this guy is spitting. i think that education should be a place where different ideas can be challenged and discussed by all. because that gives the lesson strength. you can indoctrinate any old idea by suppressing all other points of view, but a lesson that can prove its worth by going up against opposing arguments is one that is truly sound and worthy of teaching.

i take it here that by relativism he means the idea that everyone should tolerate the ideas of others even when the ideas of morality clash. I also agree with this because of the paradox of tolerance.

ah okay so this guy has an actual reason to state for what happened with the Great Tradition

EXACTLY

RIGHT cause he didnt explain exactly how the shift in education was contributing other than vaguely describing it as fracturing from The Great Tradition. he does so much leaning on this nostalgic idea without fleshing out the differences. i dont recall any actual examples or anything he shared about this

? what is a learner in this context

kinda interesting that he'd say this. to me this sounds like a flaw. does he approve of this or disapprove? it sounds like he must find it bad but he thinks the tradition is great

this guy will not stop saying great tradition and its setting my teeth on edge at least now hes gonna start stating what it actually Is

immediate thought: okay, what do the moral values look like in this Great Tradition?

how did fear and violence evolve? hunter-gatherer groups 30-40 ppl, nomadic for the group to survive, every person is critically important mutual regard and caring the in- group. survival depends upon the group, not on own where does belonging come from? There the person who distributes the meat is not the hunter, but the person who gave the arrow to the hunter. so the hunter isn't necessarily the one in full control PALEOLITHIC not neolithic. human mind starts changing as you go from nomadic small tribes to secure agricultural civilization HERES THE DEAL: hatred and fear of outgroup is not genetic. so thats pretty good for the potential of us being able to overcome this? Peter is saying mcdermott and hatemi might be wrong with this one

hmmm

ok. well serious conflicts happen. idk what tot tell you

summerhill solos this fraud school entirely

so? youre just inventing a new system that creates its own variety of men

so what happens when a child loses points for complaining during the soup test? does the child know theyve lost points? do they ever find out? what are the consequences for that? because if the child knows then there is definitely a punishment. perhaps not an intentional one, but there is a feeling that the child has done something wrong.

Okay so then you're sheltering them from reality and introducing challenges that are not nearly as tough as the challenges of life. How is that preparing them for anything

hmm but these situations are entirely contrived. the only reason the children have any relationship with pains are because theyre decided by the authority. so theyll experience aches and pains in the real world, fine, but those can and will have so many different reasons. if they experience a famine, they won't have the school authority to turn to as the reason behind it. their learning experiences are artificial in nature.

HOW do u know this to be the case, frazier,

HUH???? HUH????? HOW

agree with skinner

yeah this is definitely potentially traumatizing to a child. will it equip the child to be able to handle self control in the future? sure, maybe. it could also teach them to fear authority and break down in a time of need. it could become a trigger. every person reacts differently to this sort of thing. what works for one child may break another. and hard times don't make strong people, they only identify which people make it through alright and which people don't. plenty of people who have experienced trauma are able to snap into action when a high-stakes situation happens. my girlfriend is one of them. she can react to an emergency with great clarity. but what of her ability to perform under low stakes, during times of stability? she's not trained to operate in those situations. its very difficult for her. also this type of lesson can have unintended consequences. the fact that any groaning or complaining results in a wrong answer teaches children to suppress themselves. what if, in the future, the child needs to speak up in a situation where they're being mistreated, but can't because a part of themselves forbids them to?

thinking about how many cultures across the world once had very progressive views on, for instance, gender and sexuality, but colonization made its mark on the people's views to the point that those same nations are now extremely socially conservative. Philippines

ive heard it stated that the genocide in palestine is the first time in history that such an event has been broadcasted to the entire world in such an intimate manner thanks to social media. however, due to the way that algorithms work, everyone sees such a personalized version of content, news and information that we still have a fractured and divided base of people. those who are already predisposed to being anti-war are seeing and engaging with this never-ending stream of info, while others living right next to them might not hear of it at all.

ok im not gonna say that chimps arent hugely connected to humans because they are, and it is useful to observe their structures to compare them to humans in an attempt to understand human nature. THAT BEING SAID. bonobos are equally related to humans as chimps are, and their structures are much different. none of that patriarchal alpha male aggression is present in bonobo social structure. it's a matriarchal society that prioritizes gentleness in males and largely uses sex to resolve conflicts and bond socially (contrasting with chimps use of hunting and aggression to resolve conflicts).

im putting that out there because whenever i see chimps being pointed to as The Closest Relative To Humans, i want to challenge the notion that aggressive male behavior is the only example we can point to when discussing evolutionary human nature. thats all, soapbox over

because humans have schemas and biases and convictions and cultural influences and worldviews. human memory is not perfect, we've seen strong testimonies of people who remember having witnessed 9/11 and described in vivid detail, looking out at the towers from over the harbor. even though the harbor is not actually situated that way, and is therefore physically impossible to have actually happened. my earliest personal memory is of my first birthday. i remember the visuals and the sounds and my own thoughts. except human memory doesnt develop in a way like that until ages 2 or 3 at the very earliest. so what does it mean that i can recount a moment, complete with context, in vivid detail as a 1 year old? it means that our brains do many things to rationalize our lives. humans have always liked a good story. we try to fit it in everywhere we can. we like to put emotion and meaning into the things that matter to us. it's one of the things that we can observe throughout history, all the way back to the earliest story.

and i think that thing is a product of their own minds. I dont say that in a bad way at all, i think of it with great interest. i think its a fascinating aspect of the way we humans perceive our world. and if thats what god is, if god is a collection of motivations, beliefs, and neurons firing, then i think that's great. i just dont think its the same blanket statement across the entire universe is all. or even just the world of humans. thats why i dont think ethics are defined by a god

human nature?