Britons can't separate myth from fact.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-02-25 01:28am

Yahoo News wrote: LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.

And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.

Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.

Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.

Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.

UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-02-25 01:30am

Been posted a while ago.

Gullible Jones · Post by **Gullible Jones** » 2008-02-25 01:31am

I'm reminded of the survey that found that London schoolchildren didn't know that apples came from apple trees, or pork from pigs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-25 01:33am

Frankly, I find that a lot less disturbing than the popularity of religious pseudoscientific beliefs. At the end of the day, knowledge of the names of historical figures vs fictional figures is trivia, and does not relate to actual thinking skills nearly as well as susceptibility to religious bullshit does.

Post by **weemadando** » 2008-02-25 01:41am

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I find that a lot less disturbing than the popularity of religious pseudoscientific beliefs. At the end of the day, knowledge of the names of historical figures vs fictional figures is trivia, and does not relate to actual thinking skills nearly as well as susceptibility to religious bullshit does.

Even historical figures who existed within living memory?

Don't get me wrong - pseudoscience is an issue - but not believing that someone who their parents and possibly even themselves would have lived at the same time as, and who was a significant cultural icon in their own nation existed?

I find that more disturbing that someone being more inclined to believe in "God did it" than in a collection of, lets be fair, complex scientific theories.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2008-02-25 01:58am

weemadando wrote:Even historical figures who existed within living memory?

Speaking as someone who loves history... knowledge of historical fact is less important in the final analysis than critical thinking. Yes, it is important on some level to have an understanding of history, and it is good for a person to have a basis of knowledge in what came before him, and for such knowledge to be preserved. It contributes something valuable to culture to know such things.

But you have to look at the powers of critical thinking as a kind of precursor to other knowledge. Like, knowledge of calculus is good, but it would be better for the average person to be capable of recognizing specious reasoning, than for him to be able to find the derivative of a given equation, right? The stupidity of the people in the examples given is only interesting because they have manifestly failed to learn from high school; somebody who has been through the UK's educational system should know shit like that Sherlock Holmes is fictional and Winston Churchill was a real bloke. I recognize that.

But I think the point Mike was making is, it is bullshit that rote learning of historical facts is assigned more priority than critical thinking. In Britain I think this problem is less prevalent than in the USA, because religious superstition is weak and the truly ignorant are dumb enough that they keep to themselves (as opposed to the USA, where complete failure of all logical/rhetorical processes is sometimes considerable laudable). But in America, next door to Canada, we have people like Mike Huckabee, seriously running for president, who reject every advancement in intellectual life since 1600 A.D.

So I have to agree with Mike. Abiding faith in an invisible sky faerie who determines all issues of right and wrong is more disturbing than a lack of knowledge about Richard coeur de Lion.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-02-25 04:08am

Don't forget the Brits' long history of pulling pranks when presented with a survey of this sort.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-02-25 06:05am

Churchill's fame is inescapable here, to the extent he won the "Greatest Britons" list, so I do not accept the survey's results. The Greatest Britons thing was lame as Hell, and showed the impact the media and celebrity does have on us, but Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Darwin being in the top five is something to be proud of, at least. I can't imagine the same happening in the US.

Everyone knows about Churchill, I am incredulous to the point of dismissal that people think he was totally mythical. Perhaps the question was worded badly too; perhaps it was "do you think Churchill was mythical?" instead of "do you think Churchill existed?" as he does have a mythology around him of bringing the country back, people may be saying he's been slightly mythologised by history and his actions in it. I mean, I would say Attila and Caesar have mythical aspects in European history; that doesn't meant to say I think they didn't exist.

Post by **Kuja** » 2008-02-25 10:56am

KlavoHunter wrote:Don't forget the Brits' long history of pulling pranks when presented with a survey of this sort.

Seriously. Every time one of these survaeys from Britain gets posted somkebody brings this up. How long does it take for it to sink it, people?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-02-25 12:36pm

Indeed, Britain's national passtime seems to be fucking with surveys, polls, and petitions. I think its very English humor, if you ask me.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-25 12:42pm

weemadando wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I find that a lot less disturbing than the popularity of religious pseudoscientific beliefs. At the end of the day, knowledge of the names of historical figures vs fictional figures is trivia, and does not relate to actual thinking skills nearly as well as susceptibility to religious bullshit does.
Even historical figures who existed within living memory?

Don't get me wrong - pseudoscience is an issue - but not believing that someone who their parents and possibly even themselves would have lived at the same time as, and who was a significant cultural icon in their own nation existed?

I find that more disturbing that someone being more inclined to believe in "God did it" than in a collection of, lets be fair, complex scientific theories.

Why? Even if we disregard the possibility that this survey does not reflect the reality, so what? Names and dates are errors of fact, not fallacies. If a person can think straight but has his facts wrong, he is far more amenable to correction than a person who has his facts right but his thinking wrong.

It seems to me that the most facile way of judging a person's intellectual development is to ask him history trivia questions. A person might have the logic skills of a hamster, but people will think he's smart if he can rattle off names and dates and places. It's a real problem.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2008-02-25 04:31pm

I am sick of seeing the 'British fucking with surveys they are so funny lol' argument. British people on the whole are fucking stupid. Our education system sucks. They may think they are superior to Americans, but they're not, which is why Britain is a shitty, mediocre country. Get over it.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2008-02-25 04:38pm

Ubiquitous wrote:I am sick of seeing the 'British fucking with surveys they are so funny lol' argument. British people on the whole are fucking stupid. Our education system sucks. They may think they are superior to Americans, but they're not, which is why Britain is a shitty, mediocre country. Get over it.

That may be the case in general, but this is a survey from UKTV Gold. The people watching that were probably all alive for when he was PM ffs.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2008-02-25 04:38pm

Ubiquitous wrote:I am sick of seeing the 'British fucking with surveys they are so funny lol' argument. British people on the whole are fucking stupid. Our education system sucks. They may think they are superior to Americans, but they're not, which is why Britain is a shitty, mediocre country. Get over it.

I treasure the memories of my A-Level history classes... Mr. Rogerson really brought English history to life. Who can forget the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, in which Winston Churchill slew Richard III and won the crown.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2008-02-25 04:48pm

Is a group size of 3,000 really enough to accurately apply the results to an entire country? Especially when it only tested viewers of a particular TV Station. Should the headline be "UK TV Gold Viewers are losing touch with reality (they are old and senile lurl). I love seeing these stupid surveys with tiny sample sizes and of only one demographic being applied to entire country's, but hey, anything for some news/chance to rag on <<country here>> I guess.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-02-25 05:02pm

Ubiquitous wrote:I am sick of seeing the 'British fucking with surveys they are so funny lol' argument. British people on the whole are fucking stupid. Our education system sucks. They may think they are superior to Americans, but they're not, which is why Britain is a shitty, mediocre country. Get over it.

While I agree with that to some extent, it is not so bad a quarter of the people I'd ask on the street would think Churchill never actually existed. That's just preposterous. Have you ever met anyone that didn't think Churchill was real? In my whole life, I've known one person who didn't believe we landed on the moon, and one creationist. I don't think either of those even doubted Churchill's existence.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-02-25 10:13pm

Resinence wrote:Is a group size of 3,000 really enough to accurately apply the results to an entire country? Especially when it only tested viewers of a particular TV Station. Should the headline be "UK TV Gold Viewers are losing touch with reality (they are old and senile lurl). I love seeing these stupid surveys with tiny sample sizes and of only one demographic being applied to entire country's, but hey, anything for some news/chance to rag on <<country here>> I guess.

They didn't just survey 3,000 viewers--it's a representative sample of the country (assuming that they followed even reasonable survey protocol). And, yes. 3,000 individuals is MORE than enough to get a reasonable estimate of the entire country, assuming that the sample is representative.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-02-25 10:15pm

It would be interesting to see the actual survey questions.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-02-25 10:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:It would be interesting to see the actual survey questions.

True. What I find weirdest about the quiz is that Charles Dickens was so much better known that Winston Churchill and Gandhi. I mean, why is it that only 3% screw up on him (which is basically no one), and a large number of people mess up critical historical figures?

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2008-02-26 03:27am

Ubiquitous wrote:I am sick of seeing the 'British fucking with surveys they are so funny lol' argument. British people on the whole are fucking stupid. Our education system sucks. They may think they are superior to Americans, but they're not, which is why Britain is a shitty, mediocre country. Get over it.

This is nothing new as well, we've always been like it. I fail to see why anyone should get so hyper about it nowadays

Its just the invention of the mass media that makes us think its 'new'

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2008-02-26 04:24am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Resinence wrote:Is a group size of 3,000 really enough to accurately apply the results to an entire country? Especially when it only tested viewers of a particular TV Station. Should the headline be "UK TV Gold Viewers are losing touch with reality (they are old and senile lurl). I love seeing these stupid surveys with tiny sample sizes and of only one demographic being applied to entire country's, but hey, anything for some news/chance to rag on <<country here>> I guess.
They didn't just survey 3,000 viewers--it's a representative sample of the country (assuming that they followed even reasonable survey protocol). And, yes. 3,000 individuals is MORE than enough to get a reasonable estimate of the entire country, assuming that the sample is representative.

The sample is from viewers of UKTV gold. It's not even going to be close to being representative of the views of the country.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2008-02-26 10:49am

Zac Naloen wrote:The sample is from viewers of UKTV gold. It's not even going to be close to being representative of the views of the country.

Where are you getting the statement that the sample is only from viewers of UKTV Gold? From the fact that the survey was CONDUCTED by the station? Post proof or retract.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2008-02-26 11:29am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Zac Naloen wrote:The sample is from viewers of UKTV gold. It's not even going to be close to being representative of the views of the country.
Where are you getting the statement that the sample is only from viewers of UKTV Gold? From the fact that the survey was CONDUCTED by the station? Post proof or retract.

Actually a bit more research shows that it's just a survey of under 20's.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ory104.xml

So I will retract that part.

It's still not a proper subset of the population at all and ultimately doesn't say anything about Brits at all.[/url]

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2008-02-26 12:22pm

Their own conclusions are pretty dubious at best..

Check this out.. from here http://uktv.co.uk/gold/stepbystep/aid/598605

Top ten myths people think are real...

* 1) King Arthur – 65% - May have existed, probably not called arthur but there's been a lot of historical news recently about the root of the myth. Defends on the way the question was asked.
* 2) Sherlock Holmes – 58% - I can't excuse this one, except to say most kids these days would never have read the books.
* 3) Robin Hood – 51% - The story is based on someone at least and stories about him are often told as "fact" especially in early-school. I recall it being taught as such.
* 4) Eleanor Rigby – 47% - Not a mythical sounding name and assumes everyone has heard of the song...
* 5) Mona Lisa -35% - It's a portrait of a person... the person in the portrait was real whoever it was.
* 6) Dick Turpin – 34% - err... Turpin IS real, his actions are not.
* 7) Biggles – 33% - Who the hell is Biggles, I'd never even heard of him until I read this? 33% is well within tolerance for people just guessing.
*

The Three Musketeers – 17%
* 9) Lady Godiva – 12% - She almost certainly was real. Actions attributed to her are perhaps not, she's in the bloody Domesday book.
* 10) Robinson Crusoe – 5% - based on a real person, but 5% is almost no one anyway.

Top ten historical figures people think are mythical

1) Richard the Lionheart – 47% - He may be historically known to exist but he has almost as much mythology around him as Arthur.
2) Winston Churchill – 23%
3) Florence Nightingale – 23% - She has a large amount of mythology around her and there has been a lot news recently denouncing her achievements, I can see people getting confused.
4) Bernard Montgomery – 6% - Most people know him by his military title not his full name.
5) Boudica - 5%
6) Sir Walter Raleigh – 4%
7) Duke of Wellington - 4%

Cleopatra - 4%
9) Gandhi – 3% -Only 3%? and they think that makes a story?
10) Charles Dickins - 3% - Same as above.

Next I would love to track down the actual questions they asked, it's probably ambiguous as hell.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2008-02-26 06:41pm

I saw a video with how some questions are asked. It was find Iraq on a map, which would be reasonable if the map didn't have Australia labled Iraq.