How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

I would not say that one action, or even multiple makes an evil man.

I'm operating under the classic Christian philosophy that if you are guilty of one violation, then you stand condemned before the entire law. I realize not everyone agrees with perfection as a standard, but there it is. As far as I'm concerned, people who allow hatred into their lives - even to a minor extent - stand in need of repentance as much as any other sinner.

And besides, prejudice is a natural instinct, a safety mechanism of sorts. Without it, we would all be dead.

I would correct this statement. Prejudice is not a natural instinct. What you are speaking of is 'stereotyping'. Stereotyping is a normal human reaction to quickly 'sort' in order to facilitate social interaction and as a self defense against potential physical threats as well as a psychological facilitator. However, PREJUDICE is when you apply negative stereotypes to all persons in a group despite evidence that contradicts the stereotype. Prejudice is evil. Stereotypes are human nature.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That sounds like a book I want to read - and yeah - totally validates what I was trying to say above.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.
In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.
It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.
(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.

In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.

It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.

(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

You sir, are an idiot. Congratulations.

OF COURSE it's a human right. We're talking about life and death. Not luxuries and confort.



if you're sick, and have no money or very little, in a country where health care would not be provided for free, and in some cases (like the US) most procedures are charged at unbelievable prices, YOU DIE.

Of course, you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, as you seem to think that health is somehow a luxury and you should pay for it.




>> ^imstellar28:

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.
If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.
Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

If you think we are morally obligated to provide healthcare to people, fine, that's your opinion. Anyone can have whatever set of morals they please. If you think the government should pay for such things - hey, that's your vote to cast. But why is there the need to pretend this is a "human right" when everyone in this thread knows damn well it isn't. There is no logical or philosophical leg to stand on when making that argument. Rights are restrictions placed on social interactions between humans (no stealing, no slavery, no murder, etc.) not a guarantee for material goods or services.

If you think everyone in society should have a car, 3 meals a day, and a personal doctor feel free to start a cult or religion and get a bunch of followers who agree with you. If you are really motivated, start a business and save up enough money to feed all your neighbors and provide them with houses and healthcare -- but keep the "divine justification" for your opinions out of a philosophical argument because not only is it complete rubbish, it's intellectually dishonest.

Citing "human rights" as justification for your political opinions is as vacuous an argument as pulling out the bible and quoting scripture.

I support the discouragement of the wearing of Burkas. An outright ban, by the government seems harsh though.

What's going to happen if the above burka-clad driver is stopped by a male police officer and asked for her driver's license? Is she going to remove her burka to prove that it is her license? Or, is society going to have to pay to support her religious habit by providing a means to accomodate this fetish? Similarly, if I walked into a convenience store, or bank, with my face completely concealed, I would expect to not receive service. These places take security pretty seriously. They have cameras to record the faces of those they serve, just in case.

Burkas, above providing modesty, provide anonymity. It's my opinion that anonymity is a very dangerous thing in a community. A burka is, by design, an impediment to functional social interaction between a women and anybody not of her household. To me this is a handicap to a fully functioning society.

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

>> ^spoco2:

Where is the good in this?

The good in this is that Little Bully, and probably several of his peers, learned more in the hours following the events in this video than they probably have all year in school. What's more, what they learned, despite what you seem to think in a later statement, is absolutely crucial in their adult lives.

You say Casey needs to learn how to handle "social interactions". I say he just gave a valuable lesson in social interaction to a bunch of kids who badly needed the lesson.

Strictly from a self-defense standpoint, when you're about to be jumped by a group of people, you don't waste time taking the first one down carefully. You take him out of the fight before anyone else has a chance to react and swing the odds in your favor.

Myth: Repeatedly resolving conflicts with fighting, crying and tattling improves your conflict resolution skills as an adult.

Myth: Children who spend all day in a room with 30 other children of the same age, and play in a yard with 300 other kids experience normal social interactions that prepare them for adult life.>> ^spoco2:


Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.
Hurray

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^chilaxe:
Kids going to school is for mediocre people. Find another path... home school, online classes, junior college, internships, etc.

Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.
Hurray

Yeah, you're right that's a potential downside to keep an eye on, but much of the social interaction we learn in the real world is more valuable anyway.

Kids in highshool are just learning how to be immature highschoolers, not how to be a positive presence in the world and have good relationships (something many people never learn).

>> ^chilaxe:

Kids going to school is for mediocre people. Find another path... home school, online classes, junior college, internships, etc.


Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.

Hurray

>> ^ghark:

You guys bitching about tennis fail to comprehend why we watch sport in the first place - because we are rooting for one of the teams or individuals. Watching any sport that you have no idea about is a bit bland because you don't have a team you are going for, you don't understand the rules, etc. So you're criticisms of tennis as a sport simply underline your ignorance of the game and it's players.
In the end it mostly comes down to what you got introduced to as a kid, you guys that are fans of NFL, baseball etc probably enjoy it because your dad cracked open a beer on Saturdays and let you watch the game with him, so you have strong memories of the game from a young age, you know how it works, and you have some knowledge of the players - that's about it really. If your dad introduced you to goat racing when you were 5 you'd be just as hot about that.
/rant off


I will adress your pionts one by one

"You guys bitching about tennis fail to comprehend why we watch sport in the first place - because we are rooting for one of the teams or individuals"

Rooting for one of the teams or individuals is just one aspect of sport and if you are watching a sport only for this then the sport could be anything might as well just bet on coin tosses.

"Watching any sport that you have no idea about is a bit bland because you don't have a team you are going for, you don't understand the rules, etc. So you're criticisms of tennis as a sport simply underline your ignorance of the game and it's players."

Although it might be the case that with Manny sports not knowing anything about a sport or the basic rules will make it bland for the general observer , I'm sure Manny people know the rules have played and follow sports and still can say why X sport is more bland or a worse spectator sport than another.

I know allot about tennis have watched allot of matches Your average tennis match i think can objectivly be described as predictable and bland , the same goes for most of the modern sports that are popular.


"In the end it mostly comes down to what you got introduced to as a kid,"


Again this can also be true but anny thinking person who looks for new exsperances will not simply go for things they are culturally indoctranted with.

you can also really enjoy all the external aspects of a sport the family gatherings and social aspects but then you are enjoying all the exsternal factors and not the macro aspects of the sport.

Tennis is actually a good example for this Its easy to follow interms of play x is winning will he wont he get the piont and you have tention derived from match pionts and what have you , However this same tention could be derived from a computer simulated match , and most matches play out in exactly the same way due to the lack of room for players to be creative and put an origonal stamp on play. ( this is a problem with Manny mainsteem sports It seems that people are more concernd with the ablity to follow the score and supporting a team or player and how clear that is over the macro elements of the game.

Now Granted there have been some tennis players that have played creatively but tennis produces very few of these players and evan these players often have bland matches. looking at other sports like English football you have countless players that play in a demonstrably different way to an existent where Evan a casual observer would notice. zeedane for example , or in f1 Michal Schumacher , personally i still think English football and F1 are still mindnumbingly bland for the most part but at least in something like f1 you have compleaty unexspected things happaning quite regulary ( cars blowing up people getting run over as well as pure racing thats uneequ )


Almost rant off ...

I still say you can objectively say x sport is a worse spectator sport than Y , and i would say that Tennis for the resion of lack of creativity afforded to its players makes a pore spectator sport.

I all-so apreceat that people have largely irrational motivations for why they like x sport over y nothing wrong with people enjoying stupid shit i enjoy stupid shit on a daily basis.

one thing that baffels me is the amount of people that turn out and watch these sports when we have the technology and ablity to have people competing them selfs and getting the benefit of not only seeing who will win but fitness and direct social interaction. if im to watch other humans partcing in an activty it has to be something Incredible that my mind cannot conseve of and that i cannot simply watch on a video.

Sometimes I get the idea that mathematicians are starved for social interaction!

A programmer has written a script to avoid physical activity and social interaction? This can't be for real?