3 ms·

I want to say something along the lines of "they want to de fund critical thinking in general" but I fear I'm becoming too extreme. I'll go with what you said i

I want to say something along the lines of "they want to de fund critical thinking in general" but I fear I'm becoming too extreme. I'll go with what you said instead.

wpietri 2y ago
Yeah, I suspect few of them directly want that. But I also think few of them are inclined to appreciate the benefits of it. But it does happen intentionally that way some times for sure. E.g., the way the US's Dickey Amendment defunded gun research to prevent any inconvenient facts from coming to light.
Dansvidania 2y ago
I do not know how things look in New Zealand, but I would argue that, on average, very little critical thinking is thought in university or college. In neither the humanities or STEM. I think good professors that focus on that are the exception and not the rule, sadly.
- worik 2y ago
  > do not know how things look in New Zealand, but I would argue that, on average, very little critical thinking is thought in university or college. In neither the humanities or STEM. I am in New Zealand I have been through the university system here, my family still closely involved A great deal of critical thinking happens in New Zealand universities
- peterashford 2y ago
  I'm a New Zealander. I got a degree in Philosophy and entered a Masters in Computer Science here. I definitely learned a lot about critical thinking. Both from humanities and sciences - I think the combination is probably superior to either in isolation
mistrial9 2y ago
there is no unified "they" .. instead I think you are identifying a difficult fork in the road of education.. exploratory and associative free-will versus collective learned information up to disciplined obedience. A full society needs both! neither are inherently better ! It is indeed a difficult subject. People in the disciplined obedience camp do sometimes prioritize their own ways for funding, and vice-versa, for sure ..
- hnbad 2y ago
  I don't know about that. China seems to have found a middle ground that allows for a pretense of exploratory and associative free-will ("special economic zones", China even has billionaires) with people in reality being one wrong move away from the usual sudden and drastic crackdown you'd associate with its style of government. On the other hand Western democracies largely seem to fund this kind of "exploratory and associative free-will" to the benefit of their aristocracies (i.e. wealthy people who hold a lot of social, economic and often political power but can not actually directly control the government itself despite often benefiting from selective enforcement) while at the same time clearly being aware that ideas like the state monopoly of violence (even in the US) or the "right for a country to defend itself" are vital to the state's continued existence and that democracy is a threat to that ulterior motive if taken too seriously. China seems to be an example of a "disciplined obedience" system adapting to its economic environment (more the international one than the internal one) whereas "the West" seems to provide examples of systems creating layers of misdirection to hide their inherent "disciplined obedience" based nature that ensures their self-preservation.
- wpietri 2y ago
  I don't think there's a "unified 'they'" in the sense of, say, there being a Stamp Out Critical Thinking Council with meetings Tuesdays and Thursdays. But I do think that people who rise through power systems while seeking control are going to be averse to critical thinking in their underlings and their social lessers. I think that's in part because most systems like that select for that kind of person, but also because it's in both their personal interest and that of the system they've hitched themselves to. So the "they" here isn't a unified, coordinated group. But you'll rarely find those in structural problems. But there is a "they" in the sense that we can define a set of people who will act to oppose critical thinking either through direct self interest or class interest.

I want to say something along the lines of "they want to de fund critical thinking in general" but I fear I'm becoming too extreme. I'll go with what you said instead.

wpietri 2y ago

Yeah, I suspect few of them directly want that. But I also think few of them are inclined to appreciate the benefits of it. But it does happen intentionally that way some times for sure. E.g., the way the US's Dickey Amendment defunded gun research to prevent any inconvenient facts from coming to light.

Dansvidania 2y ago

I do not know how things look in New Zealand, but I would argue that, on average, very little critical thinking is thought in university or college. In neither the humanities or STEM. I think good professors that focus on that are the exception and not the rule, sadly.

worik 2y ago
> do not know how things look in New Zealand, but I would argue that, on average, very little critical thinking is thought in university or college. In neither the humanities or STEM. I am in New Zealand I have been through the university system here, my family still closely involved A great deal of critical thinking happens in New Zealand universities
peterashford 2y ago
I'm a New Zealander. I got a degree in Philosophy and entered a Masters in Computer Science here. I definitely learned a lot about critical thinking. Both from humanities and sciences - I think the combination is probably superior to either in isolation

mistrial9 2y ago

there is no unified "they" .. instead I think you are identifying a difficult fork in the road of education.. exploratory and associative free-will versus collective learned information up to disciplined obedience. A full society needs both! neither are inherently better ! It is indeed a difficult subject. People in the disciplined obedience camp do sometimes prioritize their own ways for funding, and vice-versa, for sure ..

hnbad 2y ago
I don't know about that. China seems to have found a middle ground that allows for a pretense of exploratory and associative free-will ("special economic zones", China even has billionaires) with people in reality being one wrong move away from the usual sudden and drastic crackdown you'd associate with its style of government. On the other hand Western democracies largely seem to fund this kind of "exploratory and associative free-will" to the benefit of their aristocracies (i.e. wealthy people who hold a lot of social, economic and often political power but can not actually directly control the government itself despite often benefiting from selective enforcement) while at the same time clearly being aware that ideas like the state monopoly of violence (even in the US) or the "right for a country to defend itself" are vital to the state's continued existence and that democracy is a threat to that ulterior motive if taken too seriously. China seems to be an example of a "disciplined obedience" system adapting to its economic environment (more the international one than the internal one) whereas "the West" seems to provide examples of systems creating layers of misdirection to hide their inherent "disciplined obedience" based nature that ensures their self-preservation.
wpietri 2y ago
I don't think there's a "unified 'they'" in the sense of, say, there being a Stamp Out Critical Thinking Council with meetings Tuesdays and Thursdays. But I do think that people who rise through power systems while seeking control are going to be averse to critical thinking in their underlings and their social lessers. I think that's in part because most systems like that select for that kind of person, but also because it's in both their personal interest and that of the system they've hitched themselves to. So the "they" here isn't a unified, coordinated group. But you'll rarely find those in structural problems. But there is a "they" in the sense that we can define a set of people who will act to oppose critical thinking either through direct self interest or class interest.