dan2100
-
Posts
950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by dan2100
-
-
As a footnote to my last post, I guess I am a religious in one respect. It's not statistical, either.
I am a fervent "think for yourself" person. I am so into that, I don't mind being called names for it.
Michael
Do you believe your interlocutors don't think for themselves? Do you believe you have a monopoly here on this?
-
Whenever someone dismisses an entire branch of scientific work without specifying anything and calls those who look at it names, ya' gotta' wonder.
Climate science is a steaming pile of crap put over on the world by scam artists in lab coats.
Heh-Heh
One must remember phrenology and polywater as once considered by some fairly intelligent people to be scientific. Calling something science should never mean critical thinking about it stops.
-
I don't believe I am answering this, but the level of carelessness is so great, I feel a need to say something.
It'd be nice if you aimed for the same level of civility I try to give to you here. It seems to me that everytime I disagree with you -- here on your views regarding marketing and human behavior; elsewhere regarding anarchism and whether Beck is a salvitic figure for libertarians -- you resort to condenscension and insults. Don't you think this only poisons the discussion?
Or consider Matthew 7:3: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (King James Version)
I noticed you left out my parenthetic comment: "(Don't you think, too, were these sorts of things correct, no company or political that invested in and used such methods diligently would ever fail?)" Why? Again, if these methods work so well, I'd expect we'd all believe everything the political and corporate ruling class tells us. Ad campaigns, politically and otherwise, would never or rarely fail. How come this has not come to pass?
Dan,
I suggest you read Post 78. The answer to your question is there. Basically, the answer is that a vulnerability is not a total lack. If you don't understand that, I'll just leave it.
I suggest you read my parenthetic comment again. If such predictability is vulnerable to error, and to the degree it is, one should at least have some doubts about it. Thus far, too, I know of know predictions in the fields of marketing or human behavior (at least, on the latter, in behaviors beyond things like blinking eyes or stuff that happens in highly controlled lab situations) that will give you the kinds of predictive cabilities you seem to think exist now.
Again, what basic material? Surely, you could lower yourself to cite one source here that adds credence to your case.You could start with the bibliographies in the works I mentioned in Post 61. That's more than one source. I thought you noticed, seeing has how you even quoted that post, links and all, in your Post 63.
Sorry, but this is just a little too much erudition and effort on your part for me. I bow to your superior intelligence and zeal...
Michael
I actually have read Predictably Irrational, though I believe it was the first edition. I put it, at the time, along with titles like The Tipping Point (overrated and a former friend of mine tried to put the ideas in it into practice; notably, he didn't suddenly experience an uptick in his wealth), Why We Buy (a bit dated, but that this stuff dates should give pause that the latest and greatest will soon join the ranks of the obsolete), Freakonomics (ho-hum, another overrated book), and Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind (a book I actually recommend, but that's not to say I don't recommend the other three I just mentioned). None of them made me change my mind on my basic view here.
Why is that? You and Jeff can toss back accusations about who is more religious than thou here, but my basic view is skepticism here. Why? Let's leave aside the axioms for a moment -- which is not to deny their importance. Anyone familiar with the history of psychology and cognitive science or of the history of marketing and who also just has common sense should recognize that grand unified theories abound, especially on the popular level (it's often not the researchers in a field, but their popularizers, who overgeneralize and fail to see that history is generally a record of failed attempts here) and further that, as both Jeff and I have pointed out, marketing and political campaigns often fail. (Anyone familiar with such history should be partial to the saying, "This too shall pass" rather than "We now have the final theory in sight and whoever doubts this is so much less well read than me!")
Also, let me adopt your tactics. This is akin to arguing with a technician about buying stocks. The fan of that brand of numerology known as technical analysis will point to the raft of titles and studies on the subject. But the fact is, if the market really worked that way, why would there be any technicians who lost money?
Yes, one might point to successes, but this is what's known as survivorship bias. Let me borrow from a witty writer in the field -- Nicolas Nassim Taleb. If we were to look at lottery winners only and try to divine how they won, we might come up with a list of traits they all have, such as, most likely, that they bought tickets. But by not looking at the losers -- who also share this and many other traits -- we'd end up with a theory of predicting the lottery that would really be hokum.
And, wouldn't you expect, were someone to come up with some truly workable predictive theory in this area, he or she wouldn't be trying to sell books and seminars about it. He or she would be filthy rich and trying, as adept poker players do, pass off the success as due to luck rather than letting the rubes in on the secret?
-
For those who haven't read any Peake and want to start with something a bit shorter, I recommend Boy in Darkness and Other Stories.
-
This is the first chapter of Getting Even, which has just been released as an audiobook read by the author. Audible.com is selling all four of his books bundled together for one credit (a credit costs $11-$15 depending on your membership level). I got it the first day, he's sounding a bit older but it's a terrific buy.
Thanks! I've gotten it and am now enjoying it, though I need to get back to other projects...
-
Which ones? Have you looked at them?
Dan,
Gimme a break. You're faking it and you know it. Read the damn stuff--or not, I don't care...
Obviously, you care enough to bring it up. But if you can't have a reasonable discussion on this matter, fine.
I noticed you left out my parenthetic comment: "(Don't you think, too, were these sorts of things correct, no company or political that invested in and used such methods diligently would ever fail?)" Why? Again, if these methods work so well, I'd expect we'd all believe everything the political and corporate ruling class tells us. Ad campaigns, politically and otherwise, would never or rarely fail. How come this has not come to pass?
Tell me, how well do banner ads, product placement, upselling, etc. work on you?
And you didn't answer my question... Let me ask it again:Have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hypotheses?
All the time.
In Internet marketing it is called "split testing." There are oodles of programs and scripts to help you. Hell, even Google provides split testing resources in Adwords.
That's how you improve your results.
Given your unwillingness to look at some very basic material, I see no reason to go into any further details.
Michael
Again, what basic material? Surely, you could lower yourself to cite one source here that adds credence to your case.
-
-
http://mises.org/store/Nullification-How-to-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-in-the-21st-Century-P10393.aspx
I raised this topic here once before. Now there's a book length treatment of it. It's not bad and I recommend it both for the person currently unaware of the topic and those who while well read lack George H. Smith's erudition.
-
Dan,
Let me clarify something. The military is governed by a civilian force. We cannot make decisions to act unless given permission by that civilian force. We can advise on military matters, as through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with regard to strategic endeavors. But we cannot move on that advice without prior consent.
The way the government uses us, as you pointed out, can be coercive. I would agree to that, but not the military being coercive. Make sense?
~ Shane
This is akin to saying the DEA (or the IRS or the BML or BATF or pick a government agency) is not in and of itself coercive. It merely can be used coercively. The military is both an arm of government coercion -- that's its reason for being in the first place, no? -- and is funded coercive -- i.e., it wouldn't really exist were it not for taxation.
Saying that it's coercive doesn't mean that the military does whatever it pleases or is not subordinate to the state. But your argument here is kind of like saying a policeman is not coercive when he's enforcing laws that clearly are coercive merely because he has to answer to his chief who answers to his mayor or some other civilian official.
Dan, Brant, and Mike...
Point taken
The military is used as a coercive tool when diplomacy fails. Seems we're used an awful lot since I've enlisted.
~ Shane
Whatever rationalizations or pretexts those who command, man, or willingly support the military provide aren't really germane to whether it's coercive.
And while many are forced to pay for it, at present, to my knowledge, no one is forced to join the US military. Why join if you're afraid you might be part of operations you won't approve of?
-
This should probably be another thread, but have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hypotheses?
Dan,
If you are truly interested in this, please consult the bibliographies of the works I cited. Lots and lots and lots of peer-reviewed experiments all over the world by scientists. And yes, the results in many of them are measurable and repeatable.
Why not look at them?
Michael
Which ones? Have you looked at them? (Don't you think, too, were these sorts of things correct, no company or political that invested in and used such methods diligently would ever fail?)
And you didn't answer my question... Let me ask it again:
Have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hypotheses?
-
This should probably be another thread, but have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hypotheses?
Dan,
If you are truly interested in this, please consult the bibliographies of the works I cited. Lots and lots and lots of peer-reviewed experiments all over the world by scientists. And yes, the results in many of them are measurable and repeatable.
Why not look at them?
Michael
What a pity so many Objectivists seem unable to grasp the elementary truth that, since human beings possess freedom of will and are not interchangeable units, statistical information about what particular individuals and particular groups of individuals have done under particular circumstances can prove nothing about what will happen when other, different individuals are placed in similar circumstances - even if the individuals trying to prove such propositions call themselves "scientists" and maintain a straight face while doing so.
JR
I wonder if there's a study that focuses on how some segment of the population seems to unthinkingly accept studies.
-
Dan,
Let me clarify something. The military is governed by a civilian force. We cannot make decisions to act unless given permission by that civilian force. We can advise on military matters, as through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with regard to strategic endeavors. But we cannot move on that advice without prior consent.
The way the government uses us, as you pointed out, can be coercive. I would agree to that, but not the military being coercive. Make sense?
~ Shane
This is akin to saying the DEA (or the IRS or the BML or BATF or pick a government agency) is not in and of itself coercive. It merely can be used coercively. The military is both an arm of government coercion -- that's its reason for being in the first place, no? -- and is funded coercive -- i.e., it wouldn't really exist were it not for taxation.
Saying that it's coercive doesn't mean that the military does whatever it pleases or is not subordinate to the state. But your argument here is kind of like saying a policeman is not coercive when he's enforcing laws that clearly are coercive merely because he has to answer to his chief who answers to his mayor or some other civilian official.
-
What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious…
I figured that you were throwing out the soviet union reference just to attach my idea to the soviet union and all that weight that that comes with, as it's something I've witnessed from objectivist in the past.
My intention here was, thinking you might see the similarity between your view and central economic planning -- the Soviet Union being the chief example of that in history, though it abounds today (think of what the Fed in the US does: overall central planning of the banking and credit systems) -- that you might either alter your view or show why the analogy didn't apply. So far, it seems to me you've only cried foul over the analogy.
If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?Right. Someone else is almost always calling the shots, and unless it's your school, your probably not calling the shots. I figure we're talking about a choice that's not much of a choice.
My point was to dismantle the current system so that individual could make choices -- in education and elsewhere. Thus, others wouldn't be calling the shots -- at least, not in any meaningful way. You might disagree, but imagine you have a school and you can't fund it coercive and you can't force people to attend. You might decide on the curriculum and decor, but if you don't attract funding and students, none of this will matter, no?
Another analogy -- hopefully, one that won't meet with your disapproval. Imagine a local restaurateur tells me he calls the shots in his eatery. Certainly, in some sense he does, but he can't force me to eat there. I, ultimately, call the shots on where and what I'll eat. Why not the same for education? Or put another way: why should freedom of choice be the rule in eating -- surely, one of the most important things in life -- and not in education?
You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"No.
Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?
Children should all learn when the American revolution occurred, or The Civil war was fought between the North and the South? or that in math 2+2=4? If these are true things, then yes I hope that they are forcibly and coercively taught to those who, by choice, choose to go to public schooling institutions.
Then you admit your contradiction and ammend your statement: you do want to forcibly teach the truth?
Again, how does this make you different than the Soviets or any other group of coercers? Didn't they believe they knew the truth. And, furthermore, didn't they believe it was right to compell people?
I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)The educational system and the federal takeover of education is not something that just happened for no reason.
I'm not sure where you think I maintain it just happened. The trend has been, for a long time, for there to be ever more regulation of life. This trend is uneven and, happily, freedom has expanded in some areas (think of, e.g., how laws against homosexuality are mostly dead today), but there's still a growing trend elsewhere -- especially in many areas of so called economic activities and in education. The last is not a good sign since people who are educated by the state or via state mandated curricula and standards are likely to be educated for the state. This means, educated if not to be obedient servants at least educated to be ignorant of any tools to use against the state.
There is a tendency to discount that as societies grow large and more advanced there is pressure for states to take over things like this and regulate trade. I suspect that it's largely from businesses or trade unions or guilds. I think it's a function of societies, and it's pretty typical in governments. When or where has that trend been reversed? If it has, then I'm sorry for describing it as a imagined future.
The trend is usually reversed either via state avoidance (as in black markets) or when states fall. A recent example combining both seems to be the collapse of the Soviet Empire. State avoidance increased and the imperial state actually collapsed. History is not just a linear progression of statism from less to more.
I've been arguing, un-successfully, on your ground in the sense that I haven't challenged your assumptions, because I'm familiar with objectivism (I'm assuming of course that you are an objectivist or libertarian) and was more interested in the standards discussion. It's difficult for me to layout my whole belief system, if it could be called that, in an effort to defend my positions. It's not going too well. Thanks for your patience.
Your basic assumption appears to be that it's okay to initiate force. Am I wrong here?
My view on standards remains: as long as they're not coerced, they're okay. If people can freely adopt or disregard them, I have no problem. I also believe this would work best in the long run -- as people who have a chance to adopt those standards they felt worked for them. I see no reason why this wouldn't work in education and see the current focus on national standards as a panacea (for education, for the asset markets, and for a host of other areas) as merely another example of how many people prefer coercive fixes to problems. I also find it laughable when I think of the federal government being involved in this. Look at Amtrak, the Post Office, the FRS, and the federally-backed mortgage corporations. These are examples of how the federal government operates and yet well meaning people (or so it seems; maybe they really don't mean well, which would explain much) appear to believe that the federal government will somehow behave otherwise when it comes to education. Ho-hum.
-
The only way to rely fully on yourself is to retreat into the wilderness and make a livelihood their on your own.
Is the illiteracy part of your act as "Herb Sewell"? Of do you actually not know how to spell "there"?
Just curious.
JR
Wouldn't this be a usage and not a spelling error?
Their isn't any their their. Their!
--Brant
actually THEIR is
Know, they're isn't.
-
Have you read any of Neil Postman's books on the subject?
Dan,
I just looked him up and, frankly, I have been more interested in stuff based on cognitive neuroscience or social experiments in my research. I'm in a career change. I'm migrating to Internet marketing and I don't have much interest in things that don't result in sales or won elections or things like that at this point. The forum already sucks up enough of my time.
From a quick scan of of the Wikipedia article on Neil Postman, my preliminary impression is that his life work's theme is "bitching about information technology." My opinion might change if and when I read his stuff, but for now, he doesn't look like he can teach me anything to make my Internet marketing business more successful.
In other words, I'm working on figuring out what works in the actual market I have to deal with before I start putting in a lot of time investigating why I don't like it.
The books I mentioned work in terms of mass audience--with measurable, repeatable results. By results, I mean sales and won elections and things like that.
Even when I want to combat this (like with the politics thing), I am focusing on what makes mass persuasion tick--and learning it from the people who make the ticking methods and their sources--so I know what to target.
Michael
This should probably be another thread, but have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hypotheses? What is meant by this is trying to avoid hypotheses like Hallam did X and got Y and Filicia did X and got Y, therefore, X causes Y when, in fact, some other factor(s) might be involved and actually have had a more decisive impact? (This is not criticism of any specific work you've cited.)
-
The only way to rely fully on yourself is to retreat into the wilderness and make a livelihood their on your own.
Is the illiteracy part of your act as "Herb Sewell"? Of do you actually not know how to spell "there"?
Just curious.
JR
Wouldn't this be a usage and not a spelling error?
-
-
It depends on what exactly is meant by "autonomous."
One definition here is "functioning independently without control by others."
Your hermit example is more like "functioning independently without contact with others."
Yes, well put. In Rand's and other individualists' terms, autonomy is about where the locus of control is: in the individual or not. It's not about, say, being able to farm your land, bake your bread, make your clothes, and living on a rocky island off Scotland without relying on anyone else for anything.
Often the "hermit" image is raised to bash individualism as if the choice were living like the hermit or living in society and, thereby, giving up any claims to autonomy.
-
Capitalism involves division of labor. Socialism does too. So what?
Right. And living in society implies you're not "autonomous" in the sense of being completely alone and not involved in any interaction with others.
It seems to me Herb is accepting the caricature of autonomy and of individualism that's accepted by most sophomoric thinkers. That is, that one can't be an autonomous individual unless one is completely cut off from everyone else -- if not everything else. But individualism is really about how people in society can and should get along; the problem of individual autonomy à la individualism (as in Rand's views or in those of other individualists) doesn't arise unless it's in society. (This is akin to how one need bring up or worry about property rights if there are no conflicts over material things.)
-
This is the old power of advertising crap from the 1950s. The passive consumer horseshit stuff controlled by Madison Avenue. "The Hidden Persuaders." Unfortunately, it's become more true today than it ever was then.
Brant,
The 50's is only a small part of it. Actually this stuff goes back to WWI and developed from there up to today. This documentary series, The Century of the Self, was produced in 2002 for BBC and won a butt-load of awards. It covers before WWI and goes up through the Clinton years.
There are some recent books that I have been studying that take the concepts of appealing to consumer emotions and the consumer subconscious that are even more sophisticated--many based on cognitive neuroscience. And there are oodles of repeatable experiments that back this stuff up (other than massive sales and won elections). Here are a few such books.
Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy by Martin Lindstrom
Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely
The Culture Code: An Ingenious Way to Understand Why People Around the World Live and Buy as They Do by Clotaire Rapaille
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink
Influence: Science and Practice (5th Edition) by Robert B. Cialdini
Who am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities by Steven Reiss
59 Seconds: Think a Little, Change a Lot by Richard Wiseman
That's not all, of course. There are works on hypnosis and NLP, copywriting, etc.
I just finished the following book and, although it has not yet been incorporated by the marketing gurus, I have no doubt it will be. It's a hell of a good book (by a Yale professor), albeit I had some reservations about some of Bloom's interpretations of the experiments and about some omissions.
How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like by Paul Bloom
On this last, you can even see him in a video interview with an ex-Objectivist Will Wilkinson
<snip>
I could go on, but that's enough name dropping. (I really have studied all that stuff recently, though, and you should see what's on my To Do list.) This stuff works and fuels the modern market, politics, media and just about anywhere else public influence is used.
Michael
Have you read any of Neil Postman's books on the subject?
I'd still be careful of seeing this as too simple -- as if someone can merely apply these methods and obtain whatever she or he wants.
-
Dan, your patience is all but unbounded. It is awe-inspiring.
JR
Is this just your way of telling me I'm wasting my efforts?
-
I think that it's difficult to actually discuss ideas when engaged in these type of analogies, because rather than discuss the merits of an idea I have to explain why an idea is not like one of the most evil and destructive states in human history even when it's something as tame as educational standards.
I didn't focus on the Soviet system of torture and murder, but merely that of central planning. But if it bothers you so much, let's leave it aside.
I get that you think in essentials, but why not say that it's like the US military or like NIKE, or a host of other centralized decision making entities.
Fine, like the US military. (NIKE, if you mean the clothes maker, is not a coercive entity -- to my knowledge: it doesn't use coercion to get or keep customers. The military, however, essentially relies on coercion for its funding and continuance -- and is, in fact, an instrument of coercion for the US government.)
They're essentially the same right (top down authoritative structures), with a few differences, or shall we argue about which essentials are really the essential thing? It's been my experience that right from the bat when people throw out comparisons ,even in analogies , to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, that there is not much common ground for conversation because if asking teachers to teach a standardize curriculum is the same oppression I probably will be dismissed outright.
Correct me if I'm wrong: you were advocating against local control of schools and for continuance of the public school system -- just one with your preferred curriculum. If so, then the essential similarity with your view and those of, say, the US military is coercive enforced of a given plan.
Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm still relatively new to posting in a forum of ideas, so I'm having to transition from actual human interactions where I can pick up on tone and inflection, to this medium where I can imagine and assign intention.
What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious...
All that being said I don't want to answer to your analogy because it is indeed similar to what I'm saying. Somewhat. Yes it's a centralized decision making and it indeed takes a measure of perceived choice away.
Perceived choice? How does that differ from choice? If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?
But I guess where I am arguing from is what we have today, not an imagined future where there is no state control of education.
But the thing you fear -- that some religious group might takeover and force feed kids their version of history, biology, etc. -- is easy under the current system: they have merely to capture the state (i.e., get control of the state). The thing you fear is partly caused by the present system.
I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)
I think it's important that we do a better job of education kids, so I'm not opposed to some controls if they are effective.
I see the issue a bit different than you. I don't start out thinking that freedom is optional and then look at the problem. Granted, I can entertain that idea, but when I look at the world I see that it's actual control that hasn't worked. And I see, as Rand and others did long before me, that those who see some problem rarely question that the problem might be caused by the controls and not by the remaining freedom. Surely, you see this in economic controls where some problem, real or imagined, is used to justify controls (think of, e.g., rent control, minimum wage laws, or calls for equal pay) and then when these controls create new problems ever more controls are advocated. (A fine example of this is the current recession: caused by meddling in the housing and credit markets, few are advocating getting rid of regulations and most are calling for (and have partly gotten) merely more regulations -- as if the problem were no regulation and as if the new regulations will somehow give regulators to foresee and forestall the next economic crisis.)
And what we have today is still a measure freedom of education, you can send kids to public school, you can send kids to private school or home school them, and perhaps there are other options that I'm not aware of as well.
Those options do exist now, but take homeschooling. That exists today because people "imagined [a] future" where parents could take more control over their child's education. This is almost the complete opposite of the model you advocate. It's one of rampant choice -- albeit the government still sets standards and tries to minimize the impact. (And, notably, the government still taxes homeschooling parents to pay for public education.) And the world is not standing still. While you might think these choices will always remain, it's possible that the government might clamp down on homeschooling (and even private schools) reducing the amount of choices available.
In regards to that freedom of choice, your analogy to the authoritative centralized soviet state is not correct. The public education system is public and is going to be at some level controlled buy a municipality or state. In so much as that exists, and I think it should, I think there should be standards.
I'm of a different opinion. I think the problem is that public mandatory schooling is the problem. As long as it exists, there will be a political football for different special interest groups to fight over for control of standards, curricula, and school monies (don't think those teachers unions and administrators are not motivated by financial considerations to a large degree).
As for standards, as I said before, if they're not coerced, I'm fine with them. But any government system is going to involve coercive standards. Surely, you can see that?
I agree with you that there is a danger in teaching the same history, But this is the way that it goes. I think that we can all agree on many things in history, it's in the analysis that there are disagreements. It's always going to come down to the teachers and the way that they present the discussion
I'm talking about the public education system, as it is. You're talking about me have a desire to force people and coerce people into things, I'm talking about standards for teaching history or science or math.
There are huge disagreements on any topic, including history. The problem is likely to be, as public educators might try to avoid these, they will present fairly bland "politically correct" versions of each topic. This will educate anyone, but make people think they understand a subject when, at best, they've memorized some facts, dates, and names. (As an aside, I always find it funny when some kid is presented on TV as intelligent because he's memorized all the presidents. This is no small feat, but it doesn't evince intelligence so much as a good memory and, maybe, an obsession with trivia.)
As for teachers doing as they want in the classroom, wouldn't this go against standards? I'm not a teacher, but were I teaching, say, American history what would this amount to? If I have a standard set by you to follow, then either I follow or I don't. If I don't, and you don't mind, why all the hullabaloo about standards if they can so easily be set aside? And if a teacher can set them aside, why not a student or a school?
You ask, "Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree?"
I agree. But If kids are going to go to public schools I think they should have some common standards. If they don't want to be coerced into learning, they have alternatives. The way you've set it up though it seems that all learning is coerced or forced.
You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"
No.
Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?
I'm also afraid of millions of kids being taught exactly the same thing by the same institution. What do you think that will result in? Creative, independent thinkers? Or stunted, dependent subjects? Talking to people I run into daily, I see, sadly, many more of the latter and few of the former. Certainly, some of this might be due to factors other than public schooling, but I can't help but think that public schooling hasn't made things better.
"God is silent. Now if only we could get Man to shut up." -- Woody Allen
-
Sorry to hear and hope you make it through what must be a very difficult time.
-
Dan,
I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.
The important thing, for me, is the essentials. Your views on how education should be run are like how the Soviets felt the economy should be run: top-down with one general plan. That's how I deployed the analogy. I'd hoped with such a comparison, you wouldn't so much bicker about the comparison but either agree that it's valid or show me why your views here are really not so centralized and authoritarian.
"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."
I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?
I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. (And this is not from a general ignorance. I've read a few books on education in America and its history.) I also seriously doubt you do or most people weighing in on this issue do. I think many people just uncritically assume public education worked or worked well at one time and then it broke. Further, they seem to believe that if public education just went back to being like it was before it broke that all would be fine.
"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"
So you think that it's good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?
There seem to be several assumptions packed in there. First is that we'd all be better off if everyone were taught the same version of history. Second, that somehow competing voices will survive despite this approved version being taught. Third, I'm just guessing is that history is already settled -- that it's merely a matter of teaching the correct history rather than that it might be the case that it's unsettled.
Do you see the danger of everyone being taught by the same institution (viz., public schools), the same history -- even if alternative voices aren't suppressed? (Just how alternatives are to be treated is going to be a big problem. I can just imagine an official list of approved alternative views being allowed and mainly ridiculed. I recall my high school American History class, where I voiced the alternative view that the central bank, perhaps, caused the Great Depression and the New Deal only made things worse. How would that view compete with the official view being taught -- which, I presume, almost everyone taught in US public schools today is taught?)
Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth? (If so, don't you think everyone who wants to force others to do something -- whether be taught a version of history, follow a production plan, not look at porn, or not smoke pot -- believes they know the truth or what's best for others and that this justifies their coercion? Why are you different than any of them?)
Why I vote democrat
in 4 - Politics
Posted
Will the farrago of condescension ever stop? I warn you now -- not out of politeless, but merely because these are the rules all of us must live by -- do not come within five meters of my person.