Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

How Children Learn In Bite Size Pieces (1/6)

First up in my Educating Education project is John Holt's 1967 work, How Children Learn.

Foreword

Holt sets out his thesis clearly: young children tend to learn better than adults (and they themselves when they are older) since they use their minds in a special way. Holt’s contention is that most parenting and schooling trains out this natural method. The results are only a few become good at learning, but most are humiliated and discouraged; the children are more limited than what they could have become. If we better understand how children really learn then school may become a place where all children can grow.

This book attempts to chart how children do learn rather than analysing the brain to create a child psychology theory; the children contained herein are mostly of pre-school age. The human mind is a mystery and as such should be modest and tentative about any conclusions drawn. That said teachers and learners have known for some time that vivid and pleasurable experiences are easiest to remember and memory works best when unforced.

Chapter 1: Games and Experiments

One of the themes is that children love to create, for example their own songs: they are normally a mix of sense and nonsense, but creating new variations of words and music is a strain on an adult’s imagination so much so their efforts are rarely better than a child’s. Yet most schools concentrate on teaching songs for children to get “right” rather than creating anything, it’s merely compulsory fun, thus alienates many children and they become non-singers. Carl Orff’s method suggests that when a child is given many opportunities to make up their own chants and tunes their musical and verbal growth can be very rapid.

Further they have an “Instinct of Workmanship”. Lisa, two years old, started to copy Holt’s clapping in time with the music and then his more complex movements such as tapping his hand with one hand and his stomach with the other. She didn’t get it right first time, and note well she felt she didn’t need to, but was always checking back and forth to improve until it was a pretty accurate copy (Holt muses that children would learn a great deal by asking questions and imitating real people doing real work such as craftsmen). She started by doing something and thinking how to fix it. We often miss this because children are unskilful and use crude materials; watch the loving care with which a child smoothes off a sandcastle. They want to make it as well as they can, not to please someone else, but to satisfy themselves.

Another example was when Lisa found a ballpoint and took it apart. Holt started to put it together but she said no and began to put its four pieces together. She took twenty minutes to reassemble the pen; she came close but didn’t have the dexterity to achieve it, but she never became angry or discouraged. Holt then reflected on why so many four year olds in nursery schools become tearful or angry when the couldn’t complete a puzzle; he suspects that it’s because they are in a status-conscious situation all struggling for the approval of the teacher or each other. Lisa though is only putting the pen together as an end in itself.

Holt also believes that children are natural learners. They though learn not like scientists, asking a question then cutting out all unnecessary data, but by amassing as much data as possible until they know which questions to ask- they grown up in a strange world and understand a tiny amount of what happens. This explains why children are more likely to try new things, such as play a cello, than would an adult; the latter find it difficult to work in the noise. Furthermore the child is much less likely to draw hard and fast conclusions than an adult from little data. These vital skills of thought, which in our hurry to get him thinking, may very well stunt or destroy in the process of “educating” him.

An interesting example is a little boy who is “noticing (and) quick” yet hates to be taught. He loves though to learn and stores objects up for future use; he also uses his spade and hammer with great care and loves helping his parents in the garden. However when we try to teach the ABCs he becomes furious and frustrated probably because he sees no meaning in it, states Holt. Lisa, now five, on the other hand is a serious student and worries about her grades despite receiving straight As yet she deeply dislikes school.

Children can learn some cause-and-effect games when they are very young. Holt accidentally bumped heads with a girl no more than 7 months old gently whilst carrying her. He said, “Bump”. She seemed to enjoy it so I said “Bump” again and bumped his forehead against hers. After a few goes she soon learnt the game and when I said “Bump” she would “Bump” her head against mine. Sometimes however it takes a while for a child to learn that a particular event A will lead to another event B with regularity. In general acquainting a child with a mechanical device that he can work and fix, aids the understanding of causal laws since he learns that not only do many actions have predictable effects but also that the world is a sensible and trustworthy place.

The best games with little children, though, flow naturally from the situation of the moment. However if the child isn’t enjoying the game, it’s tempting think that if we just play it a little more he will enjoy it but he won’t, and we won’t.

Another major idea is the intrinsic independence of the child. Lisa finds it impossible to see why she should not touch items that everyone else does. Every day she hears, “Don’t touch that, it’s too hot, too sharp etc” and each time she feels that we are attacking her right to investigate the world around her which is how she makes sense of it. This can destroy a child’s curiosity and make her feel that the world is full of hidden danger and ways of getting in trouble rather than being somewhere to explore and think about. Holt argues that we should keep every object that we do not want a child to touch out of reach and even out of sight. At the same time we should keep many cheap durable objects around that they could use, for example an eggbeater and a torch.

Danny whilst being very good at jigsaw puzzles would sometimes deliberately do them wrong just because it was funny. Further when looking at a book he would say “Tractor” when he knew it was a combine. Holt pondered this and concluded that symbols are ours to use as we wish. We can use them correctly or use them incorrectly as a joke. We are in charge, not symbols.

Children instinctively only fear a few things such as loud noises and loss of support. It looks like children catch most of their fears from their elders. Lisa was never afraid of any bugs, in fact she wanted to pick them up and look at them. However one day a twelve year-old girl, friend of her older sister, saw a spider in a room in which Lisa was residing and screamed hysterically until someone killed the spider. Thenceforth Lisa has been scared of all bugs. A part of her curiosity about the world has been shut off and who can tell when it will turn on again?

Lisa went to an amusement park and saw a little train. She looked interested but also a little frightened. Perhaps it was too big and too noisy. She said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. After going on some different rides she declared, “I need to ride that train right now”. Holt thought she should have a chance to conquer her fear. However when she saw it just as big as before she said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. It is easy to say why we fear things but not so easy to say where the drive comes from to overcome them particularly in a little child. Some kinds of courage are learned, but there is surely also an instinct of courage which we should nurture as best we can.

Holt was round at a house where he knew the children very well and he entered into an argument about politics. Whilst the argument was friendly it was too much for the children who circled around and moved in a conciliatory fashion to take the adults' minds off it and restore the cheerful and happy atmosphere. They are no doubt cruel to each other but near a child who is badly hurt or very unhappy children soon become distressed. It is a rare a child is capable of the sustained deliberate cruelty so often shown by adults. Sometimes though children hit each other not out of malice but what can only be described as an overwhelming urge to see what would happen. Holt was playing in the park with a friend, they were both aged three, and out of the blue he hit Holt with his toy shovel. They had been playing peacefully and Holt never understood why he did it.

In conclusion Holt argues that children are natural learners but rather than starting with an abstract concept their natural method is trial and error to comprehend the empirical world. They are also creative, independent, brave and persistent.

Educating Education

Hello Cyberspace. I'm back.

At present my primary area of interest at present is educational and parenting theory, mainly because I recently married and intend to have children in the medium term. As such I want to be clear in my mind, and my wife’s of course, how we ought to bring up and educate our children. I am also interested in the area due to its titanic effects on the minds of the nation whether for good or ill and I soon may be a cause of such effects in a formal capacity. Therefore I have a reading list of about eleven books ranging from Dewey’s Democracy and Education to Plato’s discussion of education in The Republic, for which I will endeavour to write chapter summaries, so you can make up your own mind about the concepts, and then a review at the end.