8 ms·

You can deconstruct language all you want, but it's not going to change basic facts. You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it

by mcv 3y ago

You can deconstruct language all you want, but it's not going to change basic facts. You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland.

mistermann 3y ago
You can state your vague opinions as facts all you want, but it doesn't make them facts. Imagine if we wrote code the way we talk about political matters, where trying to be correct was considered wrong, worthy of punishment or banishment. Or for a more apt analogy: imagine if the inaccuracy and untruthfulness in threads like this was tried in a thread about technology right here on HN: do you think that would stand unchallenged, and do you think those challenging untruths would be considered to be doing it wrong? > You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland. Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Perhaps I missed the class where we learned we should not think about such things - rather, whatever intuition pops into our minds is correct, necessarily.
- mcv 3y ago
  I have no idea what kind of weird language game you're trying to play. If you have a problem with vague opinions, maybe you should be more clear about what you're trying to say there. You make vague claims of wrongness, inaccuracy, untruthfulness, and even punishment or banishment, without making clear what the fuck you're hinting at. You doubt that democracies tend to have better education than dictatorships? Why? Do you have any basis for that doubt? If you look at lists of countries with the best education, the top is dominated by democracies, with Finland usually at the top. Lots of dictatorships around the world are not exactly known for their quality education. The only exception to that that I can think of are communist dictatorships: Cuba has apparently pretty good doctors, the old USSR was pretty big on research and engineering, and China is currently investing heavily in engineering. But their educations tend to focus entirely on STEM fields, and not on fields that might lead people to question the politics of the system; it's vital for the survival of dictatorships to suppress that kind of thinking. > Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? I don't see why. There's always room for improvement. > And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Americans always claim that their country is too big to replicate the successes of Europe. I think that's bullshit; there's a political drive to keep government programs that help the people underfunded, to keep people stupid and poor, particularly from the Republican party that's increasingly pushing the US towards dictatorship. Because they know critical thinking is not going to help their case.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Let's try an analogy/thought experiment approach: Imagine a scenario where a technology is invented, and it is working pretty good, and in some places it is objectively better than other places (it is better on a relative basis), which results in it having the appearance of being very good on an absolute basis. Now, add in someone suggesting that it could plausibly be much better (for the sake of argument lets say 50% better), and this improvement could be very beneficial to humanity (let's throw in some compounding, self-reinforcing positive feedback loop effects), and this person just so happens (in this thought experiment) to be correct, though it is not possible to know he is correct (perhaps because of the nature and quality of the technology itself). However, for this 50% increase in optimality to actually happen, it just so happens to require substantial (say, 10%) public support, but that support cannot be achieved because of limitations caused by the technology itself. ((It would be nice to be able to branch thought experiments....I think doing one with and without that last attribute would produce interesting results.)) Now, we could swap in various object level technologies into this thought experiment, and see how things appear. My suggestion is that when swapping in education, this resembles the situation we are actually in, but because of the nature of this particular variable, we are not only not able to realize it, we cannot even consider it. Hopefully this is clearer? -------------- Or another angle: consider how we are constantly improving so many things, like really working hard at it (that's what I do all day every day where I work), yet: are there (or might there be) some things that we are not working really hard at improving, that an omniscient Oracle could see (and maybe we could as well, if we were able to look, or at least try) contain massive amounts of unseen, low-hanging fruit? And, might education be one of these things? (Or: culture, "democracy", etc?) Or another angle: do humans in 2024 have any sacred cows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom) >> Sacred cow is an idiom, a figurative reference to cattle in religion and mythology. A sacred cow is a figure of speech for something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so.[1][better source needed] This idiom is thought to originate in American English, although similar or even identical idioms occur in many other languages. Background >> The idiom is based on the popular understanding of the elevated place of cows in Hinduism and appears to have emerged in America in the late 19th century. >> A literal sacred cow or sacred bull is an actual cow or bull that is treated with sincere respect. >> One writer has suggested that there is an element of paradox in the concept of respect for a sacred cow, as illustrated in a comment about the novelist V. S. Naipaul: "V. S. Naipaul ... has the ability to distinguish the death of an ordinary ox, which, being of concern to no one, may be put quickly out of its agony, from that of a sacred cow, which must be solicitously guarded so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference." I think a legitimately relevant reference to things like climate change, nuclear weapons, etc could be made here (with respect to the "so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference"....if we don't smarten up, we may be walking blind into big trouble), but I have to get my ass into work!

by mcv 3y ago

You can deconstruct language all you want, but it's not going to change basic facts. You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland.

mistermann 3y ago

You can state your vague opinions as facts all you want, but it doesn't make them facts. Imagine if we wrote code the way we talk about political matters, where trying to be correct was considered wrong, worthy of punishment or banishment. Or for a more apt analogy: imagine if the inaccuracy and untruthfulness in threads like this was tried in a thread about technology right here on HN: do you think that would stand unchallenged, and do you think those challenging untruths would be considered to be doing it wrong? > You're not going to find quality education in North Korea. You will find it in Finland. Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Perhaps I missed the class where we learned we should not think about such things - rather, whatever intuition pops into our minds is correct, necessarily.

mcv 3y ago
I have no idea what kind of weird language game you're trying to play. If you have a problem with vague opinions, maybe you should be more clear about what you're trying to say there. You make vague claims of wrongness, inaccuracy, untruthfulness, and even punishment or banishment, without making clear what the fuck you're hinting at. You doubt that democracies tend to have better education than dictatorships? Why? Do you have any basis for that doubt? If you look at lists of countries with the best education, the top is dominated by democracies, with Finland usually at the top. Lots of dictatorships around the world are not exactly known for their quality education. The only exception to that that I can think of are communist dictatorships: Cuba has apparently pretty good doctors, the old USSR was pretty big on research and engineering, and China is currently investing heavily in engineering. But their educations tend to focus entirely on STEM fields, and not on fields that might lead people to question the politics of the system; it's vital for the survival of dictatorships to suppress that kind of thinking. > Is Finland the absolute pinnacle of what's possible? I don't see why. There's always room for improvement. > And is there some reason the US cannot replicate across the country the quality offered there? Americans always claim that their country is too big to replicate the successes of Europe. I think that's bullshit; there's a political drive to keep government programs that help the people underfunded, to keep people stupid and poor, particularly from the Republican party that's increasingly pushing the US towards dictatorship. Because they know critical thinking is not going to help their case.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Let's try an analogy/thought experiment approach: Imagine a scenario where a technology is invented, and it is working pretty good, and in some places it is objectively better than other places (it is better on a relative basis), which results in it having the appearance of being very good on an absolute basis. Now, add in someone suggesting that it could plausibly be much better (for the sake of argument lets say 50% better), and this improvement could be very beneficial to humanity (let's throw in some compounding, self-reinforcing positive feedback loop effects), and this person just so happens (in this thought experiment) to be correct, though it is not possible to know he is correct (perhaps because of the nature and quality of the technology itself). However, for this 50% increase in optimality to actually happen, it just so happens to require substantial (say, 10%) public support, but that support cannot be achieved because of limitations caused by the technology itself. ((It would be nice to be able to branch thought experiments....I think doing one with and without that last attribute would produce interesting results.)) Now, we could swap in various object level technologies into this thought experiment, and see how things appear. My suggestion is that when swapping in education, this resembles the situation we are actually in, but because of the nature of this particular variable, we are not only not able to realize it, we cannot even consider it. Hopefully this is clearer? -------------- Or another angle: consider how we are constantly improving so many things, like really working hard at it (that's what I do all day every day where I work), yet: are there (or might there be) some things that we are not working really hard at improving, that an omniscient Oracle could see (and maybe we could as well, if we were able to look, or at least try) contain massive amounts of unseen, low-hanging fruit? And, might education be one of these things? (Or: culture, "democracy", etc?) Or another angle: do humans in 2024 have any sacred cows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom) >> Sacred cow is an idiom, a figurative reference to cattle in religion and mythology. A sacred cow is a figure of speech for something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so.[1][better source needed] This idiom is thought to originate in American English, although similar or even identical idioms occur in many other languages. Background >> The idiom is based on the popular understanding of the elevated place of cows in Hinduism and appears to have emerged in America in the late 19th century. >> A literal sacred cow or sacred bull is an actual cow or bull that is treated with sincere respect. >> One writer has suggested that there is an element of paradox in the concept of respect for a sacred cow, as illustrated in a comment about the novelist V. S. Naipaul: "V. S. Naipaul ... has the ability to distinguish the death of an ordinary ox, which, being of concern to no one, may be put quickly out of its agony, from that of a sacred cow, which must be solicitously guarded so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference." I think a legitimately relevant reference to things like climate change, nuclear weapons, etc could be made here (with respect to the "so that it can die its agonizing death without any interference"....if we don't smarten up, we may be walking blind into big trouble), but I have to get my ass into work!