A thing about education I just understood

TotallyHuman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
4,194
Points
183
People sometimes say "why do we need math in school it's not like we're ever gonna need it irl" and they are fucking retarded, because mathematics is more than necessary irl, especially nowadays. If you wanna make something more of yourself than a janitor eventually that is (not that I have anything against janitors. If I was financially independent I would probably spend time cleaning the streets or beaches or other places. We need janitors. It's just that it's a dead-end job is what I mean)
I have never questioned math or physics or chemistry or indeed geography in school.
What I have questioned was the liberal sciences. Which aren't sciences at all. Arts, classical literature, history, that kind of thing. I kind of always believed it was more of ideological education. Which to a great extent it is.
It was, to me, something more needed to society than an individual and to an individual it was needed to the extent of being accepted and integrated into society and not becoming a potential criminal or political dissident and such.
I mean, yeah, you need art and music and all to be more than an idiot savant, or a dumb soulless machine doing A and B each precious and limited day of your life and appreciate your own existence - but is it truly necessary for this particular set of books, visual art, music and this view of the historical events for an individual?
But! I now realised the value of ideological education to an individual.
We, fellow humans, like to pride ourselves as these creatures above the rest of the animal kingdom due to our ability to make rational judgement and act outside of instict and upon our will.
But most of our choices are rarely made using reason and are based purely on emotion. Even those decisions, or I'd like to say "decisions", that we think were made using reason are often made relying on emotion and habit.
We're just biorobots is what I mean. There is this tiny speck of "you" in yourself and a whole load of cogs and wheels.
While writing this wall of text, which normally I'd call brain work, I am pretty much doing it on autopilot rn, I have the idea of what I want to write and am being very distracted most of the time and thinking about other things, for example. My "will" part of the brain worked on it for a small amount of time and sent the rest of the leg work to the lower-level workers in my brain. My internal Large Language Model, like chatgpt4, but cooler, probably, maybe, hopefully. To the cogs and the wheels.
Which is not a bad thing. It's natural. Using the brain is very energy-intensive and working the brain is a lot more intensive still. We naturally tend to conserve our energy if we can, thus we let habit take the wheel.
And if we aren't used to work our brains and make decisions, we will continue letting habit take the wheel even more but even the most brainwormy of us are still rarely actually working our brains, they just, figuratively speaking, think for themselves 1% of the time instead of 0.1% of the time like most of us. (I'd say the numbers are waaaaay way smaller but nvm)
And this is where ideological education comes in. How to make right choices? You read good books, it will create the right moral system in you and you will experience the correct emotions when you need to, thus will make decisions closer to optimal even if you don't really think about it. Which to some - or to most I realised - would be pretty obvious. Not me though. Oh well.
 

BearlyAlive

Certfied Super Secret Final Secret Final Boss
Joined
Oct 13, 2021
Messages
1,304
Points
153
Sure, but the math people need stops at the 7th grade. Solving equations with more letters than numbers isn't anything you'd ever need outside of very special jobs. Solving -3AB²+ (2-XYZ)*FUCK+YOU/3³-C = 2LM-3FA+0O does nothing for 99.999% of people.

The only subject I'd argue really needs replacing is theology-adjacent subjects, but only to include general ethics and inter-religious subjects. Everything else was pretty important, if a bit far away like higher-level physics and chemistry.
 

TotallyHuman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
4,194
Points
183
Sure, but the math people need stops at the 7th grade. Solving equations with more letters than numbers isn't anything you'd ever need outside of very special jobs. Solving -3AB²+ (2-XYZ)*FUCK+YOU/3³-C = 2LM-3FA+0O does nothing for 99.999% of people.
But a career-oriented person aims to be the 0.001% of people and as you go up, you will have to rub elbows with more and more complicated problems. The entire school program will become at some point something entry-level and excel sheets will be your second pair of arms
Try formating. :blob_nom:
No.
 

LilRora

Mostly formless
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
889
Points
133
I agree with most of this, but the issue is, how do you define the "right moral system" and "correct emotions"?

We can look at this from the perspective that there exists some universal good and evil we try to find in the process of learning. That, however, is not really how reality works. Realistically, every single book you may read will be tainted by subjectiveness, biases, and preconceptions in best cases - or lies and deceit, if the book was written by a person without the best of intentions.

Most of what you call ideological education is not supposed to help anyone find the right moral system - it's supposed to present it on a silver platter. This is primarily visible in religion and politics (I'm not gonna touch those topics and especially not here), but it can be found everywhere. And on one hand, you can see it as something good - people aren't going to make mistakes trying to come up with their own thing if they follow the teachings that have been verified by previous generations.

Or are they? The exact same thing happens in the vast majority of dystopian stories, where there is an ideology people are supposed to follow, and they are persecuted for opposing it. And the books that describe that ideology, those values and examples, are "good" - to the people that created them and use them.

Sure, but the math people need stops at the 7th grade. Solving equations with more letters than numbers isn't anything you'd ever need outside of very special jobs.
I always hated this argument. It's not about what people need. The average Joe doesn't need to know the name of the country he's living in, or that Earth revolves around the Sun, or that magnets affect the electromagnetic field. The vast majority of knowledge we acquire in life are not things we need, but things that may be very useful to know, or at least to know those things exist and how they roughly work, even if we don't use them. And in my opinion that especially includes math, because math is used to quantify a huge amount of knowledge from other fields.
 

Indicterra

Five little monkeys jumping on the bed 🎶
Joined
Oct 14, 2023
Messages
171
Points
43
Just adding something else

schools are not just about education, it's also about socialising, School teaches you how to handle your peers and it is also the best placemaking friends and having fun with those friends.

Many of the fondest memories I have mostly me my friends getting in trouble in school and then college
 

TotallyHuman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
4,194
Points
183
I agree with most of this, but the issue is, how do you define the "right moral system" and "correct emotions"?

We can look at this from the perspective that there exists some universal good and evil we try to find in the process of learning.
When I said "right" moral system, I meant such a system of morals that will, in a mundane situation, cause its holder to experience the emotions that may in short-term not seem optimal but in long-term will generally be closer to an optimal solution.
And yes, "what defines optimal"?
Well, a good moral system is never absolute, it depends on the situation and the environment. It will reflect in as objective way as possible the state of the world and society and lead to conclusions that will be fitting to this reflection.
Since the whole point of the wall of text I made was basically "we are robots, we need good programming", I am not the kind of person who believes in things like greater good or evil.
A person reads a story. Characters act a certain way (positive or negative) and it leads to certain results (positive and negative respectively), which the reader internalises and then relies upon later in their subconscious decision-making. If that decision fails, a person reflects and adjusts the system based on "true" experience.
That's how I see a moral system. And it is right when such adjustments are as unnecessary as possible.
Just adding something else

schools are not just about education, it's also about socialising, School teaches you how to handle your peers and it is also the best placemaking friends and having fun with those friends.

Many of the fondest memories I have mostly me my friends getting in trouble in school and then college
I'd argue that public education does not provide the best out of available ways of socialising children.
 
Last edited:

Daitengu

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
694
Points
133
I'm of a similar mind when it came to history. Hated it as a youngin, but really appreciated it as an adult.

You can't tell where you're going or how to get there if you don't know the past after all. If you know the past you spend far less time bumbling in the dark gambling on possible paths forward.
 

SternenklarenRitter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
403
Points
103
As someone with a college degree in math, let me say that history is more important. As a society, our math is super developed. There are even branches of math that have been proven complete. For example, every possible finite group has been systematically classified and named. There are no more finite groups left to discover. It will be centuries before we find practical uses for half of the math we have explored. But as a discipline, history has not really advanced since basically Pliny the Elder.
 

Daitengu

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
694
Points
133
As someone with a college degree in math, let me say that history is more important. As a society, our math is super developed. There are even branches of math that have been proven complete. For example, every possible finite group has been systematically classified and named. There are no more finite groups left to discover. It will be centuries before we find practical uses for half of the math we have explored. But as a discipline, history has not really advanced since basically Pliny the Elder.
I feel ya. The hard part of history is discerning bias and propaganda from cold hard fact.
 

Zirrboy

Fueled by anger
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
1,152
Points
153
Which to some - or to most I realised - would be pretty obvious. Not me though. Oh well.
It's two sides of the same coin. Teaching (assuming competence) conveys an understanding useful to someone, whether you believe that is the pupil or someone else is the difference.

Sure, but the math people need stops at the 7th grade. Solving equations with more letters than numbers isn't anything you'd ever need outside of very special jobs. Solving -3AB²+ (2-XYZ)*FUCK+YOU/3³-C = 2LM-3FA+0O does nothing for 99.999% of people.

The only subject I'd argue really needs replacing is theology-adjacent subjects, but only to include general ethics and inter-religious subjects. Everything else was pretty important, if a bit far away like higher-level physics and chemistry.
I don't know enough about pedagogics to say whether the commonly used muscle analogy is of any significance, but my own take is that "everything beyond 7th grade math" is covered so that "the actually useful part" is trivial by the time you're through school.

That and I'm convinced that waiting until you're reasonably able to tell what you'll need for the rest of your life will be too long. Only a fraction will ever need it, but teaching it to everyone massively expands the group of people that that fraction can come from.
 

Hans.Trondheim

Hans off, please!
Joined
Jan 22, 2021
Messages
268
Points
133
Sorry, I know I'm taking a break here in the forum but I can't help but reply.

You know I'm a teacher in the public school system in our country. As someone who is inside the system and the process, let me be blunt: state-sponsored education is one big propaganda machine.

Ideally, education aims to make an individual a 'useful productive member of his/her society'. A lot of education systems nowadays--if not all--are modeled after the Roman education system, which emphasizes a 'student's' future role in state-building.

Very few are following the Greek one, which encourages critical-thinking.

Science-related academic subjects, like Math and Science, are taught to make the students understand more than numbers (ideally). Those subjects are there to 'say" that in all things and aspects of everyday life, there should be a system. And if you follow that system, you will have few or no problems.

Language subjects are there to help a person effectively communicate themselves (I think this is obvious).

History and social studies should (ideally) make the students aware of their nation's/culture's legacy and make them 'proud' of their heritage. It also aims to make them understand how modern society works. Depending on the government ideals, it can either influence their future citizens to love democracy, or find peace in order (which is the main propaganda point of authoritarian regimes).

Arts and other related non-academic subjects I did not mention here aim to 'develop a student holistically', which means to let them choose something they enjoy outside academic pursuits. And learn to enjoy 'living', which also has an effect on a country's/nation's culture.

Sadly, those ideals are lost because of schools' natural pursuit for prestige, and/or money.

As a teacher, I always emphasized the need to teach my students skills they can use outside the classroom, more than the ones they learn inside.
 

GlassRose

Kaleidoscope of Harmonious Contradiction
Joined
Apr 20, 2021
Messages
146
Points
83
It's more than just ideology though. Knowing about the past helps one to understand the present. And having education about the past and literature and whatnot is also a preventative measure against misinformation; it gives the user a framework to compare and judge new information to ascertain it's validity and truth. Understanding the history of a culture also fosters a deeper level of understanding of the culture as it is now, which is important when interacting with people from that culture, social conventions yes, but also understanding the foundation of different worldviews and mindsets. And it can be useful to adapt pieces of other peoples worldviews, to create a more adaptable and function mental framework.

The Arts are a bit of a different matter. Art has two primary functions. Firstly, it helps with emotional regulation, a very useful skill for personal maintenance. Secondly, it can be used as a medium to communicate abstract concepts, emotion and metaphors, fostering deeper connections and understanding between people, which is useful to ensuring harmony within the community and forming beneficial social structures for the individual.

Math and Science and Writing are also useful beyond the literal knowledge you gain. You learn the process of problem solving, of processing information practically and efficiently, of connecting information, which are all vital skills no matter what path you wish to take.
 

TheEldritchGod

A Cloud Of Pure Spite And Eyes
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,993
Points
153
Well, a good moral system is never absolute, it depends on the situation and the environment. It will reflect in as objective way as possible the state of the world and society and lead to conclusions that will be fitting to this reflection.
I disagree.

Ignoring the theological implications, I do believe in objective morality.
Specifically, I believe there are 4 Axis of morality: Objective, Subjective, Social, and Outcome.
Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, Legal/Illegal, Positive/Negative

Now, you might say, "There is no objective Morality" with the exception being those who believe in God, being the prime mover, Blah Blah Blah. So if there is no god, there is no objective morality.

Bull.

You are right now on the internet. Does it exist? Well, not 100% sure, are you? You could be a brain in a jar hooked up to electrodes and that sophistic nonsense. How do you know it's real? Well, you don't, but then the OBJECTIVE universe would be you were a brain in a jar. Just because we can't know with 100% certainty what the objective universe is, we can say there is one.

Or you can try and convince me I'm the only one who exists and the rest of you are all delusions, but I think you exist, so let's move past that, shall we?

If there is SOME SORT of objective universe, theoretically, if we have absolute knowledge of everything, every particle, every vector, every possibility, and every outcome, then we could break everything down into an objective system of judgment. I mean, if you knew EVERYTHING, you would know the SINGLE BEST OUTCOME. If you knew that, then, by definition, it would be Objectively Good.

Just because we can never KNOW what is objectively good or evil doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't know a lot of stuff, but the stuff still exists. The point is to try to get as close to the idealized outcome as possible. We, as a group, can come up wth fairly good ideas for what is good and evil, in general.

Generally speaking, murdering babies by barbequing them in front of their mothers and then violating the corpse is evil. I like to think we can, as a majority, come to the conclusion that's evil. It might not be, but you know what? I'm willing to take a bet the internet exists and that all of you are real, so I'm gonna die on the hill of "Murdering And Eating Babies Is Objectively Evil". I feel confident on this one.

Of course, we are still guessing what is Objectively Good/Evil, but that doesn't mean just because we don't have 100% certainty that something is Objectively Good/Evil, doesn't mean we should give up on trying to figure it out.

Which is why I include the other three Axis, of course.

Yes, you should strive to keep in mind Objective morality, but you are still an individual, and it is understandable that you have your own viewpoint. What most people consider evil, say, telling the truth if it hurts feelings, well, I disagree with that, and in such a case I choose to follow my personal ethics. I try to tell the truth, regardless of people's feelings.

Objective Morality is not always superior to Subjective morality. Sometimes we just don't know, and you have to go with your gut feeling. While I'm sure about murdering babies, not so sure about littering. You get the jist.

Then you have social morality. This is usually codified as laws, rules, regulations, and things that a social institution puts down as Legal or Illegal. A grey area is social pressure, but these definitions are not hard and fast. They have overlap.

Finally, you have outcome morality. The Old Chestnut: The End Justifies The Means. The only problem with this is, that the world never ends, therefore all of reality is just one continuous means. However, we can subdivide our existence into discrete units of time and state that certain subsections have an 'end'. Therefore it is possible to think that outcomes matter.

You can have something be evil, personally objectional, and illegal, yet still have a positive outcome. If someone threatened to kill my wife, I have a personal objection to killing the guy by arranging his death, but if I was backed into a corner where I was certain it was the only way to save her, he's dead. The positive outcome of my wife living outways all other concerns.

I like how one comedian once put it, Why don't you go around murdering and raping as much as you want?
Answer: I do. Which is to say, not at all. I don't want to and don't enjoy it. Most people don't enjoy being evil.

And as someone who spent several years being more evil than you can imagine, Trust me, it's not fun.
Don't be evil is just good advice.

To bring this around to the original topic, I think the problem with Education is that it likes to dumb things down and then goes, "Here is the one way to think, moving on!" Instead of giving students the tools they need to come to the conclusions on their own. To simply say morality is Objective (God knows all) or Subjective (Everything Is Relative) is the problem.

To quote a certain little girl who likes Taco Bell:

Why Not Both?
 

GoodPerson

The only active fanfictioners in the forum.
Joined
Aug 10, 2023
Messages
587
Points
93
Everyone has answered this question, so I don't think I need to.

But, we all at the slight of it, have the same general answer:

We need school. The surroundings and the people slow and block our progress toward being smart. There is rarely anyone understanding the need for it.
 

Kenjona

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2020
Messages
505
Points
133
People sometimes say "why do we need math in school it's not like we're ever gonna need it irl" and they are fucking retarded, because mathematics is more than necessary irl, especially nowadays. If you wanna make something more of yourself than a janitor eventually that is (not that I have anything against janitors. If I was financially independent I would probably spend time cleaning the streets or beaches or other places. We need janitors. It's just that it's a dead-end job is what I mean)
Define janitor, or do you mean cleaning crew? Because an actual janitor is a pretty wide ranging job. Some do require math skills, cleaning crew not so much.
A janitor is one who keeps the premises of a building (such as an apartment or office) clean, tends the heating system, and makes minor repairs.
Someone who simply takes out trash, cleans and mops areas; might be called janitors, but they are indeed just cleaning crew.
Building Custodians, Stationary engineers, Superintendents and (UK) Caretakers are all the actual names for what used to be termed Janitors. Many of whom do need math skills above middle school. Not necessarily a college degree, though some obtain 2 year associates or higher and other certifications.

In schools and major buildings, Janitors did not just clean, but ran the boilers, operated fuel systems, repaired plumbing, did minor repairs on electrical systems and so on. While this is not so much true any longer in many places, but it is still true for some.
 
Top