tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post5462924137452108024..comments2024-03-26T04:19:38.862-07:00Comments on kitchen table math, the sequel: Amy Chua in the NY TimesCatherine Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-77741209931680549382011-01-23T14:39:02.728-08:002011-01-23T14:39:02.728-08:00SteveH wrote:
>[Dave]"Hardly a functionali...SteveH wrote:<br />>[Dave]"Hardly a functionalist perspective!"<br />>[SteveH]But it's not clearly defined. It seems to me that whatever level it is and whatever you decide, is natural and will work by definition.<br /><br />I have no idea what you are talking about! <i>You</i> are the one who brought up “some vague definition of functioning in society.” It’s not my job to clearly define something you brought up in a statement that was in fact mistaken.<br /><br />SteveH also wrote:<br />>[Dave] "the main importance [STEM careers], to me, is in the role that science plays in destroying all of the old socially-stabilizing verities – everything from Divine Creation to human equality."<br />>[SteveH]Is that what your kids think or want? Is that a natural end result of teaching or will you go out of your way to emphasize your world view.<br /><br />Yeah, actually that is what my kids want: in fact, they are much more eager to discuss the dishonesty and stupidity of American adults than, say, Ohm’s law (which we recently covered). I suppose most kids would be, eh? <br /><br />Actually, I tried for a long time to de-emphasize my “world-view,” to use the term you chose (a term that has been primarily pushed by the creationists lately). But, if you simply tell the truth to kids about, say, politics, rather than lying by omission as most adults do, they come away with a pretty negative view of government. Tell them, for example, the actual historical facts about the genesis of all of America’s wars as presented in graduate-level texts (but not grade-school texts!) and they come away thinking that the government of the United States is generally led by a bunch of mass murderers. Not my fault.<br /><br />SteveH also wrote:<br />> If you are offering your perspective to others as a possibility to consider (the only thing an anarchist could do), then it's not clear enough. Once your kids have "no faith at all in socially established authorities", then what? Is that really the path to true enlightenment and a happy life?<br /><br />Yes, it is: ask Tom Paine or Laozi or Henry David Thoreau or Lev Tolstoy or …<br /><br />And, you misunderstand anarchists. “Anarchist,” as I and most anarchists I know use the term, is simply a person who does not have a quasi-religious faith in government: we view governmental actions as we would view the same actions if carried out by private citizens. If you try doing that, you will find a great deal of difficulty distinguishing the actions of government from large-scale theft, and, indeed, mass murder.<br /><br />“Anarchist” does not have much to do with child-rearing, religion, education, or, for that matter vegetarianism.<br /><br />And, no, Steve, I will not “calibrate” that! Most non-autistic people can understand that well enough.<br /><br />SteveH also wrote:<br />>that doesn't necessarily mean that I am, or that my son will become, some sort of slave to social norms.<br /><br />The worst form of slavery is those who are enslaved and cannot even admit to themselves that they are enslaved.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-47129789947655641612011-01-23T06:40:10.811-08:002011-01-23T06:40:10.811-08:00"Hardly a functionalist perspective!"
B..."Hardly a functionalist perspective!"<br /><br />But it's not clearly defined. It seems to me that whatever level it is and whatever you decide, is natural and will work by definition.<br /><br /><br />"...most parents seem to just want the minimal amount of education required for their kids to function in society ..."<br /><br />That a different issue. It's not the Amy Chua issue. Besides, I don't buy that argument. Most parents want the world for their kids.<br /><br /><br />"And, that’s where you and I disagree. I agree with Aristotle that “All men by nature desire to know,” and I find it depressing that American society has perverted if not destroyed that natural “desire to know” in most of our children."<br /><br />Good luck trying to cram that philosophy into reality. You should try starting from the data and working the other way. I never destroy my son's "desire to know", but I push. Aristotle never figured that out. Damn the data, full philosophy ahead. There is a reason why the scientific revolution is called a revolution.<br /><br /><br />"the main importance [STEM careers], to me, is in the role that science plays in destroying all of the old socially-stabilizing verities – everything from Divine Creation to human equality."<br /><br />Is that what your kids think or want? Is that a natural end result of teaching or will you go out of your way to emphasize your world view. In some ways, that's not much different than Amy Chua's approach. She pushes to make her kids the ultimate societal competitors. You push your kids to become the opposite. Both views are controlled by society. However, Amy Chua's kids will have more options in life.<br /><br /><br />If you are offering your perspective to others as a possibility to consider (the only thing an anarchist could do), then it's not clear enough. Once your kids have "no faith at all in socially established authorities", then what? Is that really the path to true enlightenment and a happy life?<br /><br /><br />I don't know what my son wants in life, but it does not involve closing doors. It means that I expect him to work hard and deal with the problems of competition and supply and demand. This requires pushing (as I define it) on my part, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am, or that my son will become, some sort of slave to social norms. He's much smarter than that. I think Amy Chua's kids are too.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-59539428802686866632011-01-22T15:57:14.109-08:002011-01-22T15:57:14.109-08:00Amy Chua is nothing compared to John Stuart Mill&#...Amy Chua is nothing compared to John Stuart Mill's father. And he wasn't Chinese!Ari-freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00846863080189545029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67698276841212250502011-01-22T15:53:34.735-08:002011-01-22T15:53:34.735-08:00PhysicistDave wrote: "There are a tiny number...PhysicistDave wrote: "There are a tiny number of kids who have actually decoded the alphabet and taught themselves to read without adult aid (supposedly, John Stuart Mill did),"<br /><br />From John Stuart Mill's Autobiography:<br />http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/mill_autobio1.html<br />"A man who, in his own practice, so vigorously acted up to the principle of losing no time, was likely to adhere to the same rule in the instruction of his pupil. I have no remembrance of the time when I began to learn Greek. I have been told that it was when I was three years old. My earliest recollection on the subject, is that of committing to memory what my father termed Vocables, being lists of common Greek words, with their signification in English, which he wrote out for me on cards. Of grammar, until some years later, I learnt no more than the inflexions of the nouns and verbs, but, after a course of vocables, proceeded at once to translation; and I faintly remember going through AEsop's Fables, the first Greek book which I read. The Anabasis, which I remember better, was the second. I learnt no Latin until my eighth year..."Ari-freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00846863080189545029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67405848807819965552011-01-22T14:42:07.689-08:002011-01-22T14:42:07.689-08:00(cont.)
Because I think learning in general, not j...(cont.)<br />Because I think learning <i>in general</i>, not just for minimal functionalist purposes, is “natural” to human beings, Allison thinks I’m a Rousseauist. Of course, he thought the opposite: he liked an approach like her son’s pre-school – back to nature, and all that – which I abhor.<br /><br />I don’t see that anyone has, in your words, debated “whether it's natural to achieve some vague definition of functioning in society,” unless you are just referring to the trivially obvious point that most human societies do manage to teach most of their kids whatever those societies consider necessary for functioning in their societies: I suppose that fact is basically tautologous.<br /><br />SteveH also wrote:<br />> Besides, I'm trying to help my son reach his potential. That's what Amy Chua is trying to do. Obviously, many individuals find that what they want for their kids is not a natural process.<br /><br />And, <i>that’s</i> where you and I disagree. I agree with Aristotle that “All men by nature desire to know,” and I find it depressing that American society has perverted if not destroyed that natural “desire to know” in most of our children.<br /><br />You and I agree that some level of adult encouragement and guidance is desirable in kids’ education: there are kids, who, after learning to read, largely do it alone and manage to do okay (I am somewhat of an example myself – I rapidly got beyond any adults I knew in math and science), but, obviously, adult guidance and encouragement can help.<br /><br />The issue is whether or not it is natural to expect substantial resistance from kids in that process. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of American kids <i>are</i> resistant: anyone who doubts that should ask a random public-school teacher!<br /><br />I maintain, appealing to Aristotle, that such resistance is not “natural” and is a result of our very, very sick society.<br /><br />SteveH also wrote:<br />> I'm not a societal clone and I will push more than others. Why would an anarchist complain?<br /><br />Steve, actually I think you’re a pretty good guy (same for Allison): I’m sure we’d be friends if we knew each other in real life, and I’m happy to think of you as “Web friends.” But, if we have an open discussion about basic issues of education, well, such discussions do tend to evolve rapidly into basic issues about philosophy and one’s perspective on human nature, and differences on those basic issues can seem to be pretty sharp.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-85096209301435789812011-01-22T14:41:17.910-08:002011-01-22T14:41:17.910-08:00SteveH wrote:
> Why did the question change to...SteveH wrote:<br /><br />> Why did the question change to whether it's natural to achieve some vague definition of functioning in society?<br /><br />It has?<br /><br /><i>My</i> view, as I stated earlier is:<br />> What I think parents <i>should</i> do is yank their kids out of the public schools yesterday, homeschool them, and focus on teaching a questioning approach based on hard-core knowledge of science, math, and history that will turn the little ones into atheistic anarchists – i.e., people who have no faith <i>at all</i> in socially established authorities. I see the usefulness of math and science in pursuing STEM careers as only of secondary importance: the main importance, to me, is in the role that science plays in destroying all of the old socially-stabilizing verities – everything from Divine Creation to human equality.<br /><br /><i>I</i> think any education worth the name will turn kids into little atheistic-anarchistic social revolutionaries, because they will come to realize that all human societies are built on packs of lies.<br /><br />Hardly a functionalist perspective!<br /><br />On the other hand, alas, most American parents do not agree with me: most parents seem to just want the minimal amount of education required for their kids to function in society and get an okay job. And that really only requires the three Rs.<br /><br />I’ve simply pointed out that, as the nineteenth-century experience indicates, achieving that minimalist goal is rather easy – kids in nineteenth-century America routinely were taught the three Rs in less than six years: anyone who reads up on the nineteenth-century educational experience will find that my great–grandmother’s experience (learning the three Rs by the end of fourth grade and then dropping out) was not particularly atypical.<br />(cont.)PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-12395040477778040482011-01-22T14:02:11.637-08:002011-01-22T14:02:11.637-08:00Katharine wrote:
>But not, apparently, when it ...Katharine wrote:<br />>But not, apparently, when it comes to mental disabilities vs. narrow interests, being highly curious vs. being broadly curious; and objects of natural curiosity vs. skills pertaining to artificial systems like written language.<br /><br />Already settled issues, Katharine: asked and answered, as the lawyers say.<br /><br />And, as to “Anonymous,” it is my usual policy (I occasionally make exceptions) to ignore questions directed at me by people who post as “Anonymous”: if someone lacks the guts to identify himself, I do not take him seriously.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-71239112953688106562011-01-22T08:50:59.042-08:002011-01-22T08:50:59.042-08:00Why did the question change to whether it's na...Why did the question change to whether it's natural to achieve some vague definition of functioning in society? What, exactly, is natural, and what, exactly, is this level? Besides, I'm trying to help my son reach his potential. That's what Amy Chua is trying to do. Obviously, many individuals find that what they want for their kids is not a natural process. They use all types and levels of pushing. Some work and some don't. I'm not a societal clone and I will push more than others. Why would an anarchist complain?<br /><br />In K-6, schools use lots of natural techniques that fail to work. Everyday Math is all about letting kids learn at their own pace. They assume that if they don't learn then they are not ready yet. Schools ruin kids by not pushing. Natural can't be defined as whatever works. That's what schools do.SteveHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03956560674752399562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-18846621557891609642011-01-22T06:42:16.566-08:002011-01-22T06:42:16.566-08:00"Distinctions matter."
But not, apparen..."Distinctions matter."<br /><br />But not, apparently, when it comes to mental disabilities vs. narrow interests, being highly curious vs. being broadly curious; and objects of natural curiosity vs. skills pertaining to artificial systems like written language.<br /><br />"The human race is a wee bit broader than that."<br /><br />But not, apparently, when it comes to learning how to read.<br /><br />After all:<br /><br />"the vast majority of kids, those with normal intelligence, not suffering from debilitating mental disabilities" ... "innately want to learn"<br /> <br />and:<br /><br />"Teaching a kid to read is really, really, really easy. I strongly suspect that anyone who thinks otherwise has never successfully taught a kid of normal intelligence how to read. It’s easier than changing diapers."<br /><br />and:<br /><br />"Teaching the three Rs is stunningly easy."<br /> <br />Of course, we're still awaiting Dave's response to Anonymous' question:<br /> <br />"Really? How many kids have you taught them to?<br />Three?<br />Thirty?<br />Three hundred?"<br /><br />And to a few other points, including these:<br /><br />"What about all those rebellious farm boys we read about in the Laura Ingalls Wilder books?"<br /><br />"It would seem that you haven't met many children whose love of learning is channeled into narrow, esoteric interests; I've met tons. Families share genes; friends share personality traits; family and friends do not represent the gamut of personality types. People don't realize this, think they've seen everything, and then make toxic judgments about other parents."Katharine Bealshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02838879769628392605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-52222658382167165262011-01-22T03:28:23.846-08:002011-01-22T03:28:23.846-08:00Allison wrote to me:
>This is exactly the set o...Allison wrote to me:<br />>This is exactly the set of ideas Rousseau put forth that led to the French Revolution. As if we could somehow manage to get away from these corrupt institutions if we just had Reason!<br /><br />No, you are not well informed.<br /><br />Rousseau was not an anarchist at all – he wanted to submerge the individual in the General Will. He wanted new institutions that were even more constraining of individuals than the old institutions, and, of course, that is exactly what the French Revolution produced.<br /><br />That is not what Jefferson, Voltaire, Paine, etc. advocated. They wanted an end to “unconstrained” institutions that oppressed individual human beings. I could quote numerous examples from them, but perhaps Jefferson will suffice: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.”<br /><br />Rousseau was a precursor of the Romantics. Most of the leading philosophes despised him: when Hume unwisely offered to have him as a guest, the philosophes warned Hume about what he was letting himself in for.<br /><br />Putting Rousseau in the same basket as the other members of the Enlightenment is like treating Solzhenitsyn and Stalin as pretty much the same sort of fellow on the grounds that both were citizens of the Soviet Union!<br /><br />Distinctions matter.<br /><br />There is a reason the American Revolution turned out so differently from the French Revolution.<br /><br />You are taking Tom Sowell’s fallacious nonsense about “constrained” vs. “unconstrained” visions <i>way</i> too seriously. I’ve met Tom, he’s a very nice person – a quiet, polite gentleman. But, his constrained/unconstrained silliness is just a covert way of trying to divide all human beings into either American neocons or Rousseauists, especially weird since a number of leading neocons started as Trotskyites, who legitimately could be called “Rousseauists” (see Raimondo’s <i>Reclaiming the American Right</i> for documentation).<br /><br />The human race is a wee bit broader than that. Some of us are really, truly neither neocons nor followers of Rousseau. In fact, there is a longstanding affinity between conservatism and Rousseau -- many of Edmund Bruke’s declarations, for example, are curiously similar to Rousseau’s General Will thesis (e.g., “parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole”).<br /><br />Indeed, Rousseau is closer to contemporary American conservatism than to many other ideologies: the “unconstrained” two-front war in the Mideast in the name of “nation-building” and “democracy,” the idea that America is a “propositional nation,” the worship of Lincoln, etc. is all rather Rousseauist.<br /><br />Again, I’ll stand with the men and women of the Enlightenment – Voltaire, Jefferson, Locke, Paine, et al.<br /><br />The neocons can keep Rousseau, Trotsky, and all the other utopians who have managed to get so many millions of innocent people killed.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-71776272662723389742011-01-22T03:24:31.294-08:002011-01-22T03:24:31.294-08:00Glen wrote to me:
>So, who was the inferior imm...Glen wrote to me:<br />>So, who was the inferior immigrant stock?<br /><br />Ah, Glen, the Pennsylvania Dutch (some are included among my ancestors, too) were Germans, might as well be Anglo-Saxons.<br /><br />Good immigrant stock.<br /><br />As to the bad stock, they know who they are!PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-8973274388763995552011-01-22T03:09:06.900-08:002011-01-22T03:09:06.900-08:00Allison wrote: Literacy rates were higher in the p...Allison wrote: <i>Literacy rates were higher in the pre revolutionary period for men in the British colonies, but that didn't hold in the 1800s.</i><br /><br />To which Dave responded:<i><br />In short, things were going great among us Anglo-Saxons until we let in all the inferior immigrant stock – I’ve long suspected as much.</i><br /><br />Given your discussion, this might interest both of you. A g-g-grandfather of mine was "Pennsylvania Dutch," meaning his recent ancestors were immigrant stock from Germany.<br /><br />He became a public school teacher at age 16 after what he figured was about 2-1/2 school years spread over about 5-6 calendar years, as was common. (School was held when no farm work could be done so, yes, you would walk five miles each way to school in the snow.) His college roommate, also a "Dutch boy in Dutch pants" (lederhosen) did the same thing. Both of them claimed (in diaries, etc.) that in PA and OH in those days (early 1800s) teaching school was a common occupation for "the Dutch" because "the English" had such poor literacy in English. It was common for the English to prefer to send their kids to schools with German ("Dutch") teachers because, although English was not their home language, they were STILL more literate in English than most of the English.<br /><br />He ended up marrying a girl recently arrived from England, my g-g-grandmother. She was his nurse when he got shot in the battle of Vicksburg. I'm pretty sure she was illiterate, like so many English coal miner's daughters in PA.<br /><br />So, who was the inferior immigrant stock?<br /><br />And as for variant name spellings, the Pennsylvania Dutch were required to anglicize their names on government documents, so a Johann Schneider in a church marriage register would be a John Snyder on a census, because he would be literate in both languages, while his English neighbor would be Stephen Whittaker in the church register and Steven Woodacre on the census, because he was literate in neither!Glennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-9702552392949304312011-01-21T22:18:48.029-08:002011-01-21T22:18:48.029-08:00"A good-for-nothing, illiterate dad, a dirt-p..."A good-for-nothing, illiterate dad, a dirt-poor family, and yet Mom taught him to read, even though she died before he was ten."<br /><br />An "extraordinary mother" taught him. And given the rest of his capacities, there's quite a lot of evidence that quote is correct. So not exactly any ol Mom taught him to read.<br /><br />How many more extraordinary mothers must there be? If we aren't all extraordinary, what then?<br /><br />What makes you think that those of us who are merely a-bit-beyond-ordinary or sadly-just-ordinary can do it? And if we can't, what does that mean to you? by definition, we're what, or our children are what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-45076664776075361732011-01-21T22:15:07.905-08:002011-01-21T22:15:07.905-08:00--I stand with the men and women of the Enlightenm...--I stand with the men and women of the Enlightenment: Voltaire, Hume, Jefferson, et al.: let human beings be constrained by reason, and by natural law derived from reason, not by corrupt institutions created and dominated by unconstrained, corrupt human beings.<br /><br /><br />This is exactly the set of ideas Rousseau put forth that led to the French Revolution. As if we could somehow manage to get away from these corrupt institutions if we just had Reason!<br /><br />(Where do you get the notion that *I* have any Utopian beliefs at all? Where?)<br /><br />Hey, if you want to argue that Abraham Lincoln was a dime a dozen, and therefore, anyone can learn to read, you're welcome to do so. But no one else sees a dime a dozen of him or anyone like him, or pretends it's easy to make some more like him.<br /><br />I don't think you've ever met any child of "normal" intelligence, and I'm sure you've not taught them to read. Other than your children, who have you taught to read?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-35452479213543916792011-01-21T20:55:59.994-08:002011-01-21T20:55:59.994-08:00Allison wrote to me:
> Kearns Goodwin write tha...Allison wrote to me:<br />> Kearns Goodwin write that Lincoln's father was illiterate, and "never did more in the way of writing than to bunglingly sign his own name." She says Abraham was taught to read by his mother, who she quotes from various sources as a woman "known for the Extraordinary Strength of her mind among the family and all who knew her: she was superior to her husband in every way. She was a brilliant woman...[she] read the Good Bible to him--taught him to read and spell--taught him sweetness & benevolence as well." She died when he was 9.<br /><br />Thanks for making my point for me. A good-for-nothing, illiterate dad, a dirt-poor family, and yet Mom taught him to read, even though she died before he was ten.<br /><br /><i>Teaching a kid to read is really, really, really easy.</i> I strongly suspect that anyone who thinks otherwise has never successfully taught a kid of normal intelligence how to read. It’s easier than changing diapers.<br /><br />Let’s remember that by our own standards, almost <i>everyone</i> in American in 1750 or 1800 was dirt poor, but most free white males learned to read. <br /><br />That is the tell-tale: America today vs. America in 1750 is like Switzerland today vs. southern Sudan today. We’re not surprised if southern Sudan has a lot lower literacy than Switzerland. We are surprised if the Swiss do as poor a job educating their kids as the south Sudanese do.<br /><br />Three of the first four Presidents that this country elected were basically geniuses (Adams, Jefferson, and Madison). This country once honored and respected real learning.<br /><br />Read Anderegg’s <i>Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need Them</i>: this country’s adults today hate and despise learning, and they have very, very effectively passed that attitude on to their kids.<br /><br />Once our heroes included Franklin, Jefferson, Edison, etc. Now, they are Elvis, Madonna, and Michael Jordan – and that’s for the <i>adults</i>; the kids’ heroes are even worse.<br /><br />Adam Smith said, “There is a great deal of ruin in a country”: i.e., a country can have a lot of flaws and still survive. I don’t think the collapse of education in the USA will have as catastrophic results as many education critics think. I actually suspect the country’s collapse will come from some combination of our insane foreign policy and our irresponsible monetary and tax policies.<br /><br />Of course, the lack of education doesn’t help in any of those areas, either.<br /><br />Anyway, I am frankly astounded at the inability of almost all American adults to see these facts staring them in the face. <br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-72120897022730054882011-01-21T20:48:54.048-08:002011-01-21T20:48:54.048-08:00Allison wrote to me:
> Rousseau had the same un...Allison wrote to me:<br />> Rousseau had the same unconstrained vision of humanity you have. If the current corrupt institutions would just get out of the way, human potential would be so much higher, and we'd be so much better. You may not agree with Rousseau in other places, but in that you hold the same philosophy.<br /><br />Nope. You are clearly the Rousseauist here: I’ve hated the guy since I was a kid (honestly).<br /><br />You’re the one who has utopian beliefs in governmental institutions, religious institutions, etc.<br /><br />Not me. I don’t trust any of ‘em.<br /><br />I’m with Lord Acton: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”<br /><br />Give humans unconstrained power over other humans, and I am convinced they will lie, steal, cheat, and murder to create Hell on earth.<br /><br />I stand with the men and women of the Enlightenment: Voltaire, Hume, Jefferson, et al.: let human beings be constrained by reason, and by natural law derived from reason, not by corrupt institutions created and dominated by unconstrained, corrupt human beings.<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-3124984146155374772011-01-21T18:51:12.120-08:002011-01-21T18:51:12.120-08:00--Dave said: --American literacy in the early days...--Dave said: --American literacy in the early days of the republic was stunningly high...We all know the stories of Lincoln, who was “white trash,” but yet knew how to read.<br /><br /><br />Kearns Goodwin write that Lincoln's father was illiterate, and "never did more in the way of writing than to bunglingly sign his own name." She says Abraham was taught to read by his mother, who she quotes from various sources as a woman "known for the Extraordinary Strength of her mind among the family and all who knew her: she was superior to her husband in every way. She was a brilliant woman...[she] read the Good Bible to him--taught him to read and spell--taught him sweetness & benevolence as well." She died when he was 9. <br /><br />I guess I don't understand what your point was. That he learned it because literacy was "stunningly high"? Or that all his peers learned to read? He didn't learn it in school; his total schooling amounted to less than one year--as was that of his peers. Beyond reading and writing, he was self taught in all ways including up to his law license. Obviously that wasn't normal for his peers.<br /><br />Rousseau had the same unconstrained vision of humanity you have. If the current corrupt institutions would just get out of the way, human potential would be so much higher, and we'd be so much better. You may not agree with Rousseau in other places, but in that you hold the same philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-59199736801336275872011-01-21T18:48:56.065-08:002011-01-21T18:48:56.065-08:002nd time posting, with previously omitted informat...2nd time posting, with previously omitted information included.<br /><br />PhysicistDave said:<br /><i>Teaching the three Rs is stunningly easy.</i><br /><br />Really? How many kids have you taught them to?<br />Three?<br />Thirty?<br />Three hundred?<br /><br /><b>Teaching</b> the 3 Rs might be stunningly easy for you, but <b>learning</b> them can be stunningly hard for some children. Your broad sweeping generalizations hurt rather than help any arguments you're making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-67096440296938762002011-01-21T18:36:40.589-08:002011-01-21T18:36:40.589-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-38594385652367662152011-01-21T18:21:18.420-08:002011-01-21T18:21:18.420-08:00Teaching the three Rs is stunningly easy.
How man...<i>Teaching the three Rs is stunningly easy.</i><br /><br />How many kids have you taught them to? <br />Three? <br />Thirty? <br />Three hundred?<br /><br /><b>Teaching</b> the 3 Rs might be stunningly easy for you, but <b> learning</b> them can be stunningly hard for some children. Your broad sweeping generalizations hurt rather than help any arguments you're making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-14495309152298662902011-01-21T17:30:03.100-08:002011-01-21T17:30:03.100-08:00Allison wrote to me:
> But that's a far cry...Allison wrote to me:<br />> But that's a far cry from this Rousseau ideal of the noble student.<br /><br />I’m the anti-Rousseauist here: Rousseau, and, even more, his nineteenth-century epigones, thought it unnatural for kids to learn solid academic material.<br /><br />I disagree with Rousseau.<br /><br />Allison also wrote:<br />> Literacy rates were higher in the pre revolutionary period for men in the British colonies, but that didn't hold in the 1800s.<br /><br />In short, things were going great among us Anglo-Saxons until we let in all the inferior immigrant stock – I’ve long suspected as much. (At least we had the sense to let in the Ashkenazi Jews, who kicked up the mean IQ a bit.)<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-74244161160654579012011-01-21T17:24:37.752-08:002011-01-21T17:24:37.752-08:00Allison wrote to me:
>You hold up *Abraham Linc...Allison wrote to me:<br />>You hold up *Abraham Lincoln* as an example of how someone can teach themselves to read???? Outliers aren't the way to argue the mean.<br /><br />No, Allison, no! I did <i>not</i> hold up Lincoln as an example of someone who could teach himself to read!<br /><br />Really – look back at what I wrote.<br /><br />I said:<br />>There are a tiny number of kids who have actually decoded the alphabet and taught themselves to read without adult aid (supposedly, John Stuart Mill did), but <i>of course</i> it is much easier if adults teach the kids the sounds of the alphabet and how to sound out words – i.e., phonics.<br /><br />I said that a “tiny number” have managed to do that and gave Mill as an example.<br /><br />As far as I know, Lincoln did not teach himself to read. However, he did manage one way or another to learn the three Rs, even though his family was poor and lower-class. And, if you look into the historical data, you will find that <i>that</i> was not unusual. Teaching the three Rs is stunningly easy.<br /><br />It takes the bizarre Rousseauist educational philosophy held by almost Americans, including a lot of people here, to make it seem hard.<br /><br />Allison also wrote:<br />>Names notoriously changed during this period--look in your family tree and you'll likely see several spellings of your surname…<br /><br />Probably not – there is one pretty obvious way to spell the English name “Miller”!<br /><br />DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-66737240352146356622011-01-21T16:26:25.015-08:002011-01-21T16:26:25.015-08:00--I certainly believe that your son is more curiou...--I certainly believe that your son is more curious than most kids in his pre-school. Frankly, everything I have seen of pre-schools convinces me that pre-school is part of the process of killing kids’ curiosity. My wife and I looked at a number of pre-schools here in Sacramento when our kids were young, supposedly the best in town. We were appalled. We kept our kids out.<br /><br />This is enough selection and confirmation bias for me. You've never seen my kid's preschool, and you have no data to support that it is part of the process of "killing kids' curiosity". You've decided schools are bad, and you won't hear evidence to the contrary. My kid's preschool is a dream school where the kids get to be (for 6-10 weeks at a time) ornithologists, astronomers, naturalists and animal trackers, weavers, sculptors, urban planners, cooks etc. while exploring life cycles of trees, frogs, butterflies, and still playing. Curiosity killing? No. And yet, the variation among children is already there before school, and in some ways, grows while there.<br /><br />(for those interested, you can see the website: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/LabSchool/Classrooms/Dalia/)<br /><br />Would such a school work at higher ages? Not past 2nd grade, no, because the exploration phase ends, and kids missing the basic skills of literacy will never catch up. And there is the real issue: how do you balance getting those basic skills to the kids who absolutely need them and aren't getting them at home and yet not shackling the kids who already have them and are accelerating away, who are able to handle this level of exploration. The answer is you can't meet both needs simultaneously. But that's a far cry from this Rousseau ideal of the noble student.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-4391210207278867672011-01-21T16:11:49.435-08:002011-01-21T16:11:49.435-08:00You hold up *Abraham Lincoln* as an example of how...You hold up *Abraham Lincoln* as an example of how someone can teach themselves to read???? Outliers aren't the way to argue the mean.<br /><br />You're wrong about literacy in the US. Literacy rates were higher in the pre revolutionary period for men in the British colonies, but that didn't hold in the 1800s.<br />In the early and mid 1800s, various studies put literacy rates for women in the 50% range, and men ranged by community from 10-40% illiterate. We're talking a crude literacy here--enough to sign more than a document with an X meant you were literate, not that you were in any way learned. <br /><br />Genealogical records of the time starting asking about literacy. The census started asking this question in 1840, though no tests were administered. Names notoriously changed during this period--look in your family tree and you'll likely see several spellings of your surname, because the census workers wrote down various versions what was said and families didn't know how to spell their own name for them. Now it's also true that spelling took a while to standardize, so that plays a part in trying to interpet the data, but here are some sources for you:<br />http://books.google.com/books?id=PSmIDJrSOYQC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=1840+census+literacy+rates&source=bl&ots=954p26ztia&sig=_uBDnvZd1c-ITHk72VHWX2EQvhc&hl=en&ei=6h06Te66LIXQgAe-qKzyCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=1840%20census%20literacy%20rates&f=false<br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_n4_v29/ai_18600988/<br /><br />Other genealogists talk about this as well. I'll try to find you more sources.<br />Primates are built above all else to reproduce. To the extent that learning supports reproduction, they learn. But that's not what we're built for. We've got nifty genes for verbal language acquisition, for example, that allow learning by just a kind of saturation in verbal language. But funny, we don't have those genes for written language acquisition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-24018689792339869142011-01-21T14:47:04.785-08:002011-01-21T14:47:04.785-08:00Education: Free and Compulsory, which is by my la...<i>Education: Free and Compulsory</i>, which is by my late friend the economist Murray Rothbard and which convinced me, many decades ago, to homeschool, goes into some of the history of (mis-)education in the USA that is relevant to this debate: it’s now available online at http://mises.org/story/2226 .PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.com