I think some of the responses in that very amusing clip can be attributed to momentary idiocy--the kind that causes house keys to be lost for a short time, or causes credit cards sometimes to be left behind at gas stations.

I'm sure the people being filmed were not thinking that they would run into someone asking quiz questions on that day, and that part of the brain was simply toggled off. An interviewer shoves a microphone in the face; a cameraman gets you in full view . . . when put on the spot, many people would come up with stunningly poor answers, even if they happened to know better. The mind boggles, first of all, with "is this a trick question?" And then with, "what kind of response is really called for here? Do I dig for the right answer, or just blurt?"

We all have seen these kinds of things on the television for years--clips of adults who ought to know better, saying stupid things in response to questions that we, in the privacy of our living rooms, are sure we would answer correctly. It's what made Jeopardy such a long-lasting wonder of a smash hit, and it's what propels the more recent "are you smarter than a 5th grader" show.

People tend to "know" only those things that they deal with or care about on a frequent basis. People who are not in the habit of reading widely, reading deeply, are unlikely to "know" much beyond what they need to get by. People who are in the habit of watching tv as their main source of information are highly likely to seem stupid to those who read.

I don't find this particularly bothersome most of the time. I very much doubt the average American (or Canadian, Mexican, Australian, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Thai, Laotian, Colombian, Botswanan, Nigerian, or Anyplace-Elsian) is now or has ever been any more ready to answer those kinds of questions on the spot than were the people in the video.

(I do recall a moment during W's first campaign when he almost smugly declared that he wasn't much of a reader. And I recall questions being asked during one of the debates with Gore, about what was happening in Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan, and so forth, when W made it clear (almost with pride) that he had no concept of those places. "Can't be all that important," he seemed to say, and no one called him on that. Of course what was going on in Afghanistan turned out to be a bit more important than anyone knew . . ..)

As for the girl who thought a triangle had no sides, or one side . . . I bet she is an absolute genius at running her cell phone. (Aren't we all geniuses when it comes to doing things by which we please ourselves?)

I would like to see an interviewer ask a more interesting question of such people. For instance, "is it better to cause an injustice or to suffer one?" This, I think, might be a better way to take the pulse of the people.

But what do I know?

Herring405