Society/Culture The distrust of education

[JyeDye]

Also misses that perhaps it's a function of a lot of tradies not having sufficient financial education to make the most of their early earnings?

It's a bit of a stereotype, but how many of us know tradies that have gone out and spent up on a boat and the latest Ranger in the good times assuming they'll never end without leaving anything for the bad times.

IMO basic financial education should happen from early high school if not late primary, every member of society deserves to understand how they can make the most of whatever money they make and not be exploited by banks or retailers selling dodgy high interest loans or high limit credit cards.

What would you want to be taught that's not currently being taught? There are economics classes that go into the more advanced aspects of finances. Do you think those classes should be mandatory and earlier then senior years? I feel as though schools do currently teach the basics pretty well, but people just don't pay attention. I've found my friends who I went to school with who complain about this kind of stuff not being taught well enough were the kids who didn't pay attention anyway. Just wondering what you would change I guess.

 

[Seeds]

Language does change with time regardless, this is irrespective of political persuasion or education.
Railing against this is about as effective as standing on the beach demanding the tide not come in that day.

In b4 Shakespeare reference...

No it can be done. New words can be added but we could entrench the meaning of existing words if we wanted to into an official dictionary used by law. So far no country has even tried. They really should try. Its critically important to improve our ability to transfer knowledge.

 

[Seeds]

Anti climate change
Anti vaccine
Anti evolution

There’s a definite link between being right wing and science denial.

I’ve heard right wingers bash universities (“all unis are about these days is brainwashing with a Marxist agenda”) in order to de-legitimise them.

right wingers arent along in science denialism.

An awful lot of left wingers are anti vaccine.

left wingers also seem to be in denial about the findings of biology and neuroscience. Some still believe in blank slates. Others believe in innate identities. Some believe in both these things at different times when it suits them which is completely inconsistent.

 

[Mofra]

No it can be done. New words can be added but we could entrench the meaning of existing words if we wanted to into an official dictionary used by law. So far no country has even tried. They really should try. Its critically important to improve our ability to transfer knowledge.

'Official dictionary used by law'.... what?
People don't consult a dictionary before speaking. Language is fluid, not a rigid bureaucratic exercise.

 

[Seeds]

'Official dictionary used by law'.... what?
People don't consult a dictionary before speaking. Language is fluid, not a rigid bureaucratic exercise.

And language is inefficent and fails greatly as a result. Most of the disagreements we have are because of semantics. Thats a failure of language. Dont confuse "what is" with "what ought to be". The world would improve dramatically if we werent debating or just plain confused by the meaning of words.

 

[gouki88]

right wingers arent along in science denialism.

An awful lot of left wingers are anti vaccine.

left wingers also seem to be in denial about the findings of biology and neuroscience. Some still believe in blank slates. Others believe in innate identities. Some believe in both these things at different times when it suits them which is completely inconsistent.

Please tell us about "the findings of biology and neuroscience"

 

[Seeds]

Please tell us about "the findings of biology and neuroscience"

Blank slates and an innate true identity aint true. Pretty sure that was obvious from what i was refering to in my previous post.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A quiet war has begun with silent weapons, and the new enslavery is to keep the people poor... and stupid.

Novus ordo seclorum.

 

[Schneebly11]

right wingers arent along in science denialism.

An awful lot of left wingers are anti vaccine.

left wingers also seem to be in denial about the findings of biology and neuroscience. Some still believe in blank slates. Others believe in innate identities. Some believe in both these things at different times when it suits them which is completely inconsistent.

Anti vaccination up until recently was mostly the domain of leftie hippy alternative culture types living in communes. This started to change several years ago (Pauline Hanson started making anti childhood vaccine comments in 2017).

During Covid the anti vaccine movement was driven by the right wing. All the votes against vaccine policy in the Australian policy came from One Nation, Palmer or LNP loonies like Rennick. None of the Greens voted against vaccines. It was far right groups behind the anti vaccine protests.

In fact a lot of the previous anti vaccine lefties have morphed into full blown right wingers. Prime example is Russell Brand. Once upon a time he was a peace and love hippie, now he’s a Tucker Carlson watching MAGA, QAnon, railing on about Bill Gates and the WEF all day long.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Anti vaccination up until recently was mostly the domain of leftie hippy alternative culture types living in communes. This started to change several years ago (Pauline Hanson started making anti childhood vaccine comments in 2017).

During Covid the anti vaccine movement was driven by the right wing. All the votes against vaccine policy in the Australian policy came from One Nation, Palmer or LNP loonies like Rennick. None of the Greens voted against vaccines. It was far right groups behind the anti vaccine protests.

In fact a lot of the previous anti vaccine lefties have morphed into full blown right wingers. Prime example is Russell Brand. Once upon a time he was a peace and love hippie, now he’s a Tucker Carlson watching MAGA, QAnon, railing on about Bill Gates and the WEF all day long.

Yep, sigh - they call that the Horse Shoe theory or something like that don't they

 

[tandino]

Honestly that's potentially true, but it's hard to say. An individual student only does a class once, so it'd need consistent iterations of the same occurrence happening (which is what i think you're alluding to). I think the onus is on the uni to undertake surveys etc. on staff perceptions of students, and then delve into some deeper analysis on those lecturers perceived as having a bias.

The focus than is on making those findings transparent to try admonish any concerns that students have.

I used to come across the same staff throughout the 4 years and you learned pretty quickly those who were up for a debate and those who were pretty close minded and those who needed a bit of smoke blown up their ass. I don't think any of this was particularly quantifiable but you knew what the game was.

 

[Carringbush2010]

'Official dictionary used by law'.... what?
People don't consult a dictionary before speaking. Language is fluid, not a rigid bureaucratic exercise.

And language is inefficent and fails greatly as a result. Most of the disagreements we have are because of semantics. Thats a failure of language. Dont confuse "what is" with "what ought to be". The world would improve dramatically if we werent debating or just plain confused by the meaning of words.

I think there needs to be balance.

As Seeds points out, there can be confusion, and worse by extension, words can be used in bad faith in arguments because of the contention of meaning.

I've been somewhat accused on these pages about the rigidity of meaning in debating, i:e the definition of term I use as what the words in the term actually mean. That definition did / may differ in the mind of others though.

Yes of course it's ridiculous to walk around with the dictionary at the ready on your phone just to communicate, none the less the 'fluidity' does allow for the 'semantics' debating because the definition will different from one mind to the next.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yep, sigh - they call that the shoe horn theory or something like that don't they

*Horse shoe

 

[Seeds]

Anti vaccination up until recently was mostly the domain of leftie hippy alternative culture types living in communes. This started to change several years ago (Pauline Hanson started making anti childhood vaccine comments in 2017).

During Covid the anti vaccine movement was driven by the right wing. All the votes against vaccine policy in the Australian policy came from One Nation, Palmer or LNP loonies like Rennick. None of the Greens voted against vaccines. It was far right groups behind the anti vaccine protests.

In fact a lot of the previous anti vaccine lefties have morphed into full blown right wingers. Prime example is Russell Brand. Once upon a time he was a peace and love hippie, now he’s a Tucker Carlson watching MAGA, QAnon, railing on about Bill Gates and the WEF all day long.

i agree with a lot of that but the left wing hippies havent abandoned their anti vaxer views. byron bay hasnt all gone and vaxed up.

russell brand is still an anti corporatist socialist. That makes him left. and conspiracy theories have long been the domain of the left until recently. There has been a bit of a merger of radical left and right wingers of recent. Thry are both populists for starters. Unforturnately they seem to be taking the worst parts of each ideology. They are now very similar on many fronts.

 

[Arkangel]

On the topic of ideology and anti-science beliefs, some may be interested in this recent paper. From the abstract:

Some issues that have been settled by the scientific community, such as evolution, the effectiveness of vaccinations, and the role of CO2 emissions in climate change, continue to be rejected by segments of the public. This rejection is typically driven by people’s worldviews, and to date most research has found that conservatives are uniformly more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals across a number of domains. We report a large (N > 1,000) preregistered study that addresses two questions: First, can we find science denial on the left? Endorsement of pseudoscientific complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has been anecdotally cited as being more consonant with liberals than conservatives. Against this claim, we found more support for CAM among conservatives than liberals. Second, we asked how liberals and conservatives resolve dilemmas in which an issue triggers two opposing facets of their worldviews. We probed attitudes on gender equality and the evolution of sex differences— two constructs that may create conflicts for liberals (who endorse evolution but also equality) and conservatives (who endorse gender differences but are sceptical of evolution). We find that many conservatives reject both gender equality and evolution of sex differences, and instead embrace “naturally occurring” gender differences. Many liberals, by contrast, reject evolved gender differences, as well as naturally occurring gender differences, while nonetheless strongly endorsing evolution.

(Keep in mind this is from a U.S. sample, and I think “conservative” there has a stronger connotation of religious extremism than it does in Australia.)

 

[gouki88]

Blank slates and an innate true identity aint true. Pretty sure that was obvious from what i was refering to in my previous post.

Says who?

 

[owen87]

What would you want to be taught that's not currently being taught? There are economics classes that go into the more advanced aspects of finances. Do you think those classes should be mandatory and earlier then senior years? I feel as though schools do currently teach the basics pretty well, but people just don't pay attention. I've found my friends who I went to school with who complain about this kind of stuff not being taught well enough were the kids who didn't pay attention anyway. Just wondering what you would change I guess.

I mean basic financial literally, not economics.

Stuff the barefoot investor would teach kids - I’m a big fan of that guy - basically. Most likely built in to the maths curriculum from primary school, not an optional subject in high school.

 

[Seeds]

Says who?

Science. See heres the science denialism im referring to.

 

[gouki88]

Science. See heres the science denialism im referring to.

Show me the science. Asking for proof is not denialism. It is actually the key element of science.

 

[Seeds]

Show me the science. Asking for proof is not denialism. It is actually the key element of science.

Go read any sociobiology book from 1980 onwards. Or go read any neuroscience book from 2000 onwards. It really doesnt matter which one. They all come to the same conclusions. Just like climate science and evolution its now just accepted by all experts in the field

 

[Pie eyed]

Education is the "kryptonite" of the right, the religious and the idiot.

 

[Seeds]

Education is the "kryptonite" of the right, the religious and the idiot.

logic is the kryptonite of the religious. Unfortunately the religious still have a tight grip on our education insitutions and use it with great effect for their cause.

 

[Chief]

No it can be done. New words can be added but we could entrench the meaning of existing words if we wanted to into an official dictionary used by law.

This is not a good idea. Or practical in any sense.

So far no country has even tried. They really should try. Its critically important to improve our ability to transfer knowledge.

France and Montreal give it a go. French judges can butt in and force parents to change the chosen name of a child. There used to be a list of acceptably French names for babies.

"Law" has its own dictionaries.

"Transfer knowledge" - you look at the definitions within a discipline, or agree on a common meaning. People gasbagging in here can discuss uncommon terms.

 

[Seeds]

This is not a good idea. Or practical in any sense.


France and Montreal give it a go. French judges can butt in and force parents to change the chosen name of a child. There used to be a list of acceptably French names for babies.

"Law" has its own dictionaries.

"Transfer knowledge" - you look at the definitions within a discipline, or agree on a common meaning. People gasbagging in here can discuss uncommon terms.

What has france choosing names of children got anything to do with what im talking about? Absolutely nothing.

its completely practical and would result in dramatic improvements in government debate and therefore governmemt policy as well as significantly reducing legal conflict in communities.

it would lead to more positive outcomes for society then any technology developed in the last century.

 

[Gethelred]

This is not a good idea. Or practical in any sense.


France and Montreal give it a go. French judges can butt in and force parents to change the chosen name of a child. There used to be a list of acceptably French names for babies.

"Law" has its own dictionaries.

"Transfer knowledge" - you look at the definitions within a discipline, or agree on a common meaning. People gasbagging in here can discuss uncommon terms.

You can tell Seeds hasn't read any Foucault or any semiotics.