5 ms·
"Socialization" is a canard once you look at the "society" of schools, more like prisons than a place you would want your children to spend their days. Childre
by gregjor 2y ago
"Socialization" is a canard once you look at the "society" of schools, more like prisons than a place you would want your children to spend their days.
Children do need to socialize with family, friends, and the society they participate in, but they can do that without school. Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. There's no reason to lock children up for most of the day in an artificial and oppressive environment, day care so parents can work, and indoctrination masquerading as "education."
- jddj 2y ago> Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. What's the name for this particular rhetorical method? I see it often.
- bitlax 2y agoargument
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoyou may feel that it is related to various fallacies - for example the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or the fallacy of false analogy?
- orwin 2y agoCall to tradition/call to nature
- jddj 2y agoThanks, appeal to nature seems to be it
- gregjor 2y agoI'm sure you'll tell me, but I call it "pointing out a fact."
- hackerlight 2y agoPrisons is an apt analogy. If you think otherwise you probably went to a uniquely good school or were high charisma and avoided bullying. But that's not everyone's experience. Human children socialized just fine in the 100k years that we didn't have schools. The purpose of schools is to bring economies of scale to education. That's great, but if we can figure out a way to deliver education at scale without schools and all the negative side effects of schools, that'd be even better.
- blitzar 2y agoThe primary purpose of schools is daycare.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoWhich sounded bad to me until I became a parent myself. I now appreciate the importance of daycare in the urbanized society of mostly nuclear families.
- gregjor 2y agoHomeschooling generally requires at least one parent not working out of the home, or both parents working from home, or juggling schedules. Unfortunately homeschooling is a realistic option only for more affluent families. When we did it with three kids, in Portland, OR, we got together with other homeschooling parents and they ranged from well off to struggling with the cost of sacrificing some income. As a parent I can appreciate the importance of daycare, but for me the few years of foregone income in return for raising my own children was worth it. We decided to make it work because our kids were more important than our careers or making more money. I won't say it's easy, or that anyone who makes other choices is damaging their children -- every family has unique circumstances and goals.
- Y_Y 2y ago> There's no reason to lock children up for most of the day in an artificial and oppressive environment, day care so parents can work, and indoctrination masquerading as "education." But that's the reason right there! The government/society wants the populace to work, reproduce, and support the government. They're doing exactly as one might expect them to do! I'm not against government or schooling, although much could be improved. I do think the things you complain of are natural consequences of the existing system, and you'd have to go to special effort to have anything else.
- boxed 2y ago> Children do need to socialize with family, friends, and the society they participate in, but they can do that without school Can they? How? The way we did it before was to have many children so they had siblings. And we also had child labor.
- gregjor 2y agoYes, they can. And there's a big difference between kids learning from their family and community and helping out and Dickensian factories full of children. Nothing about homeschooling implies child labor.