Ganesh –
Leap, Haus is not a fool. He may patronise, but he is not a fool.
So long as he acts the fool Ganesh, I will consider him one.
explore a specific concept from the 'Breeding Exam' thread - EDUCATION, the instilling of particular values and modes of behaviour in a large group of people, perhaps an entire population. I wanted to pick apart whether such wide-ranging changes were/are possible and, practically, how they might be achieved.
I would be grateful if we could all make a concerted effort to focus on these issues.
I can understand your preference of academic method Ganesh, but this is a public MB, not a peer reviewed journal, and although post-grad qualified (well, bloody nearly, I ran out of cash just prior to my Masters Thesis!) myself, I prefer a more accessible approach to discussion than the insufferably cliquey, typically snobbish, often autistic-biased (autism being often a matter of exceptional skill in one area, poor social skills and typically effects white males – all 3 of which criteria form the commonality in academia), one of academia.
My alternative is to speak from folk wisdom, personal experience, and to tell people to go out and actually look at the work rather than relying primarily on some “authority” to tell them something. A regards academic authority the maxim “lies, damn lies and statistics” is one best kept within reach at all times, given the typical un-worldly tight focus of most academics. The best test, is the test of time.
1) To what extent does education influence behaviour? As opposed to, say, parental input or peer-group mores?
Are you asking “to what extent do people act on what they have learned” or are you asking “how effective is the education process”? Are you also seeking a general (cross cultural) answer or one specific to modern western civilisation?
Given the proven ability of the human race to survive for at least the last 50,000 years I would say that education is in some way shown as highly effective in transmitting behaviour (given that i. We are here, and ii. humans are born largely ignorant and need to learn about their own nature and their environment).
2) Is it possible to (radically) influence the attitudes/behaviour of large groups of people via mass-EDUCATION?
The mass literacy drive in the last 100 years seems to imply that you can (reading is now a fantastically popular hobby).
3) How? What techniques might one use?
Teach them first about Reason: working from the most probable with acceptance of the possibility of less probable and the ignoring of the really not probable at all.
Teach them the whole basic argument, with reference to the real world that most people actually live in.
Lead by example, but do not separate yourself from ‘them’ too much or you will just be an oddball. If education is about taking people with you then you must not get too far ahead of them.
Using, primarily, a mixture of subtle reward and subtle punishment.
4) Is it morally justifiable to use 'underhand' EDUCATIONAL techniques? Under what circumstances? Why?
So long as at some later part of the education system they become aware of the “underhand techniques” and why they were used.
We (parents) often use this approach with children, using fairly subliminal tuition at times and then explaining later why it is necessary to use such techniques on children.
Many ethics approaches today are based upon both the tester and the subject being “equal”, but when teaching someone the relationship is not one of equals (although it should be one that is driven by the desire to make the ‘inferior’ the equal of the ‘superior’ (as opposed to one that intends to maintain this difference – which would be what I have referred to as ‘elitist’)).
Haus –
Have been answered, in the "Breeding exam" thread, among other places. They have not been answered in precisely those terms, because some people do not *think* in those terms, is all. But anyway, new thread for that.
Ha it occurred to you that the reason I have not addressed many “counter posts” is because many of those counter-posts fail to address the points I made in the first place. Perhaps if people are seeking to answer what I have posted they need to think* in those terms
So, back on topic, EDUCATION relies on the idea that it could not possibly be rejected.
No it relies on the idea that it would not probably be rejected. Bit of a difference that.
That is a Platonic view of the inviolability of the right lesson rightly taught, which goes against the evidence of history.
What evidence of history?
If you are able, a look at some of the philosophical presentations of education might be useful, since at the moment you are advancing counter-intuitive views and then claiming them as "common sense".
Please be so good as to address the views I have actually stated (rather than your “spun” versions of them - by all means in a new topic if need be) and explain how they are counter intuitive !
They clearly are not common, because nobody is accepting them commonly, so another justification is required, or a better justification of the idea of "common sense". That's not ivory-tower academics, it's...well, common sense, really.
This board has a majority of left-of-centre, intellectual [or at least pseudo-intellectual  ] posters, and I am offering a libertarian, folk wisdom, approach. OF COURSE nobody is accepting them commonly (here)! My “supporting evidence” is for people to actually go out into the real world and see what I have said, first hand.
Just saying. Oh, and you called Kit-Cat Club "childish" in the breeding exam thread, or more precisely said that her beliefs encouraged a childish lack of emancipation.
I called her (?) theory childish, which I suppose catches her in the blast, but we have generally been at least civil to each other. Would that others could manage such. |
