4 ms·

I believe people who can construct rational arguments deserve to be heard. Generally speaking, kids themselves aren't very rational. I mean, the reason we have

I believe people who can construct rational arguments deserve to be heard. Generally speaking, kids themselves aren't very rational. I mean, the reason we have an educational system is to provide kids a foundation of knowledge to nurture. Why should we allow these kids access to an irrational source of knowledge that could misguide or harm them?

keithpeter 8y ago
I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al. I think that teenagers need to practice filtering and evaluating their use of online services somehow so they can decide for themselves when things are getting out of hand. That implies some form of foundation or ground to stand on so to speak.
- js8 8y ago
  "I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al." I wouldn't go as far to claim that they don't "exhibit rationality". I think that we are pretty rational as different beings come (we don't know of anything that comes close to human common sense). What Kahneman is talking about mostly are heuristics, which sometimes can be exploited and lead to irrational behavior.
beaconstudios 8y ago
Sure, social media tends to bring out some negative characteristics in people, and giving air to bad or incorrect ideas. But suppressing people's rights in order to "save the children" (mirroring Christian scares from the 80s/90s) is not the answer. If it were up to me, schools would be providing kids with the tools they need to navigate modern life. Critical thinking skills and psychological tools for mental wellness for a start. Banning things should always be a last resort in my opinion because it never seems to work the way you expect, and can have chilling effects on things you may not be against. Plus the fact that it's presumptive to assume that you know what's best for everyone else on the planet.
- Memosyne 8y ago
  Well, I never specifically said that content would be banned. I was mostly referencing a feed-like system where posts are generated based on an algorithm. Perhaps a ranking algorithm could be deployed to undervalue posts which lack credibility or encourage detrimental behavior? I fully agree that providing kids with the ability to navigate this terrain is a better solution.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Who’s judging credibility and detrimental behaviour? You or people with opinions you support I guess? No thanks. Hundreds of years ago the earth being round would have been one of those not credible ideas that you would have suppressed.
    - Memosyne 8y ago
      Yes, and these days someone who goes around telling people that the world is flat is less than credible. If I was a parent I would inform my children that the world is, in fact, not flat and the aforementioned person is spewing nonsense. I'm not trying to force my beliefs onto others, just want people to treat themselves and others safely.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        But don't you see the problem? You suppressing flat earthers seems fine to you now... in the same way that suppressing round earthers would have seemed sensible to your ancestor back then? And can you see why it would have been wrong to suppress the initial idea that the Earth was round?
        Memosyne 8y ago
        I think as a civilization we have become more scientific and as a consequence, more reluctant to accept alternate truths which are not based on science. If someone could provide proof that the world is flat then their credibility would improve. However, since that proposition defies basic science, I would first have to be skeptical.
lwhalen 8y ago
Because wisdom comes from making mistakes, learning from them, and having context to better extrapolate and evaluate similar scenarios in the future. Censorship of the young denies them that feedback, removes agency from them, and doesn't make them wiser in the process.
- Memosyne 8y ago
  But how will they know they have made a mistake when it's all they have ever known? Humanity has reached where it has because of the combined knowledge base of our ancestors. Do we really need to touch fire to realize our mistake? We don't have to relearn everything when our predecessors have already accumulated the wisdom and are willing to share.
  - lwhalen 8y ago
    Negative consequences/feedback from their social group tend to do the job quite nicely, in most of the cases :-) To paraphrase the old comedian Will Rogers, there's always been three kinds of people in this world: those who learn by reading those who learn by observing others but that third group just _has_ to go and pee on that electric fence. We can't optimize society to coddle the fence-micturators 100% of the time, unfortunately. Solutions to that problem "don't scale", or get terribly fascist in a hurry.
    - CM30 8y ago
      Yeah. A free society will always have a percentage of the population who do dumb and potentially lethal things, and a percentage of those will get injured or killed because of their own stupidity. Bu that doesn't mean the answer is to ban everything potentially dangerous. All kinds of activities nowadays (from everyday things like driving to extreme sports) carry a large degree of risk. The answer is simply to accept that freedom to make your own choices means freedom to screw up, and accept that if you're not hurting someone else, then it's your responsibility to stay safe and society won't stop you.
  - js8 8y ago
te_chris 8y ago
Not that I disagree with you, but the historical reason for a public education system was because the nature of work changed and the economy needed workers who could do more than just labour. Historical context has created much more noble goals since then :)

keithpeter 8y ago

I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al. I think that teenagers need to practice filtering and evaluating their use of online services somehow so they can decide for themselves when things are getting out of hand. That implies some form of foundation or ground to stand on so to speak.

js8 8y ago
"I suspect that people generally don't exhibit rationality when making small daily decisions - Kahneman et al." I wouldn't go as far to claim that they don't "exhibit rationality". I think that we are pretty rational as different beings come (we don't know of anything that comes close to human common sense). What Kahneman is talking about mostly are heuristics, which sometimes can be exploited and lead to irrational behavior.

beaconstudios 8y ago

Sure, social media tends to bring out some negative characteristics in people, and giving air to bad or incorrect ideas. But suppressing people's rights in order to "save the children" (mirroring Christian scares from the 80s/90s) is not the answer. If it were up to me, schools would be providing kids with the tools they need to navigate modern life. Critical thinking skills and psychological tools for mental wellness for a start. Banning things should always be a last resort in my opinion because it never seems to work the way you expect, and can have chilling effects on things you may not be against. Plus the fact that it's presumptive to assume that you know what's best for everyone else on the planet.

Memosyne 8y ago
Well, I never specifically said that content would be banned. I was mostly referencing a feed-like system where posts are generated based on an algorithm. Perhaps a ranking algorithm could be deployed to undervalue posts which lack credibility or encourage detrimental behavior? I fully agree that providing kids with the ability to navigate this terrain is a better solution.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Who’s judging credibility and detrimental behaviour? You or people with opinions you support I guess? No thanks. Hundreds of years ago the earth being round would have been one of those not credible ideas that you would have suppressed.
  - Memosyne 8y ago
    Yes, and these days someone who goes around telling people that the world is flat is less than credible. If I was a parent I would inform my children that the world is, in fact, not flat and the aforementioned person is spewing nonsense. I'm not trying to force my beliefs onto others, just want people to treat themselves and others safely.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      But don't you see the problem? You suppressing flat earthers seems fine to you now... in the same way that suppressing round earthers would have seemed sensible to your ancestor back then? And can you see why it would have been wrong to suppress the initial idea that the Earth was round?
      - Memosyne 8y ago
        I think as a civilization we have become more scientific and as a consequence, more reluctant to accept alternate truths which are not based on science. If someone could provide proof that the world is flat then their credibility would improve. However, since that proposition defies basic science, I would first have to be skeptical.

lwhalen 8y ago

Because wisdom comes from making mistakes, learning from them, and having context to better extrapolate and evaluate similar scenarios in the future. Censorship of the young denies them that feedback, removes agency from them, and doesn't make them wiser in the process.

Memosyne 8y ago
But how will they know they have made a mistake when it's all they have ever known? Humanity has reached where it has because of the combined knowledge base of our ancestors. Do we really need to touch fire to realize our mistake? We don't have to relearn everything when our predecessors have already accumulated the wisdom and are willing to share.
- lwhalen 8y ago
  Negative consequences/feedback from their social group tend to do the job quite nicely, in most of the cases :-) To paraphrase the old comedian Will Rogers, there's always been three kinds of people in this world: those who learn by reading those who learn by observing others but that third group just _has_ to go and pee on that electric fence. We can't optimize society to coddle the fence-micturators 100% of the time, unfortunately. Solutions to that problem "don't scale", or get terribly fascist in a hurry.
  - CM30 8y ago
    Yeah. A free society will always have a percentage of the population who do dumb and potentially lethal things, and a percentage of those will get injured or killed because of their own stupidity. Bu that doesn't mean the answer is to ban everything potentially dangerous. All kinds of activities nowadays (from everyday things like driving to extreme sports) carry a large degree of risk. The answer is simply to accept that freedom to make your own choices means freedom to screw up, and accept that if you're not hurting someone else, then it's your responsibility to stay safe and society won't stop you.
- js8 8y ago

te_chris 8y ago

Not that I disagree with you, but the historical reason for a public education system was because the nature of work changed and the economy needed workers who could do more than just labour. Historical context has created much more noble goals since then :)