3 ms·

"Addresses" is probably putting it too strongly. She phrases it as a "how to" problem. It would probably be better phased as a "what not to do" problem. If y

"Addresses" is probably putting it too strongly. She phrases it as a "how to" problem. It would probably be better phased as a "what not to do" problem. If you have an active indoctrination of mental bile in the home environment -- especially among society's "losers" who see everything as some other group's fault (blame it on the Mexicans, hipsters, blacks, yuppies, Jews, etc...), and the only thing countering it is some kind of vague free-range schooling, the results will more closely resemble the barbarism of previous centuries. For every Abraham Lincoln the nineteenth century produced, it produced brigands of no account by the dozens. Of course if you come from an enlightened family of academics, Hollywood producers, or some other group of high-minded winners with a magnanimous bent, then everything she writes sounds just fine.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Furthermore, it's not completely without structure. Consider the difference in approach between a teacher and a guide, the guide still helps the student find their way but let's them see the answers for themselves, instead of telling them the answers and asking the student to memorise them. I understand the lack of standardised testing is scary to those who want to measure everything, but in my opinion measurement breeds mediocrity, I don't think we get the best out of ourselves by chasing exam scores.
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  > The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Self-reliance does not make a person civilized. Self-reliance does not make a person fit to coexist peacefully and productively with persons outside of their own familial or tribal group. > I understand the lack of standardised testing is scary to those who want to measure everything... I have no beef with the academic angle. From a cost-benefit perspective, it would be hard to do any worse than we already do. My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "Self-reliance does not make a person civilized." Sure it does, because self-directed learning means you are less divorced from the consequences of your mistakes. You become better at interacting with others by doing so, rather than being told what to do without fully appreciating why. > "My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task." That really depends on your definition of civilised. Some behaviour of 'civilised' people is abhorrent compared to the 'noble savages' that the article occasionally alludes to. If our only goal is emotionally-stunted automatons then perhaps you'd have a point, but I'd rather take a walk through a forest with someone who can appreciate the wildness of nature than someone who sees it as unruly chaos that should be straightened out. As an aside, our notion of what's socially acceptable has shifted over time, it's not a single ideal we have to live up to. I enjoy the contrast Nietzsche made between Apollo and Dionysus in Greek society, I do think there's still room for what they both represented. http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA
    - jstewartmobile 10y ago
      My definition would be people working together constructively (like townspeople) instead of people working together destructively (like brigands, battalions, thugs, cannibalistic tribesmen, or packs of wild dogs).
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Interesting that you use the term 'cannibalistic tribesmen'. Generally 'uncivilised' tribes have a much more cohesive, collaborative society than the townspeople you hold up as your ideal. Perhaps that suggests there are lessons we can learn from them about how to live with others.
        cicero 10y ago
        I read "cannibalistic" as a qualifier. Destructive tribesmen are those that are cannibalistic. A collaborative tribal society like you describe is not cannibalistic or destructive and would not be included in his list.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Furthermore, it's not completely without structure. Consider the difference in approach between a teacher and a guide, the guide still helps the student find their way but let's them see the answers for themselves, instead of telling them the answers and asking the student to memorise them. I understand the lack of standardised testing is scary to those who want to measure everything, but in my opinion measurement breeds mediocrity, I don't think we get the best out of ourselves by chasing exam scores.

jstewartmobile 10y ago
> The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Self-reliance does not make a person civilized. Self-reliance does not make a person fit to coexist peacefully and productively with persons outside of their own familial or tribal group. > I understand the lack of standardised testing is scary to those who want to measure everything... I have no beef with the academic angle. From a cost-benefit perspective, it would be hard to do any worse than we already do. My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "Self-reliance does not make a person civilized." Sure it does, because self-directed learning means you are less divorced from the consequences of your mistakes. You become better at interacting with others by doing so, rather than being told what to do without fully appreciating why. > "My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task." That really depends on your definition of civilised. Some behaviour of 'civilised' people is abhorrent compared to the 'noble savages' that the article occasionally alludes to. If our only goal is emotionally-stunted automatons then perhaps you'd have a point, but I'd rather take a walk through a forest with someone who can appreciate the wildness of nature than someone who sees it as unruly chaos that should be straightened out. As an aside, our notion of what's socially acceptable has shifted over time, it's not a single ideal we have to live up to. I enjoy the contrast Nietzsche made between Apollo and Dionysus in Greek society, I do think there's still room for what they both represented. http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    My definition would be people working together constructively (like townspeople) instead of people working together destructively (like brigands, battalions, thugs, cannibalistic tribesmen, or packs of wild dogs).
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Interesting that you use the term 'cannibalistic tribesmen'. Generally 'uncivilised' tribes have a much more cohesive, collaborative society than the townspeople you hold up as your ideal. Perhaps that suggests there are lessons we can learn from them about how to live with others.
      - cicero 10y ago
        I read "cannibalistic" as a qualifier. Destructive tribesmen are those that are cannibalistic. A collaborative tribal society like you describe is not cannibalistic or destructive and would not be included in his list.