5 ms·

It doesn’t force you to learn those things. It imposes suffering upon people who don’t learn those things. Whats the difference? Well what is the difference be

It doesn’t force you to learn those things. It imposes suffering upon people who don’t learn those things. Whats the difference? Well what is the difference between giving an 8-year-old lessons in how to swim vs. tossing an 8-year-old off the side of a boat?

atq2119 7y ago
> It doesn’t force you to learn those things. It imposes suffering upon people who don’t learn those things. Imposing some form of suffering on those who don't comply is literally what forcing people to do something is. Edit: Note that simply giving somebody swimming lessons does not force them to swim and neither does it force them to learn anything -- because they're free to ignore you. Tossing them over board is forcing them to swim, because you're taking away the viable alternatives. We agree that the way schools do things is bad, by the way.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Thats like saying that breathing is mandatory. If you toss a child into a body of water, the child continuing to breathe is definitely optional. ——— If someone starts beating you with a rubber hose until you recite Jabberwocky, that doesn’t actually cause you to recite jabberwocky unless you have some means of finding the words to that poem that you can see. The last part, access to how to do the action, is crucial to doing the action. ——— For another example: suppose a 5-year-old child is crying and his grandfather pinches him and tells him to stop crying. But the 5-year-old has not yet learned the emotional self-regulation skills to stop himself from crying. So while the grandfather is forcing compliance, he won’t actually achieve compliance. He’ll just inflict pain. Likewise, if you have an engineering student drowning under a firehose of work and trying to learn time management. The poorly-managed pile of work is forcing him to learn good time management and punishing him for not learning it. But unless he has access to a known source of guidence on time-management, he’ll continue to suffer. Not only that, but sleep deprivation, as makes this harder.
  - atq2119 7y ago
    Sure. Forcing people to do something rarely leads to good results, that's not in dispute here. In fact, that's the whole point of the criticism against schools here. But the reason why forcing doesn't lead to good result is largely because it involves an imposition of suffering, which you yourself reiterate. Maybe a better way to put it is to say is that schools tend to be bad at encouraging kids to learn, so they try (unsuccessfully) to make up for it by forcing instead.
    - afarrell 7y ago
      No, thats not my point. I updated my response, but the key is you need both - motivation (or discipline) - means And forcing only tries to apply motivation without thinking about means. “How?” Is a question that needs an answer from somewhere.
      - atq2119 7y ago
        We agree on that. My point is that "forcing" is "attempting to instill motivation by some form of threat". If there's no implied threat, then it's not really forcing.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > Imposing some form of suffering on those who don't comply is literally what forcing people to do something is. Not at all: punishments can (and often are) ineffective. You can punish me for being unable to fly. It will not force my body to produce a pair of wings.
  - atq2119 7y ago
    Maybe your point is a nitpick about whether attempts to force somebody to something are effective or not, and I could perhaps have phrased that better, but the point remains that what distinguishes "force" from other means to attempt to bend somebody else to your will is the (implied) threat of punishment / suffering. Or can you give an example in which person A forces person B to do something without a threat of punishment or suffering?
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      My point was about the implied effectiveness.

atq2119 7y ago

> It doesn’t force you to learn those things. It imposes suffering upon people who don’t learn those things. Imposing some form of suffering on those who don't comply is literally what forcing people to do something is. Edit: Note that simply giving somebody swimming lessons does not force them to swim and neither does it force them to learn anything -- because they're free to ignore you. Tossing them over board is forcing them to swim, because you're taking away the viable alternatives. We agree that the way schools do things is bad, by the way.

afarrell 7y ago
Thats like saying that breathing is mandatory. If you toss a child into a body of water, the child continuing to breathe is definitely optional. ——— If someone starts beating you with a rubber hose until you recite Jabberwocky, that doesn’t actually cause you to recite jabberwocky unless you have some means of finding the words to that poem that you can see. The last part, access to how to do the action, is crucial to doing the action. ——— For another example: suppose a 5-year-old child is crying and his grandfather pinches him and tells him to stop crying. But the 5-year-old has not yet learned the emotional self-regulation skills to stop himself from crying. So while the grandfather is forcing compliance, he won’t actually achieve compliance. He’ll just inflict pain. Likewise, if you have an engineering student drowning under a firehose of work and trying to learn time management. The poorly-managed pile of work is forcing him to learn good time management and punishing him for not learning it. But unless he has access to a known source of guidence on time-management, he’ll continue to suffer. Not only that, but sleep deprivation, as makes this harder.
- atq2119 7y ago
  Sure. Forcing people to do something rarely leads to good results, that's not in dispute here. In fact, that's the whole point of the criticism against schools here. But the reason why forcing doesn't lead to good result is largely because it involves an imposition of suffering, which you yourself reiterate. Maybe a better way to put it is to say is that schools tend to be bad at encouraging kids to learn, so they try (unsuccessfully) to make up for it by forcing instead.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    No, thats not my point. I updated my response, but the key is you need both - motivation (or discipline) - means And forcing only tries to apply motivation without thinking about means. “How?” Is a question that needs an answer from somewhere.
    - atq2119 7y ago
      We agree on that. My point is that "forcing" is "attempting to instill motivation by some form of threat". If there's no implied threat, then it's not really forcing.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Imposing some form of suffering on those who don't comply is literally what forcing people to do something is. Not at all: punishments can (and often are) ineffective. You can punish me for being unable to fly. It will not force my body to produce a pair of wings.
- atq2119 7y ago
  Maybe your point is a nitpick about whether attempts to force somebody to something are effective or not, and I could perhaps have phrased that better, but the point remains that what distinguishes "force" from other means to attempt to bend somebody else to your will is the (implied) threat of punishment / suffering. Or can you give an example in which person A forces person B to do something without a threat of punishment or suffering?
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    My point was about the implied effectiveness.