familiar with) evangelism isn't a huge priority, so dumbing down for that particular reason is unlikely to be a problem. But it might occur for other reasons.
Dawn is writing primarily to American evangelical churches, where evangelism is pretty much the prime driving factor for everything, including any "dumbing down".
To my mind, an excellent case in point is Rick Warren's suggestion that communion be removed from the standard worship service because it makes "seekers" uncomfortable.

--Tom Clune

Of course, if you're committed to worshipping in a context where Communion takes place every week then this suggestion wouldn't make much sense. But Warren probably comes from a tradition where Communion happens less often than that, and isn't seen as the core of every worship experience.

Having said that, if Warren's church doesn't practice Communion very often then that should leave plenty of time for church leaders to explain to newcomers what it is, what it means in their faith tradition, and why it's nothing to be afraid of. And alternatives could be given - the chance to receive a blessing, or to use the time for private prayer, etc. Alternatively, Communion could be offered before or after the main worship service for those who wish to partake of it. But I'm sure Warren isn't suggesting that Communion should never be offered at all!

[ 26. March 2014, 11:39: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

However, my point was that for many churches (of the type I'm most familiar with) evangelism isn't a huge priority, so dumbing down for that particular reason is unlikely to be a problem. But it might occur for other reasons.
Dawn is writing primarily to American evangelical churches, where evangelism is pretty much the prime driving factor for everything, including any "dumbing down".
To my mind, an excellent case in point is Rick Warren's suggestion that communion be removed from the standard worship service because it makes "seekers" uncomfortable.
--Tom Clune

I'm guessing Rick was not far from her mind when she was writing...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
“Do you realise how old people have to be to remember when British Railways was a steam railway?” (answer, for useful memories, you’ve probably got a bus pass) or

“Do you realise how little modern people have anything to do with railways, and how horrendous that experience often is?”

I'm 57 and I don't remember steam railways. I'm pretty sure I've never travelled on a train pulled by steam in this country. The local railway lines in my home town were electrified when my parents were children.

As to the second question, I travel by train almost every day, and hundreds of trains go past my flat every day. There are ten or eleven railway stations within a mile of my front door. Three within three hundred metres.

quote:

As regards the ‘Children’s Sermon’ thing, one line of thought I increasingly meet is that churches should rather take the attitude of classical Jewish practice, whereby children are considered adult at 13 or thereabouts, and are expected to take part in the main services. Correspondingly this would be a challenge to the churches that the services should be attractive and challenging to the 13-year-olds, but not lose their high quality teaching for the adults – that is, NOT be ‘dumbed down’.

A thirteen-year-old who wants to be in church, who chooses to be there for themselves, and who is interested in what is going on, will be just as good at following most "adult" teaching as the adults are. Better, probably. The exceptions will be more to do with personal experiece of death, deperssion. despair, disease and so on, which you would assume most older people will have gone through, but some lucky teenagers might not have had yet.

A thirteen-year-old who does not want to be in church, who has been dragged along by their parents, is going to miss almost everything you say, will be bored stiff, and will probably need more entertaining than teaching if they aren't to switch off completely.

One past childhood, age has a lot less to do with capacity to learn than motivation does. A typical teenager might not be an adult intellectually, but they are much more like an adult than they are like a young child. Treating the 13-16s as if they were 10-12 is insulting. Treating them as if they were 7 or 8 is insane. But some churches do.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
To my mind, an excellent case in point is Rick Warren's suggestion that communion be removed from the standard worship service because it makes "seekers" uncomfortable.

Out church tends to avoid Communion at services where numbers of newcomers might be present, such as if there are baptisms, and things like Remembrance Day, and Haverst Festivals. and Carol services near Christmas. I disagree, but its a minority opinion.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

No basic dispute on what you say about 13-year-olds. The issue is what we can do so that they will be willing and that we don't carry on too long treating them as children and assuming they won't want the adult experience; and of course seeing to it that the adult services are that bit relevant and challenging.

I'm not going to go too deep in the trains thing on this thread; you rather emphasise my point on why we need to explain steam trains rather than just assume everybody knows - and there are issues of the same kind about what we do in churches. For too many people the experience of trains is an overcrowded commute which doesn't give good feelings about the modern railway. If they find the model show similarly boring....

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A few comments on the 13 year olds.

1. Some are "big children" and others are "young adults" - it's not easy to relate to both but perhaps better to aim at the more mature end (the Church tends to baby and underestimate children anyway).

2. The adults have to realise that their culture is vastly different to the young peoples'; they must have a generous spirit and recognise that there are bits of the worship that they don't like but which helps the young people. This is the most important (and the hardest) thing.

3. We must not assume that "young person" = "loves hype, bouncy music and worship band". Some will respond better to quiet reflection. Creative and visual liturgy will also be good.

4. Interaction of some kind is vital: young people will want to be involved. Whether that is in drama or via question and answer (or whatever) will depend on the context. This is where Steve's model railway experience has lots to teach us.

5. There is going to be a huge difference between "churched" young people who are familiar with church culture and the Christian story, and others who don't have this background (true of adults, too, of course). If you are really clever you can pitch the worship at several levels at once.

[ 26. March 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A few comments on the 13 year olds.

1. Some are "big children" and others are "young adults" - it's not easy to relate to both but perhaps better to aim at the more mature end (the Church tends to baby and underestimate children anyway).

2. The adults have to realise that their culture is vastly different to the young peoples'; they must have a generous spirit and recognise that there are bits of the worship that they don't like but which helps the young people. This is the most important (and the hardest) thing.

3. We must not assume that "young person" = "loves hype, bouncy music and worship band". Some will respond better to quiet reflection. Creative and visual liturgy will also be good.

4. Interaction of some kind is vital: young people will want to be involved. Whether that is in drama or via question and answer (or whatever) will depend on the context. This is where Steve's model railway experience has lots to teach us.

5. There is going to be a huge difference between "churched" young people who are familiar with church culture and the Christian story, and others who don't have this background (true of adults, too, of course). If you are really clever you can pitch the worship at several levels at once.

Excellent insights-- from my experience, all very true, and very helpful-- albeit difficult to pull off.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Baptist Trainfan's list above speaks a lot of good sense.

IME, the more educated members of the congregation can feel included if a few well-chosen words are peppered into the sermon. They will be fleeting, and pass the others by, but can help to ground the ideas of the sermon in recognisable intellectual argument for those able to do so. They can also be pointers for the curious to delve deeper into the subject, by looking up the words and what they mean, later. (Or even at the time, with the appropriate device!) It is possible to tell a simple to understand story or illustration, and then to say 'This is an example of what theologians / bible scholars call....' before moving on to the next point. I've heard this technique used to great effect in cathedrals and larger churches, where the canons, deans, senior priests have been chosen at least partly for their ability to preach well.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The more educated members of the congregation can feel included if a few well-chosen words are peppered into the sermon ... It is possible to tell a simple to understand story or illustration, and then to say 'This is an example of what theologians / bible scholars call....' before moving on to the next point.

I agree entirely, although one Sunday I had to fight hard (and successfully) to keep the word "proleptic" out of my sermon even though it underlay most of what I was trying to say! After all, I didn't want to give the impression of "showing off"! [Cool]

Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :

Our vicar compared the transfiguration to baked beans in his homily. At least I think he did, the only thing I can remember about it is the baked beans. I HATE patronising/dumbed-down homilies. The homily or sermon is a very privileged medium because there is no debate and no space for questions - therefore the deliverer should respect the intelligence of his/her audience and remember SIR WE WOULD SEE JESUS, not you mate!

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I understand 'dumbing down' to mean a diminishment of excellence to reach those who have no appreciation of it.

I dislike the expression as it's sometimes used in a way which indicates snobbery. Is it condescending to offer what people will appreciate, in the hope that it will lead on to greater appreciation?
Is it OK to 'dumb down'?

I'm not sure what the context of your question is (though the thread has ventured into churchly territory), but I think possible responses (as others have already noted) have to be geared to audience.

What they must also be geared to, IMO, is purpose. Why do you, or I, or anyone, "dumb things down?" What are we trying to accomplish by whatever-it-is we're doing which we label with this term?

You mention "inclusivity," which for me calls up educational contexts. I've seen "inclusivity" done well and also very, very badly in public school settings in the US (I'm responsible for evaluating special needs students about to age out of school and come onto my caseload).

The democratic ideals (some) Western societies, or segments thereof, have embraced have engendered in their wake a great deal of confused thinking, IMO, about that it means to "include," and why and when and how we do this, and what "equality" is or means.

From my perspective in working with adults who have fairly substantial disabilities, "including" people who generally have atypical needs poses plenty of challenges. It would be great, in theory at least, if people with cognitive or sensory or mobility, etc. deficits could feel accepted and included in ordinary social contexts. In an ideal world (where we do not live), everyone, however oddly they appear or sound, however weirdly they behave, could have solid, healthy friendships with others willing and able to help them negotiate the barriers between them and some so-called "normal" life.

The longer I do my job, though, the more persuaded I am that we may have veered a little too far to in one direction in attempting to achieve "inclusivity."

First, we have to accept the fact that some people don't particularly desire to be included (and that's sometimes precisely why they act / speak / behave as oddly as they do).

Second, what do we want people included in, and to what end? The parents of one of my clients is moving heaven and earth in an effort to get their son "included" in college. From where I sit, this looks like a colossal waste of my client's time and energy. He lacks the cognitive and behavioral capacity to benefit from college courses. Worse, he distracts instructors and other students.

Even worse, his time (IMO) would be better spent learning to control impulses that actually put him in danger (we keep him on a gait-belt to prevent his lunging into traffic) than in hoping some fellow-student might befriend him.

His parents, IMO, want him in college because they're middle-class professionals whose friends have children in college. But those other kids will become middle-class professionals themselves; my client has no such hope. He lacks language, has no impulse control, can't dress or feed or toilet himself. This is inclusivity gone bonkers, IMO. I'd like his time spent learning to walk on the sidewalk and not in traffic. I'd like to see him be able to do some one task consistently that might make it possible for him to do sheltered employment at piece-work.

But
[brick wall]

his folks want him in college, and for now, that's how he spends his time.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The more educated members of the congregation can feel included if a few well-chosen words are peppered into the sermon ... It is possible to tell a simple to understand story or illustration, and then to say 'This is an example of what theologians / bible scholars call....' before moving on to the next point.
I agree entirely, although one Sunday I had to fight hard (and successfully) to keep the word "proleptic" out of my sermon even though it underlay most of what I was trying to say! After all, I didn't want to give the impression of "showing off"!

Couldn't you have used it and also explained what it meant? It's not showing off - I'm sure your congregation is well aware that you're a highly educated person. They might even feel a little flattered that you deign to share your great knowledge with them occasionally!

[Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that's a good point by Svitlana - that many audiences actually like it if some difficult words and concepts are used. I would of course explain them, but this is the opposite of dumbing down - it's treating people highly. And they often like it, and respond to it, as you are estimating them in a good way.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Even worse, his time (IMO) would be better spent learning to control impulses that actually put him in danger (we keep him on a gait-belt to prevent his lunging into traffic) than in hoping some fellow-student might befriend him.

I may have misunderstood this, are you saying you physically hobble an adult with intellectual disabilities in order to stop them running into the road ?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

(Would you rather they ran out into the road and got killed?! Sadly there are some people who need to be restrained for their own safety (I remember having to go out into the middle of the road to persuade one older teenager to get back onto the pavement, potentially putting my own life at risk in the process), at least until they learn an elementary sense of danger - just like a two year old. Teenagers are big and strong, you can't just make them return to safety. And persuading them verbally takes time - time they might not have, in such a dangerous situation.)

Anyway, back to topic - I agree with quetzalcoatl, above. It can actually be quite bewildering to listen to someone you know is quite learned, who never lets it show. You do begin to think that they've decided everyone in the congregation is a turnip head (the popular Creamtealand image doesn't help here! [Biased]

), so it's not worth bothering to explain.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
(Would you rather they ran out into the road and got killed?! Sadly there are some people who need to be restrained for their own safety (I remember having to go out into the middle of the road to persuade one older teenager to get back onto the pavement, potentially putting my own life at risk in the process), at least until they learn an elementary sense of danger - just like a two year old. Teenagers are big and strong, you can't just make them return to safety. And persuading them verbally takes time - time they might not have, in such a dangerous situation.)

I spend my working life dealing with these kind of situations - use of physical restraints for this kind of risk in the UK is vanishingly rare, and would require special authorisation probably via the court of protection. And frankly, I am not sure you would get it.

Eta: further googlage shows a gait belt to be a waist belt staff grasp rather than a hobble. Still think we would have issues with that in most circumstances though.

[ 26. March 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I work in the USA at a facility. I can think of a couple cases where a gait belt is used to control a person who may otherwise, as noted, walk into traffic. Given that some of these residents are quite strong, I think it's reasonable.

I believe, legally, that the use of such a device has to be approved by a human rights committee that includes the parents and other responsible parties, and has to be checked up every now and then.

And yes, in this case a gait belt is a strap that is cinched around the waist, most frequently used to support someone with an unsteady gait "contact guard," and in a few cases to help guide a resident into an appropriate direction.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Even worse, his time (IMO) would be better spent learning to control impulses that actually put him in danger (we keep him on a gait-belt to prevent his lunging into traffic) than in hoping some fellow-student might befriend him.
I may have misunderstood this, are you saying you physically hobble an adult with intellectual disabilities in order to stop them running into the road ?

As others have already noted, it's a strap around his waist which a staffer holds onto when he tries to run into traffic. At 6 feet and 170 pounds (he's taller than all but one of my staff), it's the best we can manage.

We would prefer to have two staff with him, thereby perhaps rendering the gait-belt unnecessary, but there's no budget for that.

As to hobbles, I've never seen much less used one (and I'm fairly sure we'd need-but-never-get a court order for that, as it, too, would render him unsafe. I'm quite sure he'd end up on the floor pretty regularly.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Even worse, his time (IMO) would be better spent learning to control impulses that actually put him in danger (we keep him on a gait-belt to prevent his lunging into traffic) than in hoping some fellow-student might befriend him.
I may have misunderstood this, are you saying you physically hobble an adult with intellectual disabilities in order to stop them running into the road ?

This may another topic. Not sure what a hobble refers to, but it is common here that people are restrained into wheelchairs, wear electronic devices that lock doors when they approach them, and wear harnesses that can be grabbed by staff to prevent the person from going where they shouldn't. The trend was to use medication previously up to about the 1980s, and it is still used, but the physical restraints have become the trend.

I'm on the other side of the question, with occupation health, where I see staff who've been injured when appropriate physical means have not been used. These are OH & S (occupational health and safety) issues and medical/nursing decisions here; not understanding how a court would ever be involved.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Dumbing down is what happens when a person or organisation has absolutely no respect for the intelligence of their prospective audience.
Hear! Hear!

And one of the most hatesome occasions of dumbing down happens during that execrable exercise of patronization called the Children's Sermon.

To me, these quotes kind of exemplify the problem with 'dumbing down' - that is, the phrase itself. It is a perjorative term to begin with. So asking if dumbing down is desirable is already a bit like asking if something that reasonable people know to be unacceptable should be made acceptable.

What is dumbing down? How far does a thing have to be 'dumbed' for it to be too dumb for.... well, for who? For you with your education, for me with mine? For my neighbour? For someone with learning difficulties? For someone with a degree in astro-physics?

The 'execrable exercise of patronization' called the children's sermon is undoubtedly disliked by many children. It is, however, liked by many others. Depending on the material, presentation of content and person doing the presentation etc. Many adults are quick - I've discovered - to say how much they enjoy the children's talk over the 'adult' sermon. And just to be really complicated about it, this Sunday's kids' talk might be fab, and next week's might be crap.

So how useful is the phrase after all, without context and definition of specifics? Someone might be listening to a speaker and thinking 'sheesh, he's talking to us as if we're morons,'; and the person next to him might be thinking 'what's he going on about? Too cerebral for me!'

So who's going to set themselves up as the arbiter of 'dumbing down', as a general principle, to be applied universally?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

So who's going to set themselves up as the arbiter of 'dumbing down', as a general principle, to be applied universally?

But isn't that precisely the problem -- that there can be no universa' principle? That we can't "dumb down" anything or "render [it} accessible" until we know who the audience is and what they're like, and what we're trying to accomplish with the "dumbing down" / "making accessible?"

The 4-y.o. wants to know where babies come from. Do we say:

"Go ask your other parent"?
"A stork drops them off to the cabbage patch"?
"A mom and a dad love each other so much that the love turns into a baby"?
"A man pokes his thing into a woman's whatsit, and sometimes a baby happens as a result"?
"A male human and a female human engage in sexual intercourse, and if this happens at the right moment during a woman's menstrual cycle, the man's sperm unites with the woman's ovum and a conception takes place"?

I still wish I understood what this conversation is actually about. Is it really meant to be about the Moment With Our Children ( [Projectile]

) in church? Can the OP clarify?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Even worse, his time (IMO) would be better spent learning to control impulses that actually put him in danger (we keep him on a gait-belt to prevent his lunging into traffic) than in hoping some fellow-student might befriend him.
I may have misunderstood this, are you saying you physically hobble an adult with intellectual disabilities in order to stop them running into the road ?
This may another topic. Not sure what a hobble refers to, but it is common here that people are restrained into wheelchairs, wear electronic devices that lock doors when they approach them, and wear harnesses that can be grabbed by staff to prevent the person from going where they shouldn't. The trend was to use medication previously up to about the 1980s, and it is still used, but the physical restraints have become the trend.

I'm on the other side of the question, with occupation health, where I see staff who've been injured when appropriate physical means have not been used. These are OH & S (occupational health and safety) issues and medical/nursing decisions here; not understanding how a court would ever be involved.

Sorry to prolong the tangent, but here is a link on how deprivation of liberty safeguards work in parts of the UK. Its easyread because that's the first one I found.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

So who's going to set themselves up as the arbiter of 'dumbing down', as a general principle, to be applied universally?
But isn't that precisely the problem -- that there can be no universa' principle? That we can't "dumb down" anything or "render [it} accessible" until we know who the audience is and what they're like, and what we're trying to accomplish with the "dumbing down" / "making accessible?"

The 4-y.o. wants to know where babies come from. Do we say:

"Go ask your other parent"?
"A stork drops them off to the cabbage patch"?
"A mom and a dad love each other so much that the love turns into a baby"?
"A man pokes his thing into a woman's whatsit, and sometimes a baby happens as a result"?
"A male human and a female human engage in sexual intercourse, and if this happens at the right moment during a woman's menstrual cycle, the man's sperm unites with the woman's ovum and a conception takes place"?

I still wish I understood what this conversation is actually about. Is it really meant to be about the Moment With Our Children ( ) in church? Can the OP clarify?

the first two suck, the latter three are excellent in their own way.
/ kelly, who was trying to find a tactful way to explain why the turkeys were jumping each other at the zoo today. Gotta love spring.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The four-year-old answer to where babies come from is "From the hospital, honey." [Two face]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

I still wish I understood what this conversation is actually about. Is it really meant to be about the Moment With Our Children ( ) in church? Can the OP clarify?

Thank you for your input Porridge. I am interested in all perspectives on this, as principles and observations apply both within and outside of the church context.

I am looking at it from the church context, not only in terms of children but in terms of drawing in 'unchurched' people in new ways which may be considered 'dumbing down' by some who think that their 'traditional' ways are best.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

So who's going to set themselves up as the arbiter of 'dumbing down', as a general principle, to be applied universally?
But isn't that precisely the problem -- that there can be no universa' principle? That we can't "dumb down" anything or "render [it} accessible" until we know who the audience is and what they're like, and what we're trying to accomplish with the "dumbing down" / "making accessible?"

The 4-y.o. wants to know where babies come from. Do we say:

"Go ask your other parent"?
"A stork drops them off to the cabbage patch"?
"A mom and a dad love each other so much that the love turns into a baby"?
"A man pokes his thing into a woman's whatsit, and sometimes a baby happens as a result"?
"A male human and a female human engage in sexual intercourse, and if this happens at the right moment during a woman's menstrual cycle, the man's sperm unites with the woman's ovum and a conception takes place"?

I still wish I understood what this conversation is actually about. Is it really meant to be about the Moment With Our Children ( ) in church? Can the OP clarify?
the first two suck, the latter three are excellent in their own way.
/ kelly, who was trying to find a tactful way to explain why the turkeys were jumping each other at the zoo today. Gotta love spring.

I told my daughter that women and men both contain instructions on how to build a baby. The woman takes the man's instructions and uses them with her own to build the child. She hasn't asked how the woman gets the man's instructions, so I haven't answered.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I am looking at it from the church context, not only in terms of children but in terms of drawing in 'unchurched' people in new ways which may be considered 'dumbing down' by some who think that their 'traditional' ways are best.

Regarding your second point, has any church or Christian movement ever attracted a popular following by being highbrow and intellectual? The pharisees probably saw Jesus himself as offering a dumbed-down version of religion, since he mostly bypassed them and their specialist training in his grassroots ministry.

Significant growth seems to occur when the rules are bent or broken, often by mavericks who may be obliged to leave an established denomination or to work on the fringes of acceptability if they stay. Churches are planted or revived; this isn't usually the time for theological sophistication. That comes later down the line, when things have settled down, growth has slowed, and people in the pews want less fervour in the pulpit and more academic theological credentials.

This is what the sociologists of religion tell us about the Protestant experience. It seems fairly credible to me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

"The 4-y.o. wants to know where babies come from."

I thought the canonical answer was "from their mummy's tummy".

For some reason the male contribution gets left unmentioned for a few years more.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...has any church or Christian movement ever attracted a popular following by being highbrow and intellectual? The pharisees probably saw Jesus himself as offering a dumbed-down version of religion, since he mostly bypassed them and their specialist training in his grassroots ministry.

What a great point! As for your second comment:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Theological sophistication... comes later down the line, when things have settled down, growth has slowed, and people in the pews want less fervour in the pulpit and more academic theological credentials.

Hmm, perhaps theological sophistication is overrated if it's linked with the desire for less fervour...

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

In education, the problem of presenting conceptual material to people at various levels of development, skill, knowledge, maturity and sophistication is dealt with by dividing people into "grades" or "forms." Not a perfect system, I grant you; there can be enormous variations in any large set of (say) 12-year-olds.

In work settings, we divide people up by tasks or task types and skill-sets and responsibilities.

Maybe churches need some way to sort their congregations out by levels of spiritual or theological development. The A-levels get Sermon 1 at 9 a.m., the B-levels get Sermon 2 at 10, and so on.

[ 28. March 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am afraid that Protestantism historically is intellectual (it appeals to the rational) and within it Reformed tradition is highly intellectual! Check that out with Howard Rice if you want. We are hardly as a tradition unsuccessful despite the small size of the URC.

Sorry to have to prick people's conceit.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am afraid that Protestantism historically is intellectual (it appeals to the rational) and within it Reformed tradition is highly intellectual! Check that out with Howard Rice if you want. We are hardly as a tradition unsuccessful despite the small size of the URC.

Sorry to have to prick people's conceit.

Jengie

You're quite right. But Protestantism hasn't generally won many converts among ordinary people by stressing this aspect, has it? The rational, intellectual side seems to take prominence at a later point, once the people in the pews are already Christians.

[ 28. March 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Maybe churches need some way to sort their congregations out by levels of spiritual or theological development. The A-levels get Sermon 1 at 9 a.m., the B-levels get Sermon 2 at 10, and so on.

Or maybe we could ditch the idea that sermons are the only or best teaching tool available, and actually listen to what education professionals say about how best to teach people.

Especially as the teaching element within Christianity isn't about teaching new facts (to which lectures / sermons might be a useful contributor) but training in how to do new things (e.g. turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse us). Where's the evidence that sermons / lectures are particularly helpful in achieving this goal? *Dismounts hobby horse*

(This is a general rant, not directed at you personally, Porridge!)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Sorry to prolong the tangent, but here is a link on how deprivation of liberty safeguards work in parts of the UK. Its easyread because that's the first one I found.

Sorry as well re tangent. The mechanisms and procedures are completely different in Canada as far as I know. The only parallel is a mental health warrant which is short term regarding harm to self or others. Everything else is handled as part of of medical, nursing and long term care, based on a plan made by a community assessment and treatment unit (they get called slightly different things) and revised by the care team. Everything is supposed to be discussed with the care facility working with the patient, or home care, family, school (if relevant), job placement (if relevant) etc. It does generally work, and when it doesn't there are patient advocates (called slightly different things) who can ask questions and help facilitate.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Course, as it was easy read, it is a fairly good example of trying to simplify complex information. Does it count as dumbing down ?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I thought "dumbing-down" was about the devaluation of qualifications - that the level of mastery of a subject that an A-level or a BSc or an MA in that subject represents has declined over time.

Which is a sort of deception - a claim to a level of attainment that is no longer achieved.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I thought "dumbing-down" was about the devaluation of qualifications - that the level of mastery of a subject that an A-level or a BSc or an MA in that subject represents has declined over time.

Which is a sort of deception - a claim to a level of attainment that is no longer achieved.

Best wishes,

Russ

Yes it's used in that context too Russ. It has surprised me how many different connotations the expression has, some positive and others negative.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It has surprised me how many different connotations the expression has, some positive and others negative.

I'm surprised that you think it ever has positive connotations.

Presenting things clearly and straightforwardly without jargon -a good thing - would approvingly be described as "plain English". If a similar exercise was described as "dumbing down" that would suggest to me that the speaker disapproves - e.g. that they consider that important nuances have been omitted.

But then again the "XXX for Dummies" series of books seems popular...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm surprised that you think it ever has positive connotations.

Presenting things clearly and straightforwardly without jargon -a good thing - would approvingly be described as "plain English". If a similar exercise was described as "dumbing down" that would suggest to me that the speaker disapproves - e.g. that they consider that important nuances have been omitted.

But then again the "XXX for Dummies" series of books seems popular...

Best wishes,

Russ

Where it means lowering standards or encourages a sneering intellectual snobbery, it's negative.

Where it means increasing accessibility, it's positive imv.

I'm happy if a book says it's for dummies if it means I can follow it without first obtaining a degree in the subject - and how would I ever do so if there were no stages along the way, in which the language had been 'dumbed down' to some extent, to reach me at my level? I like the honesty of the title, and can't complain if it's too simple.

There's more to it than plain English, there's adjustment to the pre-supposed level of knowledge.

It's not easy to get right, as some have pointed out. There will probably always be some for whom the chosen level doesn't apply.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There's more to it than plain English, there's adjustment to the pre-supposed level of knowledge.

It's not easy to get right, as some have pointed out. There will probably always be some for whom the chosen level doesn't apply.

Yes, yes and yes. What I'm suggesting is that when this is done well it's called something like "providing an accessible summary" and when it's done badly it's called "dumbing down"...

Done badly can include issues of tone, issues of content (over-simplifying, measured relative to the needs and capabilities of the audience) and issues of honesty - being upfront about the level of simplifying going on.

I don't see much disagreement about the principles. But as you say, not always easy.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

In British English I think "dumbing down" is always a pejorative phrase. Never used positively.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In British English I think "dumbing down" is always a pejorative phrase. Never used positively.

I've never heard it used except as a pejorative in the U.S.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In British English I think "dumbing down" is always a pejorative phrase. Never used positively.

It's a bit like "political correctness" - used by people who are agin' it, whatever "it" is, as a useful umbrella term to render "it" already condemned.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0