|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off".
|
On June 17 2019 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 16 2019 15:50 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 15:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 15:22 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 13:51 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2019 11:31 Pangpootata wrote:
Since we're debating about debates, let us think about what the point of a debate is.
If one is a logical and fair-minded person, the purpose of a debate is to find truth or weigh value judgements. One would go into a debate with an open mind, and be willing to concede to superior points.
But of course in modern western-style democracy this is never going to happen. The optimal heuristic is "I am always correct and I going to keep arguing and never concede no matter what". It's the only way to get elected.
This behavior is true of politicians and true of most average people as well. What percentage of people whom you know always argue fairly?
Televised debates are held by networks for their own ratings, it's commercially motivated. Most people who watch debates have already made up their minds. They will watch it and then proceed to post on the internet about how their candidate is very good and the other one is very bad. Very few actually come in with an open mind.
Hence, the optimal strategy (for maximizing political capital) in a televised debate is to use it as a platform to drum up your own voter enthusiasm. Trump does this very well, he knows that logic doesn't work on most people and he can say anything he wants as long as it fulfills the purpose of getting his supporters emotionally charged up. Trump is actually a pretty skillful political operator, whether by intent or chance. I'm with you on your point about politicians and the political debates among nominees. I'm even a little optimistic with large fields in that political points and lines of disagreement spawn a host of news articles and provoke reading afterwards. I like the increase in exposure to counterarguments even if they're phrased in sound bites. My other point is in weighing value judgments. Like it or not, people will vigorously disagree on what law and society should value. They'll do it to the point where it appears to outside observers that they don't have an "open mind" and are unwilling to concede. The societal values disagreements only scratches the surface on that topic. The largest one is weighing freedom vs safety. Not all policy disagreements stem from big gaps in values, but sometimes the gulf between policies is so large that bridging it in a series of debates is unlikely. It might take over a dozen new individuals debating in some capacity over a period of many years. It's also going to look like somebody's arguing in bad faith, simply because one can't wrap their minds around any of the framework supporting the contrary idea. That relates directly to your point: politicians are better off assuming one conclusion from the priors and debating from that, for example, that increased government control and subsidization of the medical industry is the right direction for prices and availability. It's also a key feature of the American republic. What we can't agree on, we'll take to the ballot box. What most affects me will be decided by state and local, where several states may disagree and have totally different systems and be equally happy with the result. Aristotle pondered these questions thousands of years ago and yet here we are. I think the idea that we can have public debates/discussions where people change their minds based on reason and fact presupposes a population that doesn't exist. That's to say our democracy isn't very good at settling matters of fact in which people maintain false beliefs. Climate change is a pretty good example of that. I wouldn't call it a false belief. In fact, climate change is a good example of facts that are not falsifiable. Based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we already know that there will be certain things that math or science can never prove conclusively to be true or false. Anyone with basic statistical or data science ability can see that all existing climate models have pretty bad prediction R2 scores when going forward on real validation data (not past data it has been fitted on). This is due to the multi-collinearity of so many different human and environmental factors, and the large amount of noise in environmental data. Mechanistic models of the greenhouse effect fare even worse. So when "scientists" push climate theories that pin all the blame on greenhouse gases, they aren't following the scientific method at all, which is to make a model based on their hypothesis and use future data to confirm the model accuracy. There is no reason or fact in the debate about climate change. We have uncertainty about exactly how different human actions affect the climate. The left pushes climate theories based on Baconian inductivism instead of Popperian falsification, pins most of the blame on CO2, and demonizes everyone who disagrees with them. The right says they lack evidence and it can't be proven, so we should continue what we have been doing. The most reasonable argument I have read about climate change is the one Taleb makes in his book Antifragile. If there is uncertainty about the impact of our actions, but if there is a small chance it could be catastrophic, we should not do it at all. If I want to release a gas that might harm people, the burden of proof should be on me to proof that the gas is safe, not on other people to prove the gas is dangerous. This is an argument based on decision making under uncertainty, and not based on confidence in the correctness of models from "experts" that consume taxpayer money and produce poor predictions. Been so long since I've seen such a good critique that I just want to acquiesce in entirety to it. I think I will, and just agree. EDIT: Just add that I think we also agree that sort of critical decision making presupposes a population/system we don't currently have (but could)? Yes I agree. The modern education system is designed to indoctrinate people with "facts" instead of teaching critical reasoning skills (probably has been like that since the beginning of time). For example, in Science class, we memorize facts, regurgitate them, and perform arithmetic calculations. There is very little real application of the scientific method and discussion of epistemological arguments posed by scientific philosophers (E.g. Francis Bacon, Karl Popper). It sounds like you had a pretty bad experience in school when it came to math and science class, but I would caution you to be careful about generalizing to something like "the modern educational system". If anything, most math and science educators generally understand quite well that the best way to learn math and science is to do math and science- to problem solve, critically think, wonder, tinker, predict, experiment in labs, observe, survey, justify, analyze, etc. I'm not so sure about your use of the term indoctrinate, but I agree with you that teaching critical thinking skills is incredibly important in a successful educational system. I wouldn't take it personally, it's systemic not individual educators at fault. While I trust you and educators you're familiar with prioritize the values of "doing" math and science, systemically in the US and elsewhere the "indoctrination" I believe he was referring to is about systems of education. If your "doing" doesn't result in the prescribed results of regurgitating specific information you, more than most, know the individual educators/institutions, not the system, is held accountable. That said, millions of kids across the country experience the very wrote memorization version of education. As has been discussed at length here before, the education system of the US is largely built to produce factory/line workers and critical thinking about how to make that work more productive left to "specialists". Not a terrible plan, in practice it's burdened by the same systemic prejudices and hegemonic myths as other capitalist systems, resulting in "specialists" not being the best experts of a field, but instead arbitrarily screened so that while improving efficiencies they don't think enough to question the systems of exploitation they are making more efficient.
I have to agree with DPB here. I think a lot of people have a needlessly negative view of teaching in general. Some teachers are bad and focus only on memorizing facts. But systems are definitively shifting on that, it is just that education systems are really, really slow at changing. This is partially system based, but also partially based on parents who expect school to be about memorizing stuff, and who get angry at teachers and students when it isn't or tell their children that the only thing that matters is memorizing stuff because that is all that is in tests (it isn't)
Modern math and science education (I only know about those two, no idea about other topics) focuses a lot on teaching understanding and methodology over memorized facts.
|
On June 17 2019 02:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2019 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 16 2019 15:50 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 15:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 15:22 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 13:51 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2019 11:31 Pangpootata wrote:
Since we're debating about debates, let us think about what the point of a debate is.
If one is a logical and fair-minded person, the purpose of a debate is to find truth or weigh value judgements. One would go into a debate with an open mind, and be willing to concede to superior points.
But of course in modern western-style democracy this is never going to happen. The optimal heuristic is "I am always correct and I going to keep arguing and never concede no matter what". It's the only way to get elected.
This behavior is true of politicians and true of most average people as well. What percentage of people whom you know always argue fairly?
Televised debates are held by networks for their own ratings, it's commercially motivated. Most people who watch debates have already made up their minds. They will watch it and then proceed to post on the internet about how their candidate is very good and the other one is very bad. Very few actually come in with an open mind.
Hence, the optimal strategy (for maximizing political capital) in a televised debate is to use it as a platform to drum up your own voter enthusiasm. Trump does this very well, he knows that logic doesn't work on most people and he can say anything he wants as long as it fulfills the purpose of getting his supporters emotionally charged up. Trump is actually a pretty skillful political operator, whether by intent or chance. I'm with you on your point about politicians and the political debates among nominees. I'm even a little optimistic with large fields in that political points and lines of disagreement spawn a host of news articles and provoke reading afterwards. I like the increase in exposure to counterarguments even if they're phrased in sound bites. My other point is in weighing value judgments. Like it or not, people will vigorously disagree on what law and society should value. They'll do it to the point where it appears to outside observers that they don't have an "open mind" and are unwilling to concede. The societal values disagreements only scratches the surface on that topic. The largest one is weighing freedom vs safety. Not all policy disagreements stem from big gaps in values, but sometimes the gulf between policies is so large that bridging it in a series of debates is unlikely. It might take over a dozen new individuals debating in some capacity over a period of many years. It's also going to look like somebody's arguing in bad faith, simply because one can't wrap their minds around any of the framework supporting the contrary idea. That relates directly to your point: politicians are better off assuming one conclusion from the priors and debating from that, for example, that increased government control and subsidization of the medical industry is the right direction for prices and availability. It's also a key feature of the American republic. What we can't agree on, we'll take to the ballot box. What most affects me will be decided by state and local, where several states may disagree and have totally different systems and be equally happy with the result. Aristotle pondered these questions thousands of years ago and yet here we are. I think the idea that we can have public debates/discussions where people change their minds based on reason and fact presupposes a population that doesn't exist. That's to say our democracy isn't very good at settling matters of fact in which people maintain false beliefs. Climate change is a pretty good example of that. I wouldn't call it a false belief. In fact, climate change is a good example of facts that are not falsifiable. Based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we already know that there will be certain things that math or science can never prove conclusively to be true or false. Anyone with basic statistical or data science ability can see that all existing climate models have pretty bad prediction R2 scores when going forward on real validation data (not past data it has been fitted on). This is due to the multi-collinearity of so many different human and environmental factors, and the large amount of noise in environmental data. Mechanistic models of the greenhouse effect fare even worse. So when "scientists" push climate theories that pin all the blame on greenhouse gases, they aren't following the scientific method at all, which is to make a model based on their hypothesis and use future data to confirm the model accuracy. There is no reason or fact in the debate about climate change. We have uncertainty about exactly how different human actions affect the climate. The left pushes climate theories based on Baconian inductivism instead of Popperian falsification, pins most of the blame on CO2, and demonizes everyone who disagrees with them. The right says they lack evidence and it can't be proven, so we should continue what we have been doing. The most reasonable argument I have read about climate change is the one Taleb makes in his book Antifragile. If there is uncertainty about the impact of our actions, but if there is a small chance it could be catastrophic, we should not do it at all. If I want to release a gas that might harm people, the burden of proof should be on me to proof that the gas is safe, not on other people to prove the gas is dangerous. This is an argument based on decision making under uncertainty, and not based on confidence in the correctness of models from "experts" that consume taxpayer money and produce poor predictions. Been so long since I've seen such a good critique that I just want to acquiesce in entirety to it. I think I will, and just agree. EDIT: Just add that I think we also agree that sort of critical decision making presupposes a population/system we don't currently have (but could)? Yes I agree. The modern education system is designed to indoctrinate people with "facts" instead of teaching critical reasoning skills (probably has been like that since the beginning of time). For example, in Science class, we memorize facts, regurgitate them, and perform arithmetic calculations. There is very little real application of the scientific method and discussion of epistemological arguments posed by scientific philosophers (E.g. Francis Bacon, Karl Popper). It sounds like you had a pretty bad experience in school when it came to math and science class, but I would caution you to be careful about generalizing to something like "the modern educational system". If anything, most math and science educators generally understand quite well that the best way to learn math and science is to do math and science- to problem solve, critically think, wonder, tinker, predict, experiment in labs, observe, survey, justify, analyze, etc. I'm not so sure about your use of the term indoctrinate, but I agree with you that teaching critical thinking skills is incredibly important in a successful educational system. I wouldn't take it personally, it's systemic not individual educators at fault. While I trust you and educators you're familiar with prioritize the values of "doing" math and science, systemically in the US and elsewhere the "indoctrination" I believe he was referring to is about systems of education. If your "doing" doesn't result in the prescribed results of regurgitating specific information you, more than most, know the individual educators/institutions, not the system, is held accountable. That said, millions of kids across the country experience the very wrote memorization version of education. As has been discussed at length here before, the education system of the US is largely built to produce factory/line workers and critical thinking about how to make that work more productive left to "specialists". Not a terrible plan, in practice it's burdened by the same systemic prejudices and hegemonic myths as other capitalist systems, resulting in "specialists" not being the best experts of a field, but instead arbitrarily screened so that while improving efficiencies they don't think enough to question the systems of exploitation they are making more efficient. I have to agree with DPB here. I think a lot of people have a needlessly negative view of teaching in general. Some teachers are bad and focus only on memorizing facts. But systems are definitively shifting on that, it is just that education systems are really, really slow at changing. This is partially system based, but also partially based on parents who expect school to be about memorizing stuff, and who get angry at teachers and students when it isn't or tell their children that the only thing that matters is memorizing stuff because that is all that is in tests (it isn't) Modern math and science education (I only know about those two, no idea about other topics) focuses a lot on teaching understanding and methodology over memorized facts.
I guess it depends a bit on what we mean by "modern" , I'd agree that interdisciplinary and critical thinking has been increasing in particular districts and such but unless maps like this have dramatically changed I'm inclined to say the overwhelming number of children across the country experience something quite different than either of you describe for much of their education.
+ Show Spoiler +
I agree parents play an important role but would say the problems see there are systemically based and a community responsibility as well. One of the hegemonic myths pervading this (which tends to get political) is that things like homelessness, addiction, bad parenting, etc... are individual failures and not largely consequences of systems. It's largely preserved as a convenient complement (or one in the same) to the myth of meritocracy.
|
On June 17 2019 02:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2019 02:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 16 2019 15:50 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 15:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 15:22 Pangpootata wrote:On June 16 2019 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2019 13:51 Danglars wrote:On June 16 2019 11:31 Pangpootata wrote:
Since we're debating about debates, let us think about what the point of a debate is.
If one is a logical and fair-minded person, the purpose of a debate is to find truth or weigh value judgements. One would go into a debate with an open mind, and be willing to concede to superior points.
But of course in modern western-style democracy this is never going to happen. The optimal heuristic is "I am always correct and I going to keep arguing and never concede no matter what". It's the only way to get elected.
This behavior is true of politicians and true of most average people as well. What percentage of people whom you know always argue fairly?
Televised debates are held by networks for their own ratings, it's commercially motivated. Most people who watch debates have already made up their minds. They will watch it and then proceed to post on the internet about how their candidate is very good and the other one is very bad. Very few actually come in with an open mind.
Hence, the optimal strategy (for maximizing political capital) in a televised debate is to use it as a platform to drum up your own voter enthusiasm. Trump does this very well, he knows that logic doesn't work on most people and he can say anything he wants as long as it fulfills the purpose of getting his supporters emotionally charged up. Trump is actually a pretty skillful political operator, whether by intent or chance. I'm with you on your point about politicians and the political debates among nominees. I'm even a little optimistic with large fields in that political points and lines of disagreement spawn a host of news articles and provoke reading afterwards. I like the increase in exposure to counterarguments even if they're phrased in sound bites. My other point is in weighing value judgments. Like it or not, people will vigorously disagree on what law and society should value. They'll do it to the point where it appears to outside observers that they don't have an "open mind" and are unwilling to concede. The societal values disagreements only scratches the surface on that topic. The largest one is weighing freedom vs safety. Not all policy disagreements stem from big gaps in values, but sometimes the gulf between policies is so large that bridging it in a series of debates is unlikely. It might take over a dozen new individuals debating in some capacity over a period of many years. It's also going to look like somebody's arguing in bad faith, simply because one can't wrap their minds around any of the framework supporting the contrary idea. That relates directly to your point: politicians are better off assuming one conclusion from the priors and debating from that, for example, that increased government control and subsidization of the medical industry is the right direction for prices and availability. It's also a key feature of the American republic. What we can't agree on, we'll take to the ballot box. What most affects me will be decided by state and local, where several states may disagree and have totally different systems and be equally happy with the result. Aristotle pondered these questions thousands of years ago and yet here we are. I think the idea that we can have public debates/discussions where people change their minds based on reason and fact presupposes a population that doesn't exist. That's to say our democracy isn't very good at settling matters of fact in which people maintain false beliefs. Climate change is a pretty good example of that. I wouldn't call it a false belief. In fact, climate change is a good example of facts that are not falsifiable. Based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we already know that there will be certain things that math or science can never prove conclusively to be true or false. Anyone with basic statistical or data science ability can see that all existing climate models have pretty bad prediction R2 scores when going forward on real validation data (not past data it has been fitted on). This is due to the multi-collinearity of so many different human and environmental factors, and the large amount of noise in environmental data. Mechanistic models of the greenhouse effect fare even worse. So when "scientists" push climate theories that pin all the blame on greenhouse gases, they aren't following the scientific method at all, which is to make a model based on their hypothesis and use future data to confirm the model accuracy. There is no reason or fact in the debate about climate change. We have uncertainty about exactly how different human actions affect the climate. The left pushes climate theories based on Baconian inductivism instead of Popperian falsification, pins most of the blame on CO2, and demonizes everyone who disagrees with them. The right says they lack evidence and it can't be proven, so we should continue what we have been doing. The most reasonable argument I have read about climate change is the one Taleb makes in his book Antifragile. If there is uncertainty about the impact of our actions, but if there is a small chance it could be catastrophic, we should not do it at all. If I want to release a gas that might harm people, the burden of proof should be on me to proof that the gas is safe, not on other people to prove the gas is dangerous. This is an argument based on decision making under uncertainty, and not based on confidence in the correctness of models from "experts" that consume taxpayer money and produce poor predictions. Been so long since I've seen such a good critique that I just want to acquiesce in entirety to it. I think I will, and just agree. EDIT: Just add that I think we also agree that sort of critical decision making presupposes a population/system we don't currently have (but could)? Yes I agree. The modern education system is designed to indoctrinate people with "facts" instead of teaching critical reasoning skills (probably has been like that since the beginning of time). For example, in Science class, we memorize facts, regurgitate them, and perform arithmetic calculations. There is very little real application of the scientific method and discussion of epistemological arguments posed by scientific philosophers (E.g. Francis Bacon, Karl Popper). It sounds like you had a pretty bad experience in school when it came to math and science class, but I would caution you to be careful about generalizing to something like "the modern educational system". If anything, most math and science educators generally understand quite well that the best way to learn math and science is to do math and science- to problem solve, critically think, wonder, tinker, predict, experiment in labs, observe, survey, justify, analyze, etc. I'm not so sure about your use of the term indoctrinate, but I agree with you that teaching critical thinking skills is incredibly important in a successful educational system. I wouldn't take it personally, it's systemic not individual educators at fault. While I trust you and educators you're familiar with prioritize the values of "doing" math and science, systemically in the US and elsewhere the "indoctrination" I believe he was referring to is about systems of education. If your "doing" doesn't result in the prescribed results of regurgitating specific information you, more than most, know the individual educators/institutions, not the system, is held accountable. That said, millions of kids across the country experience the very wrote memorization version of education. As has been discussed at length here before, the education system of the US is largely built to produce factory/line workers and critical thinking about how to make that work more productive left to "specialists". Not a terrible plan, in practice it's burdened by the same systemic prejudices and hegemonic myths as other capitalist systems, resulting in "specialists" not being the best experts of a field, but instead arbitrarily screened so that while improving efficiencies they don't think enough to question the systems of exploitation they are making more efficient. I have to agree with DPB here. I think a lot of people have a needlessly negative view of teaching in general. Some teachers are bad and focus only on memorizing facts. But systems are definitively shifting on that, it is just that education systems are really, really slow at changing. This is partially system based, but also partially based on parents who expect school to be about memorizing stuff, and who get angry at teachers and students when it isn't or tell their children that the only thing that matters is memorizing stuff because that is all that is in tests (it isn't) Modern math and science education (I only know about those two, no idea about other topics) focuses a lot on teaching understanding and methodology over memorized facts.
I also think that the technological evolution of the modern society has left the education system in the dust. We as a society aren't teaching what today and tomorrow needs in terms of an educated populace. While we can bemoan the system, we haven't forced an actual discussion on how to "modernize" education. STE(A)M is a step in the right direction, but the method in which it is taught still needs ironing out.
This reminds me of the scene in Interstellar where the teacher completely believes the lie of the past and that farming and agricultural science is all that is needed, not people thinking about space.
|
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing.
|
On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing.
Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system?
I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it.
|
On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it.
I know I've mentioned it before but have you looked into Freire and the problem posing method of education? Even if you don't agree with some of his more political conclusions, it's basically exactly what you're talking about and from which what a lot of the recent improvements along those lines are derived.
|
On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. Here in the Netherlands Highschool is decently focused on teaching how to find information and the science classes focus how to apply theory instead of just throwing out facts and expecting you to learn them.
I think one of the main problems the US faces is what the goal of education is.
It appears that to a significant part its more about indoctrination and keeping people dumb and in line rather then giving a generation to tools to think for themselves and allow them to succeed in life.
(see sexual education and anything remotely involving religion. The fact that creationism is still taught in parts is unimaginable over here)
|
On June 17 2019 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. I know I've mentioned it before but have you looked into Freire and the problem posing method of education? Even if you don't agree with some of his more political conclusions, it's basically exactly what you're talking about and from which what a lot of the recent improvements along those lines are derived.
I don't think you mentioned it to me specifically or not. If so, I probably missed it. I'll look into his writings.
On June 17 2019 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. Here in the Netherlands Highschool is decently focused on teaching how to find information and the science classes focus how to apply theory instead of just throwing out facts and expecting you to learn them. I think one of the main problems the US faces is what the goal of education is. It appears that to a significant part its more about indoctrination and keeping people dumb and in line rather then giving a generation to tools to think for themselves and allow them to succeed in life. (see sexual education and anything remotely involving religion. The fact that creationism is still taught in parts is unimaginable over here)
We keep using that word 'indoctrinate' and I feel it is not being used...accurately? I was born and raised in the Midwest. I consider myself having a pretty good education through the 90s. What I really learned about life and all the intricacies came after my stint in the Marines living in Okinawa, living in San Diego, and my various interactions with people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The biggest issue facing the generation coming behind us, is that they don't leave. Most people my age never left their hometowns or if they did, did not make it very far. I know people that will never visit or live in a city larger than 10k. Some don't want to be around 1k. They're just scared of change.
And I think that is the education in a lot of places. Older adults and some of the people making these rules about what can be taught, don't want their children to be smarter than them. Plain and simple. How many families were torn apart because a son/daughter went off to school and learned that everything their elementary through high school either omitted or lied about? Once people get a taste of real knowledge and start to earnestly crave it, they can't go back to "small-city thinking."
I'm starting to see the "goal of what education is" beginning to change, but it is slow. My nieces and nephews are way better at math than I am and they have an intuitive nature about adult concepts. Whether it's from my sister or school, they are learning something.
At large, I propose we start from scratch. Get Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye to write brand new science books for students. Get the leading mathematicians and philosophers together and work on all levels of arithmetic (philosophers to help the mathematicians make challenging yet easily solvable problems), and so on and so forth. I don't know how feasible something like that would be, but I'd read a science book by those two any day because they make it accessible and fun.
|
|
|
On June 17 2019 03:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. I know I've mentioned it before but have you looked into Freire and the problem posing method of education? Even if you don't agree with some of his more political conclusions, it's basically exactly what you're talking about and from which what a lot of the recent improvements along those lines are derived. I don't think you mentioned it to me specifically or not. If so, I probably missed it. I'll look into his writings. Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. Here in the Netherlands Highschool is decently focused on teaching how to find information and the science classes focus how to apply theory instead of just throwing out facts and expecting you to learn them. I think one of the main problems the US faces is what the goal of education is. It appears that to a significant part its more about indoctrination and keeping people dumb and in line rather then giving a generation to tools to think for themselves and allow them to succeed in life. (see sexual education and anything remotely involving religion. The fact that creationism is still taught in parts is unimaginable over here) We keep using that word 'indoctrinate' and I feel it is not being used...accurately? I was born and raised in the Midwest. I consider myself having a pretty good education through the 90s. What I really learned about life and all the intricacies came after my stint in the Marines living in Okinawa, living in San Diego, and my various interactions with people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The biggest issue facing the generation coming behind us, is that they don't leave. Most people my age never left their hometowns or if they did, did not make it very far. I know people that will never visit or live in a city larger than 10k. Some don't want to be around 1k. They're just scared of change. And I think that is the education in a lot of places. Older adults and some of the people making these rules about what can be taught, don't want their children to be smarter than them. Plain and simple. How many families were torn apart because a son/daughter went off to school and learned that everything their elementary through high school either omitted or lied about? Once people get a taste of real knowledge and start to earnestly crave it, they can't go back to "small-city thinking." I'm starting to see the "goal of what education is" beginning to change, but it is slow. My nieces and nephews are way better at math than I am and they have an intuitive nature about adult concepts. Whether it's from my sister or school, they are learning something. At large, I propose we start from scratch. Get Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye to write brand new science books for students. Get the leading mathematicians and philosophers together and work on all levels of arithmetic (philosophers to help the mathematicians make challenging yet easily solvable problems), and so on and so forth. I don't know how feasible something like that would be, but I'd read a science book by those two any day because they make it accessible and fun.
I highly recommend you do  A small selection on the two methods of education (really on the banking method we're critiquing) we're discussing I think relevant:
In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology)of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry.
Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.
This solution is not (nor can it be) found in the banking concept. On the contrary, banking education maintains and even stimulates the contradiction through the following attitudes and practices, which mirrOr oppressive society as a whole:
(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught; (b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; (c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; (d) the teacher talks and the students listen—meekly; (e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; (f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; (g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; (h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it; (i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students; (j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.
Also Bill Nye (since you mentioned him) on Climate Change:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 17 2019 03:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. I know I've mentioned it before but have you looked into Freire and the problem posing method of education? Even if you don't agree with some of his more political conclusions, it's basically exactly what you're talking about and from which what a lot of the recent improvements along those lines are derived. I don't think you mentioned it to me specifically or not. If so, I probably missed it. I'll look into his writings. Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On June 17 2019 03:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 17 2019 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Remember, some are from the US, some are not. This will dramatically change the education and quality you are discussing. Good point. I am speaking specifically about the US as we fall well short in most categories in talking about education. From the international community as a whole, what do you find works best in your country that may be worth looking into for the US system? I feel that allowing students to find the answers in their own way is important. Not everyone can listen to a lecture and pick up the information, just as some cannot watch a video or hands-on demonstration. I think first, we need a dramatic increase in teacher salaries so that we get more bright people educating children into the system. And if they devise a better way to teach the students they have, give them more money and expand it. Here in the Netherlands Highschool is decently focused on teaching how to find information and the science classes focus how to apply theory instead of just throwing out facts and expecting you to learn them. I think one of the main problems the US faces is what the goal of education is. It appears that to a significant part its more about indoctrination and keeping people dumb and in line rather then giving a generation to tools to think for themselves and allow them to succeed in life. (see sexual education and anything remotely involving religion. The fact that creationism is still taught in parts is unimaginable over here) We keep using that word 'indoctrinate' and I feel it is not being used...accurately? I was born and raised in the Midwest. I consider myself having a pretty good education through the 90s. What I really learned about life and all the intricacies came after my stint in the Marines living in Okinawa, living in San Diego, and my various interactions with people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The biggest issue facing the generation coming behind us, is that they don't leave. Most people my age never left their hometowns or if they did, did not make it very far. I know people that will never visit or live in a city larger than 10k. Some don't want to be around 1k. They're just scared of change. And I think that is the education in a lot of places. Older adults and some of the people making these rules about what can be taught, don't want their children to be smarter than them. Plain and simple. How many families were torn apart because a son/daughter went off to school and learned that everything their elementary through high school either omitted or lied about? Once people get a taste of real knowledge and start to earnestly crave it, they can't go back to "small-city thinking."
I don't understand why someone necessarily must visit or live in cities to get a proper education. I mean, yes travel and broad cultural exposure is a big help to education, but between the fundamental tools of how to think, and internet/TV access, it seems like good education is within reach of rural communities if the curriculum is right.
|
On June 17 2019 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off".
Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment thankfully. Even he seems to understand the dire political consequences of a war with Iran.
Having said that, my fear is he is so easy to manipulate that it's only a matter of time. All it would likely take is them playing to his ego about how he could be seen as a great military/war time hero and/or he could be the President to finally solve the Iran problem while every other President, including the black one, failed.
|
On June 17 2019 04:51 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off". Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment thankfully. Even he seems to understand the dire political consequences of a war with Iran. Having said that, my fear is he is so easy to manipulate that it's only a matter of time. All it would likely take is them playing to his ego about how he could be seen as a great military/war time hero and/or he could be the President to finally solve the Iran problem while every other President, including the black one, failed. Any real reasoning behind Trump holding back anyone?
|
On June 17 2019 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 04:51 On_Slaught wrote:On June 17 2019 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off". Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment thankfully. Even he seems to understand the dire political consequences of a war with Iran. Having said that, my fear is he is so easy to manipulate that it's only a matter of time. All it would likely take is them playing to his ego about how he could be seen as a great military/war time hero and/or he could be the President to finally solve the Iran problem while every other President, including the black one, failed. Any real reasoning behind Trump holding back anyone?
Not really sure what you're asking here, but Trump has def been waffling between cautionary and incendiary comments in the past few weeks regarding Iran. Could be any number of reasons for that. My guess is it is based on who he most recently spoke with. The hawks tall about the glory of destroying Iran while the pundits talk about poll numbers.
|
On June 17 2019 05:33 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On June 17 2019 04:51 On_Slaught wrote:On June 17 2019 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off". Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment thankfully. Even he seems to understand the dire political consequences of a war with Iran. Having said that, my fear is he is so easy to manipulate that it's only a matter of time. All it would likely take is them playing to his ego about how he could be seen as a great military/war time hero and/or he could be the President to finally solve the Iran problem while every other President, including the black one, failed. Any real reasoning behind Trump holding back anyone? Not really sure what you're asking here, but Trump has def been waffling between cautionary and incendiary comments in the past few weeks regarding Iran. Could be any number of reasons for that. My guess is it is based on who he most recently spoke with. The hawks tall about the glory of destroying Iran while the pundits talk about poll numbers. I'm asking why you think Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment
Because I sure don't get the feeling Trump is dictating anything and the warhawks are working on justification for military action.
|
On June 17 2019 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2019 05:33 On_Slaught wrote:On June 17 2019 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:On June 17 2019 04:51 On_Slaught wrote:On June 17 2019 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
lol, Saudia Arabia encouraging decisive action against Iran is borderline satire.
When Pompeo, Bolton and Saudi Arabia all agree, I feel like the international community can look at that alone and say "yeah, no, please fuck off". Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment thankfully. Even he seems to understand the dire political consequences of a war with Iran. Having said that, my fear is he is so easy to manipulate that it's only a matter of time. All it would likely take is them playing to his ego about how he could be seen as a great military/war time hero and/or he could be the President to finally solve the Iran problem while every other President, including the black one, failed. Any real reasoning behind Trump holding back anyone? Not really sure what you're asking here, but Trump has def been waffling between cautionary and incendiary comments in the past few weeks regarding Iran. Could be any number of reasons for that. My guess is it is based on who he most recently spoke with. The hawks tall about the glory of destroying Iran while the pundits talk about poll numbers. I'm asking why you think Show nested quote +Trump is probably the biggest thing holding his war hawks back at the moment Because I sure don't get the feeling Trump is dictating anything and the warhawks are working on justification for military action.
Well he is the leader and he has given multiple cautionary statements. If he was all in on war then I think we'd be a lot further along.
|
On education, I think why ZeroCool is getting confused is because "indoctrinate" is a very poor choice of wording.
GH has was basically amounts to a grand conspiracy about our education system, but a simpler explanation tends to be a much more fitting one.
The education system is simply built to feed the capitalist system. In other words, it's made to maximize working and earning potential. It doesn't specifically "indocrinate" or "brainwash" people, it just maximizes what it values. This is why you see such variability in our education system; I'm in the same boat as ZeroCool, where I received a great education from the public schools in my home town, having quality, passionate teachers that pushed me to think critically and do better. I then went to three different colleges and had the same experiences there, two of which were public.
You see this valuing or devaluing of educational aspects all the time with more conservative and less educated parents; they send their kids to school and want them learning something "relevant". They send them to college and want them to get a degree in "something that makes money". These people see school as little more than a fancy version of technical training where education pushes someone directly down a track to a better paying job.
What the vast majority of people don't get is that this isn't the point of education. Fully realized education is meant to increase critical thinking skills and properly inform a populace so that they can be quality, contributing citizens beyond the ability to work.
There are a slew of problems with our education system, but they come from every part of the political spectrum.
1) Teachers clearly don't get paid enough. There's also way too much administration, just like in most sectors of the workforce nowadays.
2) There is too much standardized testing.
3) There is way too much focus on STEM topics.
4) Class sizes are too big and students are basically on an assembly line, forced to memorize stuff and dance like monkeys in the education system.
5) Parents take basically no responsibility for their children's work ethic or ability to behave in schools.
6) Students are then treated like special snowflakes and excuses like "we all learn differently" are frequently used to justify a student that has no concept of a work ethic due to parents doing nothing but spoiling them constantly.
7) Disparities in funding are enormous.
8) Heavily institutionalized racism still exists in our education system.
9) People complain about their kids doing "useless" stuff (e.g. calculus, advanced science classes, more English classes, etc.) and wanting them to do "relevant" stuff like learning how to do their taxes etc. Never mind the fact that the very generation that removed those classes from our schools are now the ones complaining, and the reason our kids do so much extra classes is because they suck ass at math and reading to begin with.
10) Sex Ed is a fucking joke in this country.
Basically every facet of our educational system has massive problems with it and the whole thing is rotten. A huge part of the blame falls on parents for having 1) no concept of responsibility for how their child turns out and 2) a disgusting sense of "ownership" of a child, seeing it as property and not realizing that a child has a fundamental right to a certain quality of education. The only way to fix this would be a colossal cultural change on par with accepting universal healthcare or doing something seriously meaningful about climate change.
|
Pornography is our sex education. Little boys have internet after all.
|
Stratos is right on the money. I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SexEdMaps3.png)
