We are mostly singing from the same hymn sheet then. But I think it's OK to educate kids in how to use technology if they understand its situatedness with regard to subjectivity. And that can start simply by telling them: This stuff is not just something you use, but that if you use it, will use you. Here's how... — Baden

I am the one fighting to make it okay to use AI. Insisting people have liberal educations is not being anti-technology. However, a high IQ and being able to program computers or make mass destruction weapons does not equal wisdom, and we are the dumbest animal on the planet if we don't realize how important wisdom is. That requires a liberal education, and feeling responsible for what one knows and how one uses that knowledge.

I argue for liberal education as Christians argue for the Bible. Ever since the beginning of the US there has been a conflict between religious people and those who believe the Enlightenment is the most important source of knowledge.

I don't think we want to stop technology, but we need the wisdom to use it. Give us the liberty to use AI and work on our wisdom to use it well.

[

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. — Baden

Something is wrong with humanity if that happens. My experience with AI this morning was not that impressive. How it answers a question depends on how the question is worded. A person can get different answers by asking the same question differently. That can be like pulling back the curtain and exposing the Wizard of Oz.

However, the things AI can do, like create false pictures, are threatening. I have a friend who is working on high-tech computer chips, and I can hardly wait to visit with her and discuss the threats she sees. But I also see vacs deniers and other conspiracy theories, and I am shocked by what people believe. Like not only is the technology threatening, but people's willingness to believe lies is frightening. We need to work on our logic skills.

Where it is difficult for a child to hear 30 million positive (non-command / non-curse) words is in poor families, especially poor black families. Children from these families may arrive at school with a 10 million-word deficit, and a lot of the words they have heard have been negative, commands, or curses. Again, it is the language of the caregiver, not the television or uninvolved people, that matters. — BC

I Googled, "Does TV influence teenagers" and AI gave a strong "yes, it does". I think we were much wiser in the past when we had censorship. I hope you look for more information. Maybe you can find a cite that supports your statement and share it.

I bring this up because for these poor children, remediation of language deficits is very difficult, and by 3rd grade, the child has often fallen far behind--which becomes yet another barrier. — BC

That I believe that is true. By age 8, our brains are literally changed and we do not absorb information as we do before age 8. But in some ways, our brains are better prepared for cognitive work.

Praising the child is important. What the child needs to hear a lot less of is the negative language one sometimes hears on a bus, from parent to child. It can be very harsh. — BC

That is something I did not understand. The harsh language was just wrong, but criticizing was showing I care. :worry: Like many in my cohort, parents meant well, but did a lot of harm because we were raised with a lot of criticism. I think the Great Depression influenced our parents, who meant well. I think the parents' sense of security influences how the parent understands life. Insecurity is very damaging.

And I want to say, my mother, like many mothers, was a single mother, and I was raised in a day care center, where I withdrew and stayed to myself. To me, the rest of the children were like animals and I didn't want to fight for a toy. Day Care may not be a good thing for all children.

Can parents be taught? Yes, provided there are funds to launch the kind of intensive outreach that is needed, and to maintain the instructional programs for years on end. — BC

My granddaughter took advantage of the Birth to Three program that was available in the city. I wish I had had such a supportive program when I was a young mother. My X kept the family isolated, and I feel for all the pioneer women who were isolated when we moved west and filled the wilderness with civilization. They should have at least had the Internet. That would have made life so much better!

No. But you have to admit that as an adult absorbing all kinds of learning from your environment, that the childhood teachings we learned have been modified. And this is what I meant. It could happen that the values you learned as a child have been beneficial to you as an adult and so that's what you follow. — L'éléphant

When my teenage daughter got in trouble with the law, she had to go into counseling and the counselor told her she learned better. She most certainly did. But the teen years are a form insanity. :lol: Back in the day, there was not the flood of books for the teen years that we have today.

One of the many things I don't much about are the theories (good and bad) about teaching reading. I have seen several studies that emphasize the importance of hearing A LOT of language in the first 4 or 5 years of life -- not babble from a television, but spoken by care-givers in a positive manner. The more complex, the better. By first grade (5 or 6 years) a child needs to have heard around 30,000,000 words. Being reared in a diminished and negative language environment can make acquisition of reading (and other school-taught skills) very difficult-to-impossible. — BC

Thank you so much for saying something interesting about education and learning. What you said justifies the Head Start program. I watched a cognitively-challenged mother raise her children, and she herself did not have the vocabulary nor the wit to talk to her children. I encouraged her to do so, but she could not understand the importance. We have a housing project for low-income families with Head Start and child care on the grounds. These challenged people need that for so many reasons. They love their children, but their judgment is lacking and the State may take their children. We need more housing that supports these parents and prepares children for learning.

I recently found math books for children that are stories that can be read to a child at bedtime. These books are awesome as they do more to help children understand math concepts. Far back in the day, some school textbooks also taught math by telling stories, and values like being considerate and cooperative were also in the stories. It is quite obvious to me, children learn language but fail to learn math because we ignore math but talk all day, every day.

I had the most fun with a great-grandson who was in my care because he was a very active child, and I introduced math when walking. His whole body was learning math. One of my math books suggested the need to actively learn math.

Oh my, I am so moved and passionate about this. When people say education is about preparing children for industry, I have to argue that many teachers teach because they love the children and teaching. What can be more rewarding than opening a child's mind to the marvels of learning? We need to give back the teacher's authority over his/her classroom.

But aside from that, most people here are very charitable and understanding as far as their time and intellect goes into explaining things if you simply ask with polite inquisitiveness or curiosity. — Outlander

This forum is much, much better than most. And like you, I am often overwhelmed by better-informed people. Curious, how people intent on thinking can also be the nicest people. Now we just need an education system that encourages this. I think some places are developing a better understanding of what the young need to learn. I have hope we will no more let AI rule over us than we would allow a pope or king to rule over us. What we do depends on how we are educated.

Athena, I think you are misunderstanding how AI works. When you ask AI to respond to an argument, it is expressing its own opinion. Not your opinion. The forum wants discussion between humans, not between AI. Using AI to refine your posts, or correct spelling is fine, as it is still your opinion being expressed. But if AI writes the response, you aren't expressing your opinion; you are expressing the AI's opinion. AI is known to be very overconfident, making up information when it cannot find any on a subject. By posting an AI response, you are posting the opinion of an unempathetic, brainless, untrustworthy robot. The forum does not want this. — Wolfy48

Oh please, AI does not have its own opinion because it does not have a personality. AI is a lot of information, and the machine can organize that information. It has a much broader source of information than any person can have. Therefore, it is more useful than asking your friends for information.

It is important to keep things in perspective. It is a tool and it must remain a tool. BUT WE CAN MAKE IT A TERRIBLE POWER OVER US. I believe education for technology has humans in a very dangerous position right now.

What is the rule about talking politics? :nerd: I know, I need to check with the ancient philosophers and see what they have to say bout making ourselves subservient to a machine. Oh, maybe that won't work. According to a professor I absolutely hate, information older than 10 years is useless, and so are the people who believe that crap.

Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable now that Al will become in the near future THE general authority. So, thinking will no longer be a practical necessity. We could even draw a logical line from human laziness to a situation where people simply plug their "personality" into a mobile AI, stick it on themselves, and allow it to do all their conversing for them. — Baden

This is why I argue against education for technology. I think the world you want requires a liberal education. I have been alone with this argument for many years. I could die in peace if I were not the only one fighting for liberal education.

It cannot think. It is just a tool.

An idiot using a hammer is still an idiot using a hammer. Destructive rather than constructive. Authority? Nope, none. — I like sushi

An idiot using a medical book is no better than an idiot using a hammer, but we aren't going to ban medical books, are we?

Something very frightening is happening today. People want more and more control, and this destroys not only our liberty but our ability to manage our liberty as well. I harp and harp about education, because it is essential to our safety and liberty. Ignoring the importance of education and trying to protect everyone by taking away their liberty is a dark cloud over us right now. I think we are experiencing how Dark Ages happen.

Well, noone ever said you cannot discuss with AI and collect your thoughts and feelings. I think they mostly don't want you to ask a question and then just copy and paste direct from the AI. But, do be aware AI make mistakes too and could mislead you down a path of AI hallucinations.

In otherwords, you probably souldn't use it as an authority, but instead use it as a personal assistant. — DifferentiatingEgg

Sometimes it is impossible for me to be good and do the right thing, because there is another right thing that trumps the first right thing. This morning, in a thread about education, I used AI. But darn it! I feel passionately that we need to know some things if humanity is going to make the right decisions. The AI I used may not be 100% correct, and I said I disagree with one of the points. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect.

However, we can share social agreements such as the right to bear arms, but then we have to work on agreements about our behavior. Is there a right way to use AI? Can I prove I have social agreement when I am explaining a problem or solution? Because what I believe is the most important information is from very old books, my point of view is different from all others. Because what I say is different, it is assumed I am wrong and do not know what I am talking about. I feel pretty alone with this burden, and that makes AI useful in making my point.

AI isn't worse than any other piece of information. If you want to see really bad, bad information, go for a religious explanation. AI is not a false god. It is a useful tool. How we use it might matter but it will never trump religion for being problematic.

And even if I were speaking to God himself, I would have my own opinion, and I would tell him I think he did a few things wrong.

The only real threat I am concerned about is AGI, but I am not entirely sure that can/will happen anytime soon. Hard to say. If it does that has far more potential to ruin our lives as well as improve it dramatically. — I like sushi

What is AGI?

About drastic change. We live on a finite planet, and we act as though there is an infinite supply of everything we need. But some folks know better so we have very expensive military power and wars. I would have more hope if people were more conscious of reality.

When I was microfilming old newspapers for a library, I read a warning in a 1920s newspaper. "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war." All Industrial economies collapsed, and the world went to war. I have a very low opinion of human intelligence.

Teaching by example; putting them in a difficult situation earlier than usual, such as by to operate a small town where they work fields, and run shops--- and other things you'd expect to see in a town, under the guidance of trained teachers.

Being civil and training them manners and to take pride in their chores(not just doing it for the parents), all by the trained teachers or parents doing this themselves, and asking them to pay attention. — Barkon

I believe you are speaking of social bonds. I am quite sure mass murderers do not have good social bonds. How many people are in your town? Does your town have enough farm land and water to be self-sufficient? How does your town resolve problems?

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

Do you prefer evolution to Creationism? The evidence I have seen on TV or read in books, and the college lectures I have learned from, say, the ape-like creatures that became humans succeeded because of the better social organization.

Bonobos have a different social structure than chimpanzees. They are female-dominated and more sexual, and more cooperative. Many of us have Neanderthal genes, but modern man won, possibly because of better social organization. Athenians held that you can not have too many people in a democracy because when we become strangers to each other, our social bonds break down. Our morality depends on our social bonds.

Exactly what was the point you were trying to make?

I love your post. :heart: I have a very old eugenics book, along with very old books about family values. The author of the eugenics book said people should learn about birth control so women would have sex with their husbands instead of sending them to a brothel because they didn't want to get pregnant. He was very excited by what technology would do for us, and he would not have stood in the way of abortion, especially if the baby would be deformed. This is the thinking that Hitler adopted. Developing technology most certainly changed our moral perspective.

On the other hand, these old books tell me sex is okay, but a woman should never expect a man to help with the children! She must take care of everything so he is free to focus on his career. I sure would have liked a wife like that when my X walked out and I had to support the children. It would have been wonderful to have a full-time homemaker like many women were before women's lib. When I needed a wife like that, my opinion of worth as a homemaker went sky high. :lol:

On to textbooks, Dick and Jane textbooks were for the "see and say" method, which is highly dependent on memory and resulted in a large number of students failing. I am so grateful for my teacher grandmother because I could not learn to read and was put in the group for dumbies. She taught me phonics and used the Jerry and Alice textbooks. Those books were for learning phonics AND they brought in different values. A main character in the Jerry and Alice books was a single woman.

Back to war and education. In the US, the divorce rate went sky high following WWII. During the war years, the government, textbook makers, and media had strong relationships to maintain patriotism. After the war, there was a shift to strengthen family values. The Democracy Series of grade school texts and later Dick and Jane are good examples of this.

I want to stress the importance of this focus on values because of the herd of which you speak.

Enough did that the "herd standard" worked pretty well. And we lacked diversity; we were all pretty much culturally the same. — BC

That was very much the result of intentional government, bookmaker, and education goals. Now darnit and I am so sorry but I am going to break the ban on AI because this is a perfect time to use it and the health of our nation needs this information.

Contrary to popular belief, iconic family sitcoms after WWII like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best were not funded by the government. They were commercial products of a flourishing post-war television industry, though they did reflect and promote the cultural ideals of the time.
The post-war context
Following World War II, a climate of renewed consumerism and Cold War anxiety contributed to a deep cultural emphasis on a secure and traditional family life. TV shows that presented idealized, traditional family models found a receptive audience.

I have to modify that by saying the public broadcasting channels were government-funded and focused on values. :lol: Some people don't like the left-leaning programming, and perhaps "Jerry and Alice" were also left-leaning? I asked AI and found another disagreement with AI. :cry: I am losing faith in AI. But I am thrilled to find an explanation of our consciousness at the time.

That was when Billy Graham talked to Eisenhower about putting "God" into our Pledge of Allegiance and focusing on communist people, not being Christian people. AI saying the government wasn't involved with political media agendas may not be the whole truth. The Communists liberated women long before the US. At first, the USSR economy improved when women entered the workforce. However, divorce and abortion rates increased, and then increasing numbers of women and children fell below the poverty level. We can add to that, increasing women and children being more involved in crime and violence, both as victims and perpetrators.

I was horrified when a teacher expressed great enthusiasm for a new computer learning program that told the story of the new bully on the block, being a girl. This was topped by the popularity of Captain Underpants, and our local school library preferring socially inappropriate books to the classics because the children would read them. We have come a long way from our reading books, teaching our young good values, and creating a herd with moral values.

You remind me of the history forum where everyone thinks the object is to prove the OP and following statements wrong. That could often be a very unpleasant experience that could never become an interesting discussion. I think the quality of the people in a forum makes a big difference.

This is so weird, I have enjoyed using AI so much and never realized a problem. For me, it is like checking with Mike. The guy who seems to know something about everything. It has not been a life-threatening experience for me, but a lot of fun.

I can totally relate to the term, lazy brain. I have experienced my brain being lazy, and if I try harder, it gets worse. Stress will totally crash my thinking system. I have lived with that problem for many years. Sometimes, to cope with difficult moments, I tell people "I live in the now" and everyone laughs.. It is hard to know when normal senior moments are no longer normal.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Thanks, that is how I see AI, but I think my brain is becoming dysfunctional and never using AI is not going to make things better. But like using a walker, it could extend my ability to do what I want to do.

You can "use" AI to learn material, particularly if you verify it elsewhere. — Moliere

That is a good idea, and if I could do that, I would not argue in favor of using AI. Hopefully, none of you will know I am talking about. This link explains the increased difficulty with learning, and I go to the gym several days a week, hoping that will slow the decline. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/brain-health/how-aging-brain-affects-thinking

I appreciate your down-to-earth explanation of potential problems. Now I am thinking this argument is like the gun argument. If someone gets shot it is not the gun's fault but the misuse of the gun.

I think starting a thread with an interesting AI and asking people to say what they think of what AI said, could be a lot of fun. I can not imagine what the problem would be. I just do not have the experience to know what can go wrong.

the important thing is that it is your ideas getting expressed. — Srap Tasmaner

That is a nice thing to say. I have a different perspective, but I am questioning myself and why I think it is important to argue the point. I will simply say that I love using AI explanations and wish everyone would.

I just don't see a past golden age in North American education, as experienced by the 90%+ of the population who were neither part of the elite nor had any likelihood of joining the elite. The elite received what I think you would consider a very good education -- heavy in the humanities, Greek, Latin, etc. For boys going into business, (even law, until relatively recently) higher education was of little use. — BC

I so want to respond to everything you said but I am exhausted and heading to bed. I am thrilled that you valued intellectual pursuits above material wealth. I hope I understand you correctly. Now for education. Have you tried buying old grade school textbooks? They were about preparing children for life, not just preparing them for jobs. Unless you see this for yourself what I am saying is just words with no meaning. Especially important was using our schools for Americanizing immigrants. This education was not about technology until 1917, and the US mobilized for the First World War. The war demanded technologically trained men, and we scrambled to prepare for the First World War.

I don't think anyone was thinking about what this would do to our economy. We had not experienced the level of technology that changed our reality rapidly because of wartime demands. Even those who fought in the Second World War, did not expect to pay income taxes because they didn't think they would ever earn enough to have to pay an income tax. We transitioned from an industrial economy to a service economy in the 1950's. You know, around the time Eisenhower was the US president and asked Congress to pass the National Defense Education Act.

You might notice I am saying the world wars changed education, and a byproduct was folks leaving the farms and moving into cities where they hoped to have better jobs and better lives. Adding vocational training to education was a wonderful benefit for thousands of Americans. But all this way, the priority of education was preparing the young to be good citizens, until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced what Eisenhower called our domestic education with education for technology for military and industrial purposes.

That explanation is way too long, but I don't know what can be cut out of it. I checked with my favorite second-hand online book store, and they do not have The Democracy Series grade school textbooks. We were preparing for war with Germany at the time. One of the texts makes comparisons between our way of life in the US and Germany. It was believed that patriotism was the most important part of our national defense until the military technology of the Second World War.

This isn't very philosophical, but maybe someone can morph it into a philosophical statement. The old textbooks promoted families. Dick and Jane's mother stayed home to take care of the family. The father went to work to support the family. The grandparents lived on a farm. It was not gays who ruined family values. It was the National Defense Education Act and labor laws that changed the family with education for a technological society with unknown values. This has something to do with the cost of a high-tech military and modern warfare, and having a fully employed adult population paying income taxes. For military and economic reasons, Mom can not stay home and care for the family. A homemaker does so much more than prepare meals and keep the home clean. But who wants to be "just a housewife".

You must be using hyperbole? We do actually constantly rethink things all the time, but thankfully we do not act on them because all people have some conservativism too. — I like sushi

But we must act on them. We can not continue with the racism that prevents social justice for all. We can not continue living in denial of global warming and exhausting our resources. The longer we live in denial, the worse the reality will be. I don't want to be drinking recycled water, and I don't want to experience food shortages, and once good farm land turned into deserts. Living as people lived when the bible was written will not protect us from a harsh reality that is developing.

There’s not a blanket ban on your using AI but we’re not allowed to use it to write posts for us. You can use it to refine your arguments, ideas and prose but it’s important that what you write is in your own voice. — Wayfarer

What I have done elsewhere is use AI to support what I have said. I want to make it clear, what I say is not a personal opinion but is factual. Occasionally, I ran into information that was very exciting to me, and I wanted to use it to open a discussion. That was against the rule in the other forum as well. Accepting I was not supposed to do that, played into my decision to stop participating in the forum.

I am confused by the ban having exceptions. How is anyone supposed to know the limits? And it just dawned on me, using Grammarly may be against the rules. I am screwed if that is so because I can't spell.

I said either is dangerous in the extreme. There is nothing unusual about that. Changing everything is an extreme thing to suggest -- dangerous! — I like sushi

Okay, but how should we react to the danger? Several times in history, we have faced major changes. I am fixated on the cause and result of passing the 1958 National Defense Education Act and turning the whole of our nation into a Military Industrial Complex. If this continues, we have fought every war for nothing. But that is just one of several life-changing changes.

Oh, oh, China intentionally prevented change. Change was considered a danger that needed to be avoided. Confucianism was very conservative, and some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are conservative.

I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case. — Hanover

I was responding to being told to ask AI. Now I am confused. You didn't mean for me to ask AI why I can't use AI?

You said--

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here. — Hanover

I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case. — Hanover

I am making a case for everyone who needs aids to achieve what they want to achieve. If this was not about everyone, I would not have started a thread. When I studied gerontology at the U of O, the experts were asking if old people withdrew from society because that was their choice, or are the old people pushed out. I can answer that question with my personal experience.

It is a combination of both, not getting the job because of being too old, or not being able to do the job for physical reasons. The people I speak with agree that technology is closing us out, but some us are learning to use technology to our benefit. Senile people don't need to stop driving; they just need to learn how to use their cell phones and the GPS function.

I was never the smartest kid in the room, and if it weren't for Grammarly, my post would be impossible for me to understand. I relate to the people who have a hard time keeping up, and I hope attitudes regarding AI change. But at the same time, I suspect AI may be a serious threat. We fought a war to throw off the control of a king, and now some people want to turn everything over to AI. :scream: that is alarming.

Oh, oh I wonder how Descartes would handle this issue with his understanding of animals and humans being machines. What is the meaning of humanity if a machine rules over us?

↪Athena I do appreciate your thoughts, and no one's objective is to make anyone's life more difficult, but the rule has an important purpose in assuring we are communicating with one another and not with bots.

So, the rule does stand. That being said, it does appear you've responded to me without AI coherently and passionately, which means you will do just fine without sending us bot created messages. — Hanover

Surely my pathetic efforts to behave like an intelligent person should prove my posts are made by a human. I do not see how quoting AI is worse than quoting any other source of information; it is just faster, easier, and more efficient.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to think I have the authority of an expert. Wikipedia and AI are accumulate information that is corrected when it needs to be corrected. So it is useful to use as a source of information to support our arguments.

And thanks for the confidence in my abilities. However, if you were having my experience, I don't think you would be so confident. I would not be surprised if a year from now, I couldn't even log in. If my life has any value, it is to increase understanding. I have a heart condition and I chose to do nothing about it, unless a medicine or pace pacemaker will improve the quality of my life. I do not want to lose my mind before I lose my life. This is not about just me; it is about getting old and senile. From my point of view, allowing people to use walkers and AI is a kindness because such aids extend the time a person can function and participate in meaningful activities.

↪Athena It's a rule that is unenforceable in practice. — Banno

Now that is an ethical issue isn't it? We keep our liberty by agreeing to obey the laws. That does not mean approving of the law. When we disagree with a law, it is our duty to explain why we are opposed to the law and do our best to get the law changed.

Effectively, Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and the preservation of democracy. Finding fault with the democracy does not mean he thought something else was better. I think he wanted the people to do democracy better.

Besides I don't own the forum and maybe if I did, I would think it necessary to forbid the use of AI.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy) — Outlander

I am old and have mental issues. Like many people my age, I often struggle to think of the word I want to say. I also use a walker. For me, telling me I can not use AI is like telling me I can not use my walker.

I interpreted your quote as saying people who struggle with memory and communication issues are not desired members of the forum. Desired members have excellent communication skills and know enough about the subject to explain it to a child. I can't even explain things to adults. I seriously doubt I meet the high standards you all want to keep.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here. — Hanover

Okay, here is what I got when I asked "AI why do forum owners reject you?"

AI, forum owners, including moderators and administrators, may reject users or content generated by AI for various reasons, including the following:
Concerns about content quality and authenticity: AI-generated content can sometimes lack the nuance, creativity, and originality of human contributions. Forum owners may want to ensure that the content shared in their community reflects genuine human perspectives and insights, and may be concerned about a decline in quality if AI-generated content becomes too prevalent.

.

There are more concerns. Frankly, I don't care about them because AI improves my ability to spread information. If I were a photographer and could use the best camera, would that make sense? When we get better tools we can do better and I need the better tool because my brain is not that good.

Sorry I do not understand your explanation. I am sure you know "one lone OP keeps posting on the front page", but I don't know what you are talking about. Is this something like a signature, but instead of being at the bottom of a post, it is at the top? How does that make AI a bad thing?

I talk a lot about things I don't understand. Why would anyone come here if it were not a desire to have a better understanding? This is not just about what I have to say, but what others have to say. Do you want me to go away because I am not smart enough to be here. :gasp: That really hurts.

↪Athena If we had already gotten everything wrong we would not be here today. Tilt too far into conservatism or liberalism and it will result in distaster. History has shown this and life experience has shown me this personally too on an individual level. — I like sushi

What an interesting statement. How does liberalism threaten us? Can a liberal such as myself have good moral judgment?

Society' also recognizes that there is a cadre of people who do not have much of a future in the economy. Excellence in education for this group would be a wasted effort. The larger population in the middle, the 60% of children, have a broader future in the economy, and receive such education as is required. A lot of these people in the middle will be respectable members of the 'working class'; they will have jobs, families and be major contributors to the economy, but they do not need elite skills.

I don't like it, but that seems to be the way it is. Raising up the underclass and the less skilled members of the working class isn't an educational function. Even if the schools were funded and prepared to deliver excellent education to every child, it would not match the needs of the existing national economy. — BC

That was not our reality when my grandmother was a teacher, and the priority for education was good citizenship and helping each child discover his/her talents and interests. We are talking about the enlightenment and the death of it. We are talking about the very meaning of the democracy we inherited and the Military Industrial Complex that has replaced it.

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that sought to improve society through fact-based reason and inquiry. The Enlightenment brought secular thought to Europe and reshaped the ways people understood issues such as liberty, equality, and individual rights. Today those ideas serve as the cornerstone of the world’s strongest democracies.
https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-enlightenment-and-how-did-it-transform-politics

The Enlightenment placed its hope in the power of human reason and scientific inquiry to improve society and individual lives. This period emphasized individual rights, progress, and the potential for human betterment through rational thought and knowledge. Thinkers like René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes explored the role of reason and hope in shaping human action and understanding. AI

Why is it better for me to use the first quote and against the rules to use the second one? I much prefer the second quote.

But to your thoughts on education, what are your education concerns? Supplying the employers with trained employees and securing economic goals. The Greek philosophers would choke on such materialistic goals, but those goals are ideal for the Military Industrial Complex. The most important element of our liberty is having good moral judgment and we prepared the young for that without religion until the 1958 National Defense Education Act left moral training to the church.

Why is money so important? The only people with less income than I have are the people who have no income. But my life is rich and full, thanks to self-education and the internet that connects me with people who share my interests and concerns. :lol: I have to laugh at myself. I feel so strongly about being okay with material poverty, but not okay with intellectual poverty. What are we not going to teach all the children who are not college material?

quote="L'éléphant;1006735"]There's an erroneous understanding that the influence of parents and teachers last forever. There is actually a point in the life of children when the influence of the outside world, social media, advertising, outside friends takes precedence and may replace the teachings of good parents. This should be taught to parents and educators alike. — BC

There is a lot of truth in what you say. I experienced that kind of disjunction as a gay man. I moved from small town/rural life, oriented around heterosexuality and traditional lifestyles, to an urban environment, and was greatly influenced by the norms of the liberationist gay male community of the late '60s and early 70s.

However, as unlike a gay lifestyle was from growing up in Podunk, MN, a lot of the values and behaviors of my parents remained.

The influence of school experiences is probably weaker than it is thought to be. The multiplication tables I learned have endured. Ditto the grammar and spelling lessons. The largest part of my school experience was being socialized to an externally regulated work day. I resented it then and I still resent it. I don't know what school is teaching these days.

So, they don't become shocked when a person raised in a happy household with all necessities provided become a killer of their own spouse due to domestic turmoil.
Plenty of doctors, white collar executives, teachers have committed unimaginable criminal acts.
— L'éléphant

We often have too little information about a violent person's childhood to make a connection. But in a significant number of cases, (I believe) bad childhood experiences contributed to bad adult behaviors. However, a lot of people with pretty bad upbringing manage to NOT re-enact their childhood trauma on others.[/quote]

I like the discussion you are having. What motivates us to right or wrong? I have walked through hell. We all must go to hell from time to time to get a sense of meaning. But we should not go there without the help of the gods, because we can so easily get lost in hell. That means depression or even psychotic events. The gods are concepts that can help us find our way.

I was in hell because of being traumatized when I was a year old. It was a medical thing and no one knew of post-stress syndrome back in the day, and no one ever thought that a medical problem would interfere in my life so much. I was lucky to come across an explanation of post-stress syndrome and also a book about traumatized children, and I gave this information to a counselor I was seeing, and he knew how to fix the problem once he knew what caused it. The rest of my explanation of hell and gods comes from mythology and became very important to my reasoning.

Joseph Campbell was the guru of mythology. He believed humans need a shared mythology and that when we do not have that, we are forced to create our own mythology using the people in our lives as the gods and monsters of our private mythology. That is where psychogly comes in.

The psychologist Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., wrote Goddesses in Everywoman and a book for males, Gods in Every Man. She says the gods and goddesses are prototypes. Her books are fascinating as she tells how different childhood experiences affect the different prototypes.

Oh, oh one more thing that strongly influences us; our position in the family. If we are the first child, middle child, or last child, it matters.

I hope someday we break free from the mythology that has dominated most of our lives and come up with a better understanding of our human existence than the one religion gives us.

This is the kind of thinking I find most scary. There is something to be said for conservative values as much as there are for liberal ones. — I like sushi

That could be an interesting thread. I am kind of shocked that we appear to disagree about the need to rethink everything. At what time in history did people think the way you believe we should think? Are you good with justifications for slavery and justifications for moving native Americans off their land and intentionally turning their children against them? How about exploiting the poor to accumulate national wealth. When were our thoughts well-informed and just, rather than something we need to rethink?

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

It would not be my guess, but the sciences that determine facts. Anthropology is one of the main sciences, and the study of DNA is another, and math plays a part in this, too. Many books are written on the subject, and it does not reduce to a post. However, you might want to start a thread about evolution versus the God who made us of mud. I don't think the discussion belongs in this thread.

What have I said bout human nature regarding parenting and growing up that you disagree with?

think this is something we should be more concerned about that adaptation. We can only step forward confidently once we appreciate what happened before us. This is likley why human progress tends to take the form of 3 steps forwards then 2 steps back. — I like sushi

I am not sure what we need to know about the past, but I do think it is possible we are in the resurrection, and it is archaeology, geology, and related sciences that are resurrecting the past, and it is our purpose today to assimilate all this knowledge and rethink everything.

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

I do not just make up thoughts. What I think, is the result of learning. If you think my facts are wrong, tell me which facts and what you think is correct with better information. That is how philosophy started. Coming from Athens, it is essential that we get our beliefs right. This is not equal to arguing mythology. It is science with facts that either are or are not true.

↪Athena Even assuming you've accurately described humanity's educational odyssey from the cave until today in those few paragraphs and you've deciphered with accuracy "what is natural to our species," take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature — Hanover

:lol: :rofl: That is hilarious. Just try to go against nature and see how well that works.

It is really curious to me why anyone would think ignoring nature is a good idea. Lacking knowledge of nature is a good thing, why? Modern people want to believe they are very smart, but I don't think ignorance or denial of nature leads to that. :joke:

Generally speaking I think parents assume the part they play in how their children turn out is vastly overestimated. That is not to say that parenting does not effect them, but the parent's job is most important in the first few years of development. — I like sushi

You are right, and I want to add some thoughts that support that.

Each generation is different. Another term we can use is "cohort". A cohort is everyone who comes of age at the same time. A cohort is defined by its time in history. I am a baby boomer. Most of our parents hated war, and Beatniks came out of that, then greasers, then hippies, and for my son and daughter, it was meth that determined the flow of history. Good luck to the parents who try to prevent their sons and daughters from going with the movement of their time. And is that really what we want? Our lives are changing faster and faster. Do we want our children to cling to the past?

I am thinking of a troop of apes trying to survive hard times do to climate change. Those who are not flexible and willing to try new things are the least apt to survive. It is in our genes to adapt to change, and it is too bad if our parents perish because they can not make the change. Young people are much more apt to try new things, because if they die, they are easy to replace. But biologically, our brains become more resistant to change because nature can not afford to lose its breeding populations, and sometimes the old and tried ways are best.

Sometimes, many years of life experience lead to wisdom, so we should all follow the health rules, including exercise, just in case someone might benefit from our memory of the past and gained wisdom.

What do you, Philosophers, tell prospective parents about how to raise (Old Norse, raisa) their children so that they will be good citizens, good parents themselves, and good thinkers?

So you haven't reared (Old English, rǣran) so much as a hamster, children are the future and how they are brought up (OE) matters to everyone, parents or not. — BC

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

We might want to know something about the history of education. Education began at the dawn of our use of language, around the campfire, when we thought of ourselves as members of a tribe and were not as individualistic as we are today. We have such tribal people today. Our individualism and family units, rather than tribal units, began with farming and owning land separate from everyone else's. Rather than the hunter-gatherer organization, without no concept of separate property rights. I am trying to convey a different consciousness than we assume today. The point is that the first thing we learn in the tribe is how to behave. We learn our tribe's myths and why we do things as we do. Everyone in the tribe reinforces the behaviors of the tribe and the reasoning of their myths. This is what is natural to our species, and I want to stress that EVERYONE REINFORCES THE WAYS AND REASONING OF THE TRIBE.

Much later, the Romans were organized by family order, and the father was responsible for training the sons, while the mother trained the daughters. Eventually, they had schools, but it is not until the Greeks that education got really interesting. Before this, Sparta was communal and had a tribal education led by the leaders and focused on war. Males learned to fight, and females learn how to keep things going while the men were gone to war giving them more equality than Athenian females had. On the other hand, Athens had education for individuals, and later Hellenism was adopted by the Roman schools.

I want to throw in Genghis Khan. He made it unquestioned that his people should never settle down and start accumulating things like the city people do, because the city way of life, with its division of rich and poor people, leads to immorality.

I always think of Cicero’s assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of one’s character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).
15 hours ago
Barkon
194
Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Antony Nickles

I like both statements because both are a higher standard of morality than lives centered on self-interest.

Last night I listened to a lecture about emotional intelligence. I think we might enter this subject with Descartes' ideas of animals being mechanical and of humans as mechanical, like the rest of the animals, but then going a step further with thoughts and emotions forming another level of reality. For better or worse, we can manifest a more complex reality of thought and feelings. There can be no knowledge without language. When that knowledge becomes the written word, that is another step in consciousness. When the written word is shared in gatherings and then with the printing press, it becomes widespread knowledge that is another step in consciousness.

Here is a problem- I have read science must be completely detached from feelings/emotions, and I think education for a technological society has been so prejudiced against feelings, that we are smart but no longer wise. That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right?