Mal Education - System Design - Should Be VS Is

As you consider your next stab ... think about one of the properties of my hypothetical Hyper School that I've mentioned. <ul>The kids are the ones that decide what they will study, and when they will study it.</ul>
Not 'the kids as a group decide for all the kids' but rather 'each kid decides for himself'. But of course the overall system is designed to track each kid, and over time attempt to nudge the kid to 'fill in all the blanks'. It might even work, if the right way to motivate each kid can be found. That's where really good, dedicated teachers will be invaluable.

My design is deliberately UNSTRUCTURED, at least in this particular regard. This is intended to fix what is wrong with the current uber-structured system (and that would be the sructure).

Obviously, a lot of kids fit into the structure of the current system fairly well. Well enough to get by at least.

But why are we willing to live with a system that uses so-so as an acceptable goal?

You pointed out at the beginning of this discussion that we have the technology to create a system that will allow EACH KID to not just reach for the stars, but to actually touch them. (My wording, not yours, but I claim it has the same meaning. Am I right?)

Like you, I believe it is possible to create such a system.

***

And what about the ones that don't fit in now? Shall we continue to hunt them down and either kill or incarcerate them when they eventually go 'off the graph'?

I'd rather not.

LB

<b>[Jim] "I think at lot can be learned from Mother Goose although these days it might be politically incorrect to read her stuff."</b>

Interesting. Surely you can tell that PC is not an alter at which I worship. Some people that tried to run a clone of my Hyper School idea might adjust it to favor Political Correctness, but I suspect most (for example you and Mother Goose) would not. I would be fascinated to watch a PC version in action, to see how it compared to the others.

And I would not be upset if it succeeded. Puzzled. Surprised. But not upset. Gold is where you find it.

So ... do you have a specific example in mind?

Not trying to put you on the spot. If you need to take some time to prepare a posting, please do so.

LB

<b>[LB] "We don't just think, we 'higher' think."

[shando] "... but adolescents generally do not have very well developed cogitative faculties"</b>

Good point. They spend a lot more time thinking like the other animals (about sex and food) than like many adult humans (about sex food and justice).

Some individuals never really grow up in this regard.

PART of the reason for this is an uber-structured, one size fits all educational system that is little more than a babysitter (that does not care about the kids). Babysitting is OK if it is a side effect of serious education, but not if it becomes the main reason many parents value the system.


<b>[shando]I don't think they understand that their bullying behavior is rooted in their compulsion to discover their place in the social milieu.</b>

A 'compulsion to discover their place in the social milieu' is too recent to be anything but a learned social convention. The roots of bullying go back to our single celled ancestors. Without the ability to 'higher think' an organism is stuck with 'regular think' - or worse, with instinct. That means kill or be killed in many situations.

Those of us that use 'higher think' all the time (probably much less than a quarter of all human beings) operate on what might be called The Platinum Rule. (Treat others like they want to be treated.)

Those of us that can use 'higher think' but often don't (partly because we were never taught its value - and this group is probably more than half of all human beings) tend to operate on what might be called The Golden Rule (Treat others the way you want them to treat you.)

Those of us that rarely if ever use 'higher think' - and all of the non humans because they can't use higher think - tend to operate on what might be called The Brass Rule (TrEAT others any way you want to treat them.)

LB,

Re: . . . The Platinum Rule. (Treat others like they want to be treated.)

You might want to re-think that phrasing. I want to be treated as a god; start sending all your money, feeding and clothing me, building my pyramids.

Maybe a little problem there?

A better Platinum Rule would be a Golden Rule phrased as Christian Pastor Dr. Gene Scott always claimed it should be read (in my wording, not his):

(Do not treat others in a way you would not want to be treated.)

Ken

The more you learn, the less you know--I don't want to know anything.

That's a great observation Ken, and it highlights my point about the difficulty of accurate communication. So, how do I pull my bacon out of the fire? In fact, can I?

My motivation for formulating a Platinum Rule in the first place was my observation that the Golden Rule has an obvious (once you see it) defect. The best way I've found to demonstrate it is with the example of a masochist. Using the 'Biblical' wording instead of mine above, the masochist is ordered by the Golden Rule to 'DO unto others' as she would have them do unto her. You can immediately see how this leads her to inflict harm on others.

Of course, it might be possible to interpret the Golden Rule as less of an order to 'get going right now, in this way' and more of a guideline for how to proceed at those times when you do chose to interact with another person. BTW, that is kind of the vein in which I imagined that my Platinum Rule would be taken.

But that does not negate the validity of your observation. It might mitigate it a bit, however.

One more point - your suggested rewording does prevent someone from interpreting the rule as an order. But it does not prevent them from interpreting it as giving permission. And when God says it's OK, some will do it even if it is wrong.

***

So - I agree that my wording of the Platinum Rule needs to be improved. And I agree that your wording of the Golden Rule is superior to the traditional wording (or to my wording, which I allege is equivalent in meaning).

I notice that your wording begins with "Do not ..." rather than with "Do ..."

I have a feeling that this is important.

LB