We need to re-teach people how to filter information. There was a time when we had so little information to learn, that we could afford to be as discriminating as possible with it, and to go to great lengths to acquire new knowledge. Now that we havetoo muchinformation, we need to re-gear the process of teaching.
Words cannot describe how much I agree with this statement.
I'm just not sure how this can/will happen. I mean, other countries seem to be somewhat further along than us in this department, but how can we (Americans) catch up? Do we need an overhaul of the educational system, or will it come gradually?
Definitely. I can definitely say that today's school system needs a lot of changes. I have failed tests when I knew the stuff and aced tests when I didn't know shit about a subject.
I usually just call myself a heathen whenever I have to define my beliefs, but it rarely comes up.
Well, yes and no. There is a lot in the current system that is wonderful; however, we have centered our system on standardized tests for too long. Further, we demand too little, while at the same time bombarding children with too much hollow information without first teaching creative thinking and critical reasoning and ensuring that they fully grasp fundamentals of any given subject. Also, (and this must be said) you could have the best school, staff, resources, and bright children, but if their parents/community are not supportive or counterproductive - it will come to naught.
Well, yes and no. There is a lot in the current system that is wonderful; however, we have centered our system on standardized tests for too long. Further, we demand too little, while at the same time bombarding children with too much hollow information without first teaching creative thinking and critical reasoning and ensuring that theyfullygrasp fundamentals of any given subject. Also, (and this must be said) you could have the best school, staff, resources, and bright children, but if their parents/community are not supportive or counterproductive - it will come to naught.
Oh man, parents. I would almost support completely banning parents from having any say in their child's education at all. It might be worth losing the supportive parents just to prevent the counterproductive ones from doing damage.
Honestly, I think parents should be given some sort of incentive to attend a parenting seminars or classes yearly, maybe an additional tax break. I also think year round schooling would help. It not only provides more constructive learning time and compensates some for bad parenting by continually providing strong role models, daily behavior coaching, and close monitoring of needs throughout the day.
BTW: All of this is coming from an atheist. I care about education, real family values, kindness, generosity, and community - and I do that WITHOUT fearing retribution or in pursuit of a reward beyond that of improving the human condition. Goodness for goodness' sake... go figure.
See, after I get someone to agree with my secular humanist ideas, I drop the bomb: that's what it means to be an atheist.
If I'm right about this, secular humanism is the belief that we can all work towards the common good based solely on our roles as human beings, and not for fear of the sky-wizard whipping us. It's a lifestyle choice, but it also conveys a sense of morality and justice. Atheism, as far as I understand it, demands abandon of theology without an implicit call to a moral high-ground. Perhaps this is the perception problem?
See, after I get someone to agree with my secular humanist ideas, I drop the bomb: that's what it means to be an atheist.
If I'm right about this, secular humanism is the belief that we can all work towards the common good based solely on our roles as human beings, and not for fear of the sky-wizard whipping us. It's a lifestyle choice, but it also conveys a sense of morality and justice. Atheism, as far as I understand it, demands abandon of theology without an implicit call to a moral high-ground. Perhaps this is the perception problem?
Secular humanism is a moral philosophy. Atheism isn't anything. It's simply a lack of irrational believe in a supernatural deity.
Many religious folk seem to think that atheism implies a lack of morality, since the source of their own morality is fear of punishment, or desire for reward, dished out by a supernatural deity. Say atheism lacks morality is like saying that a cookie recipe has bad graphics. Atheism says nothing about morality. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Secular humanism is a moral philosophy that is compatible with atheism. There are many other atheist compatible moral philosophies as well.
In this way, religion is sort of like Microsoft Windows. Windows puts the user interface, the kernel, the application libraries, and many other things all in one package. Linux has all of the things separated. Thus, someone coming from Windows has a hard time understanding that KDE and Gnome aren't operating systems. Both these computers are running Linux, but they are so completely different! Non thinking people have a hard time dealing with it when you apply the same label to things that are dissimilar.
See, after I get someone to agree with my secular humanist ideas, I drop the bomb: that's what it means to be an atheist.
If I'm right about this, secular humanism is the belief that we can all work towards the common good based solely on our roles as human beings, and not for fear of the sky-wizard whipping us. It's a lifestyle choice, but it also conveys a sense of morality and justice. Atheism, as far as I understand it, demands abandon of theology without an implicit call to a moral high-ground. Perhaps this is the perception problem?
I guess I should have clarified: that's what it means to be a moral atheist. That is, you can have a set of moral standards that isn't tied to some magical sky wizard. I use secular humanism as the example, and then show them how I can be an atheist and still be a good person.
Non thinking people have a hard time dealing with it when you apply the same label to things that are dissimilar.
Awesome, we agree on that point. The perception problem is that theology is coupled extremely tightly with morality in this society.
But think of this kind of question:
Well, what do you believe in?
Like you say, labeling yourself as an atheist conveys absolutely nothing in a conversation. It's essentially useless, and given that I have to agree with Pete: re-brand, and not because of the negative connotation of being *GASP* AN ATHEIST. Choose a label that says something about your beliefs, be it in your self-sufficiency as a thinking human being, or your willingness to accept thoughtless abandon.
Oh man, parents. I would almost support completely banning parents from having any say in their child's education at all. It might be worth losing the supportive parents just to prevent the counterproductive ones from doing damage.
Oh man, parents. I wouldalmostsupport completelybanningparents from having any say in their child's education at all. It might be worth losing the supportive parents just to prevent the counterproductive ones from doing damage.
Sounds kinda totalitarian to me...
I grapple with a lot of seemingly mutually exclusive ideas. There are some days where I'm so into total individual liberty that I could be mistaken for a crazy libertarian, and there are other days where I want to institute a worldwide eugenics program and wipe out everybody who disagrees with me or whom I otherwise dislike. I fluctuate between "everybody is special and full of magic" to "sterilize the retards so we can take their stain out of our gene pool."
I've also almost supported the idea of taking people away from home and putting them into massive public boarding schools to allow for "proper education." I'd give them back to their families for socializing, but otherwise I'd sometimes just like to stick everybody in public education centers and mold them into ideal citizens.
I've alsoalmostsupported the idea of taking people away from home and putting them into massive public boarding schools to allow for "proper education." I'd give them back to their families for socializing, but otherwise I'd sometimes just like to stick everybody in public education centers and mold them into ideal citizens.
The big problem with this plan is that parents matter more than schools. A kid with parents who really emphasize education who goes to a shitty school has a better chance than a kid in an amazing school with shit parents.
I've alsoalmostsupported the idea of taking people away from home and putting them into massive public boarding schools to allow for "proper education." I'd give them back to their families for socializing, but otherwise I'd sometimes just like to stick everybody in public education centers and mold them into ideal citizens.
The big problem with this plan is that parents matter more than schools. A kid with parents who really emphasize education who goes to a shitty school has a better chance than a kid in an amazing school with shit parents.
Well, that's because good parents teach you how to think for yourself, and how to analyze things. They challenge you even when the schools don't.
I'm talking about teaching people how to think critically, rather than simply forcing facts down their throats.
Well, that's because good parents teach you how to think for yourself, and how to analyze things. They challenge you even when the schools don't.
I'm talking about teaching people how to think critically, rather than simply forcing facts down their throats.
I want to say this in advance. What I'm about to say is not racist. I know this comes across as racist, and that's why people don't like to say it. However, I assure you it is not racist. It is culturist. It just so happens that there are strong correlations between race and culture in the world, so it is easy to confuse the two.
There is a stereotype that Asian kids are smarter. However, we all know that there is nothing about the color of someone's skin that makes them smarter or less smart. Stephen Hawking is one of the smartest people alive, and he's not Asian. If Asian people had a genetic advantage, all of the smartest people in the world would be Asian, and nobody else would be able to compete no matter how hard they tried. The difference is not in genetics or skin color, it is in culture. That's why this isn't racist.
Asian parents tend to have a culture of emphasizing education in their children. They tend to actually care about their kid's grades. They will punish them for getting Cs. They won't even reward them for getting As. As are the expected norm. This isn't just Asians though. Any parent who emphasizes education will see the same results, statistically speaking. It's simply that certain cultures associated with certain races have this cultural trait of making education a high priority. I know that myself and all the Jews who grew up in my county had the same thing.
At the same time, it is no secret that there is an urban culture, predominantly in the African American communities, that does not emphasize education. It's not a racist thing. It is obvious that there is nothing about being an African American that causes you to perform less well in school. I think Obama is proof enough of that. It's simply that there is a correlation between African Americans and this urban culture that does not emphasize education. In fact, it often de-emphasizes education. Kids who perform well in school or speak grammatically correct English will be told they are "acting white". This isn't coming from me. This is coming from Bill Cosby, who has a doctorate in education.
Parents who care about their children education matter more than schools, more than teachers, more than anything. The parents don't even have to be smart themselves, although it helps. They just have to push their kids to do well. We have a problem in that this trait in parents correlates with culture that correlates with race. Thus, when people try to bring this issue up, it is often treated as racism. It is not. It's racist, and just plain incorrect, to say that there is a causal link between genetics of race and genetics of intelligence. It is not racist or incorrect to say what I am saying, which is that there is a causal link between parental culture and educational performance that also has a non-causal correlation with race.
What is the best way to go about fostering a culture of enlightened parental involvement in the education of their children?
Make licenses and training required for child raising, just like driving. Only the test should be a lot harder. Sure, people can have children, but if they can't hire someone who is properly trained to raise them, or if they can't get a license themselves, then they can't keep them. The training will be available to all people, just like driving, but you have to pass the test. Also, since highly trained social workers will be involved in the training and testing process, they will be able to help stop shitty families before they start.
Obviously this might result in people having a bunch of babies and letting them all go away. To solve that we simply make you pay for babies you make, even if we don't let you raise them.
Procreation is a basic human right. Licensing it or child-rearing is not going to pass SCOTUS.
I was not kidding when I said free beer. My wife, a teacher, complains constantly that the good parents have good students and the bad parents raise bad students. There is no way, legal or conciliatory, to force a bad student to do homework, pay attention in class, or study without the involvement of a parent. And all too often, the parents just don't care. There has to be a carrot to get them to care -- and it may be a correlated falsehood, but it seems to me that regular drinking is an identifying characteristic of those bad parents. So offer them something: A free 6-pack for every A your kid gets on a report card.
I suppose that if you have a moral problem with trading alcohol for grades, you could do it with any other material goods: Cheese, tires, oil changes, DVDs, cell phone minutes, cable upgrades, help with electric bills, hamburgers and so on.
How would you fund such initiatives, you ask? I'm glad you brought that up! So far this year, we've spent $610.5 billion on a war in Iraq that's provided no material benefits! Think of all the cash we'd have for education if we weren't spending it on illusory nation-building exercises around the globe!
What is the best way to go about fostering a culture of enlightened parental involvement in the education of their children?
Make licenses and training required for child raising, just like driving. Only the test should be a lot harder. Sure, people can have children, but if they can't hire someone who is properly trained to raise them, or if they can't get a license themselves, then they can't keep them. The training will be available to all people, just like driving, but you have to pass the test. Also, since highly trained social workers will be involved in the training and testing process, they will be able to help stop shitty families before they start.
I don't know if I agree with this or not. What about very low-income, intelligent (but not enough to pass the test), and very moral families who are extremely close-knit? Are you just going to tear the family apart? That family could probably raise the kids much better than someone who might be more wealthy or intelligent. I foresee something like this being not so good for the mental health of a lot of people, which would in turn cause a lot more problems.
Obviously this might result in people having a bunch of babies and letting them all go away. To solve that we simply make you pay for babies you make, even if we don't let you raise them.
Again, this is impractical, unless the fee was very low, because there are many, many, low-income guardians/families who would otherwise be better caretakers of their own kids than people who could actually afford it.
There are times I am very glad Scott Rubin has no interest in politics :-p
One would think that incentives would be a good way of doing this, however I'm not sure if this would breed more corruption (and child abuse) into the system then it's worth. "You got a B, it's time for the belt young man because you worthless ass lost me 500 dollars (or a six pack of beer)".
I think the solution is not a simple one, it involves a drastic change in the mindset of the country, from slowing down the pace of life to allowing people to find jobs that can support a family with one income to affordable quality child care. There is no easy solution, the changes required would take a unprecedented amount of political will that we are no where near able to generate.
Logan, I think you misunderstand me. Even if someone has no money, they could still get a license to raise their kids. They just have to show up, take the training, and pass the exam. Mostly it would involve social workers and such making sure they weren't pieces of shit. The only money anyone would have to pay would be if they had kids, and they were also douchebags who would just raise more douchebags. To make this deal even sweeter, we can take the money from douchebags, rich or poor, who shouldn't be raising kids, and give it to poor people who passed the exam.
Is it just me, or has the use of the word douche (and variations thereof: douchebag, industrial-sized douche, Douche Bigalow, douchepotato, douchewand, douchey, hickory dickory douche, etc.) suddenly skyrocketed in popular culture?
Is it just me, or has the use of the word douche (and variations thereof: douchebag, industrial-sized douche, Douche Bigalow, douchepotato, douchewand, douchey, hickory dickory douche, etc.) suddenly skyrocketed in popular culture?
I just needed a word, and I didn't want to say "pieces of shit" again.
Comments
I'm just not sure how this can/will happen. I mean, other countries seem to be somewhat further along than us in this department, but how can we (Americans) catch up? Do we need an overhaul of the educational system, or will it come gradually?
I usually just call myself a heathen whenever I have to define my beliefs, but it rarely comes up.
BTW: All of this is coming from an atheist. I care about education, real family values, kindness, generosity, and community - and I do that WITHOUT fearing retribution or in pursuit of a reward beyond that of improving the human condition. Goodness for goodness' sake... go figure.
Many religious folk seem to think that atheism implies a lack of morality, since the source of their own morality is fear of punishment, or desire for reward, dished out by a supernatural deity. Say atheism lacks morality is like saying that a cookie recipe has bad graphics. Atheism says nothing about morality. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Secular humanism is a moral philosophy that is compatible with atheism. There are many other atheist compatible moral philosophies as well.
In this way, religion is sort of like Microsoft Windows. Windows puts the user interface, the kernel, the application libraries, and many other things all in one package. Linux has all of the things separated. Thus, someone coming from Windows has a hard time understanding that KDE and Gnome aren't operating systems. Both these computers are running Linux, but they are so completely different! Non thinking people have a hard time dealing with it when you apply the same label to things that are dissimilar.
But think of this kind of question: Like you say, labeling yourself as an atheist conveys absolutely nothing in a conversation. It's essentially useless, and given that I have to agree with Pete: re-brand, and not because of the negative connotation of being *GASP* AN ATHEIST. Choose a label that says something about your beliefs, be it in your self-sufficiency as a thinking human being, or your willingness to accept thoughtless abandon.
EDIT: just saw Pete's reply.
I've also almost supported the idea of taking people away from home and putting them into massive public boarding schools to allow for "proper education." I'd give them back to their families for socializing, but otherwise I'd sometimes just like to stick everybody in public education centers and mold them into ideal citizens.
Damn you, Aldous Huxley.
I'm talking about teaching people how to think critically, rather than simply forcing facts down their throats.
First look at this article.
There is a stereotype that Asian kids are smarter. However, we all know that there is nothing about the color of someone's skin that makes them smarter or less smart. Stephen Hawking is one of the smartest people alive, and he's not Asian. If Asian people had a genetic advantage, all of the smartest people in the world would be Asian, and nobody else would be able to compete no matter how hard they tried. The difference is not in genetics or skin color, it is in culture. That's why this isn't racist.
Asian parents tend to have a culture of emphasizing education in their children. They tend to actually care about their kid's grades. They will punish them for getting Cs. They won't even reward them for getting As. As are the expected norm. This isn't just Asians though. Any parent who emphasizes education will see the same results, statistically speaking. It's simply that certain cultures associated with certain races have this cultural trait of making education a high priority. I know that myself and all the Jews who grew up in my county had the same thing.
At the same time, it is no secret that there is an urban culture, predominantly in the African American communities, that does not emphasize education. It's not a racist thing. It is obvious that there is nothing about being an African American that causes you to perform less well in school. I think Obama is proof enough of that. It's simply that there is a correlation between African Americans and this urban culture that does not emphasize education. In fact, it often de-emphasizes education. Kids who perform well in school or speak grammatically correct English will be told they are "acting white". This isn't coming from me. This is coming from Bill Cosby, who has a doctorate in education.
Parents who care about their children education matter more than schools, more than teachers, more than anything. The parents don't even have to be smart themselves, although it helps. They just have to push their kids to do well. We have a problem in that this trait in parents correlates with culture that correlates with race. Thus, when people try to bring this issue up, it is often treated as racism. It is not. It's racist, and just plain incorrect, to say that there is a causal link between genetics of race and genetics of intelligence. It is not racist or incorrect to say what I am saying, which is that there is a causal link between parental culture and educational performance that also has a non-causal correlation with race.
Here is a funny and related video.
What is the best way to go about fostering a culture of enlightened parental involvement in the education of their children?
Ideas?
Obviously this might result in people having a bunch of babies and letting them all go away. To solve that we simply make you pay for babies you make, even if we don't let you raise them.
Do not vote for Scott.
I was not kidding when I said free beer. My wife, a teacher, complains constantly that the good parents have good students and the bad parents raise bad students. There is no way, legal or conciliatory, to force a bad student to do homework, pay attention in class, or study without the involvement of a parent. And all too often, the parents just don't care. There has to be a carrot to get them to care -- and it may be a correlated falsehood, but it seems to me that regular drinking is an identifying characteristic of those bad parents. So offer them something: A free 6-pack for every A your kid gets on a report card.
I suppose that if you have a moral problem with trading alcohol for grades, you could do it with any other material goods: Cheese, tires, oil changes, DVDs, cell phone minutes, cable upgrades, help with electric bills, hamburgers and so on.
One would think that incentives would be a good way of doing this, however I'm not sure if this would breed more corruption (and child abuse) into the system then it's worth. "You got a B, it's time for the belt young man because you worthless ass lost me 500 dollars (or a six pack of beer)".
I think the solution is not a simple one, it involves a drastic change in the mindset of the country, from slowing down the pace of life to allowing people to find jobs that can support a family with one income to affordable quality child care. There is no easy solution, the changes required would take a unprecedented amount of political will that we are no where near able to generate.