Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Hm. I think a different level of recklessness would be required for a murder charge instead of a manslaughter one. Like, running a red light and killing someone is vehicular manslaughter (I think), but playing chicken could be murder?

The Idea: Good, if a bit unorthodox. I don't think it was well executed in this case, though.

I think the idea was perfectly executed. I mean, the it's just not telling anyone your kid's gender. What did they do wrong? It follows the kid named X pretty well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Idea: Good, if a bit unorthodox. I don't think it was well executed in this case, though.

I think the idea was perfectly executed. I mean, the it's just not telling anyone your kid's gender. What did they do wrong? It follows the kid named X pretty well.

I think it's probably more than that. The article didn't go into very much detail about their other children, but that and the "unschooling" give off a very bad vibe. Also, Storm isn't that good of a name for someone to have. It's just out there enough to probably cause the kid trouble down the road.

[alway]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

The UN special rapporteur on torture has formally accused the US government of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment towards Bradley Manning, the US soldier who was held in solitary confinement for almost a year on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source.

[Reelya]

^^ That. Unfortunately, women are still grossly underrepresented in those fields (at least, in the west. Ironically, in more patriarchal countries, the male/woman ratio in STEM fields is much closer to unity)

This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.

In third-world countries, you have few choices, those with the talent pick the career which will make the most money. Funny enough, Scandinavian countries - those with inarguably the best gender equity in the world have the highest divide between stereo-typical male / female roles in work. Why are the countries with the broadest choice for females (with paid maternity leave, equal pay laws, and the whole rest)  more likely not less to show a divide between "typical" male/female roles?

Also, the gay / transgender argument that people "knew" their gender identity from birth, at odds with what society was telling them, seems to confirm that there is some level of personality traits which are inherent (probably from hormones exposed in the womb).

If we assume people are a "blank slate" with gender, we also would have to assume we're a blank slate with other personality traits.

--

Consider something like Oxytocin hormone

Oxytocin is best known for its roles in sexual reproduction, in particular during and after childbirth. It is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and uterus during labor, facilitating birth, and after stimulation of the nipples, facilitating breastfeeding.
Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "love hormone". The inability to secrete oxytocin and feel empathy is linked to sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism and general manipulativeness.

Empathy in healthy males has been shown to be increased after intranasal oxytocin. This is most likely due to the effect of oxytocin in enhancing eye gaze. There is some discussion about which aspect of empathy oxytocin might alter - for example, cognitive vs. emotional empathy.

Basically clinical trials of oxytocin on men showed that the experimental groups are measurably more able to recognize facial emotions than a control group. This hormone exists in much higher levels in females, which would seem to indicate female empathy is not just a socially learnt response.

---

Whatever model we settle on in the future needs to account for both biology and socialization.

Or as we going to continue to say women don't know their own mind, but a "feminist" version of this now? How's that any less patriarchal than the old days? Now, we say that people are socialized from birth to "know their place" and women have internalized all the "you can't do that" stuff.

And we continue to exalt the "male" way of doing things as the "true" way. e.g. I was telling an older guy, a friend of a friend who's in the "arts" crowd, who disliked video games (he quoted GTA as a typical game) about games which were popular with both genders, e.g. "The Sims". He sniffed, "A glorified dolls house". So, even from someone who believed himself totally enlightened, that's bias against things women like.

Reminds me of a discussion we had once in the DF boards, why do more males play dwarf fortress than females. "The game is inherently sexist" was one answer, after further debate that'd shifted to "if only we brought females up properly they'd love dwarf fortress as much as men".

[GlyphGryph]

Hey, this genderless kid thing.

Damn people its a baby, it doesn't even have a gender yet, anyways. Certainly nothing worth talking about. All telling people accomplishes is meaning you have to deal with their pushy bullshit and expectations. I am totally not telling anybody my kids gender either. Or even their sex. They really want to know, they can volunteer to babysit and change some diapers.

Plus it gets even more fun when their older, because then the whole thing becomes a huge game - one kids can get away with and they definitely love as long as that sort of play is encouraged. Let them be whatever.

As far as the unschooling goes - the oldest kid is 5, if the parents have time to be around all day and do appropriate learning encouraging activities, like reading to their kids or getting read to be them regularly, I don't see how that could be worse than the holding pen that is kindergarten.

[Descan]

Unschooling: The problem ain't the concept, it's the name and the way it's described. Reeks of pretentious douchehippyery.

[Reelya]

The problem with unschooling is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.

I used to fart around doing all that for 8 hours a day, plus school. Is farting around for 14 hours a day really optimal? Plus it has a complete dicky name.

Actually this was coined in the 1970's and they're basing their child-rearing on a 1978 book ... debunked 30+ year old social theories are the latest thing in this household.

[Truean]

.

[Frumple]

This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.

Question isn't, in my mind anyway, whether the genders are identical. It's whether whatever physiological differences that do exist are sufficient to warrant different (often extremely so) treatment.

Beyond that, it's whether outliers can exist. If it's oxytocin that engenders empathy, then we should formulate what parts of our society that are enhanced by empathy around oxytocin levels (perhaps finding ways to safely maintain a heightened level for those deficient in the chemical, but otherwise particularly capable of whatever role is in question), not reproductive organs. It stands to reason that it's possible for males to have heightened levels of the chemical, after all. Should we deny a heightened oxytocin male access to the potential oxytocin enabled social/professional roles, simply because of his sex? It goes both ways, of course, and even then we risk a sort of tyranny of the chemical...

I'm very strongly in favor of that sort of research, but we need to be really damn careful what we take away from it.

Whatever model we settle on in the future needs to account for both biology and socialization.

I may be (mis)reading to much into this, but just to be sure: Always be careful with this. Remember the naturalistic fallacy -- is does not entail should be. It may turn out we've got biological influences that are violently societally (or at least morally, if one's willing to go that route) maladaptive, after all.

Reminds me of a discussion we had once in the DF boards, why do more males play dwarf fortress than females. "The game is inherently sexist" was one answer, after further debate that'd shifted to "if only we brought females up properly they'd love dwarf fortress as much as men".

Properly is the wrong word, obviously, but it's equally obvious that some women do love DF as much as men. DF's radiance should be spread to all that can stomach it and all its lovers embraced equally by their brethren, yeah. But let us not deny that even if others dislike DF, that makes them no less human

Anyway, I'unno. There's potential for both great good and horrific misuse in the whole research-into-biological-gender-differences thing. All I really know is that the biological influences of the human body should be viewed with great care, and possibly suspicion. There is a tremendous amount of work necessary to say something like women are biologically more empathic than men, ferex. On average, maybe, but that leaves us a lot of outlying individuals that deserve a great deal of incredibly careful consideration.

[G-Flex]

This is covered in several books, e.g. Susan Pinkers book The Sexual Paradox. The idea that the two genders are exactly the same and that only socialization makes a difference was in vogue 40 years ago, there's little clinical evidence to state we're identical.

Question isn't, in my mind anyway, whether the genders are identical. It's whether whatever physiological differences that do exist are sufficient to warrant different (often extremely so) treatment.

Or stated differently: Whether those differences are significant compared to the differences between individuals. Even if men and women generally differ in some innate sense, the differences between individuals can be great enough that any sort of judgment based on physical sex is still pretty outlandish.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

When the Shoe's on the other foot, don't you know that's when it hits the fan....

[GlyphGryph]

The unschooling philosophy, is, at its core

Since we can’t know what knowledge will be most needed in the future, it is senseless to try to teach it in advance. Instead, we should try to turn out people who love learning so much and learn so well that they will be able to learn whatever needs to be learned

While one can and should argue with such things, (for example, I think strong foundations in reason, logic, music, language (including reading), and various learning methodologies are all incredibly important bits of knowledge, core skills), the ultimate goal doesn't seem either bad or unreasonable. Especially when you're considering it in comparison to, you know, the grade school system we have now.

The problem with unschooling is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.

Except thats not what the article you just linked describes.

I used to fart around doing all that for 8 hours a day, plus school. Is farting around for 14 hours a day really optimal? Plus it has a complete dicky name.

Of course not - that simply means its just as easy to do this poorly as it is to do "traditional" schooling poorly, if not more so. It doesn't mean the concept is worthless, or even bad. And also, those who actually go on to do great things? They aren't going to spend 14 hours a day wasting time. I know I certainly couldn't, as a kid. I learned more and did more on the weekends than I ever did during the week at school. The biggest problem wasn't even the time spent in school, but that the time spent in school was the BEST time to do stuff. Evenings are dark and worthless, school got out around 3:30, take away maybe half an hour to get home, and you've got an hour or two until it's too dark to get anything done. That's barely enough time to get into a good project or get to somewhere interesting, forget learning anything while you're at it.
Evenings were always spent reading or, less commonly, drawing or playing video games, because lets be honest what else are you going to do? It would have been a nice time for schooling though, as I wouldn't have spent the whole class staring longingly out the window wishing I could go and DO something or learn something or just move.

Actually this was coined in the 1970's and they're basing their child-rearing on a 1978 book ... debunked 30+ year old social theories are the latest thing in this household.

It's strange that you bring this up while arguing for the debunked 200+ year old social theories of "traditional" institutional education.

Most of the goods things I know and do, I learned outside of school - literature, art, music, politics, coding, engineering, construction, cooking.

What did school teach me, exactly? Well - it taught me not to try too hard, act too smart, or do too well, or you'll be punished. It taught me not I could put things off until later with no ill effects. It taught me it was safe to ignore authority figures and do whatever I wanted, because there would never be consequences. It taught me I could not trust my peers, or my mentors, to encourage, support, or even accept my desire to learn. It taught me that you could do your job poorly and still become the boss as long as you knew the right people. (a teacher I had for two years who was then principle, despite never having taught anyone a single thing in either of his two classes. Literally.) It taught me, most of all, that I did not have to work hard to achieve results, because putting in the bare minimum would always be enough to do well, and further effort would not be rewarded.

School had benefits too - well, high school did anyways. It was nice to meet people, and it was fun to see how much I could get away with.

[Reelya]

The problem with unschooling is that it's the same thing we all did as kids, run around, play, explore, with-or-without parents. But, rather than complementing traditional learning, it replaces it.

Except thats not what the article you just linked describes.

Unschooling is a range of educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum. There are some who find it controversial.[1] Unschooling encourages exploration of activities, often initiated by the children themselves, facilitated by the adults.

That's exactly what it says. We did all those things when i was a kid, AS WELL as school. How did the "natural life experiences" of "play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience" when I was a kid not equate to the same thing as unschooling? We had all those experiences.

Unschoolers often state that learning any specific subject is less important than learning how to learn

Which is more crap because we did all the things that they describe in my household on top of regular schooling. Being able to deal with deadlines etc is an important skill in life, too, as well as "do it at your own pace". People do need to learn to deal with social pressure etc. Not everything in life can be effectively done "at your own pace".

And another main problem is that society doesn't give a hoot how englightened you are. Society wants to see a bit of paper saying you graduated from school with good marks! For better or worse, how are these "unschooled" people going to get into college?

Anyway, the oldest kid in that family is 5 years old. Let's see how their kids fare as they get older. Unschooling has been around since the 1970's surely we can have a case study somewhere of a success story to judge the theory?

[GlyphGryph]

I knew a couple of people in University who were homeschooled. You'd be surprised at what they'll accept in lieu of regular grades, so long as you can pass the various tests involved.

I also know plenty of people who make lots of money doing jobs they love that never went to University. University is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but its certainly not mandatory. Relevant experience counts for a lot more in many fields, and without all that school to get in the way a person could have a LOT of relevant experience.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of homeschooling in particular, I just don't see it as much worse than the institutional system.

[Reelya]

World's best system = Finland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8601207.stm

In 2006, Finland's pupils scored the highest average results in science and reading in the whole of the developed world. In the OECD's exams for 15 year-olds, known as PISA, they also came second in maths, beaten only by teenagers in South Korea.
This isn't a one-off: in previous PISA tests Finland also came out top.

The Finnish philosophy with education is that everyone has something to contribute and those who struggle in certain subjects should not be left behind.

A tactic used in virtually every lesson is the provision of an additional teacher who helps those who struggle in a particular subject. But the pupils are all kept in the same classroom, regardless of their ability in that particular subject.

According to the OECD, Finnish children spend the fewest number of hours in the classroom in the developed world.
This reflects another important theme of Finnish education.

Primary and secondary schooling is combined, so the pupils don't have to change schools at age 13. They avoid a potentially disruptive transition from one school to another.

Children in Finland only start main school at age seven. The idea is that before then they learn best when they're playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning.

Teaching is a prestigious career in Finland. Teachers are highly valued and teaching standards are high.
The educational system's success in Finland seems to be part cultural. Pupils study in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.