# Scientific Study Says People Are Too Stupid for Democracy



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html



> The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify thecandidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
> As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, "very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people dont have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning told Life's Little Mysteries.




As we debate gun control, global warming, and other complex issues, this study comes as a shot of strychnine to the optimism gland.  Enjoy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 4, 2013)

I agree...it is just I would have left "for Democracy" out of the title


----------



## granfire (Feb 4, 2013)

devil...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2013)

I don't know about the US but one doesn't need qualifications here to practice or call oneself a psychologist. This is because it's not considered a proper or exact science (one can't prove or disprove anything in psychology) science.....and nothing on this thread or the other about liberals being mentally ill has done much to disprove that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/psychological-profile-behavioural-psychology

http://cynicalbastards.com/cynic/psych.html

If anything is stupid it's believing psychologists :lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know about the US but one doesn't need qualifications here to practice or call oneself a psychologist. This is because it's not considered a proper or exact science (one can't prove or disprove anything in psychology) science.....and nothing on this thread or the other about liberals being mentally ill has done much to disprove that.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/psychological-profile-behavioural-psychology
> 
> ...



In the US, you can earn advanced degrees in psychology.  This study is coming out of Cornell, one of our top institutions.  That said, it actually seems like common sense.  For example, how is the average person really supposed to understand the global warming debate?  Most people don't have anywhere near the education to understand what either side is saying and are simply falling back on their pre-existing ideological biases to make a decision.  The average voter has no clue about the efficacy of "carbon taxes" and has no economic background to really evaluate them.  So, how is the average person supposed to cast a vote?  

In the end, I think a lot of modern politics is explained by this study.  The voting has little to do with reason and more to do with who spent the most money and screamed the loudest for attention.  Candidates are judged on their looks and superficial aspects because no one understands what they hell they are saying.


----------



## Steve (Feb 4, 2013)

Add to this that news agencies are often unabashedly biased now.  Fox News, MSNBC and many others make no bones about their slant.  While it's called news, they're really sharing opinions.  

In another thread, CC said something interesting about not need to be spoonfed his philosophy.  This is a real problem we're having now, where people not only need to be spoon fed their opinions, but can no longer distinguish between their own opinion and the one they heard online or on TV.

Edit:  Just want to add that the one thing that jumps out is the word "stupid."  I think that stupid and ignorant are very different, and I'd say that most people are ignorant.  I work my 40 doing something other than politics.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2013)

It's still not a proper science though. 
It makes me laugh when people go on about how stupid other people are. Perhaps people vote for anyone at all because they are well educated and clever enough to know that it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference who gets into power because all politicians are money grabbing, self centred, pompous prats. The people vote for whoever they dislike the least knowing that someone has to get in and once in the people don't get a say in anything. It's not that they don't understand the politicians...it's that they understand them only too well.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 4, 2013)

Ive alluded to this point several times unfortunately. Its not something, as an American, that I am proud of. 

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was approached by Dr. James McHenry as he exited Independence Hall. Dr. McHenry, one of Marylands delegates, asked Franklin, Well? What do we have, a Republic or a Monarchy? 

Franklin replied, A Republic, if you can keep it. 

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of *the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.**"* - Jefferson to George Washington, January 4, 1786


The Founders realized how integral a part the People had in maintaining a functional Republic and knew that the maintenance of liberty and freedom depended mostly upon them with limited government. 

Knowing that, dont you find the decline in our educational system, standards, and performance since the inception of the Department of Education quite interesting? Coincidence? 

Also, at one time, only those People with something to lose; with skin in the game, were allowed to vote. But, that was considered unfair and over time everyone who lives here over the age of 18 can now vote; regardless of how ignorant they are. 

That being said, the Electoral College actually has the final say as to who is elected. But how many people know that? How many people realize the College is hand-picked by the duopoly (thats the dominant two parties, Republicans and Democrats.) 

Not only are these people put in place to perpetuate the duopoly, but their identities arent revealed until well after the elections so if you actually cared enough to research them to attempt to glean their motives, it wouldnt matter anyway. However, in most cases, they usually follow popular opinion; but not always as the Cook Report points out. Still, its about 95% of the time so whats the difference? 

I personally like the appeal of a Heinlein approach. This theory asserts that only citizens can participate in government, and to become a citizen one must first have a certain level of education and also contribute to society. 

The idea is that by sacrificing to achieve a certain level of education and by sacrificing part of ones early life one will place a higher value on the liberties and freedoms they obtain from it. In essence, it creates a greater level of responsibility and leads to one feeling they have skin in the game. 

Sacrifice could obviously include military service, but could also lead to the creation of other programs. For example, a Peace Corps that instead of focusing on other countries, goes out to our poorer communities and helps rebuild slums, feed the poor, and/or provided medical assistance and indigent care. 

Of course, those serving in a life-long, career-type capacity would be included; firemen, police, etc. But all would also be required to have a certain level of education including, not omitting as schools in Washington DC are now doing, but including an in depth study of Civics and Government. 

If you dont know things work, how can you participate? Its like asking a European to coach an American Football team. Can you imagine the look youd get when you threw a soccer ball onto the field the first day and asked the team why they had on all that armor?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2013)

CC, the American football thing? Not a good analogy, Europeans not only know what it is but there's also plenty of European teams playing American football out there.
http://ezinearticles.com/?American-...pportunity-For-Football-and-Travel&id=4380973

That in itself is probably a comparision of Americans and Europeans. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> CC, the American football thing? Not a good analogy, Europeans not only know what it is but there's also plenty of European teams playing American football out there.
> http://ezinearticles.com/?American-...pportunity-For-Football-and-Travel&id=4380973
> 
> That in itself is probably a comparision of Americans and Europeans. Draw your own conclusions.



Only you would miss the entire point of the post and focus in on something silly like that. Just create your own analogy after taking in the post...okay? I'm sure you'll get the gist. ..smh

Bob, why I do I let you talk me into posting?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Only you would miss the entire point of the post and focus in on something silly like that. Just create your own analogy after taking in the post...okay? I'm sure you'll get the gist. ..smh
> 
> Bob, why I do I let you talk me into posting?



Who's Bob?

You are only saying it's silly because you were caught out making not only a generalisation but managing to insinuate that Europeans are uneducated enough not to know what American football is, a small thing perhaps but telling. 
As for your longer post, you gave your opinion, I'm not going to argue with that, it's yours, only when you start posting your opinion as facts would I disagree.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Add to this that news agencies are often unabashedly biased now.  Fox News, MSNBC and many others make no bones about their slant.  While it's called news, they're really sharing opinions.
> 
> In another thread, CC said something interesting about not need to be spoonfed his philosophy.  This is a real problem we're having now, where people not only need to be spoon fed their opinions, but can no longer distinguish between their own opinion and the one they heard online or on TV.
> 
> Edit:  Just want to add that the one thing that jumps out is the word "stupid."  I think that stupid and ignorant are very different, and I'd say that most people are ignorant.  I work my 40 doing something other than politics.



You're right, stupid is too inflammatory, ignorance fits...much of the time.  Then, we need to take into account people who simply aren't willing to look at any new information or attempt to learn enough to judge for themselves.  Sometimes, people identify so strongly with their "team" they don't want to hear counter information.  I wonder if the whole idea of democracy simply produces this kind of polarization?  The issues get so complex that people can't understand the nuances and suddenly they are relieved of the duty of thinking.  Then, the only job they have left is to yell and scream about what they are told to believe and try to identify with a particular tribe of politicians.  

IMO, this goes beyond ignorance.  It might have started as ignorance on the individual level, but as a collective...it becomes stupid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> "It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of *the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.**"* - Jefferson to George Washington, January 4, 1786
> 
> 
> The Founders realized how integral a part the People had in maintaining a functional Republic and knew that the maintenance of liberty and freedom depended mostly upon them with limited government.
> ...



Most people don't realize that in the early 1800's, before public education, literacy rates in the colonies were over 90%.  The Last of the Mohicans was considered light reading.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Mohicans


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know about the US but one doesn't need qualifications here to practice or call oneself a psychologist. This is because it's not considered a proper or exact science (one can't prove or disprove anything in psychology) science.....and nothing on this thread or the other about liberals being mentally ill has done much to disprove that.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/psychological-profile-behavioural-psychology
> 
> ...



As one trained in psychology, I agree


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 4, 2013)

I have always despised the idea that anyone in the US can vote, and have that vote cancel out the thought-out and informed perspectives of politically astute persons, merely by turning 18 years of age. 

"Average" intelligence and education has plummeted in the US over the last 50, 75, 100 years. We have become, effectively, a nation of idiots. And this grand quorum picks representatives based on single-issue opinions, soundbytes, and -- for fricks sake -- name recognition on ballots. Yep. Buncha research into voting behaviour indicate that one of the number one variables influencing voters' selection is how often they have seen any given name on a ballot. The guy with the most postbills and yardsigns, wins.

Stars and Stones... really?

As a California resident, I chew over local representatives, their histories and qualifications, positions, and long-term ramifications of their positions in office. When Proposition and ballot initiatives come up, I read the hell out of them. I look up the websites of noted money-pacs behind the pro and con positions, read the blogs, listen to the talking heads debate their points, and do my damned best to make an informed choice as a responsible voter. I liken it now to taking a good piss in the wind: Some single issue idiot who never even passed grade school civics can cancel out my vote, merely because one of his stoned surfer buds told him he should like some person or some issue X. 

We have no-brainers that have come and gone, shot down because the "other side" threw more money at the name-recognition part of the campaign. 

I, sadly, agree with the title of the thread. I have seen it play an active role in the political tides for as long as I've been playing in the pool. I'm probably best categorized as a centrist Libertarian, because I tend to look at the folks in each of the main 2-parties in our political climate, and consider them too dense to think beyond their rhetoric. I vote issues, not parties; intelligent representatives of a process... not parties. Yet, I know countless folks from both sides of the aisle who cast patently stupid votes, simply because it's the position of their affiliated organization. F'n stupid. Reprehensible. Deplorable.

And it's the good old U.S.of.A. One of the wealthiest, most consuming nations on the globe, and yet we are a village of idiots.

Did I mention, I usually pretend I'm Canadian when I travel abroad?

To quote an old t-shirt, "I'm not prejudiced... I hate everybody."

D.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Who's Bob?
> 
> You are only saying it's silly because you were caught out making not only a generalisation but managing to insinuate that Europeans are uneducated enough not to know what American football is, a small thing perhaps but telling.
> As for your longer post, you gave your opinion, I'm not going to argue with that, it's yours, only when you start posting your opinion as facts would I disagree.



Would you please stop playing the victim for 5 minutes and stay on ^&#$% topic? 

That was not a %^&* insult! 

Jesus Christ!


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2013)

Little side excursion ... er ... put aside {:lol:} a very good thread with some illuminating opinions put forward.  It just goes to prove what I have said several times about Martial talk, the strong but 'soft touch' regulation combined with encouragement of people to think about what they are saying often leads to some excellent discourse.  I found myself dropping 'Thanks' on almost every post above ... I stopped because I realised I was clicking 'Thanks' on almost every post above :chuckles:.

Take a bow my forum-mates .


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 4, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Little side excursion ... er ... put aside {:lol:} a very good thread with some illuminating opinions put forward.  It just goes to prove what I have said several times about Martial talk, the strong but 'soft touch' regulation combined with encouragement of people to think about what they are saying often leads to some excellent discourse.  I found myself dropping 'Thanks' on almost every post above ... I stopped because I realised I was clicking 'Thanks' on almost every post above :chuckles:.
> 
> Take a bow my forum-mates .



Allow me to return the favor. LOL


----------



## Steve (Feb 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You're right, stupid is too inflammatory, ignorance fits...much of the time.  Then, we need to take into account people who simply aren't willing to look at any new information or attempt to learn enough to judge for themselves.  Sometimes, people identify so strongly with their "team" they don't want to hear counter information.  I wonder if the whole idea of democracy simply produces this kind of polarization?  The issues get so complex that people can't understand the nuances and suddenly they are relieved of the duty of thinking.  Then, the only job they have left is to yell and scream about what they are told to believe and try to identify with a particular tribe of politicians.
> 
> IMO, this goes beyond ignorance.  It might have started as ignorance on the individual level, but as a collective...it becomes stupid.



Willful ignorance is sometimes a symptom of stupidity.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Feb 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Willful ignorance is sometimes a symptom of stupidity.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



well, they say the difference between ignorance and stupidity is the willingness to learn...


----------



## Steve (Feb 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Most people don't realize that in the early 1800's, before public education, literacy rates in the colonies were over 90%.  The Last of the Mohicans was considered light reading.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Mohicans



Serious question.  Does that include anyone not a member of the landed gentry?  Slaves, native Americans, other minorities?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Serious question.  Does that include anyone not a member of the landed gentry?  Slaves, native Americans, other minorities?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



It did not include slaves, but if you were free, you were literate. A good read is Alexis De Tocqueville, a Frenchman who traveled around America and marveled at how literate even the basest farmers were. One quote that sticks in my head is something like, "We work hard during the day and at night we read to cultivate our minds."

I'll have to look for it because I think it demonstrates a completely different attitude toward education as it existed in the colonies. Education was the responsibility of the individual in order to cultivate the self, rather than something that is done to you, as it is viewed now.


----------



## granfire (Feb 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It did not include slaves, but if you were free, you were literate. A good read is Alexis De Tocqueville, a Frenchman who traveled around America and marveled at how literate even the basest farmers were. One quote that sticks in my head is something like, "We work hard during the day and at night we read to cultivate our minds."
> 
> I'll have to look for it because I think it demonstrates a completely different attitude toward education as it existed in the colonies. Education was the responsibility of the individual in order to cultivate the self, rather than something that is done to you, as it is viewed now.



chances are the cultivation was restricted to the bible....


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2013)

granfire said:


> chances are the cultivation was restricted to the bible....



You'd be surprised. De Tocqueville noted extensive libraries in sod houses. Americans were a different sort then he was used to. 

The same happened to my Polish ancestors. As soon as they had a little freedom, the educated themselves as much as possible.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Would you please stop playing the victim for 5 minutes and stay on ^&#$% topic?
> 
> That was not a %^&* insult!
> 
> Jesus Christ!



As I don't consider myself European I can't see where you think_ I'm_ playing the victim here. You wrote a long post expressing your opinion which you then weakened considerably with a comment made in ignorance, tell me where that isn't relevant. 
I'm only responsible for what I write not the way you read it.

As someone who also has a degree in psychology I do urge people not to listen to psychologists!

What people aren't taking into consideration here is that the general population is weary of the constant media and progaganda effots of political parties so they zone out politics, it's not as though they are ever going to be allowed to have a say anyway. Life in the current economic climate is hard enough as it is without being called stupid because they have to concentrate on earning a wage and keeping a roof over their family's head as well as food on the table. There's the worry of unemployment, medical care etc etc so are you surprised that only the most strident and deeply misguided are into politicking. I'm not sure you can tar the millions of people that are in America with the same brush. As is always the case you only hear about those who _are_ ignorant, violent or stupid you don't here about the millions who are getting on with their lives, educationg their children, bringing them up properly etc. Yes you hear about the shooters, but what about the millions who don't kill people? You hear about the student who thinks Iraq is in Australia because that's funny, you don't hear about the millions who have good educations and use them well. You hear about the ones boasting they never read a book but who are all the books in America being sold to then? In this day and age we have the biggest and fastest media there has ever been, we have the biggest and slickest advertising agencies there has ever been and both are contriving to make sure we see the world as they want us to, couple this with the politicians then you have a very skewed idea of the world if you beleive what they all say and many here do for all their smartness. 

 A political partt wants you to think that education is pants, the economy is about to fail, crime is rising and the medical services are falling apart but if only you would vote for them it would all be alright again. Do most people see through this absolutely, that's why they turn from being buffeted by the politicians and they appear ignorant of the situation. It's alway a fact that each generation thinks the upcoming generation is lazier, less educated and more wilful than they were... kids weren't like that in my day..... and it's never true it's just a sign of impending old age. Young people today are as they've always been, you're just looking at them through old eyes.

Men and women died to bring universal suffrage to the people, so every man and women had the right to vote, taking away that vote so only those you feel worthy of voting is demeaning every deed and sacrifice those people made for you to have the vote, because at some time there were people who thought you weren't worthy to vote either.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

> I personally like the appeal of a Heinlein approach. This theory asserts that only citizens can participate in government, and to become a citizen one must first have a certain level of education and also contribute to society.





> _Starship Troopers_ described a militaristic society in which only those who have served in the military (or other government service involving personal sacrifice) have the right to vote, because they are the only members of society who have been willing to risk their lives to defend it.



Any society tried this yet?


----------



## crushing (Feb 5, 2013)

Hopefully our Constitutional Republic will help protect us from the whims of the ignorant mob (of which I am a part).


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Any society tried this yet?




Probably not but we've had plenty of people who have fought and died for the right of people to vote. 
There seems to be plenty of people who want to take the hard won vote off people they consider unworthy but that's the thin edge of the wedge, look at what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia etc. etc. when people became 'non people'. If your country is supposed to be a beacon of free thought, speech and a land of equal opportunity you can't then turn it into a place purely for those you deem worthy and no one else can you? If we are talking SciFi scenerios there are plenty of books and short stories that warn what happens when people start thinking they are an elite or above the rest.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/history-right-vote


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

Heinlein's work is a bit more than science fiction.  Starship Troopers for example is required reading at West Point.  It is I think a very important work thinly disquised as a Sci-Fi story.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Heinlein's work is a bit more than science fiction. Starship Troopers for example is required reading at West Point. It is I think a very important work thinly disquised as a Sci-Fi story.



Really? They have to read it, good grief. Gosh and our officers waste their time with things like 'On War' by Claus von Clausewitz, 'The Ulitility of force. The art of war in the modern world' by Rupert Smith and 'The British Officer; Leading the Army from 1660 to the present' by Anthony Clayton.

Starship Troopers is a very good example if you are inclined to the fascist type of thought. It's basically a fascist's handbook. It's not without it's critics either. It's the author's _political views_ thinly disguised as a book lol. It's no more important than Frank Herbert's 'Dune' and infinitely less important than anything by Philip K Dick.

They had a fascist at Sandhurst once, Mosley, came to a bad end.


----------



## crushing (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> *Starship Troopers is a very good example if you are inclined to the fascist type of thought.*



That was the movie adaptation.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

The leadership of a nation decided by people who have contributed and sacrificed for that nation....

Doesn't seem very fascist to me. 

Currently our leadership is getting decided by the handout crowd.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Currently our leadership is getting decided by the handout crowd.



That was a major factor that pushed the Roman Republic into dictatorship. The people elected Tribunes that would promise them their hearts desires and eventually society began to crumble. After a series of dictators who attempted to prop up Roman society by killing off the Populari, one came and finally motivated the people to support him.

Caeser.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 5, 2013)

_"Also, at one time, only those People with something to lose; with skin in the game, were allowed to vote. But, that was considered unfair and over time everyone who lives here over the age of 18 can now vote; regardless of how ignorant they are."_

So are you saying that only people with "skin in the game" should be able to vote?  If so, this is ridiculous, because every American has "skin in the game."  We are all effected by our government and the decisions that come from it.  This was actually a big discussion by our founding fathers.  Some wanted only the educated and well to do to have voting rights because they believed only those people would have the intteligence to vote responsibly.  Others believed everyone should have the right to vote, since it is everyone's country.  What we have now is a compromise as sorts, with the electorate college.

Yes there are makers and takers in the world.  Sometimes a person is both. They do not vote for one party or another as some politicians and news outlets would like you to believe. Take a look at the states that give out the most money for "entitlement" programs.  The states that give the most are pretty reliably republican voting states, which would seem to contradict the opinions that makers and takers are seperated by political idealogy.  This false seperation is more of the attempt to seperate people into us and them.  Then making them something less than us.  This leads to a very bad place, yet more and more we as a people let it happen.  Get it straight.  There are no us and them, there is just "we the people."

It is true that ignorance abounds, in my opinion.  Too many people want to take the latest biased sound bite and use it as base for thier decisions instead of really looking at the issues and doing a little research.  The problem is, what would you do differently?  Create a class of people that get to vote and therefore hold the power, while others effected by the vote do not get to voice thier opinion through vote?  In part, our revolution was to remove ourselves from that type of government. Like it or not, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

I would also like to point out how discussions on limiting the vote on people for one reason or another seems to happen a lot after major election cycles.  A few of those that do not like the results of the election want to invalidate those results by blaming an ethnic group, the stupid, the takers, or the ignorant for the outcome.  In some cases recently, they then want to change the voting requirements so those groups cannot vote in the future.  This goes against democracy itself. It should be fought against as it truly is an attack on the principles our country is founded upon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

I honestly don't think it matters how well people were educated in the past or present. The issues that people are voting on are too complex. Take Global Warming, for example. How many posters here think that they have enough technical background knowledge to actually take one position or another when casting a vote? My undergraduate is in biology, earth sciences, and physics and I struggle through the topic when I attempt to engage my critical faculties to it. 

Most people simply accept the position of the majority and make appeals to authority on the matter. There is no possible way for the general public to actually understand what they are voting for. This is what allows the public to be bamboozzled by the brightest, shiniest, loudest, and most official looking ********.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

crushing said:


> That was the movie adaptation.



It was the book. I first read it not long after it had been published, we even discussed it at school. It's definitely the book, critics at the time suggested he'd left the story out of it and there was far too much talking in it. There was also a lot of criticism because of the perceived fascism projected by the writer.

The leadership of a country is decided now by those that have contributed and sacrificed for that nation. Those that have given their lives and have sacrificed for that country do so, _so that others don't have to _and all can benefit. 

If the quality of a nation is judged on the basis of how it treats it's weakest members how do you think your country will be rated?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I honestly don't think it matters how well people were educated in the past or present. The issues that people are voting on are too complex. Take Global Warming, for example. How many posters here think that they have enough technical background knowledge to actually take one position or another when casting a vote? My undergraduate is in biology, earth sciences, and physics and I struggle through the topic when I attempt to engage my critical faculties to it.
> 
> Most people simply accept the position of the majority and make appeals to authority on the matter. There is no possible way for the general public to actually understand what they are voting for. This is what allows the public to be bamboozzled by the brightest, shiniest, loudest, and most official looking ********.



Here it's called climate change something that people do understand and they understand that we may or may not be contributing to it but whether we are or not, we also understand that clogging up the earth with chemicals, pollution etc is not a good thing, do you actually need to understand more?
We understand our politicians are actually buffoons, we have one off to prison shortly, and that if we shout at them loud enough and for long enough they do rather nice little U Turns. You may want to laugh at your politicians more, it does them good, lampoon them, belittle them, don't kowtow to them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

For those of you who would like to shift this into an economic discussion, I think there is a principle here that is directly related to the underlying principle of this thread.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem



> Mises argued in "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if a public entity owned all the means of production, no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily irrational, as the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently.[SUP][1][/SUP] He wrote "...that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."[SUP][1][/SUP] Mises developed his critique of socialism more completely in his 1922 book _Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis, arguing that the market price system is an expression of praxeology and can not be replicated by any form of bureaucracy._



This strikes me as just another form of Hayek's Knowledge Problem.  In any centrally planned system, there is no way for the planners to know all of the relevant information for economic exchange.  Thus, centrally planned systems are always inefficient, dare I say stupid, when it comes to the allocation of resources.  Couldn't the same be said of large governments and law makers?  The average voter is voting on a platform of laws of which they have no understanding.  Even the lawmakers don't understand them, they don't even read them!  Thus the Law of Unintended Consequences is always present negative for some group.  

Even in a large, well intended democracy, this knowledge problem predicts failure.  In a fascist corporate state, where information is doled out by talking heads and the people have been conditioned to lap up the words of authority, it predicts catastrophic failure.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Here it's called climate change something that people do understand and they understand that we may or may not be contributing to it but whether we are or not, we also understand that clogging up the earth with chemicals, pollution etc is not a good thing, do you actually need to understand more?



Yes, it is imperative to understand more in order to understand Climate change, global warming, AGW, ACC, they are all way more complex then simply putting chemicals up into the atmosphere.  Most people are handed a gross simplification and compelled to accept it as true.  



Tez3 said:


> We understand our politicians are actually buffoons, we have one off to prison shortly, and that if we shout at them loud enough and for long enough they do rather nice little U Turns. You may want to laugh at your politicians more, it does them good, lampoon them, belittle them, don't kowtow to them.



Five minutes on an American's facebook feed will tell you that we make fun of our politicians savagely.  LOL!


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

Personally, I like the idea of people contributing to society.  I would, however, be inclined to make it mandatory, but also recognize that there are other important, valuable ways to contribute to society than just military service.

We've discussed this in passing in other threads.  I'd love to see 2 years of compulsory public service after high school, where upon graduation, kids could choose to serve their country in one of a few different ways.  Off the top of my head, I think that military service, something like the peace corps for foreign service, and some domestic equivalent, such as Americorps are all great ways in which kids can truly do some good for their country.  And by offering a few choices, it allows kids to serve their country without compromising their own principles.    

In addition to helping instill a sense of service, it would also create a venue for pulling kids out of the nest and establishing themselves as functioning adults.  Other possible benefits would include job training for the kids, potential tuition assistance, and an opportunity to live outside of their childhood homes for a while before making any long term career decisions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> Personally, I like the idea of people contributing to society.  I would, however, be inclined to make it mandatory, but also recognize that there are other important, valuable ways to contribute to society than just military service.
> 
> We've discussed this in passing in other threads.  I'd love to see 2 years of compulsory public service after high school, where upon graduation, kids could choose to serve their country in one of a few different ways.  Off the top of my head, I think that military service, something like the peace corps for foreign service, and some domestic equivalent, such as Americorps are all great ways in which kids can truly do some good for their country.  And by offering a few choices, it allows kids to serve their country without compromising their own principles.
> 
> In addition to helping instill a sense of service, it would also create a venue for pulling kids out of the nest and establishing themselves as functioning adults.  Other possible benefits would include job training for the kids, potential tuition assistance, and an opportunity to live outside of their childhood homes for a while before making any long term career decisions.



As martial artists we understand that skill development = will + effective technique + repetition.  When you remove will from the equation, the most important factor in skill development is removed.  It doesn't matter how effective the technique is, it doesn't matter how many times it's repeated, if the will isn't there, the skills aren't going to develop long term.  This actually bears out in retention research.  If you measure how much information a student retains after taking a course, on average 90% is forgotten after one year.  When studying the exceptions, the qualitative factor that appears most often is that the student is interested in the subject and wants to learn it.  

This is why oppose all forms of mandatory education or service.  It's a waste of time and money from an institutional educational standpoint.  This debate is so frustrating because educational researches have known this information for fifty years.  Yet, the march toward mandatory standards, service, and compulsion is stronger than ever.  Teacher education programs think that the way to counteract the retention problem is by creating more entertaining teachers.  The very best teachers are able to increase overall retention by 10 to 15% over one year and are very effective at maximizing initial engagement.  

In the students words, they say, "We love our teacher!  He cares about us and makes the subject interesting, but it's not something that I'm passionate about."

We cannot instill a sense of anything in anyone if they do not have the seeds of passion for it in the first place.  Or as I always say, "education is not something that happens to you, it is something you do for yourself."


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> As martial artists we understand that skill development = will + effective technique + repetition.  When you remove will from the equation, the most important factor in skill development is removed.  It doesn't matter how effective the technique is, it doesn't matter how many times it's repeated, if the will isn't there, the skills aren't going to develop long term.  This actually bears out in retention research.  If you measure how much information a student retains after taking a course, on average 90% is forgotten after one year.  When studying the exceptions, the qualitative factor that appears most often is that the student is interested in the subject and wants to learn it.
> 
> This is why oppose all forms of mandatory education or service.  It's a waste of time and money from an institutional educational standpoint.  This debate is so frustrating because educational researches have known this information for fifty years.  Yet, the march toward mandatory standards, service, and compulsion is stronger than ever.  Teacher education programs think that the way to counteract the retention problem is by creating more entertaining teachers.  The very best teachers are able to increase overall retention by 10 to 15% over one year and are very effective at maximizing initial engagement.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree.  I do, however, think that it will serve many positive purposes, and that this is a tangent to the point, although a somewhat close one.  

Will every high school graduate be the perfect employee?  Of course not.  But with enough options, through the various branches of the military, the many different opportunities afforded by the Peace Corps and the similar domestic projects offered by the Americorps, the odds are very good that people will find something they can live with for at least 2 years.  Some will find their passion, and others will consider it doing time.  Most will be somewhere in the middle, very much like kids who are currently attending high school.

Also, many of the benefits I outlined of a system like this are independent of a child's willingness to learn.  It will still provide a mechanism for kids to leave the nest, establish as adults and contribute (some more than others) to the country.  For some, it could even the key to breaking a cycle of poverty.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Yes, it is imperative to understand more in order to understand Climate change, global warming, AGW, ACC, they are all way more complex then simply putting chemicals up into the atmosphere. Most people are handed a gross simplification and compelled to accept it as true.
> 
> 
> 
> Five minutes on an American's facebook feed will tell you that we make fun of our politicians savagely. LOL!



I watched a series of programmes where the comedian Stephen Fry travelled to every American state. In one episode he talked to an American professor, Peter Gomes from Harvard who told him that we have to remember that if there's an easy way and a hard way the Americans will always take the hard way, it would seem to be true.

Facebook isn't general life you know!


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I watched a series of programmes where the comedian Stephen Fry travelled to every American state. In one episode he talked to an American professor, Peter Gomes from Harvard who told him that we have to remember that if there's an easy way and a hard way the Americans will always take the hard way, it would seem to be true.
> 
> Facebook isn't general life you know!


This reminds me of the story about the Fisher Space Pen.  The pen was developed when our astronauts discovered quickly that a gravity fed, ball point pen would not work in space.  Never fear, young Americans.  The Fisher company was on the job, developing a cartridge that would not only write in space, but would also work in extreme cold or heat.  After years of research, the nitrogen pressurized cartridge was patented in 1965.  In 1966, a prototype of the latest model was sent to NASA, where they put it under two years of rigorous testing.  Finally, after a journey that had taken several years, the Fisher Space Pen was used on the Apollo 7 project.  It performed flawlessly, as you might expect.

The Soviet Cosmonauts, in the meantime, simply used a pencil.


----------



## crushing (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> This reminds me of the story about the Fisher Space Pen.  The pen was developed when our astronauts discovered quickly that a gravity fed, ball point pen would not work in space.  Never fear, young Americans.  The Fisher company was on the job, developing a cartridge that would not only write in space, but would also work in extreme cold or heat.  After years of research, the nitrogen pressurized cartridge was patented in 1965.  In 1966, a prototype of the latest model was sent to NASA, where they put it under two years of rigorous testing.  Finally, after a journey that had taken several years, the Fisher Space Pen was used on the Apollo 7 project.  It performed flawlessly, as you might expect.
> 
> The Soviet Cosmonauts, in the meantime, simply used a pencil.



http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2013)

It's obvious some people rarely pick up a book... or even bother to "google" something before shooting off at the mouth. Yet another sad reflection of the truth behind the OP.

Freedom isn't free. It requires vigilance and sacrifice. The power-hungry will tirelessy continue to try and take it away; they always have and always will. When the people become complacent and forget (if the ever knew in the first place) what sacrifice is necessary to maintain their freedom, they invariably lose it. Earning the rights of citizenship does not mean you don't have the God-given Rights every human being has. In fact, it would be more appropriate to call the "rights" of citizenship a priviledge, that is earned. Only then, do most people appreciate it. 

Heinlein routinely "hid" social commentary within his novels. Anybody that's read or googled him would probably know that. 



> &#8220;The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories.  A perfect democracy, a &#8216;warm body&#8217; democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.  It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens&#8230; which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens.  What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all.  But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it&#8230; which for the majority translates as &#8216;Bread and Circuses.&#8217;
> 
> &#8216;Bread and Circuses&#8217; is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.  Democracy often works beautifully at first.  But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state.  For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader&#8212;the barbarians enter Rome.&#8221;
> &#8213;    Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> I don't disagree.  I do, however, think that it will serve many positive purposes, and that this is a tangent to the point, although a somewhat close one.
> 
> Will every high school graduate be the perfect employee?  Of course not.  But with enough options, through the various branches of the military, the many different opportunities afforded by the Peace Corps and the similar domestic projects offered by the Americorps, the odds are very good that people will find something they can live with for at least 2 years.  Some will find their passion, and others will consider it doing time.  Most will be somewhere in the middle, very much like kids who are currently attending high school.
> 
> Also, many of the benefits I outlined of a system like this are independent of a child's willingness to learn.  It will still provide a mechanism for kids to leave the nest, establish as adults and contribute (some more than others) to the country.  For some, it could even the key to breaking a cycle of poverty.



If people aren't smart enough or aren't informed enough to participatein democracy, then it would seem that the solution is to educate them better. I think this rests on a fundamental assumption needs analysis andcontextual understanding.

That said, why are students forced to go to school?  Why are people forced to serve or learn anything?  From my research, the root idea that makes this possible traces it's way back to an 18th century German Psychologist named Wilhelm Wundt.  Wundt's ideas form the basis for modern education.  Before Wundt, education took on a very different form and was much more self directed.  What Wundt assumed is that the individual had no soul or no fundamental aspect of their being and therefore was simply a product of their experiences.  Therefore, it was possible to direct the development of the individual by controlling their experience.  This core idea formed the basis of the Prussian school system where children were placed in a compulsory school and forced to do boring, repetitive, and infantile tasks in order to condition them to accept authority and not question orders.  The Prussian school system was a direct result of the defeat the Prussians suffered at the hands of Napoleon.  The German intellectual class of the time colluded with the State in order to construct a system of social management.  As it turns out, many American intellectuals studied with Wundt and they imported his ideas and Prussian schooling to America.  Wundt's ideas were adapted into the science of Behaviorism and were adapted again into Constructivism.  Prussian schooling was also exported to countries all across the world.  Britain, France, the entire West was taken with it.  The Japanese and Chinese were particularly suited for this kind of schooling.  A strong tradition of ancestor worship and authoritarian training already existed in those countries.

Therefore, I think the fundamental question we are addressing is, "Was Wundt wrong?"

Wundt stated that there was no soul and that there was no fundamental aspect of the individual and that the individual was a product of their experiences.  Therefore, an individual could be shaped by controlling their experience.  As it turns out, the Prussians learned that it takes about 10,000 to 20,000 hours of a tightly controlled environment with specific rules that control experience to condition someone to accept authority.  It took surprisingly little time for the fruits of this experiment to bear itself out.  The army's of Europe could suddenly be flooded with conscripts that would accept authority and not question orders.  The Duke of Wellington is famous for saying upon his meeting with Napoleon, "Tomorrow's victory will be won in today's schoolyards."

In my opinion, the ultimate expression of this policy is the horror of World War I.  Millions of men followed orders and charged into a hail of bullets and certain death in a war that was completely meaningless.  In a sense, Wundt was right and it was possible to crush the individual to a point where even the so called instinct of self preservation was lost.

The downside of this was a social stagnation that destroyed difference of perspective and creativity.  At the same time that Prussian schooling was changing the social fabric of Europe, millions of immigrants were fleeing to America in order to escape oppression.  A lot of my German ancestors fled after 1848 and a wave of conscription rolled over the countryside.  They came to this country with the idea that they would build a new life and guide their own experience.  Early American immigrants were highly motivated to become educated and eagerly taught themselves and their children how to read.  They collected books and spent their spare time in a process of self education that allowed people to develop their own interests to the greatest degree.  This is one of the reasons why America became the center of innovation around the world and why at one time 90% of the new patents issued were coming from America.  In the mid 1800s, a Frenchman name Alexis de Tocqueville came to this country and marveled at how literate and well spoken Americans had become.  In comparison to the peasants of Europe, even the meanest American farmer was more lettered and cultured.  Literacy rates in America regularly rose into the mid 90 percentiles.  

Yet, Prussian schooling was installed in our country, eventually.  People resisted this new type of schooling whenever it was implemented.  Even into the early 1900s, American immigrants would riot when the schools that they supported were replaced by the "modern" schools.  They would write the papers and say, "we will not send our children to these schools.  This is why we left."  The State, understanding that it had an unwilling populace on it's hands, decided to go with the gradual approach.  The first compulsory school was started in Massachusetts in 1840.  Children were required to attend three weeks a year in order to help new immigrants assimilate into American culture.  The concept of this type of school spread and the time that children were required to attend was gradually increased.  

After the Civil War, a new desire from the State to create a national consensus, pushed this type of schooling farther and faster than every before.  New slaves were integrated into the mix and it was argued that they were too untrustworthy to educate themselves and therefore needed "modern" school.  This caused this new paradigm of school to spread throughout the South.  Still, American individualism was not easily overcome.

By the turn of the 19th century, modern industrialists discovered that they could not compete with faster and nimbler entrepreneurs.  They called this over production and they became interested in foisting this type of education nationwide.  All of the major educational foundations were started at this time.  The Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnagie Foundation, the Ford Foundation, all of them contributed millions to the major colleges of education and they completely remade the fabric of academia.  They paid individuals to go to Europe and study with the schoolmasters over there in order to bring that system over here.  

By the Early 1900s, the entirety of the Federal government was behind this education revolution.  The educational foundations were guiding this purpose.

John D. Rockefeller tells us the mission of his foundation and of the goals of its educational programs.

&#8220;In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.&#8221;

This thinking guided the transformation of education by influencing some of the most powerful people in the nation.  For example, President Woodrow Wilson stated, "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

In 1918, Benjamin Kidd, a member of the Education Trust, which was composed of foundation representatives from Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the National Education Association, said, "school was to impose on the young the ideal of subordination.&#8221;

In 1918, the Alexander Inglis, an emeritus professor at Harvard, who now has a lectern named after him, wrote a book called "Principles of Secondary Education."  We can trace the origin of our overall school structure in the US to this book and this time.  This is because Inglis was specifically writing a book that would be pushed by the major industrial foundations in order to change the paradigm of American education.

In the book, Inglis describes the six main functions of secondary school.  They are the adjustive or adaptive function, the integrating function, the diagnostic and directive function, the differentiating function, the selective function, and the propaedeutic function.  The school system laid out in Inglis&#8217; book was designed to promote these six functions and we can still find evidence of their presence today.

1) The adaptive function (schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority the bells, the trivial rules, and rewards and punishments are nothing more than a Pavlovian training method designed to accustom students to a life of top down instruction).

2) The integrating function (this might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible.  Standardized testing is the epitome of this function.  Every unit will be strictly controlled for quality like a McDonald&#8217;s cheeseburger).

3) The diagnostic and directive function (school is meant to determine each student's proper social role.  The numbers and letters that we assign to bits of knowledge and acts of behavior are to be used to determine a student&#8217;s future despite the assumptions that went into their assignation).

4) The differentiating function (once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further.  Development of the mind beyond that which is required for basic instruction in social roles is not only waste of resources, it is dangerous for social order).

5) The selective function (schools are meant to tag students with poor grades, remedial placement, and other diagnoses in order to identify the &#8220;unfit&#8221; for further intervention.  This is a eugenics program as defined by Sir Francis Galton, the father of eugenics and whose ideas spawned a program that was funded in the United States by John D. Rockefeller.  We used to direct these &#8220;tagged&#8221; individuals into forced sterilization programs, now we cram them full of pharmaceuticals and deny them opportunities for social advancement.

6) The _propaedeutic _function (the societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers.  School trains students for managers.  The etymology of the word pedagogy comes from the Greek word _paidagogos_, who were a class of slaves whose responsibility it was to guide students through the lessons of the masters.  Students will learn fixed habits of reaction to authority, how to shift from one person giving instruction to another, and how to obey without question and without the weight of troubling ethics).

Consequently, a generation later, many academics found all of this to be abhorrent. The eminent Jacques Ellul related his ideas on the effect of government propaganda in schools by stating:

The individual can no longer judge for himself because he inescapably relates his thoughts to the entire complex of values and prejudices established by propaganda. With regard to political situations, he is given ready-made value judgments invested with the power of the truth by the word of experts.  The individual has no chance to exercise his judgment either on principal questions or on their implication; this leads to the atrophy of a faculty not comfortably exercised under the best conditions.  Once personal judgment and critical faculties have disappeared or have atrophied, they will not simply reappear when propaganda is suppressed.  Years of intellectual and spiritual education would be needed to restore such faculties. The student, if deprived of one propaganda, will immediately adopt another, this will spare him the agony of finding himself _vis a vis_ some event without a ready-made opinion.

Ellul&#8217;s comment could very well have been made in 2013.  This is because the structure that Inglis laid out still exists and bears fruit.  We can see the branches on the tree taking the form of ritual boredom, constant shifting of subjects despite individual interest, the lack of real application, the rote memorization, the humiliation, the constant testing of government approved content, the degradation of opportunity for personal expression.  The list goes on and on.  We attempt to teach children that there is joy in learning yet the structure of the institution crushes that sentiment before it ever has a chance to grow.

The set of assumptions that the structures of education now use, are still passively churning out the designed results.  In order to truly change the system, we need to tackle the assumptions and the structures that act as its foundation.  This is necessary to affect any meaningful reform for education in our time.  This is why research into the foundations of the educational system is so important and this is why I want to be a part of it.

There is an old saying that states, &#8220;When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.&#8221;  I would like to amend this statement in order to reflect the nature of institution that we belong to say, &#8220;If every student is a nail, then all you&#8217;ll ever need is a hammer.&#8221;

This is why the American voter is so dumb.  They have no chance to keep up with the complexities of society with the type of schooling they receive.  It is possible to crush the individual, our society does it with about 15,000 hours of compulsory education, but there will be a price...our creativity, our happiness, our wealth, and our liberty.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

Thanks Mak...not sure where it all leads but it's interesting reading.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's obvious some people rarely pick up a book... or even bother to "google" something before shooting off at the mouth. Yet another sad reflection of the truth behind the OP.
> 
> Freedom isn't free. It requires vigilance and sacrifice. The power-hungry will tirelessy continue to try and take it away; they always have and always will. When the people become complacent and forget (if the ever knew in the first place) what sacrifice is necessary to maintain their freedom, they invariably lose it. Earning the rights of citizenship does not mean you don't have the God-given Rights every human being has. In fact, it would be more appropriate to call the "rights" of citizenship a priviledge, that is earned. Only then, do most people appreciate it.
> 
> Heinlein routinely "hid" social commentary within his novels. Anybody that's read or googled him would probably know that.



And? A good many authors routinely use 'social commentary' in their books, it doesn't mean they are correct or that it's actually anything more than their opinion. If you find something that resonates with you in a particular authors writings that's good for you but it doesn't meant everyone has the same thoughts or feelings about it as you do. Casually dismissing people who disagree with you as being non readers stunts intelligent debate.

How much freedom do you think you actually have?


----------



## Instructor (Feb 5, 2013)

I just think that people who can't seem to make good decisions in their personal lives shouldn't be permitted to make decisions regarding ALL of our lives.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> And? A good many authors routinely use 'social commentary' in their books, it doesn't mean they are correct or that it's actually anything more than their opinion. If you find something that resonates with you in a particular authors writings that's good for you but it doesn't meant everyone has the same thoughts or feelings about it as you do. Casually dismissing people who disagree with you as being non readers stunts intelligent debate.
> 
> How much freedom do you think you actually have?



I have no idea why but this "social commentary" made me think of Lu Xun, Diary of a Madman...speaking of books


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> I have no idea why but this "social commentary" made me think of Lu Xun, Diary of a Madman...speaking of books



Well there's also Dickens, Orwell, CP Snow, Golding, Huxley, Atwood, Vonnegut, Hugo,Wilde, Wiesel, Miller, Conrad, Shaw, Ashiguru and even Jane Austen. yer Yer pays yer money and takes your choice.

Instructor, who decides what are bad decisions though? for many a woman having an abortion is a bad choice, whereas to many others it's not so who's to say who's right and who's wrong? How do we decide who is making 'right' decisions and who's not and how does that gel with the idea of freedom for everyone? What if others see your decisions which you may have come to after much thought are really bad ones and you should have no say in the election/votng process?  
Is there any 'perfect' system or even any workable system?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Well there's also Dickens, Orwell, CP Snow, Golding, Huxley, Atwood, Vonnegut, Hugo,Wilde, Wiesel, Miller, Conrad, Shaw, Ashiguru and even Jane Austen. yer Yer pays yer money and takes your choice.
> 
> Instructor, who decides what are bad decisions though? for many a woman having an abortion is a bad choice, whereas to many others it's not so who's to say who's right and who's wrong? How do we decide who is making 'right' decisions and who's not and how does that gel with the idea of freedom for everyone? What if others see your decisions which you may have come to after much thought are really bad ones and you should have no say in the election/votng process?
> Is there any 'perfect' system or even any workable system?



You forgot Twain 

I think the reason I thought Lu Xun was probably &#8220;Social Commentary&#8221; combined with the "doesn't mean they are correct" part. Lu Xun was making rather negative social commentary on Traditional Chinese Society and values and Mao thought it was great stuff :asian:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2013)

Orwell's a great one too IMHO... 

Anyway, back to the topic... 

The survival of our Republic depends greatly on an educated public. :deadhorse

I would extend that "education" to exeriencing some sort of sacrifice by those capable of electing our leaders. It's a simple philosophy, really... Those who sacrifice blood, sweat, and tears for what they get tend to appreciate the fruits of their efforts a lot more than those who are simply handed it lest we end up with "bread and circuses." You'd think a martial artist would appreciate that fact... at least the ones who earned their rank anyway.


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

crushing said:


> http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp


  The dates are correct.  The pencil part.. well, shoot.  Since when does truth get in the way of a good story?


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Orwell's a great one too IMHO...
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic...
> 
> ...


What sorts of sacrifice would you deem to be acceptable?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2013)

You would need checks and balances to make sure you didn't end up with a Soviet/Nazi/Maoist type of society with corps of people doing 'good works', you coul be handing even more power to those 'in charge'. By having so many young people in what is basically government workplaces/camps/corps you have the ideal opportunity to indoctrinate rather than educate. You could end up with panels of people deciding who is 'worthy' and who is not. It sounds to be honest a nightmare scenerio. 
There's nothing wrong with service, several organisations have that as their basis but I'm surprised that Americans who complain about too much government intrference would want them organising such types of organisations. As for military service, modern armies have no use for conscripts, they like the volunteer.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> What sorts of sacrifice would you deem to be acceptable?



Outlined earlier in the thread.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> *What sorts of sacrifice would you deem to be acceptable?*





celtic_crippler said:


> *Outlined earlier in the thread.*



Look here


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

seasoned said:


> Look here



Maybe it's tapatalk, but the post you're linking is neither by cc nor an answer to my question.  

Cc, it's a long thread and I'm not as smart As you.  Can you at least give me a post number?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> Maybe it's tapatalk, but the post you're linking is neither by cc nor an answer to my question.
> 
> Cc, it's a long thread and I'm not as smart As you.  Can you at least give me a post number?
> 
> ...



ROFL... it was post #8 in this thread. 

Here: 



> I personally like the appeal of a Heinlein approach. This theory asserts that only citizens can participate in government, and to become a citizen one must first have a certain level of education and also contribute to society.
> 
> The idea is that by sacrificing to achieve a certain level of education and by sacrificing part of ones early life one will place a higher value on the liberties and freedoms they obtain from it. In essence, it creates a greater level of responsibility and leads to one feeling they have skin in the game.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Feb 5, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> ROFL... it was post #8 in this thread.
> 
> Here:



Okay...  Sounds good to me.  Have you ever heard of americorps?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Feb 5, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Heinlein's work is a bit more than science fiction.  Starship Troopers for example is required reading at West Point.  It is I think a very important work thinly disquised as a Sci-Fi story.



I don't think that's (still?) true, but I do know it has been used at some of the war colleges.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 5, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Starship Troopers is a very good example if you are inclined to the fascist type of thought.



The movie--which sucks--turns the idea around somewhat. I found his ideas on citizenry and on officers starting out as enlisted personnel thought-provoking, but ultimately wide suffrage matters. Has anyone tried these ideas? YES! The Spartans did--in the 600-300BCE range, only the relatively small number of hereditary Spartiates who went through the agoge military training and could afford to pay for their share of the army's barracks expenses were citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Citizenship




> It's no more important than Frank Herbert's 'Dune' and infinitely less important than anything by Philip K Dick.



Dune is a great take on the interplay of the intertwined powers of federal and local govt., religion, and transportation. But, agree w.r.t. PKD.


----------



## granfire (Feb 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't think that's (still?) true, but I do know it has been used at some of the war colleges.



I guess it beats  Twilight...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

granfire said:


> I guess it beats  Twilight...



:seppuku:


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Perhaps before starting on grand schemes to have it's citizens enrolled in duites and sacrificing themselves  for the state, the state could sort education for it's children out. Then perhaps, we wouldn't need discussions such as these because the children would be properly educated not ignorant, growing into adults useful to themselves and others. 
Education should be the jewel in every country's crown, it should be available to every child and every child should be taught to think and reason,to learn. Money doesn't give you this, the passion of teachers does. You need the hunger back, the desire to learn and to push yourselves.
For so long America has been the biggest and the richest country on the planet, you've got used to that and life for a long time was relatively easy for you so you lost the drive while other countries especially perhaps in Asia have fast been catching up to you. Now in a time of recession it's been a shock but you are like an unfit, flabby fighter with ring rust who is fighting with his coach, cornermen and sparring partners instead of the proper opponent. You can see it on here, the constant posts of how the left is this and the right is that etc etc. the people who aren't stupid turn round and say 'you know what? stuff the lot of them'. This gun control thing is turning into a mammoth slagging match rather than any constructive debate because it's easier to insult each other than actually work together. It happens with every single subject, people are so entrenched in their position they can't see the wood for the trees.
 Even now there'll be people here framing posts slagging me off for writing this, probably giving me bad rep too instead of framing a constructive post, it's easier to call people stupid and label them mentally ill than actually look at their side of an argument. You don't like what I said (along with a lot of distinguished critics I might add) about a book well it must be obvious I've never read it then not only that I must never have read any books, what sort of argument is that? It's lazy, it's the 'you disagree with me so you're stupid' school of arguing, the fat fighter's argument.

Sort the education out first then you will find you have the tools to work with. There are children in Nepal who walk two hours down a mountain to get to school and two hours and a half hours back up because of the value put on their education, it happens in many countries because education is everything, it's road out of poverty, of ignorance and to self suffiency. You don't have films like High School Musical made about these schools! they are for learning not socialising lol!  

Rather than sit pontificating about the useless of young people, an eons old pastime, perhaps we could have some constructive ideas for the here and now.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> *Maybe it's tapatalk,* but the post you're linking is neither by cc nor an answer to my question.
> 
> Cc, it's a long thread and *I'm not as smart As you.*  Can you at least give me a post number?
> 
> ...



Just trying to help. The link works on my end. 
P.S. Don't be so hard on yourself, you seem to be a fairly smart guy.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 6, 2013)

First step in "sorting" education out is to take it out of the hands of government bureaucrats and privatize it.  Till we do that it will be about as efficient as the local department of motor vehicles.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2013)

seasoned said:


> Just trying to help. The link works on my end.
> P.S. Don't be so hard on yourself, you seem to be a fairly smart guy.



I do my best. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 6, 2013)

So only the educated or people who have sacrified get to vote.  So what happens when they vote someone into office or pass a piece of legislation you don't like?  Where does the bar raise from there?  Poll taxes so only those who are 'makers' can vote?  What about IQ test?  Or should it be only people who served in the military?  Start limiting the ability of everyone to vote and you start handing power to a smaller and smaller group of people.  In a democracy that is the absolute worst thing you can do.  Our founding fathers were actually pretty smart about this and so have  our people over time, including minroty and womens suffrage.  Personally I'd hate to see it thrown away by giving more power to less people.  That is simply Anti-American.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Instructor said:


> First step in "sorting" education out is to take it out of the hands of government bureaucrats and privatize it. Till we do that it will be about as efficient as the local department of motor vehicles.



Privatising it also takes it out of the reach of everyone and ensures only the rich have access to good education thus defeating the object of getting the less well off being able to get out of the situation they are in. If people want a 'service corps' they could do worst than have one of teachers who are committed to making sure education is what it should be.
Only when education is seen as being one of the most important things in life and that it's worth having will any type of school be successful, privatising isn't the answer, a complete change of mindset is needed if you want to go forward to have the brightest and the best not just the richest running your country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/oct/28/schools.uk4

Children in Asia and Africa work hard because that's their route out of poverty and into a better way of life, it benefits the whole country to have a good standard of education available to all, when young people are taught that success comes through hard work and not an appearnace on X Factor will you see a change in a country's fortunes and in it's people. Education isn't in children's beauty or talent competitions. Strip back all schools to the basics, recruit teachers with imagination and passion for teaching, have all pupils wear a basic school uniform to make everyone the same, no rich in designer clothes and instil in young people that it's good to learn. It's an attitude change that's needed not private schools. Universal education should be a right not a privilege only for those than can afford it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

Did privatizing martial arts instruction take out of the hands of poor people or can people find ways to learn martial arts if they want to?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 6, 2013)

WC_lun said:


> So only the educated or people who have sacrified get to vote.  So what happens when they vote someone into office or pass a piece of legislation you don't like?  Where does the bar raise from there?  Poll taxes so only those who are 'makers' can vote?  What about IQ test?  Or should it be only people who served in the military?  Start limiting the ability of everyone to vote and you start handing power to a smaller and smaller group of people.  In a democracy that is the absolute worst thing you can do.  Our founding fathers were actually pretty smart about this and so have  our people over time, including minroty and womens suffrage.  Personally I'd hate to see it thrown away by giving more power to less people.  That is simply Anti-American.



And here is evidence to support the OP... no offense, but you don't understand and are misinformed. 

The whole idea behind a Republic is that the Rights of all are protected. One must first understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. 
Voting is a priviledge. Priviledges must be earned. Rights are God-given and therefore can not be intruded upon by man. It is the responsibility of the Republic to protect the Rights of everyone. This basic concept has been forgotten, hence all the nonsense with "gun-control", "gay marriage", ad nauseum... The masses have been indoctrinated to think we are a Democracy when we are not. Democracy's are dangerous as they equate to "Mob Rules". 

For example: A lynch mob riding high on emotion and insisting upon hanging a man simply because he "looks" like a cattle thief and is a stranger in their community is a Democracy. The Marshal who tells them they can't do that, and that the man is entitled to due process, is an example of a Republic; the rule of law. 

That being said, a certain amount of "responsibility" must be proven to earn a priviledge. The Founders understood this, that's why they created a Republic and not a Democracy.  

But nobody realizes that because they don't teach it in public schools and the mass media constantly refers to our nation as a Democracy.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 6, 2013)

Great thing about private martial arts schools is if you have problems with one you can move to a different one.  Quality is rewarded with business.  Government Schools have your kid pigeon holed into a classroom that they choose whether it's best for your kid or not.  It's rubbish.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 6, 2013)

In fact there are many people who would like to study martial arts and cannot do so because of money isuues.  For many years I taught underpriviledged kids and heard over and over again how grateful the kids and parents were because they could not afford a normal class.  So Mak, I'm gonna have to disagree with your post on this one.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 6, 2013)

You contradict yourself sir... You taught those kids.  They did learn regardless of income.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Missing the point people. People who want to learn martial arts I'm sure will find a way, how would we go about teaching people martial arts who didn't see the point in it or who didn't want to because that's the situation with education. People have to first be persuaded that a good education is something that's valuable and will benefit everyone, we have to persuade young people that education will benefit them and going on X Factor is not the way forward. Martial art schools succeed because it's voluntary and people want to do it, education is a different matter altogether. 
A private school may well not be any better teaching children than a government school because the parents may be happy that their children are occupied and out of their hair so the school looks successful. We have private schools like that here, people send their children mostly because they are boarding schools and they keep them occupied with sports, trips and activities, do they have a good academic record not so much but the parents are happy.
A change in mindset needs to happen otherwise standards in all schools will never get better. We need to raise our and the children's expectations of themselves. and yes perhaps we do need to teach them to be better citizens, it's not that they need specific lessons more than a good general education covers this ie in history, in geography, learning about other people and other countries. Science should be taught properly no interference from outside bodies and I don't mean the government. Teaching in schools what belief systems there are in the world is part of learning about the diverse nations and peoples of the world, teaching children what to believe in the way of religion/belief is the parents job.

It's not as simple as saying privatise schools, you need first to understand what you want and need from education and make sure every child has access to the best schooling there is, then you will have something that is of benefit to everyone.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't know how schools are in England but our local schools are just babysitting service.  My daughter (middle school) makes straight A's and is on the honor role yet she still needs to ask me how to spell every third or fourth word when she writes a paper.  I don't know what they are teaching her but it isn't very useful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Missing the point people. People who want to learn martial arts I'm sure will find a way, how would we go about teaching people martial arts who didn't see the point in it or who didn't want to because that's the situation with education. People have to first be persuaded that a good education is something that's valuable and will benefit everyone, we have to persuade young people that education will benefit them and going on X Factor is not the way forward. Martial art schools succeed because it's voluntary and people want to do it, education is a different matter altogether.



The point is that people who want an education will find a way to make it happen.  Sometimes words aren't enough in terms of persuasion.  People need to see results.  They need to see consequences.  That's what motivates people to take martial arts instruction.  That is also what motivates people to take any education.  

One of the effects of government compulsory schooling is that it changed the way people view education.  When everyone is forced to go, education no longer becomes the pupils responsibility.  It's something that others do to you, not something you do for yourself.  The effect of this change has been horrendous for our students.  It has effectively removed the drive to learn anything.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 6, 2013)

You think the Founders wanted a democracy? Evidence points to the contrary:

&#8220;A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.&#8221; ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." ~James Madison, Federalist Papers, the McClean Edition, Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Franklin, Benjamin
&#8220;Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.&#8221; - John Adams 

&#8220;Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.&#8221; - John Adams

Anybody here remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Yeah, they&#8217;ve taken it out in a lot of them now, right? Probably another reason today&#8217;s generation has no idea we&#8217;re actually a Republic. It states &#8220;&#8230;and to the Republic, for which it stands&#8230;&#8221; is does not say, &#8220;&#8230;and to the Democracy&#8230;&#8221;  



> A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
> 
> Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
> 
> ...


 
Good read. I highly recommend it. Once you understand the difference it may enlighten you to a great many things. 

To me, it is quite evident when observing the nation&#8217;s issues being played out like a soap opera today by the main-stream media, that this idea of individual liberty is too abstract a notion as to be comprehended by the masses. 

And why is that? I assert that the involvement of the Federal Government in education has quite a bit to do with the ignorance that abounds. It is that ignorance that enables them to take away our liberties. They and their Elite puppet masters are the only ones who are benefiting, after all. 

But the masses have been programmed by the mass media to identify people like me as crack-pot, paranoid, conspiracy theorists because we challenge their control while at the same time they are being indoctrinated to believe nonsense like our government is a democracy and to ignore the lessons of history because &#8220;that could never happen here, that could never happen to us&#8221;. 

Well, it&#8217;s happening and has been happening in &#8220;real time&#8221; for quite a while. And, unless something changes, it will continue on its course and we&#8217;ll continue to repeat history because we apparently didn&#8217;t learn from it the last 100 times. 

:soapbox:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 6, 2013)

Oh... and BTW, not that it's pertinent to the topic, but I have 4 students that I do not charge. So... nyah! LOL


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The point is that people who want an education will find a way to make it happen. Sometimes words aren't enough in terms of persuasion. People need to see results. They need to see consequences. That's what motivates people to take martial arts instruction. That is also what motivates people to take any education.
> 
> One of the effects of government compulsory schooling is that it changed the way people view education. When everyone is forced to go, education no longer becomes the pupils responsibility. It's something that others do to you, not something you do for yourself. The effect of this change has been horrendous for our students. It has effectively removed the drive to learn anything.



It hasn't worked that way everywhere so perhaps there's something about the American school system rather than compulsory education that has made it that way. It's not that compulsory education makes people think it's somethig done to you, it's what is being taught and by whom. In Nepal education is now compulsory and the drive to learn is very much there because everyone sees the worth in it. My Gurkha shift partner sees education as far more important for his children than anything else he can give them, it's one reason he's stayed on in the UK so his children can go to university, one's has just qualified as an engineer and the other is off to Sixth Form College which is where he will take the exams he needs to go to uni.

I found this interesting, it seems to indicate that Americans think the government schools rate badly but those that their  children go to aresatisfactory! It would seem to be more about perceptions than actual education.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156974/private-schools-top-marks-educating-children.aspx

_*"Implications*_
_Americans are much more inclined to believe students in private, parochial, or charter schools receive a high-quality education than to say this about students in public schools and those who are home schooled. Americans in general are not highly satisfied with the state of public schooling in the United States, although that is probably not a commentary on their own child's school and __schools in their local area__ because Americans have historically been quite satisfied with each of those. Rather, Americans may just have a general sense that U.S. public education is not where it needs to be, perhaps due to news media reports that American students lag behind students in other countries in basic academic skills."

_Is there proof that American schools lag behind others in the world? 

All childen are born with a clean sheet despite who their parents are or what they might be, a country owes it to those childen as well as it's self to educate those children to the best of it's ability, put crudely all children are a country's resources and should be given the best opportunities to excel.  Limiting education to only those who can pay limits a country in it's choice of leaders, scientists, medical staff etc etc. It won't get the best until all children are educated to a high standard. If a person is well educated hopefully they will be good and productive citizens saving everyone time, effort and what seems more important in America money. if they turn out not to be those good citizens well then you can shrug and say well they had a chance and they are on their own.

You may want to look at the so called teaching 'experts' rather than the schools, education can be a very faddy place where the latest methods of teaching are put into place rather than anything thats tried and tested, teachers often protest but to no avail.  it seems too that your government plans to have all schools out of the sytem and into private hands by 2014, that hasn't been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.nea.org/home/39774.htm

Wise words.


[h=2]_"On How to Improve Our Schools_[/h]_What can we do to improve schools and education? Plenty. _
_We must first of all have a vision of what good education is. We should have goals that are worth striving for. Everyone involved in educating children should ask themselves why we educate. What is a well-educated person? What knowledge is of most worth? What do we hope for when we send our children to school? What do we want them to learn and accomplish by the time they graduate from school?_
_Certainly we want them to be able to read and write and be numerate. But that is not enough. We want to prepare them for a useful life. We want them to be able to think for themselves when they are out in the world on their own. We want them to have good character and to make sound decisions about their life, their work, and their health. We want them to face life&#8217;s joys and travails with courage and humor. We hope that they will be kind and compassionate in their dealings with others. We want them to have a sense of justice and fairness. We want them to understand our nation and our world and the challenges we face. We want them to be active, responsible citizens, prepared to think issues through carefully, to listen to differing views, and to reach decisions rationally. We want them to learn science and mathematics so they understand the problems of modern life and participate in finding solutions. We want them to enjoy the rich artistic and cultural heritage of our society and other societies._
_If these are our goals, the current narrow, utilitarian focus of our national testing regime is not sufficient to reach any of them. Indeed, to the extent that we make the testing regime our master, we may see our true goals recede farther and farther into the distance. By our current methods, we may be training (not educating) a generation of children who are repelled by learning, thinking that it means only drudgery, worksheets, test preparation, and test-taking._
_Our nation&#8217;s commitment to provide universal, free public education has been a crucial element in the successful assimilation of millions of immigrants and in the ability of generations of Americans to improve their lives. As we seek to reform our schools, we must take care to do no harm. In fact, we must take care to make our public schools once again the pride of our nation. To the extent that we strengthen them, we strengthen our democracy"_







[h=1][/h]
[h=2][/h]


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

You might want to go back and read post 47 where I detail the history and philosophy of modern compulsory schooling.  It's a long post, but I think it lays out the agenda of the creators of the system quite well.  



Tez3 said:


> It hasn't worked that way everywhere so perhaps there's something about the American school system rather than compulsory education that has made it that way. It's not that compulsory education makes people think it's somethig done to you, it's what is being taught and by whom. In Nepal education is now compulsory and the drive to learn is very much there because everyone sees the worth in it. My Gurkha shift partner sees education as far more important for his children than anything else he can give them, it's one reason he's stayed on in the UK so his children can go to university, one's has just qualified as an engineer and the other is off to Sixth Form College which is where he will take the exams he needs to go to uni.



This also used to be the case in America.  Once immigrants were gradually led into the institutions, the work ethic that brought them to America in the first place really helped them excel at their studies.  If you go back and compare the syllabi of history classes that were taught 100 years ago to the syllabi of those taught today, you'll be struck by the depth and complexity that students in the past were studying.  You'll also be faced with the reality that our society has been dumbed way down.  The statistics bear this out.  If we look at the first achievement tests given out 80 years ago and compare them with achievement tests now, there has been a steady decline in scores.  The scores have still declined despite the test being renormed several times in order to make it easier to achieve higher scores (and probably hide the decline).

One of the reasons why this happened is the same trend that is commonplace whenever an industry is nationalized.  The free market teaches people through incentive and example.  This is the most efficient way to motivate people because true information caused by the results of decisions or circumstance is allowed to inform human action.  Therefore, the newly nationalized industries benefit from having people in them with strong work ethics and a drive to do well.  

Over time, the lack of real feedback in a nationalized industry with no competition begins to affect the people in it.  They lose the drive to change and evolve because the incentive structure is gone.  When this is combined with the idea that a product is simply given and not earned, the results are catastrophic.  All nationalized industries eventually fall into inefficiency and disarray as the entitlement mentality rots it from the inside out.  Eventually, the institution falls apart because it can't keep up with the demands of a changing and vibrant world.

This has totally happened in education.  Look at the basic structure of schools and the basic methods of instruction.  The are the same as they were 50 years ago despite the revolution in information technology happening all over the West.  Most schools have basically replaced their black boards with white boards.  Computers are being introduced and this is the game changer, by the way.  The revolution in computer technology has made traditional schooling obsolete...but they don't know it yet. 

Watch this video understand how pathetically backwards schools have become.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html

So, it doesn't surprise me that your shift partner and his family value education.  When you come from a background where education is precious, the drive to learn is enormous.  Give it a few generations though.  The nationalized system will instill in them the entitlement mentality and will eventually turn them into the entitled masses that crowd the classrooms of today.  They will learn that education is a right that the State must confer and all drive to learn will be lost.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

How many Americans posting on here are the product of free schooling as opposed to private?

For what it's worth mine for state school primary, private secondary (the one I went to is known as a Public school confusingly) and free university.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2013)

Instructor said:


> First step in "sorting" education out is to take it out of the hands of government bureaucrats and privatize it.  Till we do that it will be about as efficient as the local department of motor vehicles.


I think there's a happy medium.  I'd like to see a lot more creativity in education, but I think there needs to be some oversight.  Private education is not necessarily better education.  I went to two different private schools.  One was terrific, and the other was not.  In many States, private school teachers do not need any sort of certification to teach.  There are academies where performance is high and students do very well.  There are other schools where the academics are overtly secondary to religious education, and the teachers are hired more for their religious beliefs than their academic qualifications.

I want to be clear that I am all for some degree of privatization, but it's a dangerous road when you believe that a school is "better" because it is private.  My kids are receiving a top notch education in public schools.  My daughter is taking University of Washington courses in her high school (as a UW student, receiving UW credit) along with AP classes as a sophomore.  She will likely graduate high school with over 2 years of college under her belt, much of that already established on a University of Washington transcript.  

Their education is well rounded, emphasizing academic achievement, college prep, and also a good balance of liberal arts classes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 6, 2013)

WC_lun said:


> So only the educated or people who have sacrified get to vote.  So what happens when they vote someone into office or pass a piece of legislation you don't like?  Where does the bar raise from there?  Poll taxes so only those who are 'makers' can vote?  What about IQ test?  Or should it be only people who served in the military?  Start limiting the ability of everyone to vote and you start handing power to a smaller and smaller group of people.  In a democracy that is the absolute worst thing you can do.  Our founding fathers were actually pretty smart about this and so have  our people over time, including minroty and womens suffrage.  Personally I'd hate to see it thrown away by giving more power to less people.  That is simply Anti-American.


Our founding fathers did limit people's right to vote. Also as stated 1000's of times were not a democracy never have been.


----------



## Steve (Feb 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Did privatizing martial arts instruction take out of the hands of poor people or can people find ways to learn martial arts if they want to?


LOL...  look at the disparity in quality between schools.   Also, consider the fact that many commercially successful schools are successful because they focus on specific business practices that dilute the quality of the education.  If educating kids becomes a "for profit" endeavor, we are doomed.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You might want to go back and read post 47 where I detail the history and philosophy of modern compulsory schooling. It's a long post, but I think it lays out the agenda of the creators of the system quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Asian thinking is very different to Western especially American. For Jews too education is very important it has been for generations throughout all types of schooling in all types of countries. If you are doing it right compulsory education will not engender the problems you think it will. American culture is very different from anyone elses, I'd go so far as to say it's unique so thinking that everyone will turn out the same as Americans is a mistake.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> LOL...  look at the disparity in quality between schools.   Also, consider the fact that many commercially successful schools are successful because they focus on specific business practices that dilute the quality of the education.  If educating kids becomes a "for profit" endeavor, we are doomed.



I think you have a view of "quality" that does not match the people attending "substandard" schools.  Perhaps the people who are paying for instruction are getting exactly what they wanted.  Frankly, I completely understand the market for watered down martial arts instruction.  It's easier, it's less dangerous, and it makes you feel like you've achieved something.  As far as real skill is concerned, if there were an actual need for most people to have sharp self defense skills, you'd see the McDojos disappear.  That's how the market shapes the industry.  We live in a relatively safe world though, and that's what allows McDojos to flourish.

With education, there is a real need for highly skilled people.  Schools that don't perform will have no students.  There is a huge difference in those education markets.  The aspect worth pointing out about the martial arts instruction industry is the efficiency of delivery.  The variety of traditional school models is far less diverse than the variety of martial arts schools.  This is a huge problem that is bred by State control of the industry.  Rather then letting students and entrepreneurs tailor their approaches for each other's needs, like the martial arts industry, the State has a model that it forces everyone into regardless of student difference or need.  

This is unbelievably ridiculous.  According to NCLB, all students regardless of learning differences, are going to have to show 100% proficiency to national standards by 2014.  No school can meet this because this mandate includes special education students.  It will be interesting to see how the legislature handles this because this is an impossible mandate.  I suspect that there will be much arguing and that the punitive provisions of the bill will be allowed to kick in.  Those provisions start with sanctions, withholding of federal money, replacement of Administrators, and finally a Federal takeover of the schools.  Which, I believe was the point of bill in the first place, set an impossible standards and use failure as an excuse to abolish local control in schools.

If you understand how these policies developed and you understand the history of the development of the institution, a clandestine federal takeover is exactly what should be expected from legislation like NCLB.

The point that I must make again, and I reference my post 47, is that compulsory schooling has always been the propaganda arm of the state.  The Federal standards have a particular view of civics, of history, and of critical thinking that they actually mandate and measure.  I foresee more Federal control from the DOE and I can see a public/private market developing that undercuts the teachers unions and deprofessionalizes the teaching profession.  Money will be doled out to schools that deliver results along tightly determined federal standards.  Competition will be used to weed out approaches that are too expensive or inefficient.  President Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, is famous for starting a system like this in Chicago and he is adamant about doing this nationwide.

This is the fascist model of public education that is coming down the pipes.

Now, lets compare this to what would happen if we actually had a free market in education.  Families would be able to shop around for schools that meet their specific needs and educational entreprenuers could change their practice in order to meet the needs of the consumer.  We would see schools pop up online that teach basic skills on shoestring budgets.  We'd see trade schools popping up in regions that have demands for skilled labor and the companies that need this kind of labor would offer grants for students to attend.  We'd see schools develop that specifically train people for university and foundations would give grants to talented students who couldn't afford them.  We'd see individual teachers creating small local learning communities that would cost a fraction of what it costs the State to educate students AND the teachers would be able to make a comfortable living doing this.  Finally, I think we'd see the disappearance of learning disabilities.  Learning differences are currently identified by the amount of deviance of achievement from a standardized norm.  In other words, traditional schools basically have one approach and if a student is unsuccessful at meeting this approach they are identified, pathologized, and medicated (See post 47).  In a free market, instruction would be offered to students based on their needs and abilities.  If one approach is not successful, the market will demand that another appear.  

This is exactly what we see in the martial arts industry.  The efficiency of delivery in the market finds ways to get martial arts instruction to you depending on what you want to get out of it.  You might not think a certain approach is worth it and you will have the freedom to not give that business your money.  A free market completely changes the relationship between schools and students.  A free market reincentivizes students by making participation voluntary.  A free market makes education valuable again because now the industry can give you exactly what you want.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Asian thinking is very different to Western especially American. For Jews too education is very important it has been for generations throughout all types of schooling in all types of countries. If you are doing it right compulsory education will not engender the problems you think it will. American culture is very different from anyone elses, I'd go so far as to say it's unique so thinking that everyone will turn out the same as Americans is a mistake.



http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering-Adult/dp/188495670X

Cross cultural studies show the same problems that we see in America appearing in every country that implements Western style schooling.  In developing countries where Western style schooling is implemented, there is a sharp uptick of literacy, followed by a downward slide of skills the longer this style of schooling exists.  This book pretty much demolishes the notion that America is different from the rest of the world.  The school model that I outlined in post 47 pretty much has the same effect on people where ever it is implemented.

I'm glad you brought up China.  Did you know that the Chinese have one standardized test that determines everything about your future?  Did you know that families in China run out of town any teacher that teaches anything but the material for this test?  Students, parents, and administrators will literally shout you down if you attempt to teach anything that isn't directly related to the test.  The result of this is that Chinese students are literally incapable of asking questions.  They are great at memorizing and regurgitating but they cannot relate to information in any sort of creative way.  This is causing a huge problem in Chinese culture because the amount of innovation that occurs has dwindled severely.  This has caused something interesting to occur.  Parents in China are beginning to send their children to countries where the school system is more diverse.  The dividends that families see is that these children are the ones that come back with ideas and are able actualize them into businesses.  

The Chinese government moves their mouths about this problem, but they actually like the mentality of the bulk of the students being produced (see post 47 again).  They don't ask questions and they are great at following orders, that was the point of the Prussian system from the outset.

The ironic part about this is that the West is changing it's school system to become more and more like China's!  A federal system with strict standards and one test is a bureaucrats wet dream...and the end of free thought in the world.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

I didn't mention China.

You should also realise that there's Western thought, Eastern thought and American thought, they are all different from each other.

Your link is that of someone who has a book to sell, again it's his opinion, it doesn't make it fact.


----------

