One of the greatest ways in which institutional education fails is in addressing the needs of unusually gifted students.
Several easy pieces of evidence:
Post-academic success rising with intelligence for a while, then peaks and falls.
Those of high IQ are actually underrepresented among Nobel Prize-winning scientists, who, on average, are merely at the low border of "highly gifted."
When those of very high intelligence are interviewed, the overwhelming reason becomes obvious. A large mismatch between ability and educational material causes future under performance.
The degree of mismatch depends upon the individual and the school. In some schools, a child with an IQ of 110 is far enough above the median that his needs will not be met. In others, a child with an IQ of 150 can be perfectly and fully accommodated and provided with a healthy ability-peer group.
Here, I am butchering the term "highly gifted," which generally means three standard deviations above the mean on an IQ test, to mean any child who is functioning at a level significantly above the average level of the educational institutions available to him. Why? It's shorter. So please bear with me.
Most of a school day, after Kindergarten, is ostensibly spent engaged in some sort of learning activity. A highly gifted child will be far enough beyond the level of his peers that he will not find any challenge in the material. In fact, much of the material will be not only trivial but familiar, gleaned from the child's life outside of the classroom.
As a result, the child will not learn how to study, how to master new material, how to take notes, how to tackle challenging ideas, how to work toward a goal, how to plan ahead, how to be consistent, or how to deal with difficulty and frustration. In fact, most frequently, even in "open-ended" assignments, any appearance of an unusual level of sophistication of thought is squashed by teachers who cannot even recognize it.
The child will not leave without some lessons, though. He will be instilled with a low threshold for frustration, a tendency to give up on anything requiring a commitment of work, a habit of perfectionism and underachievement, a refusal to risk failure, a terror of the unknown, and a complete inability to deal with intellectual challenge of any type. He becomes, in short, a lazy underachiever.
Does this sound like a future Nobel Prize winner to you?
Of course, school isn't just about academics. It's also about learning to get along with others. The highly gifted student learns a lot about others. He learns that they are stupid, that they make his classes boring, that they hold him back, that teamwork is a joke because means that he'll always have to do all the work since he always gets stuck with the dumb kids, that he will be hated for "breaking the curve" or being in any way exceptional, that he's a nerd, and that no one wants to play the games he wants to play or talk about the things he's interested in. He learns contempt. He learns impatience. He learns that he can use his intellect as a weapon to tear other people down.
Now we have an angry, bad-tempered lazy underachiever.
This is, unfortunately, the rule rather than the exception for kids who are markedly more intelligent than their group.
Good job, institutional school!
For many of these kids, it does not have to be this way. A simple self-contained gifted program from the youngest ages, with proper screening of all students, is sufficient to help a good portion of children who would otherwise be in the situation above. For more than 90% of the rest, a sensible combination of subject and grade skipping could create an appropriate environment.
But the very nature of institutional schools mean that there is a great resistance to these practical steps. They are "elitist." They are "anti-egalitarian."
Sure, they are. Just like letting kids wear shoes based on foot size, not age, is elitist and anti-egalitarian.
No, the real reason most schools oppose this kind of acceleration is that it breaks the rules. And it's true that institutional schools, when run badly, aren't really about education. They're not about socialization, either. They're about the rules.
How many times have you heard the statement that gifted kids need to "learn to be bored?"
Sure, they do. And they'll be bored like everyone else--on a long car trip, in line at the grocery store, waiting for their turn with a new toy. Why is it that administrators and teachers want us to believe that gifted kids should learn to be bored all the time? After all, an adult wouldn't stand for it. If he were bored at work all the time, he'd find a new job. Why should we put kids through something that no adult could be expected to stand for?
The reason is simple. The existence of highly gifted kids breaks the rules about what kids are supposed to be taught and when. And rule-breakers should be punished.
The typical institutional reaction to highly gifted kids, then, is punishment.
Think I'm overreacting? What is one supposed to do with a misbehaving child? Time out, of course. Boredom and isolation. It's the same, whether you have a pencil in your hand or not.
What does homeschool have to offer these kids?
First, in homeschool, a gifted kid--like any kid--can take each and every subject at his or her own level, whatever that may be. A perfectly average homeschooled kid might have a level-spread of three grades by middle school. A gifted kid might be doing algebra and first grade handwriting at the same time. There's nothing wrong with this. There is no magical need to make every class at the same level. An adult could be great at badminton and terrible in literature, but that doesn't keep him playing badminton with 9th graders. Neither should age and ability be synced in children.
Kids learn challenge. They learn to take risks. They learn to fail and to overcome failure. They have to think and even, yes, to take notes and to study. They learn success.
Just as important, the academic world and the social world become disconnected. The child never learns anger or resentment toward kids who don't happen to be as smart. He doesn't learn arrogance or contempt. Instead, he is free to approach each person on his or her own terms and to accept them as they are. The emotional minefield is gone, and instead, simple, open relationships can prevail.
But the child will have to give up have the virtue-building punishment of being bored six hours a day for thirteen years of his life.
Such a shame.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Everyone's entitled to his own opinion
One of the problems with institutional education today is that it encourages students to express their thoughts on topics about which they cannot possess enough information to form an educated opinion.
Properly, students will be taught that there are three types of informational statements that can be made:
Facts, which are direct evidence.
Opinions, which are derived from evidence through argumentation.
And tastes, which are simple statements of preference.
These three categories are different, and each bear different burdens of proof.
Facts must be demonstrably true, and if demonstrably true, they can not be agenda-laden, unto themselves. If a person presents facts that a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites or that English language proficiency is positively linked to income, these facts cannot be racist merely because they are unpleasant.
Opinions must be supported by facts and are subject to bias and agenda, which everyone posesses. "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should give African American families greater public assistance" is one opinion. Another is "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should encourage African American women to have more abortions."
Tastes don't have to be supported by anything at all, though they usually reflect opinions. "I think African American culture is nice" is a statement of taste.
But in modern textbooks, these distinctions are more often than not deliberately erased. The result is, with unintentional irony, called "critical thinking."
A typical assignment in a geography textbook might have a fluffy piece about, say, Inuit whaling or municipal solid waste facilities or biodiesel. It will be a topic fraught with complexity, often with many far-reaching cultural, historical, legal, economic, and/or scientific ramifications, which are crammed down into a chirpy little one-page essay that doesn't even begin to touch on the issues at stake.
Then the student is asked to write a paragraph or a paper about what they think on the topic.
This creates two simultaneous delusions:
First, it deludes students into thinking that an uniformed opinion is worth the paper it's written on. Today's students believe that they are entitled to have opinions on anything, just because they can, as a kind of inborn righ of free speech. They see no need to learn about something before drawing a conclusion about it.
These students--and ex-students, as adults--will write a diatribe on something that they will then turn around and admit that they know nothing about moments later. This does not shame them. They see no problem with making a statement in ignorance. They had an opinion that was sincerely held, and they expressed it, so they see nothing to be ashamed of.
Second, it prevents students from evaluating what information is needed to make a judgment. Not only are students perfectly comfortable with spouting the most comfortable opinion about any subject with no regard to gathering evidence, they also do not and cannot evaluate anyone else's opinion on the basis of their own research or the other person's support.
It gets more extreme, still. These students will actually get irritated, angry, even, at a demand for support for their opinions, nor will it occur to them to ask another person for evidence for their statements. If given evidence, they view it as equal to any other vague expression of opinion. When given a reasoned argument and asked to respond in kind, these students lash out emotionally or retreat in confusion.
They have been methodically trained to only feel, not think.
Opinions on very important matters, then, become no more than expressions of emotion in the students' minds. Therefore, these students can say, with a straight face, that no one can be right or wrong because the world is subjective. A disagreement with the consensus opinion of their peer group is a social assualt to them, not a statement of a rational argument. Facts that counter their position aren't persuasive but bigoted and hateful.
On the other hand, if you appeal to them emotionally, no evidence in the world can sway them from your cause. Reason has nothing in the world to do with it.
Properly, students will be taught that there are three types of informational statements that can be made:
Facts, which are direct evidence.
Opinions, which are derived from evidence through argumentation.
And tastes, which are simple statements of preference.
These three categories are different, and each bear different burdens of proof.
Facts must be demonstrably true, and if demonstrably true, they can not be agenda-laden, unto themselves. If a person presents facts that a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites or that English language proficiency is positively linked to income, these facts cannot be racist merely because they are unpleasant.
Opinions must be supported by facts and are subject to bias and agenda, which everyone posesses. "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should give African American families greater public assistance" is one opinion. Another is "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should encourage African American women to have more abortions."
Tastes don't have to be supported by anything at all, though they usually reflect opinions. "I think African American culture is nice" is a statement of taste.
But in modern textbooks, these distinctions are more often than not deliberately erased. The result is, with unintentional irony, called "critical thinking."
A typical assignment in a geography textbook might have a fluffy piece about, say, Inuit whaling or municipal solid waste facilities or biodiesel. It will be a topic fraught with complexity, often with many far-reaching cultural, historical, legal, economic, and/or scientific ramifications, which are crammed down into a chirpy little one-page essay that doesn't even begin to touch on the issues at stake.
Then the student is asked to write a paragraph or a paper about what they think on the topic.
This creates two simultaneous delusions:
First, it deludes students into thinking that an uniformed opinion is worth the paper it's written on. Today's students believe that they are entitled to have opinions on anything, just because they can, as a kind of inborn righ of free speech. They see no need to learn about something before drawing a conclusion about it.
These students--and ex-students, as adults--will write a diatribe on something that they will then turn around and admit that they know nothing about moments later. This does not shame them. They see no problem with making a statement in ignorance. They had an opinion that was sincerely held, and they expressed it, so they see nothing to be ashamed of.
Second, it prevents students from evaluating what information is needed to make a judgment. Not only are students perfectly comfortable with spouting the most comfortable opinion about any subject with no regard to gathering evidence, they also do not and cannot evaluate anyone else's opinion on the basis of their own research or the other person's support.
It gets more extreme, still. These students will actually get irritated, angry, even, at a demand for support for their opinions, nor will it occur to them to ask another person for evidence for their statements. If given evidence, they view it as equal to any other vague expression of opinion. When given a reasoned argument and asked to respond in kind, these students lash out emotionally or retreat in confusion.
They have been methodically trained to only feel, not think.
Opinions on very important matters, then, become no more than expressions of emotion in the students' minds. Therefore, these students can say, with a straight face, that no one can be right or wrong because the world is subjective. A disagreement with the consensus opinion of their peer group is a social assualt to them, not a statement of a rational argument. Facts that counter their position aren't persuasive but bigoted and hateful.
On the other hand, if you appeal to them emotionally, no evidence in the world can sway them from your cause. Reason has nothing in the world to do with it.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Overcoming, Learning Blog
When I was a child, I had a friend who lived next to Overcoming Learning Church. It clearly meant to be the Overcoming, Learning Church but had somehow never gotten that comma.
Sometimes, the smallest things can make the biggest difference.
Sadly, there are a lot of Jesse Scaccias out there. They are the product of a broken educational institution--what happens when a bright child's native curiosity or loving and learning-centric home are not enough to overcome the flaws of institutional education. Originally, this was meant to be a throw-away blog, to further expose Scaccia's hypocrisy and cowardice. But I've been thinking of how much more it could be.
The emperor, such as he was, never had more than a couple of souls who thought he might have some clothes. But the point here isn't to laugh at a naked man.
It's to look at educational systems--how they work and how they fail.
Sometimes, the smallest things can make the biggest difference.
Sadly, there are a lot of Jesse Scaccias out there. They are the product of a broken educational institution--what happens when a bright child's native curiosity or loving and learning-centric home are not enough to overcome the flaws of institutional education. Originally, this was meant to be a throw-away blog, to further expose Scaccia's hypocrisy and cowardice. But I've been thinking of how much more it could be.
The emperor, such as he was, never had more than a couple of souls who thought he might have some clothes. But the point here isn't to laugh at a naked man.
It's to look at educational systems--how they work and how they fail.
Teacher Revised is a Coward
http://teacherrevised.org/2009/06/01/not-to-invite-myself-over-or-anything/
Mimi here! Read this, if it posts in trackbacks, before Jesse Scaccia of Teacher Revised deletes it. Jesse Scaccia of Teacher Revised is now MODERATING because he's been called on the carpet. I invited him over. He won't come. I gave him my phone number. He won't call. Why not? In his words, because:
"Read the sum of your emails to me and comments, and then my original posting, and you tell me who is more aggressive/hateful/ignorant. You seem to have an endless well of insecurity and hate. Release it, girl."
I've been called many things, but this the first for "insecure!"
What was it that I wrote that was so hateful? This:
I read every single thing you wrote about homeschooling and some of your other articles. It was EXACTLY that which lowered my opinion of you so much.
You wrote about homeschooling from your authority as an ex-teacher and an individual with multiple advanced degrees, including journalism. You also argued so poorly from both the standpoint of an English major and a journalist that you undermined the credibility of your degrees.
Your arguments are not maintained from sentence to sentence. You contradict yourself freely and use most of the fallacious tactics covered in an elementary logic course. All that you're left with, in the end, is an argument that you don't like homeschooling from an emotional standpoint because 1) homeschoolers might have a different worldview than what you find acceptable and 2) they're weird.
What makes me so very impatient is that you are, unknowingly, the prime example of just what is wrong with public school education today.
I'm debating about what to start with. Your lipservice to moral relativism? Homeschoolers' cultural difference? Their weirdness?
I think the most egregious of your major sins is your fear of homeschoolers because they might raise their children to have different beliefs than your own. (Oh, excuse me. WRONG beliefs. Because your beliefs are the RIGHT ones.)
First, I must ask: Do you recognize any kind of objective truth, or do I need to step you through the fallacies of relativism? Or can we agree that there are some things that are right and some that are wrong?
Please note that there are not merely "facts" and "opinions." There are facts, opinions, and tastes. "I don't like homeschooling" is most properly termed a taste. Tastes cannot be false or invalid. "Homeschooling is bad" is an opinion. Opinions can be both false and invalid if the logic supporting them is faulty. It is this conclusion that makes people believe that they can say anything as long as they add "I think" or "in my opinion" in front of it and not be called into account.
We can deal with relativism later as long as you'll concede that yes, you meant something that means something to other people when you criticized homeschooling. You must then restrain yourself during the course of this dialog from making statements about how no one can be right or wrong whenever you're backed into a corner. It's a reflex, but it's a sloppy one, and you need to cut it out.
Please think VERY carefully about the form of your arguments. LOGICALLY. Do you know the form for syllogisms? Let's use this, then.
First, let's cover the difference between a false argument and an invalid one.
I was about to write something long, but this covers it quite well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
and this covers truth in an comprehensible way, though somewhat incidentally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness
Got that? Good. Now, maybe we can talk.
This has been one argument you've made so far:
Major Premise: It is important for people in society to learn to embrace people and be exposed to people from all kinds of backgrounds.
Minor Premise: Homeschooling is a non-mainstream background.
Conclusion: People shouldn't homeschool because their kids will get called names and it isn't good to be different without a good reason.
Here's another one you've made:
Major Premise: It is important for people in society to learn to embrace people and be exposed to people from all kinds of backgrounds.
Minor Premise: Homeschooling is a non-mainstream background.
Conclusion: Homeschoolers are bigots who hate people from other backgrounds.
Notice the lack of soundness, here? That's why you were getting your clock cleaned in the comments, most of which you couldn't follow.
I don't think you're "born stupid," but you were never taught to think or to analyze and follow arguments. In fact, very little of any of your arguments last for very long before devolving to your emotions. This is a fault of your education, and you inability to realize this fault and correct it is a FURTHER fault of your education. This does not put you in a strong position for arguing for institutionalized school. FYI. Hence the hysterical merriment of many of your readers, which you didn't seem to understand.
Here's some of mine:
Major premise: A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premice: A plurality of cultural backgrounds necessitates the existence of those, by definition, outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Major premise: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premise: Homeschooling provides a cultural background outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Homeschooling provides a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
I will not argue whether this is sound, as the truth of the first major premise is actually a d**ed hard thing to establish. (I actually am mostly convinced of it, BTW. But it is very hard to argue.) But it's valid.
Major Premise: Every person is a single individual and can have the life experiences and beliefs of only a single individual.
Minor premise: A person's culture is determined by a person's life experiences and beliefs.
Conclusion: No matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of his own.
Major premise: If a person can be taught and believe that the value set called multiculturalism is a virtue to such an extent that the belief becomes the defining part of their worldview....
Minor premise: and no matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of his own....
Conclusion: then that person can have only one culture though it be defined by the belief that multiculturalism is a virtue.
Major premise: If many people can be taught and believe that multiculturalism is a virtue to such an extent that that belief becomes the defining part of their worldview....
Minor premise: and no matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of their own.....
Conclusion: then those people will form a single culture that demands the belief that multiculturalism is a virtue.
Major premise: Many cultures exist.
Minor premise: "Multiculturalism" (as it is called) is a defining part of a particular monoculture.
Conclusion: The vast majority of cultures are not "multicultural."
Major premise: The culture of multiculturalism does not tolerate non-multiculturalism.
Minor premise: The vast majority of cultures are not "multicultural."
Conclusion: Multiculturalism does not tolerate most cultures.
And THIS is exactly where you are. Because you don't understand arguments, you don't understand how you got there or even how ridiculous such a position is, but you spout bile at homeschoolers and are "afraid" of them because might be different even though you claim to believe that cultural plurality is a good thing.
You will not tolerate the belief in an exclusive religion because it isn't "multicultural" even though all three major Western religions are flatly exclusive and the Eastern religions are almost all exclusive after a veil of similarity is withdrawn. (When you believe in reincarnation, it is quite sensible to advocate that people be good Muslims in this life--maybe in the next, they'll be worthy enough to be a Hindu! That's not "nonexclusivity." That's an entirely coherent and fully consistent exclusive Hindu belief.) You will not tolerate the condemnation of homosexuality even though the vast, vast majority of cultures does not recognize it as a valid lifestyle. You will not tolerate people who condemn premarital sex even though, again, the VAST majority of cultures do so. In fact, the ONLY culture you will tolerate is the monoculture of multiculturalism, which no other cultures share.
This is the irony that you aren't understanding and everyone else is pointing this out. Got it yet?
You justify your intolerance by labling other cultures "intolerant" when, in fact, you are the only bigot in the room. Other people have said what they DO believe and that they believe you are mistaken, but they do not say you have no right to believe that there is no religious absolute or that homosexuality is a fine alternative lifestyle. They disagree, but they do not say that you are "scary" for having a different viewpoint than theirs.
If all this is too much at once--I know you're not really used to thinking yet, and it can be hard at first--think about this:
If all the public schools were dominated by teachers who come overwhelmingly from anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-birth control, anti-governmental Christian universities and who teach from likeminded texts, would you change your mind about the value of a child's inculcation in public schools?
Second email:
This is about accepting diversity and what that really means.
I said I was "mostly convinced" of the first major premise in my own first syllogism in my last email--and this covers everything that is not in that "mostly."
It also shows that the entire syllogism is unsound, as written.
Now, I knew it was not sound when I made it. I was, however, taking that major premise from your own ideas. The argument is VALID. The minor premises are TRUE. Tat means that you cannot refute my conclusion without refuting your own major premise. Since my conclusion may be unpalatable to you, perhaps you are ready to examine your own idea that I took for the major premise
If you are unwilling to bend on the point, then you must accept my argument as sound, even though I do not. You also must accept this argument, as well:
Major premise: A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premice: A plurality of cultural backgrounds necessitates the existence of those, by definition, outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Major premise: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premise: Traditional Aztec society with human sacrifice provides a cultural background outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Traditional Aztec society with human sacrifice provides a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
In other words, let's look at the idea that "A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon." I am going to shorten and generalize this to a similar statement:
"Diversity is good."
Let's examine, first, what diversity IS. Then we will determine whether or not it is good.
Situation #1:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like red and blue flowers. You think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. You prefer blue flowers in your own home.
There is no diversity of opinion or of choice in that situation. In fact, we agree about everything.
ONE PERSON CANNOT HOLD A DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS. One person's opinion on a topic is a single opinion, no matter how many options he allows or disallows. A single person cannot be "disverse," by definition. A person can, at best, be conflicted.
Situation #2:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like red and blue flowers. You think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. You prefer red flowers in your own home.
There is STILL no diversity of opinion or of choice in that situation. In fact, we STILL agree about everything. Our preferences for ourselves are different, but there is still no disagreement.
Yet this is exactly what you call "diversity." It is not because there is no actual disagreement or variety of opinion. Differences are those of outcome alone, not of opinion. Two people holding the same opinions, then, do not create diversity.
Situation #3:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like blue flowers only. You think only choosing blue flowers is okay. You prefer blue flowers in your own home.
This is an actual disagreement of opinion, even though the outcomes are the same. If both opinions exist, this is, in fact, a diversity of opinion.
Our big lesson for today:
DIVERSITY IS THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, NOT OUTCOME.
Whether or not there is a blanket tolerance for diversity depends on each person's response. If I say, "You are narrowminded and scary and society would be better off without you," I am a liar if I say I want diversity and the reason I condemn you is because you don't value diversity.
This is Response #1. It is a response of blanket intolerance. Ironically, it is the response given most often by people claiming "diversity" and "tolerance" as their screed.
(Do these words sound familiar? They should. They're yours.)
All I want, in that case, is agreement with my ***single opinion.*** It matters not that my single opinion could provide more outcomes than your single opinion, nor would it be any different if our opinions were inverted. Different outcomes aren't diversity of thought. Different opinions are. I am, in fact, being intolerant of your opinion, as well as making a damned stupid argument by calling you "closeminded" because you do not share my opinions.
(This is why so many people called you an idiot. It isn't because they're meanies. You did something specific to garner that response. This is it.)
If I actually believed in diversity as a blanket virtue, in and of itself, I would properly say, "You are an important part of society because you offer a differing viewpoint." I would say this NO MATTER WHAT the difference of opinion is.
This is Response #2. It is an expression of blanket tolerance. Only people who are highly drugged or insane give this response. (The difference of opinion may be over whether I should chop of your leg for fun. Yes, that's a real diversity of opinion, there.)
Reiterating here: Notice that it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE whether either one of us chooses red or blue. A difference exists only when the belief in what flowers are good is different. THAT IS WHAT IS REAL DIVERSITY.
Now, diversity just for the sake of diversity is bullshit. No one REALLY believes in that, and no sane person would have the second response I gave to every difference of opinion. The pretense of "tolerance" that you've been taught to adopt blinds you to this and allows you to make knee-jerk condemnations in its name whenever someone disagrees with you as well as to believe that you have a liberal--haha--application of acceptance of "differences."
Don't follow? Here's a simpler version: You've adopted response #1 because other people won't give response #2 when you want them too. So this idea will be hard for you because you've never thought about it before. I'll walk you through it, though, with examples.
If I believed that we should kill unwanted infants, that would be an opinion contributing to the diversity of our society. That does NOT make it a good and valid opinion, however, nor does its existence automatically mean that it deserves respect.
Got that?
Now, if I believed in pedophilia, that, too, would be an opinion contributing to the diversity of society. But again, that does NOT make it a good and valid opinion, deserving of respect.
See where this is heading?
If I believed in killing unwanted unborn babies, it is not automatically deserving or respect because the opinion is "diverse." If I believed in homosexuality, its "diversity" does not give it soundness.
For that matter, if I believed in the death penalty or only marital sex, those opinions do not gain validity from their diversity.
Diversity, then, only exists when there is a difference of opinion (NOT OUTCOME!!!!). Lesson #2, then, is DIVERSITY IS NOT GOOD JUST BECAUSE IT EXISTS. One the other hand, here comes Lesson #3, fast on its heels....
DIVERSITY IS NOT BAD BECAUSE IT EXISTS, EITHER.
This means that if your opinion is different from mine, it is not automatically wrong because it causes diversity. Additionally, if your opinion is different from that of mainstream society, it is not automatically wrong because it contributes to diversity.
Put these together to get:
Diversity simply is a state of disagreement. DIVERISTY IS NOT A VALUE-LADEN STATEMENT.
"Diversity," however, is a word that is abused beyond all recognition by the liberal establishment. Their "diversity" claim is, in fact, nothing more than a veil for an argument that people should adopt a single, particular worldview that promotes a particular set of options as valid, and all other opinions are subject to attack not because their arguments and merits are rationally and logically considered but because they differ from the orthodox view. It is, in fact, an expression of absolute and complete intolerance.
(This is why you're being called a bigot and a hypocrite. "That word you keep saying--I do not think it means what you think it means!")
Now, if I didn't think that diversity is a good thing, period, I might alternately say, "I believe you are mistaken and that I am correct." Then I would give a reason. And for some things, I would say, "But I respect your right to your opinion and your right to act on that opinion." For other things, I would say, "I do not respect your right to that opinion and do not believe you should act on it and will act in a way to oppose you."
This is Response #4a and #4b. 4a is an expression of tolerance. 4b is an expression of intolerance.
Tolerance, too, is not a good thing merely because it "tolerates." Tolerance of some opinions is, in fact, morally reprehensible. Intolerance of other opinions is morally reprehensible. What determines this is the consideration process that comes that "reason" bit in the middle.
The problem with, yes, people like you is that you feel no need for reason or logic. You stick with #1. You have been indoctrinated with the belief that your moral system is superior--in fact infallible--and that you should reject anything that differs from it with utter contempt and condemnation. You use the words "tolerance" and "diversity" with an irony you cannot begin to comprehend, and you believe that you should teach other people to BELIEVE LIKE YOU, not teach other people to THINK. That is because you've never learned to think yourself and have never valued it.
Do you think I am being too harsh? Look at your own words. You're obsessed with the thought that children will or won't be taught specific ideas--that they will not be taught that homosexuality is good, that they will be taught in the exclusivity of a religion. You never mention critical thinking skills. You never wonder about whether they are taught logic. That's because you don't have either and haven't got a clue how to apply them. That's why your greatest fear is that children might be raised by adults who disagree with you--that's why you're obsessed with the idea that children need to be "socialized" to "fit in" to society and to share its views. You don't actually want diversity of any kind--that is the one thing that you cannot tolerate.
The funny thing is that MY greatest fear is that children are never taught to think. That is, in fact, what MOST homeschoolers fear. That is why you are mocked by them. That is why your blog confirms their decision to homeschool. It isn't because you have opinions that differ from theirs. The vast, vast majority of homeschoolers are in constant contact with people of FAR more differences in opinion than you find in an average public school. If my children are taught to think, they will recognize specious arguments, and I have nothing to fear from IDEAS.
But you--you were a teacher, and you have nothing to teach because you do not know how to think.
That is why we don't want you teaching our children. That is why you are good for being an object lesson but worthless as an instructor.
Mimi here! Read this, if it posts in trackbacks, before Jesse Scaccia of Teacher Revised deletes it. Jesse Scaccia of Teacher Revised is now MODERATING because he's been called on the carpet. I invited him over. He won't come. I gave him my phone number. He won't call. Why not? In his words, because:
"Read the sum of your emails to me and comments, and then my original posting, and you tell me who is more aggressive/hateful/ignorant. You seem to have an endless well of insecurity and hate. Release it, girl."
I've been called many things, but this the first for "insecure!"
What was it that I wrote that was so hateful? This:
I read every single thing you wrote about homeschooling and some of your other articles. It was EXACTLY that which lowered my opinion of you so much.
You wrote about homeschooling from your authority as an ex-teacher and an individual with multiple advanced degrees, including journalism. You also argued so poorly from both the standpoint of an English major and a journalist that you undermined the credibility of your degrees.
Your arguments are not maintained from sentence to sentence. You contradict yourself freely and use most of the fallacious tactics covered in an elementary logic course. All that you're left with, in the end, is an argument that you don't like homeschooling from an emotional standpoint because 1) homeschoolers might have a different worldview than what you find acceptable and 2) they're weird.
What makes me so very impatient is that you are, unknowingly, the prime example of just what is wrong with public school education today.
I'm debating about what to start with. Your lipservice to moral relativism? Homeschoolers' cultural difference? Their weirdness?
I think the most egregious of your major sins is your fear of homeschoolers because they might raise their children to have different beliefs than your own. (Oh, excuse me. WRONG beliefs. Because your beliefs are the RIGHT ones.)
First, I must ask: Do you recognize any kind of objective truth, or do I need to step you through the fallacies of relativism? Or can we agree that there are some things that are right and some that are wrong?
Please note that there are not merely "facts" and "opinions." There are facts, opinions, and tastes. "I don't like homeschooling" is most properly termed a taste. Tastes cannot be false or invalid. "Homeschooling is bad" is an opinion. Opinions can be both false and invalid if the logic supporting them is faulty. It is this conclusion that makes people believe that they can say anything as long as they add "I think" or "in my opinion" in front of it and not be called into account.
We can deal with relativism later as long as you'll concede that yes, you meant something that means something to other people when you criticized homeschooling. You must then restrain yourself during the course of this dialog from making statements about how no one can be right or wrong whenever you're backed into a corner. It's a reflex, but it's a sloppy one, and you need to cut it out.
Please think VERY carefully about the form of your arguments. LOGICALLY. Do you know the form for syllogisms? Let's use this, then.
First, let's cover the difference between a false argument and an invalid one.
I was about to write something long, but this covers it quite well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
and this covers truth in an comprehensible way, though somewhat incidentally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness
Got that? Good. Now, maybe we can talk.
This has been one argument you've made so far:
Major Premise: It is important for people in society to learn to embrace people and be exposed to people from all kinds of backgrounds.
Minor Premise: Homeschooling is a non-mainstream background.
Conclusion: People shouldn't homeschool because their kids will get called names and it isn't good to be different without a good reason.
Here's another one you've made:
Major Premise: It is important for people in society to learn to embrace people and be exposed to people from all kinds of backgrounds.
Minor Premise: Homeschooling is a non-mainstream background.
Conclusion: Homeschoolers are bigots who hate people from other backgrounds.
Notice the lack of soundness, here? That's why you were getting your clock cleaned in the comments, most of which you couldn't follow.
I don't think you're "born stupid," but you were never taught to think or to analyze and follow arguments. In fact, very little of any of your arguments last for very long before devolving to your emotions. This is a fault of your education, and you inability to realize this fault and correct it is a FURTHER fault of your education. This does not put you in a strong position for arguing for institutionalized school. FYI. Hence the hysterical merriment of many of your readers, which you didn't seem to understand.
Here's some of mine:
Major premise: A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premice: A plurality of cultural backgrounds necessitates the existence of those, by definition, outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Major premise: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premise: Homeschooling provides a cultural background outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Homeschooling provides a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
I will not argue whether this is sound, as the truth of the first major premise is actually a d**ed hard thing to establish. (I actually am mostly convinced of it, BTW. But it is very hard to argue.) But it's valid.
Major Premise: Every person is a single individual and can have the life experiences and beliefs of only a single individual.
Minor premise: A person's culture is determined by a person's life experiences and beliefs.
Conclusion: No matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of his own.
Major premise: If a person can be taught and believe that the value set called multiculturalism is a virtue to such an extent that the belief becomes the defining part of their worldview....
Minor premise: and no matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of his own....
Conclusion: then that person can have only one culture though it be defined by the belief that multiculturalism is a virtue.
Major premise: If many people can be taught and believe that multiculturalism is a virtue to such an extent that that belief becomes the defining part of their worldview....
Minor premise: and no matter how blended or "mixed up," a person can only have one culture of their own.....
Conclusion: then those people will form a single culture that demands the belief that multiculturalism is a virtue.
Major premise: Many cultures exist.
Minor premise: "Multiculturalism" (as it is called) is a defining part of a particular monoculture.
Conclusion: The vast majority of cultures are not "multicultural."
Major premise: The culture of multiculturalism does not tolerate non-multiculturalism.
Minor premise: The vast majority of cultures are not "multicultural."
Conclusion: Multiculturalism does not tolerate most cultures.
And THIS is exactly where you are. Because you don't understand arguments, you don't understand how you got there or even how ridiculous such a position is, but you spout bile at homeschoolers and are "afraid" of them because might be different even though you claim to believe that cultural plurality is a good thing.
You will not tolerate the belief in an exclusive religion because it isn't "multicultural" even though all three major Western religions are flatly exclusive and the Eastern religions are almost all exclusive after a veil of similarity is withdrawn. (When you believe in reincarnation, it is quite sensible to advocate that people be good Muslims in this life--maybe in the next, they'll be worthy enough to be a Hindu! That's not "nonexclusivity." That's an entirely coherent and fully consistent exclusive Hindu belief.) You will not tolerate the condemnation of homosexuality even though the vast, vast majority of cultures does not recognize it as a valid lifestyle. You will not tolerate people who condemn premarital sex even though, again, the VAST majority of cultures do so. In fact, the ONLY culture you will tolerate is the monoculture of multiculturalism, which no other cultures share.
This is the irony that you aren't understanding and everyone else is pointing this out. Got it yet?
You justify your intolerance by labling other cultures "intolerant" when, in fact, you are the only bigot in the room. Other people have said what they DO believe and that they believe you are mistaken, but they do not say you have no right to believe that there is no religious absolute or that homosexuality is a fine alternative lifestyle. They disagree, but they do not say that you are "scary" for having a different viewpoint than theirs.
If all this is too much at once--I know you're not really used to thinking yet, and it can be hard at first--think about this:
If all the public schools were dominated by teachers who come overwhelmingly from anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-birth control, anti-governmental Christian universities and who teach from likeminded texts, would you change your mind about the value of a child's inculcation in public schools?
Second email:
This is about accepting diversity and what that really means.
I said I was "mostly convinced" of the first major premise in my own first syllogism in my last email--and this covers everything that is not in that "mostly."
It also shows that the entire syllogism is unsound, as written.
Now, I knew it was not sound when I made it. I was, however, taking that major premise from your own ideas. The argument is VALID. The minor premises are TRUE. Tat means that you cannot refute my conclusion without refuting your own major premise. Since my conclusion may be unpalatable to you, perhaps you are ready to examine your own idea that I took for the major premise
If you are unwilling to bend on the point, then you must accept my argument as sound, even though I do not. You also must accept this argument, as well:
Major premise: A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premice: A plurality of cultural backgrounds necessitates the existence of those, by definition, outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Major premise: Cultural backgrounds outside of the mainstream are a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
Minor premise: Traditional Aztec society with human sacrifice provides a cultural background outside of the mainstream.
Conclusion: Traditional Aztec society with human sacrifice provides a valuable resource for a society to draw upon.
In other words, let's look at the idea that "A plurality of cultural backgrounds is a valuable resource for a society to draw upon." I am going to shorten and generalize this to a similar statement:
"Diversity is good."
Let's examine, first, what diversity IS. Then we will determine whether or not it is good.
Situation #1:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like red and blue flowers. You think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. You prefer blue flowers in your own home.
There is no diversity of opinion or of choice in that situation. In fact, we agree about everything.
ONE PERSON CANNOT HOLD A DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS. One person's opinion on a topic is a single opinion, no matter how many options he allows or disallows. A single person cannot be "disverse," by definition. A person can, at best, be conflicted.
Situation #2:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like red and blue flowers. You think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. You prefer red flowers in your own home.
There is STILL no diversity of opinion or of choice in that situation. In fact, we STILL agree about everything. Our preferences for ourselves are different, but there is still no disagreement.
Yet this is exactly what you call "diversity." It is not because there is no actual disagreement or variety of opinion. Differences are those of outcome alone, not of opinion. Two people holding the same opinions, then, do not create diversity.
Situation #3:
I like red and blue flowers. I think choosing either red or blue flowers is okay. I happen to prefer blue flowers in my own home.
You like blue flowers only. You think only choosing blue flowers is okay. You prefer blue flowers in your own home.
This is an actual disagreement of opinion, even though the outcomes are the same. If both opinions exist, this is, in fact, a diversity of opinion.
Our big lesson for today:
DIVERSITY IS THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, NOT OUTCOME.
Whether or not there is a blanket tolerance for diversity depends on each person's response. If I say, "You are narrowminded and scary and society would be better off without you," I am a liar if I say I want diversity and the reason I condemn you is because you don't value diversity.
This is Response #1. It is a response of blanket intolerance. Ironically, it is the response given most often by people claiming "diversity" and "tolerance" as their screed.
(Do these words sound familiar? They should. They're yours.)
All I want, in that case, is agreement with my ***single opinion.*** It matters not that my single opinion could provide more outcomes than your single opinion, nor would it be any different if our opinions were inverted. Different outcomes aren't diversity of thought. Different opinions are. I am, in fact, being intolerant of your opinion, as well as making a damned stupid argument by calling you "closeminded" because you do not share my opinions.
(This is why so many people called you an idiot. It isn't because they're meanies. You did something specific to garner that response. This is it.)
If I actually believed in diversity as a blanket virtue, in and of itself, I would properly say, "You are an important part of society because you offer a differing viewpoint." I would say this NO MATTER WHAT the difference of opinion is.
This is Response #2. It is an expression of blanket tolerance. Only people who are highly drugged or insane give this response. (The difference of opinion may be over whether I should chop of your leg for fun. Yes, that's a real diversity of opinion, there.)
Reiterating here: Notice that it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE whether either one of us chooses red or blue. A difference exists only when the belief in what flowers are good is different. THAT IS WHAT IS REAL DIVERSITY.
Now, diversity just for the sake of diversity is bullshit. No one REALLY believes in that, and no sane person would have the second response I gave to every difference of opinion. The pretense of "tolerance" that you've been taught to adopt blinds you to this and allows you to make knee-jerk condemnations in its name whenever someone disagrees with you as well as to believe that you have a liberal--haha--application of acceptance of "differences."
Don't follow? Here's a simpler version: You've adopted response #1 because other people won't give response #2 when you want them too. So this idea will be hard for you because you've never thought about it before. I'll walk you through it, though, with examples.
If I believed that we should kill unwanted infants, that would be an opinion contributing to the diversity of our society. That does NOT make it a good and valid opinion, however, nor does its existence automatically mean that it deserves respect.
Got that?
Now, if I believed in pedophilia, that, too, would be an opinion contributing to the diversity of society. But again, that does NOT make it a good and valid opinion, deserving of respect.
See where this is heading?
If I believed in killing unwanted unborn babies, it is not automatically deserving or respect because the opinion is "diverse." If I believed in homosexuality, its "diversity" does not give it soundness.
For that matter, if I believed in the death penalty or only marital sex, those opinions do not gain validity from their diversity.
Diversity, then, only exists when there is a difference of opinion (NOT OUTCOME!!!!). Lesson #2, then, is DIVERSITY IS NOT GOOD JUST BECAUSE IT EXISTS. One the other hand, here comes Lesson #3, fast on its heels....
DIVERSITY IS NOT BAD BECAUSE IT EXISTS, EITHER.
This means that if your opinion is different from mine, it is not automatically wrong because it causes diversity. Additionally, if your opinion is different from that of mainstream society, it is not automatically wrong because it contributes to diversity.
Put these together to get:
Diversity simply is a state of disagreement. DIVERISTY IS NOT A VALUE-LADEN STATEMENT.
"Diversity," however, is a word that is abused beyond all recognition by the liberal establishment. Their "diversity" claim is, in fact, nothing more than a veil for an argument that people should adopt a single, particular worldview that promotes a particular set of options as valid, and all other opinions are subject to attack not because their arguments and merits are rationally and logically considered but because they differ from the orthodox view. It is, in fact, an expression of absolute and complete intolerance.
(This is why you're being called a bigot and a hypocrite. "That word you keep saying--I do not think it means what you think it means!")
Now, if I didn't think that diversity is a good thing, period, I might alternately say, "I believe you are mistaken and that I am correct." Then I would give a reason. And for some things, I would say, "But I respect your right to your opinion and your right to act on that opinion." For other things, I would say, "I do not respect your right to that opinion and do not believe you should act on it and will act in a way to oppose you."
This is Response #4a and #4b. 4a is an expression of tolerance. 4b is an expression of intolerance.
Tolerance, too, is not a good thing merely because it "tolerates." Tolerance of some opinions is, in fact, morally reprehensible. Intolerance of other opinions is morally reprehensible. What determines this is the consideration process that comes that "reason" bit in the middle.
The problem with, yes, people like you is that you feel no need for reason or logic. You stick with #1. You have been indoctrinated with the belief that your moral system is superior--in fact infallible--and that you should reject anything that differs from it with utter contempt and condemnation. You use the words "tolerance" and "diversity" with an irony you cannot begin to comprehend, and you believe that you should teach other people to BELIEVE LIKE YOU, not teach other people to THINK. That is because you've never learned to think yourself and have never valued it.
Do you think I am being too harsh? Look at your own words. You're obsessed with the thought that children will or won't be taught specific ideas--that they will not be taught that homosexuality is good, that they will be taught in the exclusivity of a religion. You never mention critical thinking skills. You never wonder about whether they are taught logic. That's because you don't have either and haven't got a clue how to apply them. That's why your greatest fear is that children might be raised by adults who disagree with you--that's why you're obsessed with the idea that children need to be "socialized" to "fit in" to society and to share its views. You don't actually want diversity of any kind--that is the one thing that you cannot tolerate.
The funny thing is that MY greatest fear is that children are never taught to think. That is, in fact, what MOST homeschoolers fear. That is why you are mocked by them. That is why your blog confirms their decision to homeschool. It isn't because you have opinions that differ from theirs. The vast, vast majority of homeschoolers are in constant contact with people of FAR more differences in opinion than you find in an average public school. If my children are taught to think, they will recognize specious arguments, and I have nothing to fear from IDEAS.
But you--you were a teacher, and you have nothing to teach because you do not know how to think.
That is why we don't want you teaching our children. That is why you are good for being an object lesson but worthless as an instructor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)