Education Vs. Brainwashing

[Coriolis]

It's brainwashing because most people have no interest to understand most of the things taught in school. Not trying to be condescending here - teachers themselves don't necessarily understand their subject. It's even worse - scientists/experts sometimes don't understand their subject, they only know stuff. For some people, it is education, for others it is brainwashing. Nobody can force you to think against your will, it would be unethical

Teachers often don't understand their subject. This is partly because American public education prioritizes training as a teacher (i.e. pedagogy) over education in the subject you are going to teach. Sadly, even many elementary school teachers are uncomfortable with science teaching. I'm talking about grades 3-5 here - relatively simple stuff that any adult should be familiar with. Education as a career does not attract our best students as a career, partly because pay is much less that in other careers, and partly because working conditions and expectations are unappealing.

As for scientists and other experts, they generally do understand their fields, but are subject to the vagaries of funding and politics. Many unfortunately allow their actions to be unduly shaped by these influences. It can be tough to hold the line on scientific integrity when your own career or funding is at stake.

 

[Jaq]

Teachers often don't understand their subject. This is partly because American public education prioritizes training as a teacher (i.e. pedagogy) over education in the subject you are going to teach. Sadly, even many elementary school teachers are uncomfortable with science teaching. I'm talking about grades 3-5 here - relatively simple stuff that any adult should be familiar with. Education as a career does not attract our best students as a career, partly because pay is much less that in other careers, and partly because working conditions and expectations are unappealing.

As for scientists and other experts, they generally do understand their fields, but are subject to the vagaries of funding and politics. Many unfortunately allow their actions to be unduly shaped by these influences. It can be tough to hold the line on scientific integrity when your own career or funding is at stake.

Personally, I agree. I also think that distance learning is not that great at all. Mainly for the reason of access to teacher help. Any diligent student can research topics they're not understanding, but the teacher would know them better than some random video or website and SHOULD (not that they're always capable of doing so) be able to tailor how to help the student the best because of it. I would not expect lower educational grade students to be able to research.

 

[Alice Unchained]

Teachers often don't understand their subject. This is partly because American public education prioritizes training as a teacher (i.e. pedagogy) over education in the subject you are going to teach. Sadly, even many elementary school teachers are uncomfortable with science teaching. I'm talking about grades 3-5 here - relatively simple stuff that any adult should be familiar with. Education as a career does not attract our best students as a career, partly because pay is much less that in other careers, and partly because working conditions and expectations are unappealing.

As for scientists and other experts, they generally do understand their fields, but are subject to the vagaries of funding and politics. Many unfortunately allow their actions to be unduly shaped by these influences. It can be tough to hold the line on scientific integrity when your own career or funding is at stake.

There are such struggles among scientists. I see some positives to it - not only external agendas influence science but it also works the other way around.

As a non-American I don't have experience with US public education but nowhere in the world teachers are paid adequately. To my knowledge. I explain this with the culture of overemphasis on taking or status, and underemphasis on giving.

I was talking broadly about education. No matter how much one improves and customizes the education system (trends I wholeheartedly support) there is always going to be a spectrum of literacy, interests, viewpoints and specializations. Nothing wrong with that. FTR, I am an opponent of ableism. Still, it is indisputable that students who are truly invested in learning, rarely are being or feeling brainwashed – the more knowledge one gets, the higher is the chance to spot inconsistencies or be open to change of mind.

Anyone can be a scientist if they know their narrow field, be methodological and secure funding, but it takes something extra to make a breakthrough discovery. Not to downplay the importance of different roles in science but there is a spectrum of scientific-ness.

 

[junathan]

It's brainwashing because most people have no interest to understand most of the things taught in school. Not trying to be condescending here - teachers themselves don't necessarily understand their subject. It's even worse - scientists/experts sometimes don't understand their subject, they only know stuff. For some people, it is education, for others it is brainwashing. Nobody can force you to think against your will, it would be unethical

I agree, and it seems like both sides are to blame for; both teachers and the education system itself.

Mainly cause our education system is setting up a platform for students to only take in knowledge through the use of memorizing techniques. In fact, most of the things we've learnt in high school were never practical to be used in the future.

Adding on, the teachers themselves seem to have fallen into the trap by following and teaching strictly, based on the materials given by the system. It is rather rare for teachers to actually get out from the mainstream method and improvise an effective yet captivating method to make the students, WANT to study proactively.

 

[SgtP3pper]

Education teaches you how to think.

Indoctrination tells you what to think.


The difference between brainwashing and ignorance is that the former is done intentionally with a set purpose/goal in mind, while the latter is a product of unenlightenment.

 

[Maou]

In Illinois, the state constitution says you can't actually tax the rich more. We tried to have a referendum to change that and at least one billionaire ran ads making it look like it would allow Springfield to raise taxes (which they can already do... the issue was who would be taxed) and a bunch of people fell for that.

This billionaire is on record saying that he doesn't think the rich have enough influence in politics, and he also was the number one donor to the campaign of the former mayor Rahm Emanuel (who was also Obama's chief of staff, which really tells you that this is a bipartisan problem).

I forgot to reply to this, my apologies.

Tax on an individual, should be consistent, regardless of how much you make. But this is also where the "Are corporations people?" argument comes from. I have also lately come to the conclusion, that only the poor/working class people pay taxes, because there are so many loopholes (especially for corporations). Because the rich make their money on certain types of income/write offs intentionally (abusing charity etc). If they do pay tax, it's some kind of company they can use/some form of income (but not all income). Wealth isn't so much earned, as it is generated using currency manipulation. Therefor any "Tax reform" is usually completely worthless if you try to make rich people pay taxes. That is why I think simple, comprehensible taxes, at a flat rate... should help in the end. Each individual paying a certain percentage of their overall earnings. Because if people don't pay enough, the government has to downsize. And if the pressure was on, certain things would cease to be/cannot be run anymore and people don't have to pay for stupid shit they do not want to. Everyone loves to say "who will build the roads" like roads didn't exist pre-1920s.

As an entirely different thing, what is "taxed" is completely bullshit 99% of the time. This is why the working class/poor generate so much money (%wise) vs the rich (despite what the numbers track). The entire system of regulation hurts the poor more than it does the rich. When you think about how much licenses, permits, cost of living etc cost the average person. Sure we pay X% on income tax, but its 90% of our income. As opposed to the rich elite, who supposedly pay more in "taxes", but take home billions of dollars each year. The rich have found out how to turn every "Tax" and every "Regulation" into profit, and turn it around on the employee. Regulation, does not work! unless its restricted to food and production quality. Even then, you are playing with fire. As corporations lobby to make bunk studies on why their product is superior, lies to the media etc. Or the media lies for them. Shutting down competition once they establish a monopoly.

 

[Coriolis]

Tax on an individual, should be consistent, regardless of how much you make. But this is also where the "Are corporations people?" argument comes from. I have also lately come to the conclusion, that only the poor/working class people pay taxes, because there are so many loopholes (especially for corporations). Because the rich make their money on certain types of income/write offs intentionally (abusing charity etc). If they do pay tax, it's some kind of company they can use/some form of income (but not all income). Wealth isn't so much earned, as it is generated using currency manipulation. Therefor any "Tax reform" is usually completely worthless if you try to make rich people pay taxes. That is why I think simple, comprehensible taxes, at a flat rate... should help in the end. Each individual paying a certain percentage of their overall earnings. Because if people don't pay enough, the government has to downsize. And if the pressure was on, certain things would cease to be/cannot be run anymore and people don't have to pay for stupid shit they do not want to. Everyone loves to say "who will build the roads" like roads didn't exist pre-1920s.

As an entirely different thing, what is "taxed" is completely bullshit 99% of the time. This is why the working class/poor generate so much money (%wise) vs the rich (despite what the numbers track). The entire system of regulation hurts the poor more than it does the rich. When you think about how much licenses, permits, cost of living etc cost the average person. Sure we pay X% on income tax, but its 90% of our income. As opposed to the rich elite, who supposedly pay more in "taxes", but take home billions of dollars each year. The rich have found out how to turn every "Tax" and every "Regulation" into profit, and turn it around on the employee. Regulation, does not work! unless its restricted to food and production quality. Even then, you are playing with fire. As corporations lobby to make bunk studies on why their product is superior, lies to the media etc. Or the media lies for them. Shutting down competition once they establish a monopoly.

Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. If taxes on individuals are levied without regard to how much one earns, of course the poor will be paying a much higher portion of their income in tax. This has always been my objection to sales taxes, so called "use taxes", and even fees (just not-so-hidden taxes) for licenses, permits and other government permissions/certifications.

As for only the poor paying taxes, I am easily middle class and financially quite comfortable, and I pay lots of tax. I don't complain, as long as the money is well spent. Often it is not, but that is another discussion.

 

[Mind Maverick]

The original post is kind of black and white. There is a difference between brainwashing and just being oblivious. Don't get me wrong, obliviousness can certainly be part of brainwashing; what I'm saying is that human error/shortcoming, which is involved in the learning process, is not the same as brainwashing. Brainwashing is typically something that involves pushing things onto others, not just everyone having something to learn. It tends to involve an agenda, one that is corrupt in some way.

 

[Maou]

Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. If taxes on individuals are levied without regard to how much one earns, of course the poor will be paying a much higher portion of their income in tax. This has always been my objection to sales taxes, so called "use taxes", and even fees (just not-so-hidden taxes) for licenses, permits and other government permissions/certifications.

As for only the poor paying taxes, I am easily middle class and financially quite comfortable, and I pay lots of tax. I don't complain, as long as the money is well spent. Often it is not, but that is another discussion.

You misunderstood. If the system actually worked, and everyone paid their fair share. The rich would technically pay more, but their rate is the same as the poor. So 10% of 10 billion dollar earnings is gonna be a lot higher than 10% of 30k earnings. But since the system is broken, the rich don't even pay their fair share. So the burden of the tax falls largely on those who abide by the law/can't use loopholes. Many taxes in which we pay today, are also supposed to have been temporary. This is a perfect example of "Give them an inch, they take a yard". Any power relinquished to the government is ALWAYS abused. That is why it is always safer to say no, regardless of how good a deal sounds.

As for "money well spent" you'd be surprised of how ineffective taxes are, in doing what we want them to do. This is due to how much of it is spent in administration vs getting things actually done. The government is on average, only 33% effective in any of its pursuits. That isn't including corruption. This is all due to regulation, bureaucracy, and bloat laws. Unions, actually contribute to this. It is why everything takes forever to get done. Some countries can build an new highway overnight. USA would take 3 years due to it all.