Re: It's good to think - but not too much, scientists ...

September 20, 2010

I enjoyed college very much because I and others who took college seriously had

to think deeply for some of our classes. I found that refreshing.

I also found it refreshing to leave behind the high schoolers who were only

interested in goofing off.

Once I made it to grad school, it was refreshing to leave behind the

undergraduates who were only interested in goofing off.

Administrator

I agree. When I was in high school, many times I heard people saying they were

glad to be out of class and have some time off so they wouldn't have to think.

Never understood that.

In a message dated 9/19/2010 1:35:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Zoe700@... writes:

I do not have to think very hard to agree with you, .

September 24, 2010

Kate Gladstone replied to this comment:

" ... if the schools taught child how to think and process information ... "

By saying:

" And what, exactly, would motivate the teachers/administrators to want *that*?

The children might question things that the teachers/administrators (and those

who pay their salaries) don't *want* questioned ... "

You're right. What is taught in elementary schools and secondary schools is

largely determined by local, state, and federal governments with community input

providing a percentage of the input.

One would think that college/university would be different, but it seems like

when a professor has create control of his or her class, then his or her

personal bias creeps in.

And this is why children do need to be taught how to think and process

information, so they can stop allowing themselves to be spoon fed junk

information throughout their childhoods, into adulthood, and beyond.

The question is, who is going to teach it to them? It would have to be the

parents, I should think, since they are not under the direct influence of

government.

Administrator

September 24, 2010

" Of course, the new education boss has a plan. He's going to teach all the kids

to be good " environmental citizens of the world " and prepare them for the green

jobs " needed " to fix the world. How about training them so they could get just

about any job they wanted how preparing them for life? "

It does seem like everyone is being made to march in line. In the Soviet era,

kids where simply TOLD what they were going to be when they grew up and were

given instruction throughout their childhoods to help them reach the goal set

for them. I wonder how far removed we are from that.

Administrator

September 24, 2010

I said:

" The question is, who is going to teach it to them? It would have to be the

parents, I should think, since they are not under the direct influence of

government. "

Kate replied:

" Alot of parents are just as fiercely " into " controlling the children

(and preventing them from thinking) as any government you could name. "

And my answer is that you are correct, of course, in which case the only option

left that I can think of would be for children to take it upon themselves to try

to learn how to think for themselves. That's an incredibly difficult

proposition, I suppose.

Administrator

September 25, 2010

" I'll agree with that and many more can't be bothered to teach the kids anything

expecting the schools to do all of that, too. "

I think I was an atypical child. I realized at a very young age that some day I

would have to move out into the world, get a job, and take care of myself. So at

a very early age I began trying to acquire and absorb any information I could

that might be helpful. I got my first real job at 12 and later that year I

learned how to do my taxes, and I have done them by myself every year ever

since.

I learned how to invest when I started earning money too, with my dad being the

custodian on my investment accounts until I reached the age of majority. I would

tell him where to move the money and he would do it, letting me learn my own

lessons in the process. I lost some, but through trial and error as well as

studying the markets, I gained more than I lost, and I was able to read the Wall

Street Journal and understand the meanings of the financial columns by the time

I was 13.

The downside of taking it upon oneself to learn anything is that the more you

learn, the less people like you, because you are a walking reminder to them that

they know less than you do. This is a socialization issue which, I believe

CAUSES people not to want to better themselves educationally.

People enjoy keeping up with the Jonses, or trying to beat them, but for some

reason, acquiring more knowledge than someone elsa has seems to be done in

secret, as though it is a taboo thing.

Also, while many people will say " Oh, that's not true. Look at Einstien! We all

love him! " The fact is, many people who knew him personally hated him, as did

the colleagues of his who did not understand his theories, and he only had a

small circle of friends. "

Historically speaking knowledgeable figures tend to be romanticised, but

" brainiacs " and " geeks " in the present tend to be shunned by society and picked

on.

Administrator

September 25, 2010

" I'll agree with that and many more can't be bothered to teach the kids anything

expecting the schools to do all of that, too. "

I think I was an atypical child. I realized at a very young age that some day I

would have to move out into the world, get a job, and take care of myself. So at

a very early age I began trying to acquire and absorb any information I could

that might be helpful. I got my first real job at 12 and later that year I

learned how to do my taxes, and I have done them by myself every year ever

since.

I learned how to invest when I started earning money too, with my dad being the

custodian on my investment accounts until I reached the age of majority. I would

tell him where to move the money and he would do it, letting me learn my own

lessons in the process. I lost some, but through trial and error as well as

studying the markets, I gained more than I lost, and I was able to read the Wall

Street Journal and understand the meanings of the financial columns by the time

I was 13.

The downside of taking it upon oneself to learn anything is that the more you

learn, the less people like you, because you are a walking reminder to them that

they know less than you do. This is a socialization issue which, I believe

CAUSES people not to want to better themselves educationally.

People enjoy keeping up with the Jonses, or trying to beat them, but for some

reason, acquiring more knowledge than someone elsa has seems to be done in

secret, as though it is a taboo thing.

Also, while many people will say " Oh, that's not true. Look at Einstien! We all

love him! " The fact is, many people who knew him personally hated him, as did

the colleagues of his who did not understand his theories, and he only had a

small circle of friends. "

Historically speaking knowledgeable figures tend to be romanticised, but

" brainiacs " and " geeks " in the present tend to be shunned by society and picked

on.

Administrator

September 25, 2010

" Anyway, my point is that destroying the economy of the west won't help the

environment in the long run. It will simply strip away the surplus resources

that could have been used to intelligently address the problems at hand. Make

the people poor and they aren't going to give a rip about the environment

because they'll be too busy just trying to stay alive. For that matter, it would

probably also result in more children being born because poorer people tend to

have more kids. "

Nothing will work anyway until people change their mentality. Ideally, if

everyone was physically healthy and similarly able-bodied, no one person would

have an excuse to let any aspect of their lives deteriorate barring an act of

God or an accident. If this were the case, everyone would have a similar

standard of living provided everyone were situated in similar beneficial

climactic conditions which remained mostly stable over time.

That all sounds too ideal. But viewed another way, the same point can be made:

You can have two people with identical health and identical jobs living in

identical houses with identical cars in their driveways, both with spouses and

the same number of kids, and one will be mortgaged to the hilt and risking

foreclosure and the other one will be financially secure.

Why is one in dire straights and not the other? Because even if both people had

identical educations in the area of economy and fiscal responsibility, one

person made use of that education and the other did not. And so one borrowed to

pay for everything they own and the other bought only when they had the money to

buy. And one had so much debt that they got a poor credit rating and a high

interest rate on their mortgage while the other had a great credit rating and

had a lower interest rate. The one had debts spiralling out of control to the

point where their house was going to be foreclosed on, and the other was A-OK.

The point of this is that it IS reasonable to expect that people CAN live a

reasonably comfortable lifestyle across the board if they make use of the

education they are given, or if they seek to educate themselves where their

education is lacking.

Personally, I get sick of people whining that rich people don't deserve to be

rich. The way life works is that if you are the first person to invent a product

or a new way of doing things, you have the potential to be rich if you can just

execute your plan.

Can any of the computer geeks here name the fellow(s) who began a computer

empire by building the first computer in a garage?

The OTHER way that life works is that if you don't have the ability to invent

something and get rich that way, chances are you have the ability to work for

someone else who IS rich and earn some money by working for them. That's called

" working " which is something many youngsters these days are loathe to do.

Kids can make a hamburger at home on the stove and do the dishes afterwards, but

the prospects of doing the same thing AND GETTING PAID FOR IT at a fast food

restaurant apparently make the concept unappealing for these kids.

For a kid, which would be a better choice:

Option A: Having money in your pocket from working a job, however little that

job pays.

Option B: Not having money in your pocket at all.

Option C: Being forced to beg money off your parents.

Most kids tend to go with Option C these days, or Option B if their parents

spoil them and give them everything they want.

Administrator

September 25, 2010