I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see where I said public education should be done away with. I think we should make it suck less. The US leads the world in education spending, but our public education system is simply a failure it is already broken. One doesn't have to ban public education to encourage critical thinking skills and attitudes. It is absurd and destructive to use public education as a tool to repress creativity, expression, and thinking even if this somehow yielded some useful education outcome. We have the worst of all worlds. We have an ineffective, expensive, and repressive education system. The current system is way beyond not perfect; it's very broken already.I then humbly ask you to accept my apology. As I wrote, I took your post for something it wasn't, I am sorry. Although I don't blame public schools for the suppression of critical thinking (see my own post above), I agree with you that, if the situation is in fact as ugly as you describe it, the system should be tweaked to improve it.
Your gracious apology is not necessary, but it's kind of you to offer it. My general anti government bent is well established, and the brevity of my statements sometimes doesn't help my clarity.
I'm deeply critical of our public education system, and I wasn't trying to turn this thread into an education reform forum.
It's just a huge personal irritation to me when certain schools that have drug and violence problems, a majority of students failing basic proficiency tests, and large dropout rates seem more interested in weather some student has piercings or a green hair streak than correcting the schools gross academic failings.
I firmly believe it's primarily the parents job to instill critical thinking, logic, reason, decency and so forth in their kids. I just don't think they should have to fight the education system to do it.
I made none of this background known in my initial post, so my brevity worked against my clarity. I really prefer talking to people in person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.
At the risk of going down a much broader debate I think more teachers play a key role if all other things are equal.
Obviously a parent home schooling one child is in a very good position to manage behavior and quirks, entertain side bars, turn off topic curiosity into learning opportunities, incorporate reason, and entertain critical thinking challenges. Conversely a seventh grade teacher with 35 students for an hour is in a much harder position. I think giving teachers a sane number of students to manage can make a tremendous qualitative difference.
I also think that a lot of the disruption and distraction issues have more to due with faculty than students. I really don't think most school kids these days are going to be driven to distraction by green hair or some piercings.
I don't think schools should allow themselves to fall into a mindset that accepts violence against students who are different because they are different. The lazy approach IMO is to maximize uniformity and minimize difference. I think schools should punish the initiation of violence rather than difference.
So:
1) small class sizes.
2) ignore anything but the most dramatic fashion choices.
3) closely monitor student interactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So:
1) small class sizes.
2) ignore anything but the most dramatic fashion choices.
3) closely monitor student interactions.
Basically yes, but I think cultivating a culture that respects or at least tolerates difference in appearance, intellect, culture, and personality is important as well.
Here is another article about the story.
In this article it says:
Now if this article is true, then everyone who said that sending him home was appropriate but not suspending him, will I hope recognize that he wasn't suspended for his clothing choice, but for his insubordinate behavior.
Telling him to go home for the rest of the day (as opposed to, say, telling him to go home and change) would have been disproportionate to begin with. Even taking the back-talk (which was pretty minor) into account, suspending him for more than a day or so (much less banning him from the school dance and the class trip) was disproportionate. Hell, even the school board thinks the dean and/or the principal is out of line here.
And while I'd question the kid's accusation of sexism, the very fact that a boy wearing a dress is actionable is silly from the outset.
|
Even taking the back-talk (which was pretty minor) into account
I'm sorry, did I miss an exact quote? Because we don't know if he said:
"I think you're being sexist about this, sir."
or
"F---- you, you g--d---- a------. You're a sexist son of a b----, and I'm not changing, so you can go straight to hell, you stupid f---face."
Even taking the back-talk (which was pretty minor) into accountI'm sorry, did I miss an exact quote? Because we don't know if he said:
"I think you're being sexist about this, sir."
or
"F---- you, you g--d---- a------. You're a sexist son of a b----, and I'm not changing, so you can go straight to hell, you stupid f---face."
I don't know if it was the bad, but from the articles it was clear this is not the first time this student had to be sent to the office about their attire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.
Bulldoze what we do now -- teaching by rote, teaching to the test, "no child left behind," and enforced mediocrity. Instead offer meaningful choices and opportunities -- things like auto shop and electronics (hell, wilderness survival would be a good addition), not just history and math -- and let kids who are excelling in an area pursue it further, rather than being kept with the herd. If some kid has a 160 IQ and wants to be the next Stephen Hawking, let him do more than just take general Physics with the remedial kids and then tell him to read on his own. And, finally, require teachers to have more than a pulse. Require them to be very good in their subject matter, pay them accordingly, and treat them like actual professionals -- no "lab science" classes of 38 kids in a room meant for 24 (which was my situation).
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.Bulldoze what we do now -- teaching by rote, teaching to the test, "no child left behind," and enforced mediocrity. Instead offer meaningful choices and opportunities -- things like auto shop and electronics (hell, wilderness survival would be a good addition), not just history and math -- and let kids who are excelling in an area pursue it further, rather than being kept with the herd. If some kid has a 160 IQ and wants to be the next Stephen Hawking, let him do more than just take general Physics with the remedial kids and then tell him to read on his own. And, finally, require teachers to have more than a pulse. Require them to be very good in their subject matter, pay them accordingly, and treat them like actual professionals -- no "lab science" classes of 38 kids in a room meant for 24 (which was my situation).
I see some good suggestions here, indeed I just heard a story on NPR where our country is seriously lacking skilled workers because we have become a society that doesn't value manufacturing skills and instead try to push everyone to go to college.
As for keeping the smart kids back, I guess we have had very different experiences. Pretty much every school I have gone to or worked at had gifted programs for those students capable of doing so. In an extremely small school I could see the problem where you might only have 1 or 2 students that would fall into such a group and thus can't spare the resources for them. But generally the gifted students aren't the ones being neglected, in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind, the problems with education aren't just rooted in schools. When you're a single parent working full time to put bread on the table, it isn't exactly easy to help your kid with their schoolwork - and that's if you're working one job.
That said, our school system and how funding works is utterly atrocious, so that doesn't help either. Currently schools are funded by local income and property taxes - that means schools in good areas get better, schools in poor areas get worse. People afflicted by poverty and low income have a staggeringly low chance of moving, which means it just spirals out worse from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be interested in what types of changes people would like to see to increase "expression, creativity, and critical thinking". It is easy to criticize. It is much harder to actually suggest a meaningful change.Bulldoze what we do now -- teaching by rote, teaching to the test, "no child left behind," and enforced mediocrity. Instead offer meaningful choices and opportunities -- things like auto shop and electronics (hell, wilderness survival would be a good addition), not just history and math -- and let kids who are excelling in an area pursue it further, rather than being kept with the herd. If some kid has a 160 IQ and wants to be the next Stephen Hawking, let him do more than just take general Physics with the remedial kids and then tell him to read on his own. And, finally, require teachers to have more than a pulse. Require them to be very good in their subject matter, pay them accordingly, and treat them like actual professionals -- no "lab science" classes of 38 kids in a room meant for 24 (which was my situation).I see some good suggestions here, indeed I just heard a story on NPR where our country is seriously lacking skilled workers because we have become a society that doesn't value manufacturing skills and instead try to push everyone to go to college.
As for keeping the smart kids back, I guess we have had very different experiences. Pretty much every school I have gone to or worked at had gifted programs for those students capable of doing so. In an extremely small school I could see the problem where you might only have 1 or 2 students that would fall into such a group and thus can't spare the resources for them. But generally the gifted students aren't the ones being neglected, in my experience.
I seen schools where some faculty were actually hostile to gifted students. Not only were there no programs to challenge them (beyond AP college) some teachers were openly hostile and contemptuous.
I've seen schools where the gifted and advanced classes were quite rudimentary, and it makes you wonder how awful the standard classes are.
I've also seen competent and dedicated teachers from the special needs side to gifted side of the spectrum. Unfortunately competence and dedication are increasingly uncommon.
The metrics don't surprise me in the least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against.
In a couple of my examples the students were very intelligent, but had very poor social skills, and it pissed the teachers off. I really fail to understand why someone would teach at the middle or high school level if they have a low tolerance for socially inept teens.
I'm not sure the public education system can be fixed if we wont question the basic structure that is in place, but that seems highly unlikely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really fail to understand why someone would teach at the middle or high school level if they have a low tolerance for socially inept teens.
Amen.
I'm not sure the public education system can be fixed if we won't question the basic structure that is in place, but that seems highly unlikely.
Obviously, I agree -- but you put it more succinctly than I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really fail to understand why someone would teach at the middle or high school level if they have a low tolerance for socially inept teens.Amen.
I'm not sure the public education system can be fixed if we won't question the basic structure that is in place, but that seems highly unlikely.Obviously, I agree -- but you put it more succinctly than I did.
LOL! Well, you're allowed to talk about bulldozing the current system more readily than I. If I say that it's just more crazy anti government talk from me. I don't think they can call you an anarchist. ;)
So:
1) small class sizes.
2) ignore anything but the most dramatic fashion choices.
3) closely monitor student interactions.
Sounds like home-schooling to me ;)
As for wearing a dress to school, despite what previous posters have said I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that acting in opposition to societal norms should reap the repercussions of that behaviour. American society frowns on men in dresses and also frowns on taking the work of others as your own. Yet one is prosecuted at law while the other is prosecuted by the community. Some people in American society agree that society shouldn't frown on men wearing dresses and that is a viewpoint they are entitled to but does not invalidate what American society actually frowns upon.
To continue the example- in the Soviet Union it was socially acceptable to take others work as your own - in fact, resistance was frowned upon by society "Why are you trying to withhold the wheat you have grown, comrade, can you not see that everyone is depending on you for food?". In America, society would either view it as extortion or stealing. I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!
Also, @Bitter Thorn: Are you in this picture? :) (Language NSFW)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read to much of what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin had to say about the "tyranny of the majority" and the need to guard against it. "If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said if a man wears pants or wears a dress.
I'm just sayin', if you want to ignore the Founding Fathers than go to a country they didn't found!
So:
1) small class sizes.
2) ignore anything but the most dramatic fashion choices.
3) closely monitor student interactions.Sounds like home-schooling to me ;)
As for wearing a dress to school, despite what previous posters have said I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that acting in opposition to societal norms should reap the repercussions of that behaviour. American society frowns on men in dresses and also frowns on taking the work of others as your own. Yet one is prosecuted at law while the other is prosecuted by the community. Some people in American society agree that society shouldn't frown on men wearing dresses and that is a viewpoint they are entitled to but does not invalidate what American society actually frowns upon.
To continue the example- in the Soviet Union it was socially acceptable to take others work as your own - in fact, resistance was frowned upon by society "Why are you trying to withhold the wheat you have grown, comrade, can you not see that everyone is depending on you for food?". In America, society would either view it as extortion or stealing. I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!
Also, @Bitter Thorn: Are you in this picture? :) (Language NSFW)
Bad link
Director of Narrative
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...was frowned upon by society...
Evolving culture is the responsibility of each and every one of us. It’s an effect of critical mass, and moves forward on each decision we make every day.
I don’t buy the acceptable society argument. We need to be more flexible. There’re plenty of things that are accepted by societies, in the past and present, that are simply vile.
Edit: :
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read to much of what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin had to say about the "tyranny of the majority" and the need to guard against it. "If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said if a man wears pants or wears a dress.
I'm just sayin', if you want to ignore the Founding Fathers than go to a country they didn't found!
I'm Australian, and I respect your Founding Fathers opinions, but did Franklin really believe that his "tyranny of the majority" should be extended to say that anything a person does is OK because they shouldn't be held in check by the actions of the majority? Is there no context to that statement in which it should be interpreted?
I can't accept non-conformist teachings without significant disclaimers because the logic behind such a statement is generally layered in hypocrisy. Troublemakers are put in prison for "drunk or disorderly" behaviour, should they be walking the streets free because otherwise we'd be imposing "the tyranny of the majority"? If I were to extend what I think you've suggested as the teaching of Franklin I'd have to ask the question, "Is anything wrong ever or is it just non-conformist?"
I understand you feel strongly about your argument but I believe you mistook my argument and think I am proposing fines or corporal punishment. Nowhere did I suggest communities should offer fines or corporal punishment for beliefs, but I apologise if my post could lead people to think I had as it was not my intent.
@Adam: I'm sorry you felt I was being philosophical, I tried to use real-world examples to illustrate the realism of my post.
Anyway, one day you'll all be as liberated as Australia where all us blokes wear thongs. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just sayin', if you want to wear a dress then go to a culture where they wear dresses!I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't read to much of what Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin had to say about the "tyranny of the majority" and the need to guard against it. "If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same could be said if a man wears pants or wears a dress.
I'm just sayin', if you want to ignore the Founding Fathers than go to a country they didn't found!
I'm Australian, and I respect your Founding Fathers opinions, but did Franklin really believe that his "tyranny of the majority" should be extended to say that anything a person does is OK because they shouldn't be held in check by the actions of the majority? Is there no context to that statement in which it should be interpreted?
I can't accept non-conformist teachings without significant disclaimers because the logic behind such a statement is generally layered in hypocrisy. Troublemakers are put in prison for "drunk or disorderly" behaviour, should they be walking the streets free because otherwise we'd be imposing "the tyranny of the majority"? If I were to extend what I think you've suggested as the teaching of Franklin I'd have to ask the question, "Is anything wrong ever or is it just non-conformist?"
I understand you feel strongly about your argument but I believe you mistook my argument and think I am proposing fines or corporal punishment. Nowhere did I suggest communities should offer fines or corporal punishment for beliefs, but I apologise if my post could lead people to think I had as it was not my intent.
@Adam: I'm sorry you felt I was being philosophical, I tried to use real-world examples to illustrate the realism of my post.
Anyway, one day you'll all be as liberated as Australia where all us blokes wear thongs. :)
I would add that this quote that Kirth provided gives context.
"If a man believes in one god, or a hundred, or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
It's not a blank check to do anything to any one. I would put it in the context of not initiating violence against anyone else and by extension not threatening the initiation of violence and also by extension their property. My frame work is not the common one here, but I think it works pretty well, and I think its roots go back to Jefferson and other founders.
Maybe I was incorrect in my assumption that no one could call Kirth an anarchist. ;)
Are we going to talk about the hypermasculinization of the US? Because that's a legit interesting topic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"In the United States, heterosexual masculinity is expressed, not through intercourse with the opposite sex, but by watching other men play games with balls."
--Gore Vidal
(Rough paraphrase)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against.
This has been my general experience as well. Absurd amounts of time and resources are spent to get the E students to a D- just so they can move on to the next grade and hopefully out of the public school system. Meanwhile the gifted students are essentially left to their own devices.
Personally, I firmly believe that college is not for everyone (however, Lord help me if I ever suggested that a child not go to college), and I'm becoming more and more convinced that even the higher grade levels of public education are not needed for a large segment of students. It seems such a waste to keep pushing students forward that are barely scraping by, hate being in school, and you know are not going to cut it in college.
I would like to see what would happen if students graduated at grade eight rather then twelve. Start up an intensive work study program and evaluation system to get student ready for work force and into job they might be good at. I could be wrong, but I don't imagine that most people will need twelve grade english or algebra to be functional adults. If at the end of eighth grade your scores are good enough and you're interested in attending college then you keep going with college level prep course and whatever else.
Of course this would require a fundamental change in the way America views education and success. Businesses would have to stop demending a four year degree in jobs that don't really require them and the social stigma of not attending college would need to be cast aside. I think it would be a positive change overall, but I could be mistaken.
Are we going to talk about the hypermasculinization of the US? Because that's a legit interesting topic.
Hmmm, it was my belief that the United States was going the other way. That things that relate heavily male were being weaked and seen as inferior. In what ways do you think the United States in becoming hypermasculined?
I am also reminded of a comment by Camille Paglia re: construction workers hollering at women on the street, that in this day and age when even soldiering is computerized, at least someone out there is keeping it masculinely real.
Are we going to talk about the hypermasculinization of the US? Because that's a legit interesting topic.
Indeed, but it might be a bit off track from David's OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, it was my belief that the United States was going the other way. That things that relate heavily male were being weaked and seen as inferior. In what ways do you think the United States in becoming hypermasculined?
"In what ways" nothing, it's been hypermmasculine and getting worse for decades now.
Rather then quote the thread bit by bit, I'll just link it here. Very good read with some very good links. Alternately, see a talk given at TEDWomen here.
Indeed, but it might be a bit off track from David's OP.
On the contrary, I would say it's intrinsically linked. The problem arose from a boy dressing like a girl. Try to envision if the same thing happened where a girl was suspended for wearing pants, and how the reaction would have differed.
My wife loves to tell a story of when she was in high school in a very small town that the boys were not allowed to wear shorts to school, but the girls could where skirts. When it got really hot, in protest the boys all started wearing skirts.
In the district where I taught, the claim that "tracking is bad" was integral to how things worked. The philosophy was that smart kids will learn even if no one bothers to teach to their level, but slower kids need a lot of help to reach par, and therefore ALL efforts and resources should be devoted to the slower kids, without exception. For brighter kids, it meant boredom, insane levels of frustration, and a feeling of being ignored and/or discriminated against.This has been my general experience as well. Absurd amounts of time and resources are spent to get the E students to a D- just so they can move on to the next grade and hopefully out of the public school system. Meanwhile the gifted students are essentially left to their own devices.
Personally, I firmly believe that college is not for everyone (however, Lord help me if I ever suggested that a child not go to college), and I'm becoming more and more convinced that even the higher grade levels of public education are not needed for a large segment of students. It seems such a waste to keep pushing students forward that are barely scraping by, hate being in school, and you know are not going to cut it in college.
I would like to see what would happen if students graduated at grade eight rather then twelve. Start up an intensive work study program and evaluation system to get student ready for work force and into job they might be good at. I could be wrong, but I don't imagine that most people will need twelve grade english or algebra to be functional adults. If at the end of eighth grade your scores are good enough and you're interested in attending college then you keep going with college level prep course and whatever else.
Of course this would require a fundamental change in the way America views education and success. Businesses would have to stop demending a four year degree in jobs that don't really require them and the social stigma of not attending college would need to be cast aside. I think it would be...
I think I'll just say in brief that I know a lot lot of guys in specialized construction fields with high school degrees or less that are still making six digits in this economy, and I know a lot of people with advanced degrees looking for work. There are many kinds of education that don't take place in formal schools.
Hmmm, it was my belief that the United States was going the other way. That things that relate heavily male were being weaked and seen as inferior. In what ways do you think the United States in becoming hypermasculined?"In what ways" nothing, it's been hypermmasculine and getting worse for decades now.
Rather then quote the thread bit by bit, I'll just link it here. Very good read with some very good links. Alternately, see a talk given at TEDWomen here.
Indeed, but it might be a bit off track from David's OP.On the contrary, I would say it's intrinsically linked. The problem arose from a boy dressing like a girl. Try to envision if the same thing happened where a girl was suspended for wearing pants, and how the reaction would have differed.
I'm not sure I'd agree, but I think "What makes a man?" would merit its own thread. I think notions of hyper-masculinization may be built on deeply arguable ideas of "masculine" that may be conflated with violence and aggression.
I tend to see this thread as more about conformity and difference than sex roles in society, but some may disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some truth to that, but it also breeds a herd mentality.I always found public schools intense hostility to critical thinking and individuality disturbing.It's a crucible. The best of us get out mostly unscathed. ;)As do families, nations, churchs, sports teams, unions, charities, businesses, and military units. We are social animals with strong biological behavioural drivers that push us towards forming social groups which work together and dislike individuals who are not members of said group.
Saying that something breeds herd mentality is redundant, because we are social animals. Herd mentality is our natural state.
I don't believe I ever suggested that public schools are the only institutions that suppress individuality and encourage conformity in the US. I would think it would go with out saying that there is a broad range of "breeding herd mentality" between and withing the institutions you cite.
I do think it is particularly odious in the case of public schools because attendance is largely compulsory, and funding it is compulsory, and I don't see the systematic repression of expression, creativity, and critical thinking to be very helpful to the learning process. I'm not opposed to discipline, per say, but I don't think discipline should be lazy or capricious.
Why is it an odious thing? That herd mentality is what allows sports teams and military units to function at all. The misfiring of Kin selection and reciprocity drives allows soldiers to jump of grenades for their buddies, rather than do the rational thing, and push their 'buddy' on to the grenade.
Its what allows groups of people to work together to form businesses and communities. It is thanks to such drives that we live in a complex technological society with average life expectancies in the 70's and unparalleled luxury, as opposed to being very small groups of hunter-gathers.
Some truth to that, but it also breeds a herd mentality.I always found public schools intense hostility to critical thinking and individuality disturbing.It's a crucible. The best of us get out mostly unscathed. ;)As do families, nations, churchs, sports teams, unions, charities, businesses, and military units. We are social animals with strong biological behavioural drivers that push us towards forming social groups which work together and dislike individuals who are not members of said group.
Saying that something breeds herd mentality is redundant, because we are social animals. Herd mentality is our natural state.
I don't believe I ever suggested that public schools are the only institutions that suppress individuality and encourage conformity in the US. I would think it would go with out saying that there is a broad range of "breeding herd mentality" between and withing the institutions you cite.
I do think it is particularly odious in the case of public schools because attendance is largely compulsory, and funding it is compulsory, and I don't see the systematic repression of expression, creativity, and critical thinking to be very helpful to the learning process. I'm not opposed to discipline, per say, but I don't think discipline should be lazy or capricious.
Why is it an odious thing? That herd mentality is what allows sports teams and military units to function at all. The misfiring of Kin selection and reciprocity drives allows soldiers to jump of grenades for their buddies, rather than do the rational thing, and push their 'buddy' on to the grenade.
Its what allows groups of people to work together to form businesses and communities. It is thanks to such drives that we live in a complex technological society with average life expectancies in the 70's and unparalleled luxury, as opposed to being very small groups of...
I don't agree that herd mentality is all that makes us capable of selflessness, team work, and cooperation. Maybe we are defining the idea differently. I think we can see beyond our own needs and wants for other reasons, and I don't think suppressing individuality necessarily makes for a better world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness I am slightly misusing the term.
In this case I am using it as a short hand for a wide range of social behaviour, including herd mentality, herd behaviour, altruism, innate human morality, ect, which evolutionary psychology is beginning to show are very closely interwoven. Their is almost certainly a better term.
The point is however that we are innately social behaviour animals. We are pre-disposed to behave in certain ways, when it comes to social interaction and that it is in many ways very lucky that we do. We could not have risen this far without such behaviours.
None of that in anyway is meant to say that such behaviours are entirely god. This same set of behaviours is behind our species love affair with genocide, and nationalistic and religious warfare.
Nor am I saying that Individuality is a bad thing. The ability to not behave as part of the crowd allows escape from dogma, scientific advance and a good deal else besides. But I think I am right in saying the neurological seat of individuality is also thought to play a major part in Sociopathic behaviours.
In fairness I am slightly misusing the term.
In this case I am using it as a short hand for a wide range of social behaviour, including herd mentality, herd behaviour, altruism, innate human morality, ect, which evolutionary psychology is beginning to show are very closely interwoven. Their is almost certainly a better term.
The point is however that we are innately social behaviour animals. We are pre-disposed to behave in certain ways, when it comes to social interaction and that it is in many ways very lucky that we do. We could not have risen this far without such behaviours.
None of that in anyway is meant to say that such behaviours are entirely god. This same set of behaviours is behind our species love affair with genocide, and nationalistic and religious warfare.
Nor am I saying that Individuality is a bad thing. The ability to not behave as part of the crowd allows escape from dogma, scientific advance and a good deal else besides. But I think I am right in saying the neurological seat of individuality is also thought to play a major part in Sociopathic behaviours.
I suppose I just think that reason and logic can motivate us to act beyond social instinct and self absorption. There is much more to it than that, but I'd like to think being thinking organisms matters.
I suppose I just think that reason and logic can motivate us to act beyond social instinct and self absorption. There is much more to it than that, but I'd like to think being thinking organisms matters.In fairness I am slightly misusing the term.
In this case I am using it as a short hand for a wide range of social behaviour, including herd mentality, herd behaviour, altruism, innate human morality, ect, which evolutionary psychology is beginning to show are very closely interwoven. Their is almost certainly a better term.
The point is however that we are innately social behaviour animals. We are pre-disposed to behave in certain ways, when it comes to social interaction and that it is in many ways very lucky that we do. We could not have risen this far without such behaviours.
None of that in anyway is meant to say that such behaviours are entirely god. This same set of behaviours is behind our species love affair with genocide, and nationalistic and religious warfare.
Nor am I saying that Individuality is a bad thing. The ability to not behave as part of the crowd allows escape from dogma, scientific advance and a good deal else besides. But I think I am right in saying the neurological seat of individuality is also thought to play a major part in Sociopathic behaviours.
Let me pose you a question:
"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"
In fairness I am slightly misusing the term.
Come now, you would never do that.
Because we don't know if he said:
"I think you're being sexist about this, sir."
or
"F---- you, you g--d---- a------. You're a sexist son of a b----, and I'm not changing, so you can go straight to hell, you stupid f---face."
There's a heck of a lot of middle ground between those extremes. And the punishment he received would have been disproportionate even for the latter. (Three days, with no other restrictions, would have been appropriate for that.)
Then again, when I was in school, they only suspended kids for things like smoking or possession of alcohol. Backtalking an official got you detention. (And sometimes the opportunity to get the official busted for being an unprofessional little tinpot tyrant, but I won't go into that.)
I don't know if it was the bad, but from the articles it was clear this is not the first time this student had to be sent to the office about their attire.
For wearing hats (only proscribed in the building, according to the school's dress code; easily removed) and makeup (not proscribed at all; easily removed). Which makes this all the more ridiculous.
And again, even the school board thinks the school officials are out of line here.
|
|
There's a heck of a lot of middle ground between those extremes. And the punishment he received would have been disproportionate even for the latter. (Three days, with no other restrictions, would have been appropriate for that.)
We're nearing the end of June. The rest of the school year probably WAS three days. Hell, I'm suprised this school is still going this late.
"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"
I'd need more information, like:
Where is the mad philosopher now? (He's right behind me, isn't he?)
Will he get mad if I interfere with this experiment?
Is this situation engineered to place me in a psychological predicament possibly scarring me for life (if so I reject all hypothesis and check the internet for anything that might possibly remove red stains)
Did the five people agree to the experiment?
Has anyone got a camera?
If the trolley is travelling at 80km/h in a straight line increasing in speed at roughly 10km/h every five seconds and the victims are four miles away, how long will it take a car to drive across an interesection in front of the speeding trolley? (Assume for the case of the example that the car is actually an ambulance full of babies)
Is Zombieneighbours riding in the trolley?
I hate making decisions without all the facts, so I'd probably do nothing.
"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"I'd need more information, like:
Where is the mad philosopher now? (He's right behind me, isn't he?)
Will he get mad if I interfere with this experiment?
Is this situation engineered to place me in a psychological predicament possibly scarring me for life (if so I reject all hypothesis and check the internet for anything that might possibly remove red stains)
Did the five people agree to the experiment?
Has anyone got a camera?
If the trolley is travelling at 80km/h in a straight line increasing in speed at roughly 10km/h every five seconds and the victims are four miles away, how long will it take a car to drive across an interesection in front of the speeding trolley? (Assume for the case of the example that the car is actually an ambulance full of babies)
Is Zombieneighbours riding in the trolley?I hate making decisions without all the facts, so I'd probably do nothing.
Sorry, we don't always have all the infomation. Thats the dilemma, make your choice. ;)
Sorry, we don't always have all the infomation. Thats the dilemma, make your choice. ;)"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"I'd need more information, like:
Where is the mad philosopher now? (He's right behind me, isn't he?)
Will he get mad if I interfere with this experiment?
Is this situation engineered to place me in a psychological predicament possibly scarring me for life (if so I reject all hypothesis and check the internet for anything that might possibly remove red stains)
Did the five people agree to the experiment?
Has anyone got a camera?
If the trolley is travelling at 80km/h in a straight line increasing in speed at roughly 10km/h every five seconds and the victims are four miles away, how long will it take a car to drive across an interesection in front of the speeding trolley? (Assume for the case of the example that the car is actually an ambulance full of babies)
Is Zombieneighbours riding in the trolley?I hate making decisions without all the facts, so I'd probably do nothing.
I choose not to engage in this exercise.
I choose not to engage in this exercise.Sorry, we don't always have all the infomation. Thats the dilemma, make your choice. ;)"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"I'd need more information, like:
Where is the mad philosopher now? (He's right behind me, isn't he?)
Will he get mad if I interfere with this experiment?
Is this situation engineered to place me in a psychological predicament possibly scarring me for life (if so I reject all hypothesis and check the internet for anything that might possibly remove red stains)
Did the five people agree to the experiment?
Has anyone got a camera?
If the trolley is travelling at 80km/h in a straight line increasing in speed at roughly 10km/h every five seconds and the victims are four miles away, how long will it take a car to drive across an interesection in front of the speeding trolley? (Assume for the case of the example that the car is actually an ambulance full of babies)
Is Zombieneighbours riding in the trolley?I hate making decisions without all the facts, so I'd probably do nothing.
Well then I'll do it the short way around.
It is likely that your answer would have been 'Yes, I would switch the track'. You'd likely argue that it was the rational and moral choice, because few people die. Now of cause you might not go with that line, but that would make you relatively unusual. Most people, who are asked about their actions in this dilemma behave that way.
Their is a second version of the Dilemma, called "the fat man."
'As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?'
Conversely, it is very likely that you would not kill the fat man where you would probably kill the guy on the tracks. That is how most people answer the question.
Their are a range of hypothesis as to why, and it is very likely tangled up in that knot of behaviour which owes its existence to the evolution of Altruism.
Rationally, the Dilemma is the same. Same cost, same benefit, same act. If rationality is the decider on the moral dilemma, the outcome should be the same. Yet emotions, cultural baggage, and all sorts of social behaviour gets in the way, and we get different outcomes.
Our behaviour is far from dominated by rationality.
I punch the trolley off the tracks, saving everyone!
Sorry, we don't always have all the infomation. Thats the dilemma, make your choice. ;)
Actually, my gut reaction to the Dilemma is to kill my self to save both, unfortunately that isn't one of the allowed choices when it comes to the dilemma.
|
Agreed, but if we're constructing ridiculously narrow circumstances for the experiment, I feel justified in doing the impossible and taking a third option. :)
If I were to play by the rules, to remain morally righteous, I would not act in both situations. I am not the one who set up the choice, therefore I am not morally obligated to commit murder.
To save the most people, I would obviously sacrifice the one in order to save the many. That would in turn make me guilty of murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd let the train run over the five people, back the train up, switch the track, run over the remaining person, throw the mad philosopher into the fire (I'm assuming this is one of those old-timey choo-choos where you have to throw in wood), drive my engine to Port Orchard, find the administrator responsible for suspending the cross-dressing student, throw him (or her, I'm not sexist) into the fire, all the while giggling maniacally.
This train is bound for glory, this train.