6 ms·

Children are taught to not question what they're told, because it's much easier on parents and teachers when children don't question what they're told. Then whe

Children are taught to not question what they're told, because it's much easier on parents and teachers when children don't question what they're told. Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation. To me, the solution is obviously better education. When people believe the Earth is round only because that's what they were told, it's not that hard for a clever talker to convince them the Earth could be flat. When people know the Earth is round because they actually understand the physics behind it, there's no way you're ever going to convince them the Earth is flat. Instead of admitting our education system has failed, people's ignorance is being used as an excuse to tighten control over the media even further.

ab3rC1te 6y ago
So your saying your a sphere or ball earther? And in reality you think you understand the physics behind it but can't tell me how the color blue is the way it is. When one true creator sets boundaries and sustains all things in this world. Maybe when I see around 100 jets constantly spraying supposedly ice from their exhaust engines that it leaves strips that dissipate into clouds that man is creating. Its easier to control idiots than a failed education system. Or maybe the educational system creates idiots instead. Once a system fails and it will, good luck on surviving.
- keymone 6y ago
  Thanks, I giggled. When conspiracy theorists aren’t horrifying for the potential impact on lives of their victims, they are immensely entertaining. I bet most of the views on flat earther’s videos are just people looking for non artificial comedy.
coenhyde 6y ago
I agree 100%. The lack of critical thinking skills in this country is a national security threat. We need a national initiative improve the baseline education and critical thinking skills of the next generation. The powers that be, haven't got the memo yet that it doesn't benefit them anymore to have a populous which is easily manipulated. In the past, old media acted as parameter control, though concentrated ownership. Sure they had vested interests, but they were generally alined with American values; capitalism, stable democracy, international leadership by America, etc. But now each of the 340 million brains in this country can be accessed directly by foreign adversaries. Parameter control can not work anymore, unless we shut down the internet. We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. Some will argue that we should shutdown the internet or censor it. But is that the world we want to live in? That would stifle economic growth and i do not believe it is compatible with the ideals of liberal democracies.
- treeman79 6y ago
  It’s been tried. It’s how we got “new math“
  - coenhyde 6y ago
    To be clear i did say a "national initiative" not a "national curriculum".
- ksk 6y ago
  What is the old line, people get the government they deserve, they elect people that they like and/or agree with? Even here on HN most people only upvote comments they like or otherwise agree with. Its the same everywhere. Massive massive echo chambers on the left and right with propaganda being retweeted and shared to millions. >We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. Why? Why must we treat adults as children that we have been entrusted with, and that it is our responsibility to give them 'mental medicine'? What makes our thinking superior to others' that we need to lord over them in this way? >Some will argue that we should shutdown the internet or censor it. But is that the world we want to live in? That would stifle economic growth and i do not believe it is compatible with the ideals of liberal democracies. I believe that these ideals are bottom-up. We form governments that align with the ideals of the people, not the other way around. If the people out of choice or ignorance no longer care about the ideals of liberal democracy, who are we to force them onto others?
  - coenhyde 6y ago
    >>We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. >Why? Why must we treat adults as children I am suggesting the opposite. Rather than treat adults as children and censoring what they can and can not see. I am suggesting we give them the skills to critically analyze input they receive. > that we have been entrusted with, and that it is our responsibility to give them 'mental medicine'? What makes our thinking superior to others' that we need to lord over them in this way? Why provide any education at all then? As a society it is our responsibility to skill the next generation with the skills they need to operate in our society. I believe critical thinking skills is one of these required skills. > I believe that these ideals are bottom-up. We form governments that align with the ideals of the people, not the other way around I agree with this. But to get the best form of government we need educated and intelligent citizens. > If the people out of choice or ignorance no longer care about the ideals of liberal democracy, who are we to force them onto others? We really are fucked then aren't we. I kind of like living in a liberal democracy. If we throw our current system out due to ignorance I am very confident what comes next will not be superior. I'm not willing to accept that as path we take.
0xfeba 6y ago
> Children are taught to not question what they're told, because it's much easier on parents and teachers when children don't question what they're told. Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation. I'm gonna guess you don't have children. Children like easy-to-follow directions. They don't understand nuance at all. It's not because it's "easier on parents and teachers", it's because it's what works. You add nuance later in middle and high school.
- 0x445442 6y ago
  > You add nuance later in middle and high school. If you take children to be under 18 then the statement seems valid because I don't think there's a lot of nuance going on in most middle or high schools.
- calibas 6y ago
  Young children absolutely need easy-to-follow directions because they can't follow complicated directions. I'm not arguing against easy-to-follow directions, so I don't quite see your point. I'm against parents and schools encouraging unquestioning obedience to their directions.
- leto_ii 6y ago
  > Children like easy-to-follow directions. They don't understand nuance at all. I don't have kids myself, but I do remember how it is to be a child, having been one myself a while ago :D I can assure you kids understand nuance quite well if they're explained things properly, patiently, in a friendly manner.
- LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
  When I'm 4, I could win the debate with adults. That bothered me for several years to think why an adult looks like child. As an adult now, I know the reason their mind never grow up. Not children could not understand complicated thing, it is that adult could not explain them well.
  - 6y ago
ouid 6y ago
Churches lose membership and therefore money when schools teach critical thinking effectively. Given the power of the church over the last thousand years, it is unsurprising that progress in education has been so stymied.
ksk 6y ago
>when children don't question what they're told. That doesn't mean they accept everything as fact. They may simply not choose to question because of fear of punishment, or for any other number of reasons. >Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation. That is a giant leap of logic.. or faith. Case in point :- I went to a religious school (though, it was more of a hippie religious school), and many of my classmates became atheists later in life. :) I think there a large room for even further nuance about how humans develop and all the factors that shape our thinking. Simply forcing a 'critical thinking' class into the curriculum won't give them any benefit any more than attending an entrepreneurship class will make you an entrepreneur.
jaredklewis 6y ago
> When people believe the Earth is round only because that's what they were told, it's not that hard for a clever talker to convince them the Earth could be flat. When people know the Earth is round because they actually understand the physics behind it, there's no way you're ever going to convince them the Earth is flat. The problem with understanding things from their fundamentals is that it doesn't scale. The world is too complex. Are vaccines safe? Maybe I'll just should read through the Institute of Medicine's definitive, 900 page "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality." Can these robust explanations be simplified for lay people? Yes, but faced with competing, simplified explanations, can lay people dependably evaluate which is correct? Can they do it better than a domain expert? I have some understanding of how vaccines work, from school and popular science literature. But if tomorrow leaders in the field of medicine broadly announced that all of our understanding of vaccines up until now had been mistaken and that there was now some new explanation, well I would accept that new explanation. Whatever education I have had on the topic, it is obviously not going to be better than the education of experts in the medical field. Epistemic humility and a consequent reliance on domain experts is an essential part of being informed in our wonderfully complex world. This also means it is possible to be mislead by experts who are in the wrong, but I don't really see how this can be entirely avoided.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  So you have to get good at evaluating experts. Strategies include: comparing multiple sources, checking on the background of the alleged experts, picking out a few interesting but verifiable statements from their argument and fact-checking those, finding an opposing argument and seeing which argument seems to make more sense or be better supported. Having attended school through tenth grade... There were maybe a couple of assignments over the years in which we were told to choose a topic, do research on it while following some of the above (explicitly stated) strategies, and write it all up. The rest of the time, though, it was a lot more like "this stuff is fact" and you're not really encouraged to doubt it or look closely into the evidence chain. Evidence or proof might be presented (textbooks often mention it), or might not. I wouldn't say that the whole "skeptically evaluating your chosen experts" thing was considered a core skill or habit to cultivate (probably a few teachers considered it such, but their curricula didn't really emphasize it).

ab3rC1te 6y ago

So your saying your a sphere or ball earther? And in reality you think you understand the physics behind it but can't tell me how the color blue is the way it is. When one true creator sets boundaries and sustains all things in this world. Maybe when I see around 100 jets constantly spraying supposedly ice from their exhaust engines that it leaves strips that dissipate into clouds that man is creating. Its easier to control idiots than a failed education system. Or maybe the educational system creates idiots instead. Once a system fails and it will, good luck on surviving.

keymone 6y ago
Thanks, I giggled. When conspiracy theorists aren’t horrifying for the potential impact on lives of their victims, they are immensely entertaining. I bet most of the views on flat earther’s videos are just people looking for non artificial comedy.

coenhyde 6y ago

I agree 100%. The lack of critical thinking skills in this country is a national security threat. We need a national initiative improve the baseline education and critical thinking skills of the next generation. The powers that be, haven't got the memo yet that it doesn't benefit them anymore to have a populous which is easily manipulated. In the past, old media acted as parameter control, though concentrated ownership. Sure they had vested interests, but they were generally alined with American values; capitalism, stable democracy, international leadership by America, etc. But now each of the 340 million brains in this country can be accessed directly by foreign adversaries. Parameter control can not work anymore, unless we shut down the internet. We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. Some will argue that we should shutdown the internet or censor it. But is that the world we want to live in? That would stifle economic growth and i do not believe it is compatible with the ideals of liberal democracies.

treeman79 6y ago
It’s been tried. It’s how we got “new math“
- coenhyde 6y ago
  To be clear i did say a "national initiative" not a "national curriculum".
ksk 6y ago
What is the old line, people get the government they deserve, they elect people that they like and/or agree with? Even here on HN most people only upvote comments they like or otherwise agree with. Its the same everywhere. Massive massive echo chambers on the left and right with propaganda being retweeted and shared to millions. >We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. Why? Why must we treat adults as children that we have been entrusted with, and that it is our responsibility to give them 'mental medicine'? What makes our thinking superior to others' that we need to lord over them in this way? >Some will argue that we should shutdown the internet or censor it. But is that the world we want to live in? That would stifle economic growth and i do not believe it is compatible with the ideals of liberal democracies. I believe that these ideals are bottom-up. We form governments that align with the ideals of the people, not the other way around. If the people out of choice or ignorance no longer care about the ideals of liberal democracy, who are we to force them onto others?
- coenhyde 6y ago
  >>We must bring the security to each individual endpoint. >Why? Why must we treat adults as children I am suggesting the opposite. Rather than treat adults as children and censoring what they can and can not see. I am suggesting we give them the skills to critically analyze input they receive. > that we have been entrusted with, and that it is our responsibility to give them 'mental medicine'? What makes our thinking superior to others' that we need to lord over them in this way? Why provide any education at all then? As a society it is our responsibility to skill the next generation with the skills they need to operate in our society. I believe critical thinking skills is one of these required skills. > I believe that these ideals are bottom-up. We form governments that align with the ideals of the people, not the other way around I agree with this. But to get the best form of government we need educated and intelligent citizens. > If the people out of choice or ignorance no longer care about the ideals of liberal democracy, who are we to force them onto others? We really are fucked then aren't we. I kind of like living in a liberal democracy. If we throw our current system out due to ignorance I am very confident what comes next will not be superior. I'm not willing to accept that as path we take.

0xfeba 6y ago

> Children are taught to not question what they're told, because it's much easier on parents and teachers when children don't question what they're told. Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation. I'm gonna guess you don't have children. Children like easy-to-follow directions. They don't understand nuance at all. It's not because it's "easier on parents and teachers", it's because it's what works. You add nuance later in middle and high school.

0x445442 6y ago
> You add nuance later in middle and high school. If you take children to be under 18 then the statement seems valid because I don't think there's a lot of nuance going on in most middle or high schools.
calibas 6y ago
Young children absolutely need easy-to-follow directions because they can't follow complicated directions. I'm not arguing against easy-to-follow directions, so I don't quite see your point. I'm against parents and schools encouraging unquestioning obedience to their directions.
leto_ii 6y ago
> Children like easy-to-follow directions. They don't understand nuance at all. I don't have kids myself, but I do remember how it is to be a child, having been one myself a while ago :D I can assure you kids understand nuance quite well if they're explained things properly, patiently, in a friendly manner.
LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
When I'm 4, I could win the debate with adults. That bothered me for several years to think why an adult looks like child. As an adult now, I know the reason their mind never grow up. Not children could not understand complicated thing, it is that adult could not explain them well.
- 6y ago

ouid 6y ago

Churches lose membership and therefore money when schools teach critical thinking effectively. Given the power of the church over the last thousand years, it is unsurprising that progress in education has been so stymied.

ksk 6y ago

>when children don't question what they're told. That doesn't mean they accept everything as fact. They may simply not choose to question because of fear of punishment, or for any other number of reasons. >Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation. That is a giant leap of logic.. or faith. Case in point :- I went to a religious school (though, it was more of a hippie religious school), and many of my classmates became atheists later in life. :) I think there a large room for even further nuance about how humans develop and all the factors that shape our thinking. Simply forcing a 'critical thinking' class into the curriculum won't give them any benefit any more than attending an entrepreneurship class will make you an entrepreneur.

jaredklewis 6y ago

> When people believe the Earth is round only because that's what they were told, it's not that hard for a clever talker to convince them the Earth could be flat. When people know the Earth is round because they actually understand the physics behind it, there's no way you're ever going to convince them the Earth is flat. The problem with understanding things from their fundamentals is that it doesn't scale. The world is too complex. Are vaccines safe? Maybe I'll just should read through the Institute of Medicine's definitive, 900 page "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality." Can these robust explanations be simplified for lay people? Yes, but faced with competing, simplified explanations, can lay people dependably evaluate which is correct? Can they do it better than a domain expert? I have some understanding of how vaccines work, from school and popular science literature. But if tomorrow leaders in the field of medicine broadly announced that all of our understanding of vaccines up until now had been mistaken and that there was now some new explanation, well I would accept that new explanation. Whatever education I have had on the topic, it is obviously not going to be better than the education of experts in the medical field. Epistemic humility and a consequent reliance on domain experts is an essential part of being informed in our wonderfully complex world. This also means it is possible to be mislead by experts who are in the wrong, but I don't really see how this can be entirely avoided.

waterhouse 6y ago
So you have to get good at evaluating experts. Strategies include: comparing multiple sources, checking on the background of the alleged experts, picking out a few interesting but verifiable statements from their argument and fact-checking those, finding an opposing argument and seeing which argument seems to make more sense or be better supported. Having attended school through tenth grade... There were maybe a couple of assignments over the years in which we were told to choose a topic, do research on it while following some of the above (explicitly stated) strategies, and write it all up. The rest of the time, though, it was a lot more like "this stuff is fact" and you're not really encouraged to doubt it or look closely into the evidence chain. Evidence or proof might be presented (textbooks often mention it), or might not. I wouldn't say that the whole "skeptically evaluating your chosen experts" thing was considered a core skill or habit to cultivate (probably a few teachers considered it such, but their curricula didn't really emphasize it).