The earth is flat, last I heard.

If only 99% of the population WERE actually familiar with political maps. Along with not knowing how to balance a checkbook (or make sense of a credit card statement), name their senators and state governor, a large number of people can not find their state on a map, let alone finding Edinburgh, Beijing, or Cape Town. And using GPS all the time leaves people unable to find their way without it.

It isn't stupidity, it's a lack of map instruction (and instruction in arithmetic, civics, and every so many other topics).

soils — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Here's a picture of the loess hills of western Iowa. Loess is soil that blew off the receding glaciers, piled up, hardened, and there they are. It's kind of a yellowish soil. One learns about such things on geology field trips. In flat Iowa a hill this high has to be experienced to be believed.

There is also no gravity. The earth sucks.

If only 99% of the population WERE actually familiar with political maps... — Bitter Crank

Right now may be the best opportunity ever that people have had to think geograpically.

The internet is full of tons of geographic material/resources and as far as I know anybody living near a public library has free internet access.

Did you know that only Texas and Georgia have more counties than Kentucky? Did you know that Philadelphia has the largest downtown in the U.S.? Did you know that Houston, TX has no zoning laws? Did you know that the Texas state constitution prohibits city and county governments​ from merging? Did you know that Kentucky has more farms than any other state? Did you know that the tallest building in Mobile, AL is taller than any building in Kentucky, while the tallest building in Kentucky is taller than any building in Arkansas? Did you know that a federal building straddles​ the AR/TX state line at Texarkana? I learned all of that (assuming my memory is correct) from Wikipedia.

I have learned a lot of other stuff from maps, aerial photographs, etc. on the World Wide Web.

Thirty years ago you probably had to flip through atlases, almanacs, encyclopedias, etc. and go to libraries with map collections.

a large number of people can not find their state on a map, let alone finding Edinburgh, Beijing, or Cape Town... — Bitter Crank

Complete illiteracy, in other words.

And using GPS all the time leaves people unable to find their way without it... — Bitter Crank

Funny how technology means intellectual empowerment for some people (see my first several paragraphs above) and increased helplessness for others.

It isn't stupidity, it's a lack of map instruction (and instruction in arithmetic, civics, and every so many other topics)... — Bitter Crank

It does not help that at the pre-college level geography is presented as trivia to be memorized rather than as a science.

Here's a picture of the loess hills of western Iowa. Loess is soil that blew off the receding glaciers, piled up, hardened, and there they are. It's kind of a yellowish soil. One learns about such things on geology field trips. In flat Iowa a hill this high has to be experienced to be believed. — Bitter Crank

It would be interesting to study it on a topographic map.

The earth is flat, last I heard. — Nils Loc

I heard that if somebody on Earth walks in a straight line he will end up back at the point he started.

I thought that if you were to walk in a straight line you would go into outer space.

Shows how much I know!

They might do not know "push and pull factors" as one of the geographer's theoretical devices, but they know it from history and from everyday practice. Most of us live in places which either produce or accept immigrants (or both), so we're aware, to a certain extent, of push and pull factors... — Πετροκότσυφας

Judging by the content of the immigration debate in the U.S. the last two decades, I would say, no, 99.9% of people in the U.S. are not aware of push and pull factors.

Pull factors, such as low-paying, dangerous jobs that Americans won't fill having to be filled by immigrants--"documented" or "undocumented"--almost never make an appearance in the conversation.

A little more geographic literacy would probably have resulted in a different conversation/debate and may have resulted in different political outcomes (no Donald Trump presidency).

We might not be able to theorise on an abstract level about such issues, but most, when it comes to our built environments, are aware of practical considerations such as the existence of green spaces, open spaces, water sources, dumpsites etc. — Πετροκότσυφας

I would argue that such "practical" awareness does little good for the overwhelming majority of individuals.

A little more geographic literacy might lead to them seeing the big-picture consequences that buying a McMansion in the suburbs has to their quality of life, health, happiness, etc. and make them look to instead, oh, buy a condo that was built as urban infill.

Now, of course, most of our understanding regarding such topics is usually quite simplistic, but that's more or less expected. — Πετροκότσυφας

The same "more or less expected" could be said about evolutionary theory, physics, and economics.

Yet, we have no patience for economic illiteracy, the lack of belief in evolution, etc.

If we are going to be consistent then we need to give the gaping hole of geographic illiteracy at least the same concern and attention.

Also, I think that it's not terribly surprising that most people do not know what GIS is. Most of us are not big in electromagnetism either, despite the fact that we can turn the radio on. Specialisation comes with a cost. — Πετροκότσυφας

Nonetheless, it is powerful evidence of widespread geographic illiteracy.

Most people will never hear of or use CAD, but if you ask them about it they could probably imagine what it is and what it is used for.

I doubt that many people who have no familiarity with GIS could imagine what its applications are.

The earth is flat, last I heard. — Nils Loc

I hate to break it to you, but Kyrie Irving is not a reliable source on such matters. (Neither is he a reliable Cavalier, the bastard.)

How does​ so much obliviousness to geography continue in highly-educated societies? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A mix of apathy on the part of students and poor teaching.

A mix of apathy on the part of students and poor teaching. — Thorongil

I don't know about every school district, but in the ones that I am familiar with the science of geography is non-existent in the elementary and secondary school curriculum. The only geography in the curriculum is memorizing the names of places and their locations on political maps, and teachers do an excellent job at guiding students through such a simple task.

If we wanted students to experience the science of geography at that level of schooling, a fun assignment would be to have them research the history of the site of the apartment or house they live in. Maybe when the community was first incorporated it was a plot with corn growing on it. Maybe later it was the site of a general store. Maybe then suburban development started to encroach on the area and the apartment/house was then built as part of a compromise--the developer wanted to build a big enclosed regional mall, but a mixed-use development with churches, some retail, some office space, and some residential buildings was the only thing every interested party could agree on.

As far as I know, nobody gets to experience any of that kind of research until they get to the college level. And it is not offered at every institution like philosophy, economics, sociology, etc. are. Therefore, depending on where you go to college, you might not only never be able to major in geography, you might not ever be able to take one single geography course to meet a social or natural sciences requirement for graduation.

Evolutionary theory, physics, economics, etc. are not the real empty gaping hole in our individual and collective knowledge bases. The science of geography is.

I don't know about every school district, but in the ones that I am familiar with the science of geography is non-existent in the elementary and secondary school curriculum. The only geography in the curriculum is memorizing the names of places and their locations on political maps, and teachers do an excellent job at guiding students through such a simple task. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Wow. That's an even more significant devolution from when I was in school. I'm not that surprised, though.

As far as I know, nobody gets to experience any of that kind of research until they get to the college level. And it is not offered at every institution like philosophy, economics, sociology, etc. are. Therefore, depending on where you go to college, you might not only never be able to major in geography, you might not ever be able to take one single geography course to meet a social or natural sciences requirement for graduation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is true. I took a couple of geography courses in college that fulfilled some gen ed requirements, but they weren't the only courses that fulfilled them, so I could have gone through school without having taken them. It wouldn't have affected me much, though, as I've been interested in maps and geography from a young age. To revise my answer, then, I might now say that geographical literacy depends on parental encouragement. I had the good fortune to be the son of two humanities educators.

I hate to break it to you, but Kyrie Irving is not a reliable source on such matters. (Neither is he a reliable Cavalier, the bastard.) — Thorongil

Don't worry, cities like Cleveland may not even have major sports teams much longer.

Just ask San Diego and Oakland, California. They still have the Padres and the A's at least--for now.

Think geographically for a little while and you might see the Beijing Browns and no more Cleveland Browns.

Nobody ever said that geographic thinking would never be painful.

Some things should be memorized, like:

the name, capitol of, location, and the graphic shape of each state
the name, capitol of, location, and the graphic shape of the 100 major countries
the source of basic commodities that we use (coal, oil, iron ore, copper, tin, zinc, niobium, dairy, beef, pork, vegetables, grains, beer, cotton, linen, wool, and so on. No one should get past their 21st birthday thinking that spaghetti grows on trees or that Velcro is a city in Transylvania. (Some people, when told that spaghetti grows on trees, thought that was true.)

You only learn what you are taught, whether it be self-taught or not, unless exposure is included in your highly educated society, then what they do not know will not come to haunt them and or be known to them.

A mix of apathy on the part of students and poor teaching. — Thorongil

Well, Thorongil, this is the sum and substance of school for a good share of the population. I've said elsewhere that maybe 20% of students get a good to excellent education. It isn't an accident. The 20% get good education because their parents move into good school districts, or send their children to good private schools. 20% of the school population actually have a bright future. The other 80%, not so much.

Why doesn't everybody get a good to excellent education, when the benefits are so obvious? Because, in the big world of real politic many students are going to be economically irrelevant to a large extent and it just doesn't matter whether they know where Iowa, France, or New Zealand is. It doesn't matter whether they know shit from shinola. It doesn't matter if they know anything at all.

Irrelevant, useless people is what results when economies are organized only to maximize profit for stockholders. Production requiring low skills is transferred to the lowest wage countries. Some goods require lots of skilled workers, large overhead, and investment, but those industries don't employ huge numbers of people.

Irrelevant, useless people will still eat and buy stuff, so they have a function after all, but advertising on television or the internet can take care of teaching them what kind of junk they should buy.

I don't even know what the geography-illiterate think. They think that the locations of cities, soils, water, etc. were randomly determined by the flip of a coin, maybe? Places are in vacuums and do not affect each other, maybe? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Intuitively, the location of cities primarily developed around major ports or other hubs of transportation. Isn't the location of soils and water geology? Given the categorical disparity between cities and soil & water, I'm not sure what etc. may be referring to.

I not sure why anyone would think "places" are in vacuums that don't affect​ each other. Are these places very far apart?

Intuitively, the location of cities primarily developed around major ports or other hubs of transportation... — praxis

A helpful model is to think of cities as nodes in networks. The corn is grown in this non-urban space. The corn is then sold in that small town. All of the corn in the area sold in that small town is then sold to a manufacturer in a medium-size city where it is processed into corn syrup. That corn syrup is then sold to a bottled beverage manufacturer in a big city. Etc.

But before people can understand and appreciate the location of their settlement, they have to be aware of things like that network.

Isn't the location of soils and water geology?... — praxis

Geology is not concerned much with location like physical geography is, the way that I understand it. Geology is simply concerned with how geologic systems, processes and materials work and/or are composed/made.

Given the categorical disparity between cities and soil & water, I'm not sure what etc. may be referring to... — praxis

But you started out talking about the relationship between cities and ports (water).

And you don't think that the type, amount and quality of soil in a location is going to affect what type of industry is there, what type of food is grown locally, where roads can be built, etc.?

I not sure why anyone would think "places" are in vacuums that don't affect​ each other. Are these places very far apart? — praxis

Everything that happens at every point of latitude and longitude--a trade deal signed; an earthquake; an invention; an election; etc.--affects everything that happens at every other point of latitude and longitude. The geography-illiterate might be so provincial that they do not see the small range of latitude and longitude that they work and live in being affected by or affecting any other place.

Well, Thorongil, this is the sum and substance of school for a good share of the population. I've said elsewhere that maybe 20% of students get a good to excellent education. It isn't an accident. The 20% get good education because their parents move into good school districts, or send their children to good private schools. 20% of the school population actually have a bright future. The other 80%, not so much.

Why doesn't everybody get a good to excellent education, when the benefits are so obvious? Because, in the big world of real politic many students are going to be economically irrelevant to a large extent and it just doesn't matter whether they know where Iowa, France, or New Zealand is. It doesn't matter whether they know shit from shinola. It doesn't matter if they know anything at all.

Irrelevant, useless people is what results when economies are organized only to maximize profit for stockholders. Production requiring low skills is transferred to the lowest wage countries. Some goods require lots of skilled workers, large overhead, and investment, but those industries don't employ huge numbers of people.

Irrelevant, useless people will still eat and buy stuff, so they have a function after all, but advertising on television or the internet can take care of teaching them what kind of junk they should buy. — Bitter Crank

And then the people who got a good education sound alarms about how many other people are science-illiterate; don't believe in evolution; don't know what GDP or trade deficits are; etc.

If they are going to be consistent then they should sound alarms about the worst literacy problem of them all: geographic illiteracy.

By "worst" I don't necessarily mean the one with the biggest consequences. I mean the one that is the deepest--intelligent design adherents at least know about evolution; the geography-illiterate are completely oblivious to geography--and the most widespread.

But before people can understand and appreciate the location of their settlement, they have to be aware of things like that network. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But eventually it comes down to a coin toss?

But you started out talking about the relationship between cities and ports (water). — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So etc. could be referring to any geographical element? Okay.

The geography-illiterate might be so provincial that they do not see the small range of latitude and longitude that they work and live in being affected by or affecting any other place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yup, them there country folk are real morons.

Education standards in middle and high school should require competence in "general education". The subjects of "general education" include (minimum)

American history (2 years)
World history -- particularly western civilization (1 year, minimum)
World literature and composition (2 years)
American literature and composition (2 years)
British literature and composition (1 year)
General Science (2 years, minimum)
biology (2 years, minimum)
geography (2 years, minimum)
a foreign language (2 years, minimum)
personal finance (1 year)
Less general education includes:
Additional classes in math and science (algebra, geometry, etc.; chemistry, physics, etc.)
vocational classes (focused on practical tasks)

Obviously, subjects taught in 7th grade will be have a less complex presentation than the same subjects taught in the 11th or 12th grade. Geography needs to be included in elementary school to present the general kinds of information--a good grasp of the size and organization of the United States (or Europe for British and European students).

Maybe this seems old fashioned.

At least when I was in high school (back in the carboniferous period) there was little to no instruction on ordinary economic life. Geography is the best field to cover economic life. Where do goods come from? How are they distributed? What does location, location, location mean? How are seaports, canals, rivers, railroads, highways, airports... work together? How is it that a fragile tropical fruit (the banana) is everybody's favorite, and cheap? Why aren't the apples in the store grown locally? (A lot of it is G E O G R A P H Y.)

But eventually it comes down to a coin toss?... — praxis

You are distorting my words.

I said I don't know how the geography-illiterate think about where things are located. Geography is a science, so if a person has not thought geographically then maybe he/she thinks that the locations of things are random.

So etc. could be referring to any geographical element? Okay... — praxis

I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Anything--beer consumption; pornography downloads; ice storms; insurance sales; bee colonies--that has a location or locations on the Earth can be mapped and analyzed geographically.

That is what separates geography from other social and physical sciences: it is concerned with the spatial/aerial context of phenomena.

Sociology, economics, geology, biology, etc. can all be done without any reference to or account of latitude and longitude--without any reference to or account of location on the Earth.

Geography assumes that the locations of things on the Earth are not only not random, they play a role in those things' character, behavior, interactions with each other, affect on each other, etc.

Yup, them there country folk are real morons. — praxis

Just now I did a Google search for the phrase "New Yorkers are provincial".

368 results.

I guess you think that when a local professor of geography called certain behavior in the city that I live in "provincialism" he was calling his fellow residents "real morons".

I guess you think that when a woman in the city I live in said that when she moved here she thought that the place was "very provincial" she was saying that people here are "real morons".

No, nobody is saying that anybody is a moron. They are simply saying that some people lack a holistic perspective on people and places. Apparently that lack of holistic geographic perspective is greater in some places (including heavily, densely populated urban areas) than others. Heck, California wants to secede from the U.S.; Silicon Valley thinks that it now controls the world; yet, when I bring up people being provincial what comes to your mind is "country folk". You prove the point of this thread with much of what you say.

At least when I was in high school (back in the carboniferous period) there was little to no instruction on ordinary economic life. Geography is the best field to cover economic life. Where do goods come from? How are they distributed? What does location, location, location mean? How are seaports, canals, rivers, railroads, highways, airports... work together? How is it that a fragile tropical fruit (the banana) is everybody's favorite, and cheap? Why aren't the apples in the store grown locally? (A lot of it is G E O G R A P H Y.) — Bitter Crank

I don't disagree.

If a lot of people have that foundation of knowledge then something else must explain their no-more-than-minimal awareness and appreciation. Maybe geographers are horrible at public relations--maybe they need to hire the same public relations professionals that physicists do. "The science of Geography. Be a part of STEM: be a geographer!"

Education standards in middle and high school should require competence in "general education". The subjects of "general education" include (minimum)

American history (2 years)
World history -- particularly western civilization (1 year, minimum)
World literature and composition (2 years)
American literature and composition (2 years)
British literature and composition (1 year)
General Science (2 years, minimum)
biology (2 years, minimum)
geography (2 years, minimum)
a foreign language (2 years, minimum)
personal finance (1 year)
Less general education includes:
Additional classes in math and science (algebra, geometry, etc.; chemistry, physics, etc.)
vocational classes (focused on practical tasks)

Obviously, subjects taught in 7th grade will be have a less complex presentation than the same subjects taught in the 11th or 12th grade. Geography needs to be included in elementary school to present the general kinds of information--a good grasp of the size and organization of the United States (or Europe for British and European students).

Maybe this seems old fashioned. — Bitter Crank

Don't forget that there maybe has never been more opportunities than now to think geographically.

GIS software for 3rd graders to play with is probably possible.

I said I don't know how the geography-illiterate think about where things are located. Geography is a science, so if a person has not thought geographically then maybe he/she thinks that the locations of things are random. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To be clear, I'm geography-illiterate just as you describe in the OP and that's why I decided to participate.

To reiterate my uninformed understanding, I assume cities tended to develop organically around major transportation hubs (railroads for instance) or other beneficial natural resources such as bays in coastal areas, and perhaps large rivers in inland areas. For example, it makes sense to me that San Francisco is located in the Bay Area rather than Big Sur. I don't think there was actually a guy (the official city site chooser for California I guess) who flipped a coin, heads for Big Sur and tails for the Bay Area, and the shipping industry at the time just happened to get lucky.

As for the location of "soil and water," I believe this is more of a geology question. I assume you've heard of plate tectonics, erosion, and so on.

Sociology, economics, geology, biology, etc. can all be done without any reference to or account of latitude and longitude--without any reference to or account of location on the Earth. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I suppose they could be done this way but done badly. You have to admit it would at least lack a... how should I say, holistic perspective.

You prove the point of this thread with much of what you say. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Again I'm geography-illiterate just as you describe in the OP, yet I understand concepts like depended origination, the butterfly effect, etc. This apparently tends to disprove your point.

Well, Thorongil, this is the sum and substance of school for a good share of the population. I've said elsewhere that maybe 20% of students get a good to excellent education. It isn't an accident. The 20% get good education because their parents move into good school districts, or send their children to good private schools. 20% of the school population actually have a bright future. The other 80%, not so much.

Why doesn't everybody get a good to excellent education, when the benefits are so obvious? Because, in the big world of real politic many students are going to be economically irrelevant to a large extent and it just doesn't matter whether they know where Iowa, France, or New Zealand is. It doesn't matter whether they know shit from shinola. It doesn't matter if they know anything at all.

Irrelevant, useless people is what results when economies are organized only to maximize profit for stockholders. Production requiring low skills is transferred to the lowest wage countries. Some goods require lots of skilled workers, large overhead, and investment, but those industries don't employ huge numbers of people.

Irrelevant, useless people will still eat and buy stuff, so they have a function after all, but advertising on television or the internet can take care of teaching them what kind of junk they should buy. — Bitter Crank

Living up to your user name I see. I agree with you here, so I have nothing to add. I might ask you a question, though: in general, do you think education has devolved, evolved, or progressed since you were last in school?

Until now everything that I have written in this thread has been a lot of my own observations or a few recollections of what I read many years ago.

Time to bring in other sources.

This is just one of many about geographic illiteracy that I easily found in little time this evening:

"Our ignorance about the world and about each other has finally taken its toll, in the unlikely form of Donald Trump. Trump represents the most simplistic answers to the questions that we explored in geography, and he preys on the unfamiliarity – and, indeed, mistrust – that divides Red places from Blue..." -- Geographic Illiteracy And The Rise Of Trump


As a native and lifelong resident of a "red state" I know what the author means. As a person who has never been a conservative, I have always felt like my home state is misunderstood, and have become increasingly saddened by the hostility of "blue states" and liberal elites towards us.

The phrase "flyover country" is, to me, an expression of a lack of appreciation of the diverse human and physical landscapes in the U.S., and is sad. But I only heard it once before the 2016 presidential election. Now it seems to make regular appearances in political analysis and commentary.

do you think education has devolved, evolved, or progressed since you were last in school? — Thorongil

There were lackluster teachers and indifferent students (like me) when I was in school over 50 years ago. I was very lucky to get firmly directed towards a state college shortly before graduating. It made all the difference in the world.

What I see in the children of reasonably happy professionally employed people is that their children seem to be more verbally and socially sophisticated than children used to be. I attribute this to good day care and pre-school programs, and the aspirations of their parents. It's a good thing, but my sample is very small and my observations are brief.

If schools are devolving, and I think some school districts are devolving into collapse, it's a result of collapsing communities. The very very best schools can not repair economic and social problems (at least as presently constituted). Given reasonably healthy communities, adequately funded schools, and reasonable expectations, schools perform at least reasonably well.

So, problems schools are the result of problem economies and problem-loaded communities, and there are plenty of them.

Very good education still requires alert students, well organized teachers, reasonable class sizes, and good instructional material. The Internet is a great external resource. It doesn't replace good teaching.

Excellent article.

Living up to your user name I see. — Thorongil

See, that's why I need to change my user name. What was bitter or crankish about that post?

But, like all of us, your username is now part and parcel to how we all perceive you. We don't perceive you as a bitter crank; it's rather that there's a sort of nice irony that exists between your name and your posts. A username doesn't have to be an actual expression of you; it was at some point, but now it creates it's own aura around you. Noble Dust was the name of an album I put out in 2011; I still like the name, but I also think it's pretty pretentious. But I just run with it. I trust that the mindset I was in 6 years ago is still a mindset that somehow permeates what I post on here, if only indirectly. The name you chose however many years ago is still, in some way, an expression of who you are.