Yeah, Texas, good luck with that...

[Deleted472477User]

I'm going to bow out of this now. I'm normally pretty even-tempered, but I'm under stress lately and don't want to pop off on someone and get myself banned. I just can't see how wanting to remove critical thinking is a good thing, and I don't care if it's Texas or Timbuktu, it's a stupid idea. Have fun. everyone.

[Vagrant0]

It might be a good idea to have a good related read or film about where it leads to.

 

The Wave (Novel) by Todd Strasser Wikipedia

The Wave (2008 film) Wikipedia

 

Oh and I did read the book (translated version) in school ( In German class) which I had to buy on my own in 1983 /1984 school year. (I still have it)

It might give a hint on what the difference is of autocratic education and democratic education witch came here in this topic up and wasn't mentioned.

Except that an autocracy doesn't work when you have much diversity within the targeted group. The more diverse the group, the more likely that a significant portion of that group will raise objections to any policy decisions. Even if you try to indoctrinate children, those children also have their own values from whatever culture is present in their family, those values presented to them by the media (games, television, movies, internet), those values presented to them by their friends, and those values that they develop on their own. You may educate them to accept certain bits of knowledge as fact, but you cannot force them to have accept what values others place upon that knowledge.

 

The only way for it to take root within Western culture would be through either large scale censorship of information and severing cultural/social ties, or through some exceedingly complex process of social engineering to use those values that people already have to varying degrees to influence other values and establish pressures on all sides towards a singular and hidden goal. In both cases we would be talking about something planned ahead, and intentionally worked towards outside the election cycle... At which point, it doesn't really matter what side of the aisle you're sitting on or how you identify yourself as it is all part of the same machine.

[SilverDNA]

It might be a good idea to have a good related read or film about where it leads to.

 

The Wave (Novel) by Todd Strasser Wikipedia

The Wave (2008 film) Wikipedia

 

Oh and I did read the book (translated version) in school ( In German class) which I had to buy on my own in 1983 /1984 school year. (I still have it)

It might give a hint on what the difference is of autocratic education and democratic education witch came here in this topic up and wasn't mentioned.

Except that an autocracy doesn't work when you have much diversity within the targeted group. The more diverse the group, the more likely that a significant portion of that group will raise objections to any policy decisions. Even if you try to indoctrinate children, those children also have their own values from whatever culture is present in their family, those values presented to them by the media (games, television, movies, internet), those values presented to them by their friends, and those values that they develop on their own. You may educate them to accept certain bits of knowledge as fact, but you cannot force them to have accept what values others place upon that knowledge.

 

The only way for it to take root within Western culture would be through either large scale censorship of information and severing cultural/social ties, or through some exceedingly complex process of social engineering to use those values that people already have to varying degrees to influence other values and establish pressures on all sides towards a singular and hidden goal. In both cases we would be talking about something planned ahead, and intentionally worked towards outside the election cycle... At which point, it doesn't really matter what side of the aisle you're sitting on or how you identify yourself as it is all part of the same machine.

I fully agree with your conclusion., but I think you went a bit to short in one aspect that might be as well of importance in context.

Let's see if i can fill the spot that I had in mind where my former post would also lead to.

 

Since there is also the family that through socialization does also a good part of educating a child before it goes to school.

and this part of early in life education has to be taken in account as well. now just for the fun of it what (hypothetically) would change if there was a mix of of autocratic family education and democratic school education ( or vice versa) and a full sided democratic school/ family education and the difference in a full autrocratic school/family education.

And how would a child react under these different circumstances of socialization and how would it think?

 

Here a little hint taken out of Aurelius book.

*snip*

The teacher asked why was he a Republican and little Johnny answered, 'Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican.'

*snip*

 

Edit: the parties are interchangeable.

 

Disturbing because it isn't the result of school education, but the result of socialization isn't it ?

So this need also taken into account if somebody try's to measure of giving Pupils a broad education is necessary or not, so that they can think on their own lines or if some government people decide that it isn't necessary.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Vagrant0]

Disturbing because it isn't the result of school education, but the result of socialization isn't it ?

Except that children won't always vote the same way their parents vote. There is a significant difference between a child blindly saying something without understanding the implications, and a teenager or young adult who still may not understand all the implications, but is usually by then they have their own concerns and values even if not advertised publicly. The amount of socialization which is predominantly based just inside the immediate family usually only extends up to the point where a child enters highschool. And due to just the nature of puberty and all the chemicals swarming around their head and their own internal drive to identify themselves, this sort of thing will always be present purely as a biological drive. Generally speaking, the more controlling a family or group is on their teenager, the more likely that teenager will do the exact opposite when they have a chance.

 

Most of the values that come from family are those which are unintentional, and often part of the culture that the family comes from, or which are aspects related to just the personality of the parents and siblings and how an individual copes with those personalities.

 

Even in Maoist China there were groups who maintained sentiments of opposition. In places where there was exposure to outside influences it proved nearly impossible for the People's Republic to maintain any sort of control. As this seems to be an interest of yours, you may really want to read up on what was happening in China before and during Mao's reign as well as what contributing factors led to a decrease in oppressive policies.

[Beriallord]

So recently, Texas decided that critical thinking is bad for the following reasons:

 

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

 

But wait! That totally isn't what they meant!

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/29/1104595/-Texas-GOP-backtracking-on-critical-thinking-Forest-for-the-Trees

 

Donebun, can't be undone.

 

The issue isn't parental authority. It's any authority. Parental authority is just where they start, and plus it makes it more palatable than saying "We want people to be stupid because it's easier to promote our agendas if no one thinks about it." But it's hard to get elected on the "Sheeple, Not People!" platform.

 

I'd rather our public schools not teach this. People shouldn't be taught how to think and should figure out how to think for themselves. Thinking skills are like common sense, its not something that can really be taught effectively. It is something obtained through wisdom and experience. The biggest morons on the face of the Earth are the ones who were taught how to think. And the Daily Kos is a very left wing biased media outlet. So its not much of a surprise that I strongly disagree with the point they are making.

 

One thing about Liberals is they use these extravagant words to describe certain programs, while they might sound good, or have a good ring to it, that way its easier for them to sell it off as something good or productive to people who are severely ill informed about the true motives behind it. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing, for example the Patriot act, how can anyone oppose the Patriot act? That must mean you aren't patriotic. See how that logic works? Its very simple logic that the masses of brain dead idiots eat up time, and time again, and then people wonder why politicians think the American people are freaking stupid.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

I'd rather our public schools not teach this. People shouldn't be taught how to think and should figure out how to think for themselves. Thinking skills are like common sense, its not something that can really be taught effectively. It is something obtained through wisdom and experience. The biggest morons on the face of the Earth are the ones who were taught how to think. And the Daily Kos is a very left wing biased media outlet. So its not much of a surprise that I strongly disagree with the point they are making.

 

One thing about Liberals is they use these extravagant words to describe certain programs, while they might sound good, or have a good ring to it, that way its easier for them to sell it off as something good or productive to people who are severely ill informed about the true motives behind it. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing, for example the Patriot act, how can anyone oppose the Patriot act? That must mean you aren't patriotic. See how that logic works? Its very simple logic that the masses of brain dead idiots eat up time, and time again, and then people wonder why politicians think the American people are freaking stupid.

I tend to agree with your analysis of the misnomer that liberals gave to critical thinking since by it's very nature it is not something that can be imparted externally. If the Socratic method of continually asking neutral questions of a student without giving prepackaged answers and forcing the student to come to an internal realization of the method..then I might be somewhat in favor. But even Socrates kept his student cadre to very small numbers since he was aware that his methodology required intensive one on one dialog. That type pedagogy could never occur within the Public School system where they are hardly able to impart the basic skills of writing a cohesive thought in grammatically correct English much less higher order critical thinking.

[Vagrant0]

I'd rather our public schools not teach this. People shouldn't be taught how to think and should figure out how to think for themselves. Thinking skills are like common sense, its not something that can really be taught effectively.

I would disagree, but primarily on the basis that you don't seem to understand what sorts of things are involved with critical thinking education on the K-12 level.

 

We are not talking about the Socratic method here. Nor are we talking about teachers trying to teach people how to think.

 

Critical thinking instruction is by and large mostly asking questions which requires a student to recall information about a situation, combine that with information they already have, and make inferences based on both sets of information regarding the question being asked. It is considered critical thinking because the discrete answers are not directly available just from the information immediately presented and requires some processing by the student to derive at a conclusion. The entire premise of the exercise is not to tell a student how to think as each student can think on their own already. It is however based on honing those skills related to making informed decisions, making value judgments, or solving problems where there is not a clear answer.

 

Common sense cannot be taught either, but it is a batch of mental skills which needs to be exercised regularly, just like critical thinking, and is something that people generally learn better when they are children due to the way that children are constantly trying to assimilate more and more information about the world around them and categorize them for comprehension. If these skills are not used regularly, they can deteriorate. A person who does not develop these skills is just as useless as one who does not have any common sense.

 

 

This is entirely the problem. People who have no understanding of what actually happens in standardized education beyond what little they remember (and which was almost certainly never explained to them) should really have no business passing judgment on the value of that instruction or its implications.

[Tidus44]

Vagrant0 - excellent response - I don't think I could have responded as well.

 

About the only thing I would add is perhaps a brief examination of Bloom's Taxonomy may be of some value to some, particularly in the cognitive and affective domain upper levels and perhaps a review of something other than a wikipedia article on critical thinking skills and how they are developed (not taught).

[brokenergy]

*snip*

 

Critical thinking is not common sense and should not be compared to common sense, it's the recall and combining of information from different outlets to solve a problem. It isn't something that we just get, it is something that is learned and developed in schools and university that allows us to judge and solve a problem with a combination of factors. You need to learn how to perform critical thinking before you can start solving problems, hence why you get many questions in school with the key words "discuss" or "explain". It's a very important skill that you need to develop and it isn't something that everyone can get easily. I don't know why you and A bring politics into it because it isn't a political divide issue, it's an anti-thought issue that transense political debate.

[ginnyfizz]

*snip*

 

Critical thinking is not common sense and should not be compared to common sense, it's the recall and combining of information from different outlets to solve a problem. It isn't something that we just get, it is something that is learned and developed in schools and university that allows us to judge and solve a problem with a combination of factors. You need to learn how to perform critical thinking before you can start solving problems, hence why you get many questions in school with the key words "discuss" or "explain". It's a very important skill that you need to develop and it isn't something that everyone can get easily. I don't know why you and A bring politics into it because it isn't a political divide issue, it's an anti-thought issue that transense political debate.

 

That's a little naive. If the educators who are teaching this stuff in our schools and unis use their own political views to skew the way that young people are learning this process, and where I come from they most certainly do (the teaching profession is overwhelmingly and militantly left wing), they just won't be taught in an unbiased way and will never develop true critical thinking. And I do think it's a little bit patronising to say it isn't something everyone can get easily. I did and I am but a simple yokel. Seriously, you do not have to be an intellectual to have a mind of your own.