| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mayflow
Advanced Member
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 3877
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
 Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:45 am Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
 |
|
Mayflow, if you were to identify with a god/goddess, which would it be,
from one INFP to another.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | You know what is messed up? Over in the other half of metaland, the Badger worshipping convent, there was a thread about teaching morals to children in schools and whether or not it should be done. There were good points on all sides, of course. But what really threw me off was when a teacher was like: 'I just feel like, who am I to decide what to teach to kids morally?'. And I was like.. whoa!? Ya know? I thought, damn it, you are a teacher. You've educated yourself beyond what is necessary and beyond what is normal. No one is asking you to be perfect or to be god. But your experience and knowledge makes you a perfect candidate for at least developing skills in logic and understanding. I don't get why there should have ever been an idea that teachers and educated folks shouldn't be able to teach and learn our children. Isn't that what they are there for? A book can teach a kid about what year the French and American revolutions took place. Surely a teacher is meant to do more than that. They are there to describe why people wanted to rebel, why it was justifiable that people should want equality before the eyes of the law, and why birthrighted aristocracy was a demented offspring of the failing monarchies of europe, and why it severely limited the overall intellectual capacity of western humans in general. .. |
| Romana wrote: | | Finally, the idea was raised of the need to teach morals. Perhaps, but whose morality? Is it moral to have sex before marriage, or to have the class pray in school? There may be a straightforward answer here, especially on moral questions where there is widespread agreement (e.g. stealing is bad). One can get far, however, just by examining cause and effect relationships. For example, one can say one should not lie because it is wrong. Or, one can point out that lying destroys people's trust in you such that they will not want to work or associate with you. This kind of practical approach is more universal, and may make more of an impression on young people who want to see the relevance of lessons in real life. |
Yeah, this one really struck me. Building an idea that a teacher "teaches" morals comes off as a little preachy in my mind. In my experience, the teachers that I've found the most influential have been the ones who have been able to teach the hows of coming to terms with a moral decision than instill a black-and-white sense of morality. As Romana has said, a lot of moral decisions edge on really murky terrain, and a teacher doesn't homogenize the principles of morality to a one-size-fits-all degree. A lot of teaching is about recognizing the diversity of the students and understanding that there personal morals probably can't be simplistically generalized. In that sense, the line between teaching and indoctrinating seems to be quite a fine one.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | A lot of teaching is about recognizing the diversity of the students and understanding that there personal morals probably can't be simplistically generalized. |
A lot of parents and a lot of the usual fare for religious consumption is almost exactly against what you just said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | Quote: | | A lot of teaching is about recognizing the diversity of the students and understanding that there personal morals probably can't be simplistically generalized. |
A lot of parents and a lot of the usual fare for religious consumption is almost exactly against what you just said. |
Sigh, I've offended some of the best teachers the world has known. 
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | Stuckasfook wrote: | | Quote: | | A lot of teaching is about recognizing the diversity of the students and understanding that there personal morals probably can't be simplistically generalized. |
A lot of parents and a lot of the usual fare for religious consumption is almost exactly against what you just said. |
Sigh, I've offended some of the best teachers the world has known. |
Only your blood will suffice to cool their tempers now. Gods save you.
But now, I'm not quite understanding you guys. If we were to be objective and critical about our morals as possible: who would we want to instill morals in young folks? As far as we can tell, we are not nonsocial creatures. In our societies, we will tend to meet up and engage all types of folks. To pretend that overprotective parents can be the only source of philosophical and moral understanding in children could only possibly be true if the parents literally did all they could to not expose the child to the outside world. Besides possibly being immoral, how reasonable is this even in our world?
Children in our western nations tend to go to school. Much of their early life is spent amongst teachers, and the teacher's pupils. The case can also be that school staff sees the child more so than the parents can. To suggest that teachers are incapable or unworthy to bring their mass of learning to bear on impressing children is almost a miscalculation of what is currently going on. If we were truly worried about the possible immorality of professional teachers then why would we send our offspring to learn anything at all from them?
The truth is that things like tolerance, critical thinking, abstract thinking, static stores of fact, and so on, are more prevelent in educated persons. If we are truly worried about immoral teachers, then we should at least admit that the children spend a large portion of their time with them, and so the teachers should be selected to be optimum in ethical discourse and deeds. They may not be perfect, but they are far from the worst, and most likely far from generic in their skills for teaching acceptable moralities and acceptable modes for aquiring morality.
Besides this teacher and children issue over morality: where the heck does the attack on immorality take place at the legal levels? Why is there no outrage over the often arbitrary and archaic measure of the Judge, who wields his power in an authoritarian matter, completely disregarding what we deem democracy. Why not focus efforts on bills and laws that seek to take away our rights and strip our safeties? Why isn't the prison system shown for what it is?
I think worrying that well educated and professionally placed teachers may be teaching our children some form or jist of their ethics, is a distraction for the larger problems at hand in our system of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isra
Advanced Member
Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Posts: 1086
Location: Skagit County, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe it would be easier for teachers to teach children the fundamentals of life if they had the children for longer than one year.
Of course, if a teacher sucks, then the children being stuck with them longer would certainly not be beneficial...
Then I suppose we get into the "how do we only encourage only intelligent, dynamic people to be teachers?" and "who defines a good teacher? questions...
If only there were easy answers.
_________________
(Fi)(Ne)ly tuned ISTP
"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on."
-Robert Frost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyle
Advanced Member
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 2210
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | In my experience, the teachers that I've found the most influential have been the ones who have been able to teach the hows of coming to terms with a moral decision than instill a black-and-white sense of morality. As Romana has said, a lot of moral decisions edge on really murky terrain, and a teacher doesn't homogenize the principles of morality to a one-size-fits-all degree. A lot of teaching is about recognizing the diversity of the students and understanding that there personal morals probably can't be simplistically generalized. In that sense, the line between teaching and indoctrinating seems to be quite a fine one. |
I think this is the best approach: to teach students a process for dealing with moral issues. This might start off with studying various historical moral and legal codes (Code of Hammurabi, Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution), as a way of examining how different societies at different times have addressed issues of morality and justice. This shows that (1) ideas of what is moral and just have evolved over time, and continue to evolve; and (2) moral questions must be viewed in the context of a specific society. This is not quite the moral relativism it might seem. It means simply that the decision one makes in a specific situation must take into account not only one's personal values, but also the values of society, if only for understanding potential consequences or tailoring specific actions.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | Besides this teacher and children issue over morality: where the heck does the attack on immorality take place at the legal levels? Why is there no outrage over the often arbitrary and archaic measure of the Judge, who wields his power in an authoritarian matter, completely disregarding what we deem democracy. Why not focus efforts on bills and laws that seek to take away our rights and strip our safeties? Why isn't the prison system shown for what it is?
I think worrying that well educated and professionally placed teachers may be teaching our children some form or jist of their ethics, is a distraction for the larger problems at hand in our system of society. |
That's exactly the idea. Thanks Romana for elaborating on the point, because that kind of methodology is really important in trying help children understand the difference between law and morality, ideology and implementation, and the integral mishaps of some of our societal structures.
I think the point we're trying to get at is that a teacher is a tool who presents the facts, contexts, observations to students and teaches them the means by which one analyzes such data. I don't think good teachers are ever meant to tell you what to think or establish complete thought structures of comfort for you. A teacher can teach you how to critically question, but he shouldn't be telling you what stance to arrive at as a result of that. No one asks for complete objectivity because that sounds like an absurd request, but again, teaching while being completely absorbed in one's own view seems pretty absurd too.
You raise important points that should be the focus of critical questioning. But even in those scenarios, the answer lies in teaching children the context, the strengths and the mishaps together. The final judgment or opinion on the matter should be entirely theirs, the teacher is just there to guide thought. Because to adopt the opposite approach, and only show children the glum picture of society's weaknesses and create a generation of despairful rebellion sounds like a little bit of a problem too, and edges really close to what can be thought of as indoctrination.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This might start off with studying various historical moral and legal codes (Code of Hammurabi, Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution), as a way of examining how different societies at different times have addressed issues of morality and justice. |
-Romana
And, at the same time, it should be viewed as critical that misrepresentations and butcherings of these rules be shown, which took place while they were still considered in effect. And also it should be shown how people could go up and above the call of duty and do kinder things than were dealt with in the rules and laws; and also should be shown when humans did kind things when there wasn't a lawman's bars and whips, and there wasn't a God breathing down the neck of the person.
Perhaps this is what Miss Lee is saying here
| Quote: | | But even in those scenarios, the answer lies in teaching children the context, the strengths and the mishaps together. |
If those who go above the call of duty can't be found in our histories or contemporary news stories, then they are most certainly to be found in the fictional tales of the brilliant novelists and poets of ours and former times.
What I am trying to get at is sort of that we are all teachers and learners, impressing forms on one another and impressing people with the forms we learn.
While treading with perfections is beautiful, it isn't wholly realistic. People do not always make there own choices. Even the most educated folks aren't critically thinking through every one of their decisions. At a very basic level, the job of parents is to make decisions for their younglings so they can survive the hardships of our existence. The very act of sending children to school is an admittance that they aren't fully aware and ready enough to make decisions by themselves, encouraging them to learn what they can from the professionals.
While I don't prefer anyone telling anyone else that the latter can only accept a unilateral belief system, it still does happen, purposefully and inadvertently. Educated people are statisically less likely to choose such an ethos though. Educated folks are more tolerant of differences and harmless dispute. It is almost like choosing between lesser evils: the teachers or the TV? the teachers or the church? the teachers or the hoodlums running around the block?
The last thing we should fear is a teacher who is bullheaded about women's rights, or about the right not to have to pledge alliegence to the flag, or is stubborn about the artistic sense of Shakespear, or the belief that Mozart is not to be compared to in music. Many of the movements of Man in the political and power-structure spheres has been a reshaping and remolding of the uneducated masses. To assume that all are capable of thinking by themselves is wishful thinking. The fact is that there are ways to manipulate a population's opinioins, attitudes, fears and beliefs, and there are people that know this. It is clear that being educated honestly or being indoctrinated into liberal ideology and discourse makes it more difficult to pull smoke and mirror tricks that persuade towards war, racist policy, gay bashing, xenophobia, flashing lights, neon signs advertising free $30 products, etc
Having teachers instill thoughtfulness is usually better than the other choices. While this is going on, we can train our teachers to be the best and most open they can be. We can try to train them not to make decisions for their pupils. Till then, I think it is safest to assume that they, out of most everyone else, are the most likely to do this any ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 4:54 am Post subject: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
Stuckasfook, "Relationships between education and wealth is real".
"While gifted people can come from the lowest stratum, the reality
Is that they most often do not".
"because they haven't got the same opportunity".
Yes I generally agree.
The lowest stratum has to fight a whole host of environmental
problems, as well as inbred stereotypes.
The higher stratum has stereotypes and roles in which to fit into.
It is not as defined as the Indian caste system, but is prevalent
nonetheless.
We truly need to focus on education, as well as tailor making
special programs for dealing with the different learning styles
of the different sub-types.
I believe that there is a lack of funding for education.
Per, Romana, we need to alleviate the pressures on our teachers
with unrealistic overwork.
We need to do psychological evaluations to determine the interests
and learning style of the child.
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: BEHAVIORISM & some techniques to heal society |
|
|
| lightsun wrote: | Stuckasfook, "Relationships between education and wealth is real".
"While gifted people can come from the lowest stratum, the reality
Is that they most often do not".
"because they haven't got the same opportunity".
Yes I generally agree.
The lowest stratum has to fight a whole host of environmental
problems, as well as inbred stereotypes.
The higher stratum has stereotypes and roles in which to fit into.
It is not as defined as the Indian caste system, but is prevalent
nonetheless. |
Stuckasfook originally contrasted workers with intellectuals, then tied intellectuals to wealth. An important distinction that needs to be made is that attending a prestigious university, as the wealthy easily can, does not make one an intellectual. Many of these people are at best dilettantes, who make their way in the world using their inherited wealth rather than any personal abilities. True scholars and intellectuals, particularly in the modern age, are just as likely to come from the middle class or even working class, simply because these groups contain so many more people, and with (relatively) easier access to education, will attend university in larger numbers. The GI Bill is a prime example of how many of these people obtained an education.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its a whole list of things Romana. Lower classes also have different attitudes about life, politics and diversity in general. If you really wanted I could cite books and essays from people who have used many sample surveys from the last century to determine these attitudes.
And trying to flop around words like intellectual and dilettante does nothing to determine anything at all. Intellectual in a very open sense just means someone who is prone to rational thought and has a higher IQ or intelligence. It has nothing to do with how one managed to pay for their education or how one views their education. Being intellectual just means they have it. It just means they are using it.
I don't know if you have ever actually experienced inner city youths and even adults. Or if you have experienced lower class small town lifestyles. There is a very deep difference between these people and the suburbs and richer towns. To deny that less wealth has anything to do with making liesure time to read books, plot plannings for abstract future goals, allow time to join clubs and associations, give way to the ability to ponder and immerse oneself in politics, keep one away from drug use, and specifically drug dealing, and hence prison and jail, deny one from attending more plays, lectures, movies, buying computers, books, etc is wrong. To think that economic hardship has nothing to do with apathy, distress, seemingly arbitrary fits of anger and punishment, shitty attitudes about democracy and life, worries about job-life constantly, beliefs that things can't get better/will always be the same is wrong. The belief that everyone is given the same opportunities is either wishful thinking or a disconnection with the lifestyles of the economically worse off and the lifestyles of the less educated.
What do most people go to school for, even with the GI Bill as a prime example? To become intellectual or pursue a scholarly lifestyle? Or is it to be able to get higher paying jobs, a concern over higher and higher income?
If you've got plenty of money from parents, it would seem likely that you wouldn't need to worry about the mundane prospect of having to be a clerk, small business man or plumber. On the other hand, when wealth is reversed, it would be true.
| Quote: | | Stuckasfook originally contrasted workers with intellectuals, then tied intellectuals to wealth. |
and? Are you implying that workers have the most wealth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romana
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2939
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | And trying to flop around words like intellectual and dilettante does nothing to determine anything at all. Intellectual in a very open sense just means someone who is prone to rational thought and has a higher IQ or intelligence. It has nothing to do with how one managed to pay for their education or how one views their education. Being intellectual just means they have it. It just means they are using it.
What do most people go to school for, even with the GI Bill as a prime example? To become intellectual or pursue a scholarly lifestyle? Or is it to be able to get higher paying jobs, a concern over higher and higher income?
If you've got plenty of money from parents, it would seem likely that you wouldn't need to worry about the mundane prospect of having to be a clerk, small business man or plumber. |
Like Einstein? I understand he started off as a patent clerk. The distinction between an intellectual and a dilettante is valid and significant, which is why the two words exist, and are rarely used to describe the same person. Being an intellectual has nothing to do with how someone paid for their education, but very much to do with both how they view it, and how they use it. An intellectual values education, and does not go off to a university just for the status and connections, or to follow in dad's footsteps. An intellectual thrives on the mental stimulation and makes the most of the opportunity to expand the mind and develop creative thought. A dilettante dabbles in enough to pick up some culture and quotes to spout at cocktail parties, but spends more time at school in partying, or perhaps athletics, barely scraping passing grades in classes. They know they will get their diploma, and won't put the effort in to actually benefit from the education. In this respect, poor kids often have much stronger motivation to apply themselves. I have known students of both types.
The majority, of course, are somewhere in between. They are not destined to be scholars, but are hardworking and willing to learn a particular discipline to get a job that interests them. Most GI Bill recipients probably fall into this category. I'm sure some became scholars; I would venture few emerged as dilettantes.
Just based upon the numbers, however, I would expect more true intellectuals to come from the lower to middle classes, simply because these groups are so large. A much higher percentage of the wealthy might use their education in the manner of an intellectual, but it is a higher percentage of a much smaller group.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Stuckasfook originally contrasted workers with intellectuals, then tied intellectuals to wealth. |
and? Are you implying that workers have the most wealth? |
I am inferring that you consider workers and intellectuals to be two distinct groups, and that intellectuals come from wealth while workers do not.
_________________
Romana
INTJ
“The awareness of our own weaknesses allows us to view the weaknesses of others with immense compassion and to appreciate the value of their offerings.” ~ Logospilgrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
