BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

What is EDUCATION and how does one enact it effectively?

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Ganesh
20:02 / 27.04.03
(Given the semi-facetious title, this might be better placed in the Conversation. Then again, the title's only semi-facetious and owes as much to my recent reading of Malcolm Gladwell's excellent 'The Tipping Point' as it does to the pathologically nebulous foundation of LeapTopia. Your choice, Moderator D00d.)

I guess I'm thinking here about the language of 'public awareness' programmes, specifically the wording that is often used when a Message is given (such as 'smoking is harmful for x, y and z reasons') and that Message is not heeded by its target demographic (young women, say, continue to smoke). Frequently, someone will say "we just aren't getting our Message across" - as if the Message itself is irresistable, and the disappointing results merely reflect difficulties in disseminating the Message, or delivering it forcefully enough. Much more rarely is discussed the possibility that the Message has been received and understood - but the target demographic chooses to ignore it.

There are probably several linked lines of discussion here, and I'll do my best to tease them out:

1) To what extent does education influence behaviour?

2) Can education, as a tool for changing minds, ever approach the near-mythical LeapTopian EDUCATION (ie. wide-ranging doctrine capable of producing attitudinal/behavioural changes in an entire population) in effectiveness?

3) How would one go about enacting EDUCATION?
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:35 / 27.04.03
To some extent it is a delusion we all suffer from. That if another person can only be made to understand the strength of our position, they will see the inescapable truth of it. But people are more diverse than that and it takes a little maturity to realise that one's conviction need not be shared by others, not matter how strong.

Having said that, I *think* that there is good evidence of familiarity breeding tolerance. That is, empathy toward another group is greatly enhanced if one has contact with that group. Demonisation and hate are much easier to maintain when accompanied by ignorance.

Of course, there are those who argue, sometimes convincingly, that many of us are subject to a process of education that is really propoganda. The radical left certainly see the manipulation of the media (actually, it is more complex than that) and even the structure of formal education as a way of breeding compliance. Compliance, that is, in a system that is not to the benefit of the majority.

Thats a bit of a side road, of course, and one may or may not agree with it. But it does provide an example of what some consider effective propoganda.

BTW: This is an interesting topic but I'm not really comfortable with the tone. Especially as it is directed against a new poster.
 
 
Leap
07:58 / 28.04.03
Ganesh –

I guess I'm thinking here about the language of 'public awareness' programmes, specifically the wording that is often used when a Message is given (such as 'smoking is harmful for x, y and z reasons') and that Message is not heeded by its target demographic (young women, say, continue to smoke). Frequently, someone will say "we just aren't getting our Message across" - as if the Message itself is irresistible, and the disappointing results merely reflect difficulties in disseminating the Message, or delivering it forcefully enough. Much more rarely is discussed the possibility that the Message has been received and understood - but the target demographic chooses to ignore it.

And far less rarely is mentioned that such a single shot message is just pissing in the rain when compared to the sheer mass of implicit and indeed explicit messages imbedded in the vast majority of mainstream media (which is why They Live! is not scary simply for the quality of the direction and acting!

1) To what extent does education influence behaviour?

We make choices based upon what we know/believe, usually directed by what is most consistent, most common, in our world. When we are usually directed primarily by the uncommon it is called being loopy! Reason is the way we typically deal with the world (reason is what allows us to be in harmony WITH the world – making responses that are contrary to reason into our norm usually renders us rock-jam at the bottom of the cliff (5 seconds after believing we could fly) – , and education is a significant part of what reason works from

2) Can education, as a tool for changing minds, ever approach the near-mythical LeapTopian EDUCATION (ie. wide-ranging doctrine capable of producing attitudinal/behavioural changes in an entire population) in effectiveness?

Entire population? When have I ever said that? I do not assume education is a panacea for sociopathy and psychopathy, but it is a sound measure to communicate with the majority of us! Or do you assume conversation and discussion is not able to change minds (in which case what are you doing here? Aural masturbation?)

As for “wide-ranging doctrine”, what do you mean by doctrine (and how would it differ from say, understanding that washing your hands before you prepare food is actually VERY sensible)?

3) How would one go about enacting EDUCATION?

It would need to fight against an established powerbase that is using heavy artillery in an argument where currently “EDUCATION” is a pea shooter – and so would need some kind of limited-term enforcement to cut through the crap already here.

Lurid –

To some extent it is a delusion we all suffer from. That if another person can only be made to understand the strength of our position, they will see the inescapable truth of it. But people are more diverse than that and it takes a little maturity to realise that one's conviction need not be shared by others, not matter how strong.

Conversation may well primarily be verbal group preening rather than a means of changing minds, but that does not change the fact that words can move nations (Nuremburg is a one example (!), music is another).


Of course, there are those who argue, sometimes convincingly, that many of us are subject to a process of education that is really propaganda. The radical left certainly see the manipulation of the media (actually, it is more complex than that) and even the structure of formal education as a way of breeding compliance. Compliance, that is, in a system that is not to the benefit of the majority.

Cattle ranching? You do not have to be “radical left” to understand that!

BTW: This is an interesting topic but I'm not really comfortable with the tone. Especially as it is directed against a new poster.

I do tend to agree here (being the “new poster” in question) but sadly I am finding Ganesh to practice this standard regardless of where I post.
 
 
Ganesh
09:15 / 28.04.03
(Okay. Once more without feeling.)

Lurid: Basically, I agree - particularly with your point regarding demonisation/stigmatisation being much easier to enact in ignorance of the individual or group being demonised/stigmatised. That would accord with the idea that experiential learning (actually coming in regular contact with the individual/group in question) is more likely to alter attitudes and behaviour than theoretical learning. Studies of stigma suggest, however, that there's always a danger that the stigmatising individual will reconcile his cognitive dissonance (eg. 'I hate gay people', 'X is gay', 'I like X') in ways that allow them to go on stigmatising the group in general (eg. 'I still hate gay people but X is an exception because...'). Running with the gay example, I guess the old 'visibility = death' argument is similar to what you're saying.

Formal education = propaganda? Hmm, it's certainly one of Grant Morrison's hobby-horses...

Leap: Well yes, we live in an age of multiple Messages, and those within mainstream media are very strong indeed. Some have, however, successfully embedded their own Messages ("single-shot" or otherwise) within mainstream media - 'The Tipping Point' mentions the extraordinary success of 'Sesame Street', which was originally conceived as a way to spread the 'infection' of literacy among children. Gladwell discusses ways and means of making a given Message 'sticky', as well as the most effective methods of ensuring it is widely disseminated. It can be done...

We make choices based upon what we know/believe, usually directed by what is most consistent, most common in our world... Reason is the way we typically deal with the world... and education is a significant part of what reason works from.

Yes and no. 'The Tipping Point' draws together the wealth of experimental psychology research showing that human behaviour is not as 'reason-directed' as we might believe, and the laws governing how we might act in a given situation are less predictable than you suggest. There's the Power of Context, for a start - the immense influence exerted by the situation, the number of people around, their responses, etc., etc. We also tend to apply our 'reason' unevenly, preferring to explain situations primarily in terms of human ability or error (the Fundamental Attribution Error).

The extent to which education influences reason? This is by no means clear - and would depend whether we include the likes of peer pressure, cultural context, etc. as 'education'.

Entire population? When have I ever said that? I do not... what are you doing here? Aural masturbation?

Mutual trollishness aside, my primary 'steal' here from LeapTopia is the concept of EDUCATION, which acquired a certain mystique within the 'Breeding Exam' thread by virtue of being used to explain away situations when human being were assumed to behave in a way many (myself included) believed unlikely - yet remaining largely undefined and thus amorphous. In this thread, I've appropriated the word as a sort of shorthand for the idea that there are certain "sound" (or, as Gladwell might put it, 'sticky') methods of influencing large numbers of the population - "the majority", even - in a certain direction, so that behaviour as well as attitude is changed. I'm interested in attempting to examine whether such mass-Messaging is indeed possible, how one might go about it, and what results one might expect to achieve.

Hand-washing is probably as good an example as any of a "single-shot" Message (Now Wash Your Hands) which has been well disseminated, is moderately 'sticky' and should, were we directed by reason, be observed by everyone. The linked summary suggests that, although 94% told a telephone surveyer that they always washed their hands after leaving the bathroom, independent obervations confirmed that only around 68% actually did. Psychopaths and sociopaths (largely the same beast) don't account for that big a discrepancy, so one might speculate the the Power of Context is playing a part (either in the decision whether or not to wash after peeing - am I in a hurry? - or the decision to be 100% truthful in a telephone poll - I want the person on the other end of the line to think I'm always clean).

Point being, human behaviour is not always governed by straightforward reason, even in situations where reason should apply. Which non-reason mechanisms are at play? Could these be harnessed by someone wanting to propagate a meme, a Message or EDUCATION?

It would need to fight against an established powerbase that is using heavy artillery in an argument where currently "EDUCATION" is a pea shooter - and so would need some kind of limited-term enforcement to cut through the crap already here.

See, I'm not sure if this refers specifically to Barbelith or, more generally, the "mainstream media" with its host of competing Messages. Assuming it's the latter, what qualities would EDUCATION (my definition, presumably) require in order to compete with those Messages in terms of fire-power? What do you mean by "limited-term enforcement" (making EDUCATIONAL Messages more 'sticky' somehow, or disseminating them more widely?) and how might it be enacted?
 
 
Leap
09:51 / 28.04.03
Ganesh -

It can be done...

A breakthrough!!!???!!!

We also tend to apply our 'reason' unevenly….

Agreed, but then I said that Reason is the way we typically deal with the world . I do not believe we are rational all the time, but we do tend to be MOSTLY rational beings (those of us who are not typically pull something along the lines of the rock-jam stunt [“I can flyyyyyyyyy [splat]”].

there are certain "sound" (or, as Gladwell might put it, 'sticky') methods of influencing large numbers of the population - "the majority", even - in a certain direction, so that behaviour as well as attitude is changed. I'm interested in attempting to examine whether such mass-Messaging is indeed possible, how one might go about it, and what results one might expect to achieve.

Hence my point about the wider media influences……I too am interested in this!

although 94% told a telephone surveyor that they always washed their hands after leaving the bathroom, independent observations confirmed that only around 68% actually did.

That is still a LARGE majority (not a simple 50.000000000000000001% one).

Psychopaths and sociopaths (largely the same beast) don't account for that big a discrepancy, so one might speculate the Power of Context is playing a part (either in the decision whether or not to wash after peeing - am I in a hurry? - or the decision to be 100% truthful in a telephone poll - I want the person on the other end of the line to think I'm always clean).

Agreed.

Point being, human behaviour is not always governed by straightforward reason, even in situations where reason should apply. Which non-reason mechanisms are at play? Could these be harnessed by someone wanting to propagate a meme, a Message or EDUCATION?

I do not expect a ‘magic wand’ always obey response, just a large majority one (which your 68% handwashers above seems to bear out).

It would need to fight against an established powerbase that is using heavy artillery in an argument where currently "EDUCATION" is a pea shooter - and so would need some kind of limited-term enforcement to cut through the crap already here. [Leap]

See, I'm not sure if this refers specifically to Barbelith or, more generally, the "mainstream media" with its host of competing Messages.

Sorry, I was not clear here. I meant the latter (general media) rather than Barb in particular.

Assuming it's the latter, what qualities would EDUCATION (my definition, presumably) require in order to compete with those Messages in terms of fire-power? What do you mean by "limited-term enforcement" (making EDUCATIONAL Messages more 'sticky' somehow, or disseminating them more widely?) and how might it be enacted?

By limited term enforcement I mean limitations to advertisements and media images (yup, censorship – and yes that idea does not sit well with me either, but when you have 10,000 people shouting for one thing, how are 1000 people to get heard: freedom of speech is about respecting both sides of the argument (something the modern media most certainly does NOT do) hence the need for censorship to shut one side up long enough for others to have say) already portrayed combined with a simultaneous release of the message ‘one’ would seek to release. Adbusters in Canada already do something like this, and a bit of the anti-capitalist movement (those who are not simply rebellious middle-class quasi-lefties who are filling a gap year before uni and a job in the city) are similarly involved, but neither have a wide enough reach given the sheer “shock and awe” approach of the counter arguments………….
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:09 / 28.04.03
I think that this is interesting,

Agreed, but then I said that Reason is the way we typically deal with the world . I do not believe we are rational all the time, but we do tend to be MOSTLY rational beings (those of us who are not typically pull something along the lines of the rock-jam stunt [“I can flyyyyyyyyy [splat]”]. - leap

because it turns "Reason" into some kind of universal arbiter. I think this has some validity, of course, but if we are dealing with complex social issues I would submit that the rationality of humanity will not settle issues as easily as one might like. For instance, myself and leap have almost opposed views on a preferred organisation of society. But which of us lacks "Reason"?

Similarly, here

freedom of speech is about respecting both sides of the argument (something the modern media most certainly does NOT do) hence the need for censorship to shut one side up long enough for others to have say)

where there seems to be an implicit assumption that there are two sides to a debate, rather than hundreds or thousands. Its not as if this isn't a good point, just that it is much more complex in practice than presented.

Formal education = propaganda? Hmm, it's certainly one of Grant Morrison's hobby-horses... - Ganesh

Well, I'm not too sure how much I buy that myself, especially given that I have a good deal of "propoganda" under my belt. I think, again, there is some validity to this idea but one can't be simplistic about it. Disagreeing with Grant Morrison wouldn't be enough to demonstrate indoctrination, for instance.

The hand washing stuff is interesting, but the issue can get much murkier if we deal with messages that are politically motivated. Drugs campaigning springs to mind as a health message that is reagarded by many as primarily political, despite the adverse effects of drugs.
 
 
Leap
10:58 / 28.04.03
Lurid -

I think this has some validity, of course, but if we are dealing with complex social issues I would submit that the rationality of humanity will not settle issues as easily as one might like. For instance, myself and leap have almost opposed views on a preferred organisation of society. But which of us lacks "Reason"?

I never said it was easy, just that it was probable (based on the general understanding that we are essentially rational creatures with irrational sides, rather than the opposite (which typically leads to a high speed collision with reality!).

where there seems to be an implicit assumption that there are two sides to a debate, rather than hundreds or thousands. Its not as if this isn't a good point, just that it is much more complex in practice than presented.

Most arguments have two sides to start with; for, and against. It is only after you have set the field of 'proposed' and 'opposed' that you can bring in the multitude of factors. Anything else tends to decay into either chaos or totalitariansism.

Drugs campaigning springs to mind as a health message that is reagarded by many as primarily political, despite the adverse effects of drugs.

Drugs campainging suffers from the problems of alcohol and tobacco; categorising all narcotics into two categories (legal and taxed vrs illegal and untaxed) instead of allowing three basic categories....'not overly harmful in moderation' (alcohol, tobacco, hash, caffiene, sugar), unsure but not recommended so take at your own risk but seriously beware (acid, e, speed) and the 'seriously bad shit that will fuck you up as soon as look at you' (Heroine, crack).

It is more the quality of the argument that makes people ignore narcotics warnings than any unreceptivity to argument within people inherently.
 
 
Ganesh
12:05 / 28.04.03
Leap:

A breakthrough!!!???!!!

Hardly. I'm not saying EDUCATION is possible on the scale it would appear to be necessary within your posited societal structure in the 'Breeding Exam' thread (vast population majorities would require 'rewiring' to behave in a certain way in order to sustain certain aspects) but the 'Sesame Street' experience would seem to suggest that it is possible to change the behaviour of large swathes of people given the right methods.

I said that Reason is the way we typically deal with the world. I do not believe we are rational all the time, but we tend to be MOSTLY rational beings (those of us who are not typically pull something along the lines of the rock-jam stunt.)

There's some validity to this, but your example is an extreme one which is, despite your second use of "typically", rarely seen (in over a decade of psychiatry in three UK cities, I've yet to hear, let alone see, a real-life case of a deluded individual injuring themselves attempting to fly). In our daily lives, we are faced with a multitude of much, much more subtle, complex decisions than whether or not to 'fly' off a cliff - and if we examined those decisions more closely, I'm not at all sure we could necessarily claim that the majority were motivated primarily by 'reason'.

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, of course, but in that too we are perhaps subject to the Fundamental Attribution Error. Another fascinating 'Tipping Point' example concerned a study of cheating in a wide age-range of children, in a variety of situations. The results were counterintuitive: basically, it was found that there was little or no predictable pattern to who would and wouldn't cheat, in which situations. Some children cheated on Arithmetic but not Spelling, some cheated at home but not at school, some at school but not at home, some here, some there. Cheating appeared to be very much a context-specific behaviour rather than a dispositional one.

That is still a large majority.

Sure, but that's not particularly the point(s) I was making. One might query why, with 'Now Wash Your Hands' such a ubiquitous, 'sticky' Message, 100% of people weren't washing their hands. One might also ask why 38% apparently lied in the telephone survey - and consider what this tells us about telephone surveys, the Power of Context and the reliability of majorities in general...

I did not expect a 'magic wand'... just a large majority one.

I didn't say you did. I made (and continue to make) the point that large majorities are not self-evident or a given, and the means of persuading or EDUCATING them in a particular field are not predictable. In the case of the 68% (truthful) handwashers, one might well assume that the Message has been successful: unfortunately, however, without a recorded baseline, it's difficult to establish that any behavioural change has taken place. It's also apparent that what works in a handwashing campaign will not necessarily work in any other EDUCATIONAL enterprise; the method must be adapted to the Message, and the rules which govern this are not automatically 'rational', 'reasonable' or predictable ones.

Mmm, censorship... Like Lurid, I'm not sure how this would work. Quite apart from there generally being many more 'sides' to an issue than two, it's difficult to see exactly how one would seek to drown out the cacophony of competing Messages (and we're not talking media alone here, but also those behavioural Messages which pass laterally through peer-groups...) for long enough that one particular angle be heard. Studies of persuasion would also suggest that this would diminish the credibility (and/or 'stickiness') of the view.


Lurid:

Well, no, the Grant Morrison reference was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I've relatively few complaints about my own education, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?

I think you're probably right about drugs campaigning...


Leap:

Most arguments have two sides to start with; for, and against. It is only after you have set the field of 'proposed' and 'opposed' that you can bring in the multitude of factors. Anything else tends to decay into either chaos or totalitarianism.

This hasn't been my experience at all. I'd be keen to see some evidence for this viewpoint.

'Not overly harmful in moderation' (alcohol, tobacco, hash, caffeine, sugar)

'Not overly harmful in moderation' is the sort of thing doctors say when we haven't a clue and we want to hedge our bets - and then hope we're not asked "what d'you mean by 'overly harmful', doctor?" or "what's 'moderation'?" Essentially, this is a rather meaningless statement.

It is more the quality of your argument that makes people ignore narcotics warnings than any unreceptivity to argument within people inherently.

Again, could you evidence this, please? There's a growing body of scientific thought which suggests that, where drug use is concerned - particularly heavy drug use, precisely the opposite applies...
 
 
Leap
12:40 / 28.04.03
Ganesh -

I'm not at all sure we could necessarily claim that the majority were motivated primarily by 'reason'.

Reason dictates that we live the majority of our life on what is most probable based upon our education. Most of us do this, more or less. Those who do not tend to frequent Conspiracy Theory boards

In the “car accident” example (through your FAE link) how much of the generality of this comes from media influence? Is it the same in pre-media society, or would such people tend to have a more realistic picture of the world than that supplied by our Soma-vision media system?

In the case of the 68% (truthful) handwashers, one might well assume that the Message has been successful: unfortunately, however, without a recorded baseline, it's difficult to establish that any behavioural change has taken place.

It shows that either a change took place or a commonly held knowledge existed before hand. Or are you doubting that people can change their minds? I am unsure as to you point here…. Do you deny the value of education or indeed of the possibility of people learning, or are you simply throwing your hands up and saying “It’s all too difficult”?

Mmm, censorship... Like Lurid, I'm not sure how this would work. Quite apart from there generally being many more 'sides' to an issue than two, it's difficult to see exactly how one would seek to drown out the cacophony of competing Messages (and we're not talking media alone here, but also those behavioural Messages which pass laterally through peer-groups...) for long enough that one particular angle be heard. Studies of persuasion would also suggest that this would diminish the credibility (and/or 'stickiness') of the view.

Right now we essentially have totalitarianism through the media; the first move towards freedom would be an opposition movement that could shut them up long enough for everyone else to have a say………..

This hasn't been my experience at all. I'd be keen to see some evidence for this viewpoint.

You need evidence to point out to you that arguments form usually from two conflicting opinions which then allow space for other slight disagreements to arise? Are you the same Ganesh I have been bitch fighting with over on “breeding exam” for the last few days??????

'Not overly harmful in moderation' is the sort of thing doctors say when we haven't a clue and we want to hedge our bets - and then hope we're not asked "what d'you mean by 'overly harmful', doctor?" or "what's 'moderation'?" Essentially, this is a rather meaningless statement.

Nope, it simply reflects the generally slightly fuzzy nature of human life! Moderation is something that is not overly harmful. Yup, “not overly”; another vague term……but as we are all slightly different we all need to understand that whereas if I drink 4 pints of HSB I can barely stand up a somewhat larger friend of mine can drink 6 before falling over (lightweights that we are)

If you want Hard Rules I suggest you return to your role-playing games…….

Again, could you evidence this, please? There's a growing body of scientific thought which suggests that, where drug use is concerned - particularly heavy drug use, precisely the opposite applies...

I was assuming we were talking “before the fact” as far as usage had gone……..although social / environmental influences have a major impact as well………..
 
 
Ganesh
14:32 / 28.04.03
Reason dictates that we live the majority of our life on what is most probable based on our education.

No. That's what we intuitively believe forms the basis of our life decisions. It seems self-evident, yeah? When social psychologists actually test out these sorts of 'self-evident' beliefs, our behaviour is found to be motivated by a much more complex network of factual knowledge, belief, habit, superstition, peer pressure and, of course, the omnipresent Power of Context.

Most of us do this, more or less.

Again, this is not self-evident. Please substantiate your statement.

Those who do not tend to frequent Conspiracy Theory boards

Yeah, smiley, etc. but again you're creating a false dichotomy between the rational (the "majority", you tell us) and the irrational (conspiracy theorists). This is misleading. The everyday actions of 'normal' human beings are much less straightforwardly reason-based than you suggest here.

In the "car accident" example, how much of the generality of this comes from media influence? Is it the same in pre-media society, or would such people tend to have a more realistic picture of the world...?

I have no idea. It doesn't seem especially media-influenced (and I can't quite see how the media would go about creating FAE) but, not having experience of "pre-media" societies, it's rather hard to say. The 'Tipping Point' example describes crowds watching basketball games in two separate gymnasiums ('gymnasia'?), one well-lit and one poorly-lit. They're then asked to rate the skills of the players. The players in the poorly-lit setting will always be rated as less skilled than their counterparts, as we tend to underestimate the importance of setting.

It shows that.... blah blah... saying "it's all too difficult"?

My point here is not a particularly complex one. I'm pointing out the flaw in this particular example: if one does not have an accurate baseline of how many individuals handwashed before the Message ('Now Wash Your Hands') was disseminated, one cannot assess the effect that message has had on their handwashing behaviour, and therefore cannot definitively prove "the value of education" in this instance. Simple as that.

Of course, proving the value of education was very probably not the object of this particular study. If it were, they'd doubtless have measured the baseline first (the number of people who handwashed anyway, because their mother taught them to do so when they were kids, or whatever) and they may well have proved that 'X educational approach produces Y% change'.

Right now we have totalitarianism through the media; the first move towards freedom would be an opposition movement that could shut them up long enough for everyone else to have a say.

Besides the obvious logistic and credibility problems, this is a whole other can of worms which I'm reluctant to open at present. Perhaps someone else would like to start a 'Shutting up the media' thread?

You need evidence to point out to you that arguments form usually from two conflicting opinions which then allow space for other slight disagreements to arise?

Yes, I expect you to substantiate statements which you present as self-evident, particularly if they include this sort of polar view. You're saying "conflicting" now rather than "sides", which is a slight improvement. Using the 'Breeding Exam' thread as an example, your comments were generally followed by individuals saying "yes, but I don't agree with this bit" and "yes, but I don't agree with this other, different bit" and so on. Issues do not always bisect neatly into 'for' and 'against' camps.

Moderation is something that is not overly harmful.

Thanks, Doctor, but how are we choosing to quantify 'harm' here - harm to oneself, others, property, livelihood, etc.? How much alcohol is "not overly harmful"? Is harm measurable purely in terms of whether or not one falls over? Cigarettes rarely make me fall over, etc., etc. It's all very well to say everything's subjective and reflects the "slightly fuzzy nature of human life" but if one is proposing something as wide-reaching as reform of the drug laws, then one really has to have a firmer evidence base than 'hey, everybody's different, moderation's whatever's right for you'.

I was assuming we were talking "before the fact" as far as usage had gone.

I was talking "before the fact". Yes, social and environmental messages are important (particularly immediate peer-group setting) but personality factors are now thought to play a much bigger part than previously - with the importance of "unreceptivity to argument" being particularly well-documented in the case of cigarette-smoking.

Basically, I'm suggesting that those "majority" truths that appear, to you, to be obvious, self-evident and beyond any requirement for substantiation are often not so at all - and what seems intuitive generally merits further testing. This is one of the central principles of 'The Tipping Point' and one which I strongly suspect underlies much educational theory.
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:51 / 28.04.03
You need evidence to point out to you that arguments form usually from two conflicting opinions which then allow space for other slight disagreements to arise? - leap

Hardly, as it is blatantly false, in my experience. People have different takes on issues that can often dissect it in practically incommensurable ways.

This is why the talk about rationality is a red herring. Its not like I'm an opponent to rationality, quite the opposite, but these continued stark dichotmies give it a bad name.

Basically, I'm suggesting that those "majority" truths that appear, to you, to be obvious, self-evident and beyond any requirement for substantiation are often not so at all - and what seems intuitive generally merits further testing. This is one of the central principles of 'The Tipping Point' and one which I strongly suspect underlies much educational theory. - Ganesh

I have wondered about this myself. By the time I get students, they tend to be shockingly passive. Almost as if the process of education requires a largely compliant audience. The hardest job I have is trying to teach some degree of scepticism, a semblance of a critical faculty. Of course, the contradiction is that I say that while at the same time require the mastery of a certain body of material. Its a quandry.
 
 
Ganesh
15:10 / 28.04.03
Lurid:

By the time I get students, they tend to be shockingly passive. Almost as if the process of education requires a largely compliant audience.

Interesting, but not exactly what I was getting at. I guess I probably should've said 'learning theory' rather than 'educational theory'. I was trying to articulate the fact that the most effective teaching methods (and both my parents were teachers, so I grew up hearing this stuff discussed endlessly) hinge on things like 'stickiness' and lateral thinking, rather than assuming that Knowledge is assimilated in a straightforward manner (education, or even EDUCATION) and is transformed by Reason into Behaviour. The most effective teaching methods look at why X method of presentation is 'stickier' than Y, or why kids seem more influenced by this than that. Etc.

I'd certainly agree that the consumption of very large amounts of data probably demands a degree of at least tacit compliance. More specifically, to what extent 'compliant' learning actually affects one's behaviour is another question altogether.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:27 / 28.04.03
I'm not entirely clear about what "stickiness" is. The property of knowledge and ideas to be more easily retained? Hmmm.

the most effective teaching methods ... hinge on things like 'stickiness' and lateral thinking

So my experience of the kind of education we are talking about is rather limited, but I wonder how much this idea is dependent on the knowledge being imparted? I seem to remember reading about the rediscovered efficiency of rote learning in some contexts - multiplication tables, for instance. Then again, there are also studies that indicate arithmetical ability improves if questions have some relevance for the students. Im not sure if that relates to the point you were making.
 
 
Ganesh
15:33 / 28.04.03
'Stickiness' is basically the degree to which a given piece of information, Message, meme is attractive/memorable. I'll try to find some stuff on it...

And yeah, repetition works well, particularly with very young children - hence the popularity of repeated segments on the likes of 'Teletubbies'.
 
 
Leap
16:59 / 28.04.03
Ganesh –

The players in the poorly-lit setting will always be rated as less skilled than their counterparts, as we tend to underestimate the importance of setting.

Your point being what? That we often miss some variable? Is this a factor of the modern world (where we are largely policed / protected and as such vigilance is not particularly well encouraged) or have you perhaps missed that environmental factor?

Of course, proving the value of education was very probably not the object of this particular study. If it were, they'd doubtless have measured the baseline first (the number of people who handwashed anyway, because their mother taught them to do so when they were kids, or whatever) and they may well have proved that 'X educational approach produces Y% change'

So perhaps it is not quite so good an example (in terms of data, not content).

Besides the obvious logistic and credibility problems, this is a whole other can of worms which I'm reluctant to open at present. Perhaps someone else would like to start a 'Shutting up the media' thread?

I have heard of it referred to as “the power-cut phenomenon”, but am unsure where…………

Issues do not always bisect neatly into 'for' and 'against' camps.

No, but arguments usually begin with one person / group saying “I/We disagree”.

It's all very well to say everything's subjective and reflects the "slightly fuzzy nature of human life" but if one is proposing something as wide-reaching as reform of the drug laws, then one really has to have a firmer evidence base than 'hey, everybody's different, moderation's whatever's right for you'.

Yup, you use historical precedent as a basis to decide (what have other people done before, and what was the effect on people most like you).

Why do you insist on institutionalising normal human processes?

Yes, social and environmental messages are important (particularly immediate peer-group setting) but personality factors are now thought to play a much bigger part than previously - with the importance of "unreceptivity to argument" being particularly well-documented in the case of cigarette-smoking.

You mean factors of an “addictive personality”? I have so often seen such nonsense paraded in support of genetic superiority theory (most notably the effect of alcohol on native Americans) that I do not have a great deal of respect for it – it appears to suggest a “hardwire” (nature) blame for what is often a “software” (nurture) problem with society………… Modern society tends to dehumanise, leading to increases in depression and addictions; to call that addictive personality syndrome is not dealing with the problem (and is oh so often an excuse for the Ritalin doctor to visit).

Lurid –

People have different takes on issues that can often dissect it in practically incommensurable ways.

Sorry, it was not my intention to limit an argument to two sides. My mistake, I was simply seeking to simplify matters rather than mislead.
 
 
Ganesh
18:10 / 28.04.03
Leap:

Your point being what? That we often miss some variable?

My point being that, when attributing the causes of human phenomena, we almost always miss the same variable, the situational elements, while overestimating the dispositional. It's one example of the Power of Context (it's the same group of basketball players but we judge them as less skilled in one setting because we consistently miss the situational variable) and it's just one example of the errors we make when we claim things are self-evident. The Power of Context also has clear implications for judging the "worthiness" of others based on our perception of their actions.

Is this a factor of the modern world...?

Again, not having existed in the ancient world, it's rather difficult to say with any great degree of authority. I doubt it's a case of failing to be "vigilant", however, it's a fairly widespread way of relating to the world: as humans, we explain things in human terms.

So perhaps it's not a good example (in terms of data, not content).

It's not a good example of the "value of education", no, but luckily (as I've now explained three times) that wasn't actually the point I was making. I used the handwashing statistics as an example of the influence of Context over one's self-reported 'reasoning' (the discrepancy between what individuals say they do and what they actually do in situ).

Yup, you use historical precedent as a basis to decide (what have other people done before, and what was the effect on people most like you).

So... by measuring, quantifying and averaging as wide a range of "historical precedents" (ie. research database) as possible, one can estimate much more accurately than "not overly" or "moderation". I can, anyway - but then, I have access to "elite" knowledge. We return to my original question: how does one go about bringing sufficient knowledge to all in a sufficiently 'sticky' way to influence their behaviour? How do we make EDUCATION work?

Why do you insist on institutionalising normal human processes.

I don't think I do. Why do you insist on aligning yourself with "normal", "vast majority", "regular folks", etc., etc. when you are apparently unable to give any indication that you know what these terms mean, let alone provide any substantiation to your claims?

You mean factors of an "addictive personality"?

Amongst other aspects, yes. This is a pretty sizeable field, though, with many disparate theories...

I have often seen such nonsense paraded in support of genetic superiority theory (most notably the effect of alcohol on native Americans) that I do not have a great deal of respect for it

The 'causes' to which data are attached do not invalidate the data. The fact that genetics has been quoted by racists and supremacists does not make genetics "nonsense", however much respect you, personally, do or don't afford it. Your 'nature/nurture' summary grossly oversimplifies the influence of personality on addictive behaviour.

This, however, is probably another discussion for another thread.

Modern society tends to dehumanise, leading to increases in depression and addictions

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I'd like to see your evidence - or is this another sweeping statement based on... personal opinion alone?

to call that addictive personality syndrome is not dealing with the problem (and is oh so often an excuse for the Ritalin doctor to visit)

a) I have not yet used the term "addictive personality syndrome" or even "addictive personality"; you have.

b) Ritalin is used in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, not addiction. Again, another issue for another thread.
 
 
Leap
18:37 / 28.04.03
Ganesh –

My point being that, when attributing the causes of human phenomena, we almost always miss the same variable, the situational elements, while overestimating the dispositional.

Perhaps because in the modern world we come to be habituated to the excessively unchanging nature of our environment? As someone who practices woodlore as a hobby I can say that generally such “blame culture” does not tend to exist amongst people who have a greater experience of a slightly more ‘chaotic’ environment.

Again, not having existed in the ancient world, it's rather difficult to say with any great degree of authority.

You do not need to have lived in the past; cross-cultural studies of very low tech cultures present today would give a good example……….

So... by measuring, quantifying and averaging ……

Erm, no. You just need to ask older generations and listen to traditions and stories………….

We return to my original question: how does one go about bringing sufficient knowledge to all in a sufficiently 'sticky' way to influence their behaviour? How do we make EDUCATION work?

Good question. By putting forward a good argument, gradually taking away ‘crutches’ and using occasional enforcement/rewards………kind of like…..erm……wassit called……oh yeah; Teaching!

Why do you insist on aligning yourself with "normal", "vast majority", "regular folks", etc., etc. when you are apparently unable to give any indication that you know what these terms mean, let alone provide any substantiation to your claims?

Personal experience, a degree in cultural studies, a partial post-grad qualification in similar and a job that involves meeting with people and discussing the effects of environmental change on them………most folks are not “sheeple” by choice, but are often straining at the reigns (albeit often too scared to do anything because of fear of how to get our of a system that leaves them brutalised at the hands of institutions.

Your 'nature/nurture' summary grossly oversimplifies the influence of personality on addictive behaviour.

I take personality to be a matter of both nature and nurture; most “addictive personality” theorists I have come across usually come down more in favour of nature (saying a lot of people are born highly prone to addiction (usually followed by an offer of a drug courtesy of which ever pharma-corp are sponsoring them)).

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I'd like to see your evidence - or is this another sweeping statement based on... personal opinion alone?

Personal experience, not opinion, but my data here is mostly informal media sources (I remember the beeb running something on it a while back) rather than medical texts.

a) I have not yet used the term "addictive personality syndrome" or even "addictive personality"; you have.

b) Ritalin is used in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, not addiction. Again, another issue for another thread.

a) the accusation was not aimed at you

b) I am well aware of Ritalin’s use; I was using it as a readily accessible example of the “it’s a genetic problem” brigade’s usual answer to things.
 
 
Ganesh
19:03 / 28.04.03
Perhaps because in the modern world we come to be habituated to the excessively unchanging nature of our environment?

I doubt it, but it's possible.

As someone who practices woodlore as a hobby I can say that generally such "blame culture" does not tend to exist among people who have a greater experience of a slightly more 'chaotic' environment.

Ahhh, you're confusing the Fundamental Attribution Error with "blame culture". The two are not at all the same thing. The onlookers are not "blaming" the basketball players, and I'm sure they're not totally 'missing' the fact that one gymnasium is better-lit than the other. It's just that, when they're asked to quantify the skill level of the respective teams, they rate one lot as lower - whether they've noticed the lower light levels or not.

Attribution Theory has been widely tested - but yes, it's a good excuse to dig out the Social Psychology textbooks and check exactly which cross-cultural contexts have been studied.

Erm, no, you just need to listen to older generations and listen to traditions and stories.

"So, Doctor, how many cigarettes can I safely smoke 'in moderation' without harming myself?"

"Go and listen to older generations and listen to traditions and stories."

... oh yeah; Teaching!

Disingenuously simplistic. Many "good arguments" have been ignored, despite rewards, blah blah blah. What differentiates effective teaching (or TEACHING, perhaps) from ineffective teaching? Which methods will alter behaviour and which won't?

"Sheeple", etc.

So substantiate your claims! If you expect people to believe you when you make a sweeping statement, back it up! Without any sort of objective evidence, you have nothing more than a load of largely uninformed personal opinion. Fine for you but unconvincing for everyone else - no matter how 'self-evident' you claim your generalisations are.

most "addictive personality" theorists I have come across

Again, your experience of those espousing a theory has little bearing on whether or not that theory is valid.
 
 
Leap
20:24 / 28.04.03
And that of course is why witnes testimony carries so little weight in a court of law............
 
 
Ganesh
20:29 / 28.04.03
Quite - but of little relevance to the discussion at hand.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:41 / 28.04.03
Can I just give Ganesh a hug for using the exclamation mark correctly?

Quick study - the exclamation mark exists to deliver emphasis. Thus, in imperatives: "Kill him!"

Likewise in the iussive subjunctive: "Let him explain this!"

Likewise if one wishes to express that the character in direct speech is shouting: "I never did!".

Those who have received EDUCATION will by now realise that, outside gossip columns, fourth grade and DC Thompson, the application of multiple exclamation points after a question mark is wince-making and a sign of poor EDUCATION...
 
 
Leap
07:35 / 29.04.03
Or is complaining about it simply a sign of snobbery?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:42 / 29.04.03
Ah, but I'm not complaining. Merely observing, from my position of EDUCATION, that it is unwise and unpleasant. There's no complaint there, just a healthy competence. Surely you have faith in your fellow man's EDUCATION to make these sort of judgement calls?
 
 
Quantum
10:13 / 29.04.03
on thread, how does education (in this context and this specific sense of the word as mass mind control, meme infection etc.) relate to Advertising?
The Ad industry has been consistently implementing behavioural and attitudinal change in a massive majority of the population for at least fifty years and is getting more effective by the day. Their methodology could be used to spread any message if you accepted the ethical problems that go with it- be it dignity, washing your hands, etc.
The main reason (for example) women don't listen to the anti smoking ads is because the smoking ads are much better funded and thought out. It's a battle for your mind out there people, and reason plays only a tiny part in it. Heard of subliminal advertising? so effective they made it illegal? How does reason come into a technique that manipulates your subconscious?
 
 
Quantum
10:18 / 29.04.03
...also the FAE is universal, everybody does it. Interestingly, you attribute error more readily on a scale from self (it wasn't my fault), friends/family (I know them, it wasn't their fault), tribe/community (she's a christian, it wasn't her fault), nation, race, species... So a stranger who is very different to you is much more likely to be blamed by you for something that may or may not be their fault.
 
 
Ganesh
20:07 / 29.04.03
Yep, I expect even EDUCATED fleas do it. And "woodlore" types.

I agree, Quantum, that advertisers have made very particular use of psychological principles in targetting their messages. I don't know that degree of funding is necessarily the primary issue, though; I can think of plenty of 'cheap' adverts that 'stuck' like glue, and no-expense-spared campaigns which slid over my consciousness making almost no impact at all. 'The Tipping Point' maintains that throwing a lot of money at a particular task isn't necessarily the best way of achieving one's ends; 'stickiness' depends on other factors.
 
 
Leap
06:27 / 30.04.03
Surely you have faith in your fellow man's EDUCATION to make these sort of judgement calls?

I have faith in MOST of my fellow human beings' ability to "make these sort of judgement calls"; I have never claimed universality on this issue.

Re: the FAE

Does it generally work though, or does it generally lead to fallacious supposition?
 
 
Ganesh
07:54 / 30.04.03
If you mean 'does it lead to inaccurate perception of objective reality, then yes, that's where the 'error' part comes in.

Attribution Theory 101: it's primarily concerned with how, as human beings, we perceive other human beings - and how we judge the causes of others' behaviour. There is a general tendency to attempt to reduce the wide variability apparent in behaviour to a smaller range of stable causes. These can be broadly categorised as either:

Internal: attributed to the stable characteristics of a person (a dispositional attribution)

or

External: attributed to stable characteristics of the environment (a situational attribution)

Observers of variable behaviour perform an unconscious attribution analysis that delivers conclusions about an actor's invariant behaviour (ie. judging a person by what we observe of their actions). There are several widespread, well-recognised types of bias inherent in these unconscious judgments:

The Fundamental Attribution Error which I've already described. Interestingly, there are cross-cultural differences in the extent to which FAE is employed: it tends to be much more a feature of individualistic than collectivistic cultures.

The Actor-Observer Bias - people tend to make more dispositional attributions for other people's behaviour compared with their own (eg. we're more likely to describe our own lateness in terms of situational attributions, "the bus didn't arrive on time", and other people's lateness in terms of dispositional ones, "he's a lazy, disorganised person"). Observers are far more likely than actors (ie. those involved in the action) to make the FAE.

Self-Serving Bias - the tendency to make external attributions (ie. blame the external situation) for one's failures, yet make internal attributions (ie. take personal credit) for one's successes. Reversed in many instances of depression, leading to an opposite bias in self-reporting.

It's an interesting field that does tend to give the lie to the claim that judging someone by observing their behaviour is a simple, transparent process. Judging someone by their reported behaviour throws in even more biases.
 
 
Quantum
09:53 / 30.04.03
(the FAE) "..tends to be much more a feature of individualistic than collectivistic cultures."
Blame cultures You're right about the funding, it's not necessarily proportional to the success- but it struck me that the EDUCATION you're talking about is achievable, if you are willing to resort to sublimninal messaging, mind control etc. These techniques are inherently contrary to Leapworld's ethos so how is it possible to reconcile the freedom that is central to Leapworld with the EDUCATION that will teach them to behave a certain way (which constrains their freedom)?
Leap- (re FAE) this is just one of many biases people display cross culturally always have, probably always will. With so much subjective bias how can you expect even one person, never mind a small community (in which bias and opinion reinforce each other) to accurately judge a person? In terms of worthiness, ability, guilt etc?
 
 
Leap
09:54 / 30.04.03
Which does not seem to consider the environmental variables that:

i. People are more likely to make rash decisions when their day to day life is hassled and encourages tight focus

ii. Modern city life is most certainly rushed and specialism-based compared to the country life

iii. Therefore you need to run a study of people living at a slower pace with more generalist behaviour to compare the two sides..........

I tend to expect FAE would prove to be more of a critique of city life than human judgement in general............
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:08 / 30.04.03
Interesting. Could we call that an example of Self Serving bias, even though it applies to arguments rather than personal success and failure? Also known as unfalsifiability in science terms?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:10 / 30.04.03
I doubt it very much - rural populations have been just as subject to group and individual misapprehensions as urban populations. In fact superstition regarding witchcraft, etc., lasted much longer in rural areas than in urban ones. In fact I'd guess it's probably easier for an individual (rather than a generalised group of people) to suffer from any of the biases Ganesh describes on the basis of the judgement of their community in a small, rural population. This is not the same as urban atomisation.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:11 / 30.04.03
That was addressed to Leap btw...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:16 / 30.04.03
Oh, and it seems to me that FAE is not about making rash decisions, and not about environmental conditions, but about the way people look at each other and to what people attribute their own actions and the actions of others; and that therefore it is equally valid when considering any form of social grouping. There's no a priori reasoning which makes it more of a factor in urban communities.
 
 
Leap
10:21 / 30.04.03
Except that the more rushed people are the worse they tend to respond to a situation (usually through excessive focus).....and the fact that rural folks tend to have a greater awareness of environmental impact (rural environment being typically less forgiving than the urban one - hence the way cities allow populations to rocket)?
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply