...the constant compliant brought here must be understood foremost to have sprung from a society which subjects its youth to near 20 years of Formal Education; that is: near one quarter of the life of the individual, ensconced for that time within a tax-payer funded public sector that is only exceeded by the combined military forces in terms of its annual budget.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
am i being summoned or have they stopped?
i've counted at least 40 of these in the last month, in the dozen or so threads i've clicked into, every couple of days, out of probably thousands that i havent observed.
so,
>have they stopped
No.
i would also add that;
it is a constant and the advise is bad.
I suspect largely that the literature is simply boring or irrelevant if a person cannot focus on it: that this is the real cause of the thing; a habit developed of illiteracy is a habit developed from being forced to rote-learn from stupid books under stupid teachers.
It's interesting that the 'cause' is shifted away from the curriculum and pinned onto technology, as if brain damage has occurred as a result of having a mobile phone... but really if a person had grown up 'texting' they ought have greater familiarity with reading and writing text, and any competent teacher would be able to utilize this so as to develop a lesson plan to expand the vocabulary and make for more precise 'texting' and thinking.
But really, given the money involved in this already, a dedicated board of geniuses should exist to adapt the curriculum and have long ago figured this out.
I can't tell if you're using compliant as a noun or if you've misspelt "complaint"...
>the advise is bad
never mind, you're moronic lol. A moron savant though; have you read memoirs of a superfluous man? A classically-educated man laments the way education and society is headed. Some people just shouldn't be educated. They can't be educated. Some people are better off illiterate; reading and writing has only been to their detriment. They cannot read, and yet they read short, sharp slogans every day. They read tweets and instagram captions and status updates. Some are so moronic that they cannot even sound out words, and so they need autism-mom text-to-speech tiktok voices.
I'd say the youth is doomed, but this is no new phenomenon. It's been happening for millennia.
>ur a moron
wow, the egotism of the dunning-kruger effect strikes yet again in a carefully directed outpouring of verbal abuse under the pretense of being superior whilst uttering confirmationalist platitudes:
"itth been this way for millleniaaaaa, hur hur humans are all moronic apart from me her uhr"
a common moron
I could have detected your pseudo-elitist position on this from that first sentence; it is interesting that you did not, and that you confirm this position by evading the subject utterly and declaring humans themselves to be individually at fault rather than the demonstrable causes; that is: maleducation, in this case.
If you can't stick to the subject, low IQ elitist moron, you should ask why you lack the verbal comprehension and intellectual capacity to do so in the first place.
An outpouring of verbal abuse? I just said you're moronic, but if that's an outpouring then so be it.
The problem is not maleducation, but overeducation. Just as one should not inflate a tyre beyond what it can handle (lest it erupt and lose all utility), one should avoid overeducating certain... hmm shall we say "uneducables". To call me a "low IQ elitist moron" is both an oxymoron and a tautology. Oxymoronic, since elitism is vehemently opposed by all but a select few, and tautological since "low IQ" and "moron" are synonymous (not that I believe IQ is an accurate measure of anything beyond obsequiousness).
I'm choosing not to deviate from the premise because you are mistaken in thinking it is entirely the fault of the curricula and its teachers. A good carpenter cannot make steel from wood. A good teacher cannot make educated citizens from the masses. And so good teachers will become fed up with the masses and go onto something else. That they are replaced by imitators is not the fault of those imitating, but of the underlying belief that all humans are equal. They are not. There are good humans (me) and subpar humans (you).
> you are mistaken in thinking it is entirely the fault of the curricula and its teachers. A good carpenter cannot make steel from wood
>The problem is not maleducation, but overeducation.
Well, that's demonstrably untrue: the duration of 20 years and the absence of simple lessons during that extreme period demonstrates either absence of education or maleducation; i.e. bad instruction or absent instruction and not 'over instruction'.
Your (overall theme of) reductionalism and universalism toward the subject; "(the education is perfectly fine but) everyone is just moronic," is a common product of this. I would argue it is the most commonly held belief that results 'from' this; as it requires no effort to hold this stance and avoids scrutiny of the subject itself, as to the identifiable causes along the "production line" of 20 years of schooling...
>elitism is vehemently opposed by all but a select few
Hence why it is 'pseudo' and not actual (i.e. not a tautology; I am not calling you intelligent) - such people, as you demonstrate to believe to be true of yourself, believe they are 'few' and always curiously far above having to prove they know anything, yet at the same time no-man believes themselves to be stupid and believes everybody else is stupid, and overall this is reflective of a lack of measurable verbal IQ: the inability to convey ideas or discern what others are saying or doing. Verbal IQ, of course, is teachable.
The grande reductionalism ("all people are just stupid") in this instance is, itself, a form of "illiteracy in logic"; we might say, where like a person unfamiliar with the structure of words they seek anchors in a blurry page of text by which to recall some prior opinion and then to proclaim it as a form of self-affirmation; to insist that you already have the answers before beginning inquiry into the subject and that luckily the status quo is already perfectly fine and in need of no inquiry - a habit which could have been formed via maleducation, which holds true in academe as a commonly observed habit.
Moreover,
this position rests upon the proposition genetic or biological determinism; which is the element of universalism in the reduction.
All we're really talking about is a simple standard of practice in the effective undertaking of a task and noticing that few people if any people seem to have been instructed in it - and there is obviously nothing genetic about this, e.g. not knowing how to use a hammer or a saw is something remedied in 5 minutes by proper instruction - my comment was that (this sort of) simple instruction does not take place in that extreme duration of time - as it is not evidenced amongst graduates or, you know, people who you'd expect to be the defacto intellgentsia - company owners, politicians, scientists, doctors, etc.
>the absence of simple lessons during that extreme period
What would an example of a simple lesson be that was absent? Can you clarify what it is you think would make proper education?
>i.e. not a tautology; I am not calling you intelligent
It's a tautology because you've said "low IQ moron". You're saying the same thing twice; a technique used by bad writers to pad their sentences because they believe more = better.
You're only just bringing "pseudo" into the picture. "Duhh I was wrong, and now I'll backpedal and append the prefix 'pseud' so that I'm le based moron".
>people need to be taught how to use a hammer or a saw
Your whole post is sour grapes because you're actually a moron. I feel bad for using that word on you now, and it makes sense why it triggered you so much. You're upset because you couldn't cut it at school. Everything I did at school was simple, even the differential calculus was not too difficult. Learning to use a hammer is not something I needed school for - I simply watched my father do it and I emulated the actions. For unknown tools and procedures, such as replacing a bolt in some piece of hardware, I simply make a mental note of which order all the pieces were taken apart, so that when I put it back together I know where it all goes.
If you need to be explicitly taught how to do simple things, you're an actual failure. These things require no instruction, it is mostly practice that builds one's abilities. For the most part, the first attempt at doing the thing is correct in theory, because the mechanics are obvious to most.
In sum, your existence justifies my elitism.
>derp u deny ur a pseudo-elitist?
I've never said I wasn't elitist. I don't know what you mean by pseudo-elitist because it sounds like you're combining buzzwords together. One is either elitist, or he is not.
>(95% content of reply is off-topic ad hominems and the affirmation that anon is a member of the elite)
>, your existence justifies my elitism.
Look, all I say about this is that your initial remarks about 'over education' producing morons seem to hold some truth about your own character, which demonstrates that yo're operating from the unconscious subconscious state of thinking; resulting in deflection and dissonance, enmity and verbal abuse etc.
>(....)
And I see you didn't answer my refutations of your claims directly so I guess we know why you're deflecting with abuse: you know you're in the wrong on these things:
1) "no, it's over-education" / demonstrably untrue
2) "no, it's genetic or biological determinism (that little jim can't use a hammer and hasn't been taught how to use a hammer either), it is the genes," / demonstrably stupid (and a commonly held assertion)
3) "i am an elite, everyone else is stupid," / a commonly held assertion
4) IQ is not measurable(?) or teachable / demonstrably true: verbal IQ is measurable and teachable
you failed the lie detector test four times
> I don't know what you mean by pseudo-elitist
I mean that you're mimicking the manners that you think 'elite' persons held in history and doing a little LARP to self-affirm; under the pretense of engaging with the subject and holding an intellectual position. To the actual bones of that position itself ("ideological elitism?" i guess?) this is simply a commonly held assertion which is fortified by the culture... as a product of absent education;
i.e. if little jimmy has never been taught how to use a hammer (e.g. higher english) or a screwdriver (e.g. deductive logic) then of course when you who knows a little bit about those things encounters him who is totally bereft then you're going think he's mentally moronic; indeed he has 'been' moronic by the absence of education but - for whatever reason - you deny that and seek out a universalist answer, arriving at little jims genetics or something else to justify the disparity.
>If you need to be explicitly taught how to do simple things
I'm glad we agree that those things 'are' in fact simple and teachable. That's entirely my argument confirmed that there ought be no reason whatsoever that these subjects are not taught over the span of 20 yrs or so. There's no reason, in other words, that Chad or Tyrone or Charlotte or LaQuicha should leave university with near illiteracy. They 'feel' superior because they're 1 bar above the person who knows absolutely nothing, but they're far below where they ought be - by the measurable and easily demonstrated metrics of, say, the 1950's in grammar and logic. According you, those elites are genetically inferior also, because they haven't learned those things.
>.e. if little jimmy has never been taught how to use a hammer (e.g. higher english) or a screwdriver (e.g. deductive logic) then of course when you who knows a little bit about those things encounters him who is totally bereft then you're going think he's mentally moronic;
Nta,
But I think you're being just as extremist as the other anon on your assertions.
The problem with increasing IQ scores is that, it doesn't prove anything other than the subject has become better at that particular task, in other words, the higher results do NOT translate to other areas of assessment.
1) teaching deductive reasoning and a higher linguistical ability is incredibly difficult.
2) the example that I quoted above is only proof that you can teach "little Timmy" to use a hammer, not that Timmy will be able to think up any new uses that you haven't taught him before, that he will be able to extrapolate the uses of a hammer to other tools or circumstances in his life. Timmy will most likely only do what you taught him to do, he may become the best at using hammers in the world, but his ability to relate these experiences to others is what intelligence actually is.
You cannot make people smarter, and you can't really TEACH them how to think, it's only a habit that must be encouraged and developed. And even then, the potential for the things an individual can do with these tools is limited by his capacity.
Thinking that everyone can be taught to be a philosopher is foolish, and so is thinking that you are one.
>it's only a habit that must be encouraged and developed
Also, the consequences of this are incredibly dangerous.
-
Being part of an elite should not be a source of pride, unless it's based only on effort. The fact that are natural, unfair differences between people is a tragic thing. Asserting your belonging to an "elite" group as a source of pride, means you shouldn't be a part of that group. It should only evoke a sense of responsibility.
As I pointed out to him, it's a babyish LARP:
but is a consequence of the education system as it is today, as said here:
> fortified by the culture... as a product of absent (or inferior education);
>i.e. if little jimmy has never been taught how to use a hammer (e.g. higher english) or a screwdriver (e.g. deductive logic) then of course when you who knows a little bit about those things encounters him who is totally bereft then you're going think he's mentally moronic; indeed he has 'been' moronic by the absence of education but - for whatever reason - you deny that and seek out a universalist answer, arriving at little jims genetics or something else to justify the disparity.
I mean, any girl in a hair salon thinks she's an elite; she's been socially groomed far enough to deny she thinks it, but she operates under assumption. Left and Right think this of themselves, is my point, and if everybody thinks everybody else is a moron then they're all morons. It's a simple circular thing.
>The problem with increasing IQ scores is that, it doesn't prove anything other than the subject has become better at that particular task
>you can't really TEACH them how to think
I'm being quite careful in talking about Verbal and Spatial IQ, a high verbal IQ translates to a 1950's masters in grammar and logic, for instance; a strong grasp of grammar and logic enables problem-solving and correct deduction t take place; without it incorrect deduction takes place,
e.g. faulty reasoning such as "jim hasn't be taught to use the hammer, the problem of jim not being ale to use a hammer is not that he has not been taught how to use a hammer, but is something else,"
i.e. if you don't know the word, concept and process of 'psychological deflection', let's say, then you're ignorant to how the logic and actions of other people come about through that process; you might be tied in knots trying to understand a thing and coming to some false 'grande universal (usually political) reductionalism' of a thing that was already clearly articulated a century ago, that is: you will not be correct in your assessment of anything if you're absent of the full intellectual toolbox by which to go to work with.
> a habit that must be encouraged and developed.
I agree, that's why its astounding that in 20 yrs of education this is not undertaken.
>thinking that everyone can be taught to be a philosopher
Ah, but in ----20 yrs---- they could be educated in all those things, that's my other point on the end of this subject: imagine what the end product would be if the schools, say, condensed a years lessons into a month or even condensed it into half a year, and then added even more lessons into that freed up remainder; lessons to bring the bare bones basic curriculum up to cover the last 100 years advancement in things.
it's all very well, also, lamenting that our society will never do it; it doesn't matter: a people will one day and they will excel, and there is no reason we should not be doing this today.when it is perfectly within our means.
And if schools are no longer places for education, then defund them and let's build cattle pens with baby bottle teats on the walls and just lock people up in there until they hit 25. much cheaper.
aaaaaaalso
>A good teacher cannot make educated citizens from the masses.
derp u deny ur a pseudo-elitist?
> There are good humans (me) and subpar humans (you).
This is the error of pseudo-elitism; if you were really "up there" you'd realize your lot is tied to the species; or more simply: tied to your immediate workers or employees, you would realize that inculcating ineptitude in people means having people incapable of following instructions properly or foreseeing and averting disasters in day-to-day practice. A sycophant is inept.
On one hand, "an elite" is natural among any group from qualities displayed, but on the other hand an effective monarch will always be a man of the people because that is just best. Ideologically the difference is 'pseudo egalite' vs. actual egalite, to arrive at a logical conclusion of Merit.
still this is KIND OF OFF TOPIC MA homie but you cloister types need to know why you keep getting beheaded by angry mobs every now and then ;0
Is this the real butterfly? I've missed you my friend.
As someone who doesn't read, and doesn't really care for it, I'll tell you that it's a problem of incentives.
For me, reading is boring. The activity itself is tiring and straining.
The most interesting reason for this that I've heard is that, I find it boring because I can't actually understand what I'm reading.
Reading and thinking represent a certain level of strain and suffering that I just don't want to go through. I think that the criticism of
>phones cause brain damage
is mostly a misinterpretation of the real problem, which the encouragement to seek instant gratification and not have to think.
Thinking makes me suffer, so I avoid it. Easy, simple, digestible media is what keeps my brain away from this suffering of having to actually think.
It's not a problem of techers being dumb, it's a paradigm problem. You are not taught or even encouraged to THINK, by those around you, you're actually encouraged to do the opposite and live on autopilot. School kills your sense of wonder, and the access to cheap, frivolous fun and escapism makes it so you don't have to engage with things that make you suffer.
>sense of wonder, and the access to cheap, frivolous fun and escapism
>a problem of incentives
It's worth recalling that the epigrams of marcus valerius martialis, making fun of everyones foibles in society, including pedophiles, was used to teach latin and structure over the last thousand years - so that when a kid completed the translation they would arrive at a high brow cerebral joke that reflected the society around them in an immunizing sense in that you know to avoid the same behavior.
I would suggest that it was the act of replacing good writers with lousy writers (dull safe subject matter; poems about flowers) that removes this vital component in education.
I can't help but observe that if the content was not degraded by this 'thing' (it must be clean, safe) that children would 1) eagerly develop a strong grasp of reading and speaking, but 2) would still be bored by the boring books.
just my thought on the thing
Come on now IQfy let's hear your solutions.
Well, I think you’re both right and wrong about the causes. Mediocre/mind-numbing education is partially to blame. However, I still think technology is the larger culprit of the erosion of capacity for focused attention. If anything, being forced to learn from boring and stupid books under stupid teachers, as you put it, should INCREASE someone’s ability to focus and read something boring, but instead we see the opposite. And I can tell you from experience talking with students, other adults, and even some teachers that plenty of people who WANT to read and have books they are genuinely interested in still can’t make themselves read them. And the only conclusion I can draw is that something has eroded their attention span and power to focus. Technology may not be the only reason, but it looms large as an enormously detrimental factor. Think about it: most people spend 3+ hours a day staring at their smartphone, most of which involves watching short clips of loud, colorful, fast-moving videos and flashy images. Is it really any wonder that someone who engages with this content constantly (not to mention the other forms of media they engage with in the same day) struggles to sit down in a quiet room and read Moby Dick? This isn’t education’s fault because this is the traditional classroom environment; they should be used to it. What does someone in this scenario do when faced with the painful boredom of the reading experience? They immediately reach for the smart phone.
As for solutions, I genuinely have no idea other than destroy smartphones/the internet/social media. On an individual level, you can raise your kids without those things and let them choose what they want in adulthood, and hope that enough other parents do the same.
oh, you think this is right? tiktuk, sorry
You write like a brain dead 9 year old.
>However, I still think technology is the larger culprit of the erosion of capacity for focused attention.
It's the impression we're given and it seems rational I suppose, until you consider that technology is a tool dependent on its use and application. I agree with this in a lot of ways, btw, I just don't think it's the deciding or primary factor which produces the end product.
>And I can tell you from experience talking with students, other adults, and even some teachers that plenty of people who WANT to read and have books they are genuinely interested in still can’t make themselves read them.
I know this is true as well, that's why the argument focuses on the curriculum itself; teacher 'can' do the extra mile and they probably will, but they're working all the time against the curriculum to actually do that.
Fundamentally I think it comes to this, re: technology (as an excuse),
>the painful boredom of the reading experience? They immediately reach for the smart phone.
if the lesson was actually interesting then there would be no room for distraction. Really, before iphones the same arguments were made about tamagochi or pokemanz, so the 'excuse' can be shown to predate the phone and that the phone cannot be the cause.
> the only conclusion I can draw is that something has eroded their attention span and power to focus.
this 'is' true - but wouldn't you agree that in 20 yrs of holding a human captive and having the opportunity to turn that human into almost anything... that we could easily resolve this problem if we wanted to? A two week course to immunize against the psychological and social processes of social media, for instance.
Technology is an absolute spook. It's the school system and always has been. It's just that the school system has gotten WORSE, in tandem with the rise of the technology, which gives them a very convenient excuse to keep falling back on for why students are disengaged with school and not interested. School sucked shit and always ruined kids, long before smartphones. It's just that
1. it is affecting more of them now because school sucks even harder.
2. it looks like technology is the issue because kids use technology more, whereas in the past kids would come to class and just talk or skip school altogether and do more varied stuff in their free time (which, not infrequently, ended up with them making some kind of mischief outside, so technology is pretty good in that alternative down)
these are good points.
It always seems like a grandpa thing to say to focus on tech over the actual building and staff itself; displaying no awareness of the real causes themselves.
MAYBE the reality is that society is just so garbage; I can't actually imagine being a kid in school today and not immediately smashing peoples faces in, that the trauma induced from their time 'in' school has scarred their memory and cauterized their ability to remember what it was really like. Which means it's 1000x worse if that's the reason behind the memory loss.
ehhhhh
The main thing is attention spans have been shot by things like TV and social media. Books can't compare to the dopamine release those things produce. How are you gonna convince a 14 year old to read a book when a ten second Tiktok vid is far more captivating to him?
why would you think a 14 yr old would get a dopamine high from watching the modern equivalent of gary glitter or that pedophile dude in the sunglasses, do some cringe bluepeter act?
DUED doyou remember what you thought at 14
>dopamine
incidentally i beg to differ,
compliance.
this is very good, and I am touched in my inner area.
>compliant
I would recommend to first start listing to a audiobook of your choice.
If you like it listen to the end then try to read it in book form.
Understanding the story and listening to it makes it more easier to read.
Don't beat yourself up. I have the same problem.
What the frick is with your spacing?
I see no hope
Someone has set aflame the road
And left a single door
It leads nowhere
I have arrived
Burn books
I shat my self the moment I have died
I see no use in worldly wit
I better sit in a wasteful bin
And sneed at pepo walking by
And underneath my woeful cry –
He made me dumb and deaf and dumb
Unlike that dude sir Walter Crumb
My blindness massive twins the sun
I cannot wake from the sick bed
I miss my essence – jumpy lead
I am a dead man floating corpse
In piss and mud in locked up doors
I am a shout amidst the talk
A taste on lips like gnawing chalk
A Bible when in fact it is
The cursed babble from Abyss
I hate the books and reading scum
I am a pirate's hidden rum
To drink myself into the void
O bless me brothers make it stop
I like the first 4 lines.
Gets pretty shit towards the end though.
the cure is dopamine fasting. do it for two days and by day three you will be thrilled to read any book
>the cure is dopamine fasting.
or ingest narcotics, then you'll be fascinated by a single page of gibberish; could start with HUnter S. Thompson there.
Could you boring fricks at least bother to entertain with these tedious, unproductive arguments?
>entertain
>>>IQfy is thataway, noncom.
Agreed. This is one of the most insufferably inane arguments I have ever seen on IQfy.
Both are above average in intelligence but incredibly tedious and uninteresting. They're likely annoying in real life.
>(the subject of schools and what goes on in them)
>tedious unproductive
>inane boring uninteresting
huh can't help but recognize an attempt at negative peer influence toward the subject w/ no argument for or against. a consequence of trauma conditioning, most likely, that has erased the memories.
Difficulty of reading is almost always just anxiety. As David Foster Wallace said, reading requires sitting in a quiet room alone. Since the invention of the TV, there are many homes where constant noise is the norm. People's idea of a home is a place where the TV is always on and no one is sitting quietly doing stuff. When they try and do that themselves, even when alone, they feel uncomfortable. It actually took me a few years when I started to live alone to get over my fear of a quiet room.
It's usually not some kind of attention disorder, it's just overwhelming anxiety
What I'm saying is that this dude is right. At large it is anxiety & low energy. And both they are co-creating the state. So, to shift the paradigm there must be healthy air that facilitates growth and does not laugh you down.
anyyy last thoughttts
you're a moron
thanks pal, i'll b sure to tell your mother this when i burst a hollow point into her cheekbone ;D
what's yer conclusion? do you believe it can some how be rectified at least within this humble realm? if not, why even tackle those things that are meant to stay abstract and distant
>yer conclusion
> do you believe it can some how be rectified
I think it easily could be. But I don't think it will be, not for any reasons moreso than nobody can be bothered to fix the causes of the problem as it takes place in the schools.
I think the legal case is very solid as to why these changes should be mandated; as the schools take so much money under pretense of education and if the education is shown to be poor then those schools or universities or colleges can be demonstrated to be in breach (of their right to tax-payer funding, access to youth, ability to issue academic qualifications, etc.).
>? if not,
Well, it's the "if not" that should motivate people interested in the future of a state, since a nation or state or whatever will continue to be outpaced by other parties who don't impose the same thing on their own people.
But nobody really cares for the state consequences. And the two-party system would impede any political action toward reformation anyway, or water it down so that it was too weak to do the job.
In examining those consequences from their causes a great deal of what would be considered 'culture' now stems from this broken intellectual faculty, since "the market" now tailors all publications to conform to that low bar; perpetuating a stagnant sense of egotism and idiocy; the political flatline coupled with the consequential industrial and economic stagnation is the largest product of this.
The good news is that there's near total freedom to pursue proper education for the individuals own self...
In that sense we live in a wondrous time, full of new discoveries that very few people seem able to actually comprehend and realize... and in all respects the future belongs to such people.
....simple personal solution would be a return to private tutors and avoiding the state schools entirely. But this does not solve the problem of the society and it wastes the opportunity of using the schools to uplift the total population and us all into polymaths capable of problem-solving, further invention, and peace and prosperity. And personally I think that stuff matters more than my individual sense of enjoying myself.
>The good news is that there's near total freedom to pursue proper education for the individuals own self...
That's good. I mean, sussing out about the impending doom, low iq, and such, is really the chud (in the bad sense of the world) radio frequencies. The schnibbas better be real shooting the whitepilled ropes, as in, hell, we are able to speak to each other. To tell anecdotes and rhymes, and occasional wisdom. Isn't that cool? Frick it is. I see every post of mine as a little step, as a little rolling towards the goal. It should be total euphoria of a man sliding towards the triumph.
https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Don%27t_teach_your_child_to_read
>My work over "I would never send my kids to school" was inspired by children depressed before school at the end of summer vacation (2016). Over the last 5 years, I noticed that children start hating school earlier and earlier. These days, it is not unusual for a kid to say "I hate school" before he goes for his first class. This is the case despite the fact that in Poland, we raised the age of entry from 6 to 7 in recent years. I managed to identify the main culprit of school hate at this early stage: reading instruction. Due to the popularity of YouTube and computer gaming, children are less motivated to learn to read. They can start exploring the world early, long before they read their first sentence. While children find new ways to learn, adults keep living the old myth that reading is the gateway to all knowledge. This creates a vicious feedback loop. The more kids like electronic media, the less they like the print, the more the adult world panics, and the more pressure is put on children to learn to read early. Then the second myth kicks in. If reading is hard, it is allegedly due to neglect in the early years. Children learn the letters of the alphabet at the ever earlier ages and are pushed to read long before they are able to make any good use of the simplest texts. The earlier they start learning, the more problematic it is, he more they hate learning, so the adults keep tightening the screw of early reading. This is sheer madness that provides the basis of school hate that is likely to begin earlier and do much more damage than in prior years. This produces a conflict of generations: children do not want to learn to read, parents get more and more obsessed with reading.
>When I insist not to teach children to read, I must add an explicit and obvious proviso: we should not teach unless a child specifically asks for help. Assistance on demand is healthy assistance.
>The optimum strategy in 2021 is to wait. We should wait until children ask for help, or perhaps more likely, until they learn reading on their own. The experience of democratic schools or unschooling indicates that reading may arrive very late (e.g. at the age of 13), but the arrival of new interactive technologies might lower that seemingly pessimistic delay. I will explain how reading emerges naturally, and why this emergence leads to better reading skills.
yes children will read if they deem it necessary. Being told to read X, just because will just make them dislike it.
Reading isn't fun on it's own, it's hard work. Hard work that is meaningless is just torture. Man spending all day digging shoveling dirt to build foundation for his house? Tough, but meaningful work. Not fun but you can want to do it. Man shoveling dirt digging all day just because he was told by some authority figure to do it with no real meaningful reason in sight? Literal fricking prison labor punishment.
>Don%27t_teach_your_child_to_read
This is a good case. Overall it's pretty obvious to me that the brain isn't even really fit to learn anything until maybe their middle 20's or early 30's even, if we take the Romans seriously and recall that the top dog position had a minimum age and that no citizen could vote or hold office until coming back after 14 yrs minimum of active deployment; making them around the age of early 30s. But still a child between 9 and 14 was expected to be fluent in grammar, rhetoric, logic, sciences etc., already outclassing a modern graduate.
> Hard work that is meaningless
very good points.
The constructive application, also, is I think where the real anchor and interest arises from; if you learn Kant, let's say, you'll want to study the implications of Kant and how it applies to this this and this, but this is largely absent; after you've learned Kant you must read him again and again, memorize this this and this, over many years, and it never becomes actionable or physical or tangible - that's what I mean.
>But still a child between 9 and 14 was expected to be fluent in grammar, rhetoric, logic, sciences etc., already outclassing a modern graduate.
Because they needed to be. Their culture was built on it. Obviously not the culture of the average peasant child, but for the nobility. If all the adults are making jokes based on the recent senator or public figure, or on ancient greek plays, and their speech makes usages of rhetoric, you need to be versed in that to know what the hell they're talking about. Children don't want to be left out, on the contrary they want to join the adults as soon as possible.
Probably more importantly, among the children themselves, their entertainment was basically that same stuff, but on a lower level, so it was what they had to talk amongst themselves with.
Another thing that is interesting in genji monogatari is the heavy usage of poems and stuff. The nobility basically speaking and courts in lines from poems, if you didnt have a large repertoire of poems memorized and to the degree that you couldn't speak and banter in lines from them, then no pussy for you. And they better you were at it the more attractive you were.
now children dont need to know how to read for entertainment, they need to know how to say "alexa play ...". When interacting with peers they need to know who the most popular fornite streamer is right now to keep up. Obviously reading hasn't gone away yet, but it is getting more and more obsolete. Kid is still going to want to read one day when he hits a wall, but that wall does feel like it's crumbling more and more. Books, pretty much getting obsolete, replaced by the ease and availability of the internet for all things a kid might be interested in.
also one more thing, maybe humanity just wasn't mean to have a 99% literacy rate? For like 99.9% of written history, the vast majority of the population couldn't even read and had little desire to. Maybe its a bit crazy to except things to change all of a sudden? We have probably stretched it far beyond it's limits already.
>Because they needed to be. Their culture was built on it.
>Another thing that is interesting in genji monogatari is the heavy usage of poems and stuff.Obviously not the culture of the average peasant child, but for the nobility.
It's more a point of the intellectual capacity that I was making; that even a child of 9 or 14 would demonstrably surpass a modern graduate of 18 or 24 - and that the excuse of "it's too difficult" today simply doesn't exist in context.
Moreover I would argue that a child is quite ready to learn (in addition to possessing the capacity); if the culture is very advanced they'll put in the effort and excel, if the bar is very low they won't see the point: we regard adults, as children, as being stupid before we realize the constraints (or fear) put upon adults to speak and act the stupid manner that they do. I mean here that we're already well beyond the culture itself 'as' children in the first place; seeing the flaws that exist in things around us.
Actually, it just dawned on me; with the ease that children learn language at a very young age, I have to wonder whether the most complex things wouldn't come far easier at that age as well.
Actually this is wandering far off topic.
>Isn't that cool? Frick it is. I see every post of mine as a little step, as a little rolling towards the goal. It should be total euphoria of a man sliding towards the triumph.
Ha well, I mostly agree with all of that. There is the extreme other end of the subject as well; 'if' we'd been force fed a perfect curricula wouldn't we have resented it and not know the difference 'anyway' between 'it' and 'trash'? There is something to be said for having the world stripped bare and learning to discern things for yourself...
But I still think these basic hammers and screwdrivers that allow us to recognize these things ought be considered fundamental in education: if a society cannot understand 'why' they should obey the law on a logical level then the society will be a society where brute force is applied en masse. Silly politics is the result of illogic, for example, and even the 'political desire' to control the society 'en masse' can be recognized to stem from an intellectual deficiency.
It's a very attractive thought that "all of this" could be solved with a two week course.