What makes a good society?

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a perfect example of why I feel that a good education and the ability to think critically are very important to a good society.

According to a Time article from April 9, 2008 Haiti:



Time Article Link

Wombat assumes that there are no other differences between the situation in Haiti and the one in Australia other than laziness. But Australia is a relatively wealthy country where most people get enough to eat. In Haiti, much of the population is not getting enough to maintain adult weight, much less be able to do strenuous work.

Wombat: You need to go on a restricted calorie diet (cut it down to about 1600 calories per day to match the average Haitian diet) and then after a week, do some strenuous physical work - sandbagging or helping someone move, for example. Then come back and let us know how much work you were able to accomplish. (I did something like this a couple of months ago and going for a walk became rather difficult.)

What I'm trying to point out here, is that if you don't understand the situation, if you don't know any facts, how can you even make an intelligent assessment of the situation? There are many decisions that we make every day that rely on being able to draw a good, practical conclusion. Deciding who you will vote for or what meal will be better for your health, for example. I'm not saying everyone has to have a the highest education possible, but we will benefit from an informed populous that can see flaws in arguments before they are allowed to become flawed choices.

Oooh, wow, you're saying that the half a semester health class I took in high school is justification for the 4 years of high school that most people have to take?


What did Wombat say? He said he didn't know the difference between a good society and a bad society, not that "laziness is the difference", he could have referred to a large number of other qualities. Even further, no class is going to teach you the caloric intake of people from Haiti. Education can never give you all of the facts. As well, if a person doesn't WANT to be educated, as many people have no interest as is very rational for them, then they will not gain all of the "critical thinking" anyway. Heck, as it stands, most people are still going to be stuck agreeing with what they want to agree with, and disagreeing with what they want to disagree with.

I mean jagatai, it is clear that you like the idea of education, but PLEASE point out how this dream of yours will actually impact practice. High school or even college or even graduate school, wouldn't prevent you from making comments like the one Wombat just made, so please nail down that jello for us.

I doubt very much that ANY style or volume of education could bring my Oprah watching SIL within range of critical thinking. A fine person - but that is simply not her job description.

Goldman Sachs caused Haitians to eat dirt in 2008 - people should understand that fact.

Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from a different fundamental idea of what an education is. Awesomelyglorious, you seem to be referring to education as a collection of facts; specific discrete units of information that are either correct or incorrect. While learning facts is an important aspect of education, there is the more important aspect of learning how to think and how to process information to synthesize new ideas and hypotheses.

Critical thinking is a skill that one can develop through practice. While some people are more inclined to think critically than others, all people, with the guidance of a good teacher, can improve their abilities to see connections between concepts and to see logical flaws in arguments. I think the most important aspect of education is in teaching people to think for themselves and I think this is one of the things that every good society should promote if it wishes to have a population that is good at solving problems and improving technology.

Frankly I find it hard to believe you can't see this. It seems to me that you are simply creating a straw man argument that you can easily refute so you don't have to refute the argument I am actually making. Do you really think there is little or no value in teaching people to think for themselves? High school or even college or even graduate school will not necessarily improve thinking if all that is taught are facts. But a person who is taught how to think, how to process information, how to look at an argument from multiple angles and make intelligent decisions for themselves will will be better able to avoid drawing simplistic conclusions.

Ok, but still, that is not usually taught at any great length in the education process. Even further, most people won't need or use this, as after all, a large part of what one needs to know still ends up being facts.


The vast vast vast majority of the population will have nothing to do with improving technology. Science-dudes are the ones who will improve technology. Why do we need all of this education for tons and tons of people who will never do this?

Even further, from what I see, critical thinking usually isn't needed to solve a lot of problems. Often problem solving is a matter of creativity and some degree of pragmatic thinking that never is involved in most education programs.

I mean, yes, it is nice to see the logical flaws in arguments, but no, in practice, to be able to see them, one has to be interested in looking at these things. Most people will always be swayed by flashy rhetoric.


I find the opposite hard to believe in.

Yes, there really is little to no value in teaching the average person to think for themselves. There is even a question of how well it would ever be accepted. Even further, no education system will do this because it is politically disruptive in that people will question status quo assumptions, and even find themselves more likely to lean towards bad ideas given that they lack the embedded knowledge in the status quo(for example a legion of "free thinkers" will tend toward socialism, but because they have lack a good working knowledge of economics, this makes them worse than the drones who don't think), but also very very few teachers could be able to teach in this fashion because they will not have dispositions towards this, nor will they have capacity towards this.


I dunno, maybe I am missing your point, but if I am, then what you are really advocating is a massive cultural overhaul as needed for the good society. As it stands though, I am still going to think that the "average person" will still be hindered by lack of ability in terms of doing what is desired. They might not even have the background to frame the more esoteric positions, much less intelligently engage them.

Critical thinking is a skill that one can develop through practice. While some people are more inclined to think critically than others, all people, with the guidance of a good teacher, can improve their abilities to see connections between concepts and to see logical flaws in arguments. I think the most important aspect of education is in teaching people to think for themselves and I think this is one of the things that every good society should promote if it wishes to have a population that is good at solving problems and improving technology. "

Would that experience did not niggle at that.

They say similar stuff about art, music, sports.

My experience has similar objections in those areas.

I will grant that I am approaching this more from the position of "What would be ideal?" rather than "What is practical or likely to be feasible" so when I say I think critical thinking is an important part of society, I recognize it's not going to be feasible for everyone. But I suppose I'm also a bit of an optimist on this issue. While I've met some seriously dumb people in my life, I don't think there is a single one who might not improve their thinking with a bit of effort.

I'm not suggesting that we are all going to be brain surgeons and rocket scientists and deep thinking philosophers. What I'm saying is that if each person were able to improve the quality of their thinking, even by 1% the benefits to society as a whole would be measurable.

Maybe the issue here is the phrase I'm using. I'm thinking of "critical thinking" as meaning a focused analysis of facts, relationships between information, connections between ideas and the culling of conclusions that do not work or are unsupportable. I was assuming that creative and pragmatic thinking came along as a matter of course, but I suppose that isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps there is a better term than "critical thinking" but I can't think of one at the moment.

I do tend to solve problems through a process of analysis and, as it works well for me, I tend to argue in its favor. I find that when I apply critical thinking to problems and questions, I learn more about the subject at hand and I find that the mental exercise of it helps me to think more effectively in other circumstances.



The vast, vast, vast majority of people do a little bit of creative problem solving every day. Maybe it's not big, grandiose inventions. Most of the thinking people do every day involves things as simple as how can I do this stitch a little faster or better? How can I make this sale a smoother transaction? How do I pave this road properly and still get home in time to watch the football game? That is all the "science-dudes" are doing when it comes right down to it. We need this kind of better education because every person contributes something and if they are able to contribute a little more, their lives as well as the well being of society will be improved.

The history of science and technology shows that all the world's great inventions are built on earlier technology. The Hubble space telescope is the accumulation of ideas and inventions from how to make mirrors, digital photography, rocket building etc. There are literally millions of tiny advances in technology that culminated in that telescope. Most of those advances were made by people you never heard of. Maybe some guy figured out how to machine a part with just a little better tolerances. Someone else figured out how to get a little more boost from some rocket propellant. Another might have experimented with different buffing compounds to find one that would create a better polish on the mirror.

You are implying that most people are cogs in a machine and are unable to change the nature of the machine. I say everyone has the ability to make tiny, yet significant modifications to the machine as a whole. Many don't bother, but that doesn't mean they lack the ability if they made the effort.



If you actually believe this, I'm not sure there is any hope for you. Many people may want to avoid extra effort. Any parent can tell you about how children often try to get out of having to go to school or having to do chores. But when parents do not give them a choice; when they demand that the children make an effort, a lot of children will make the effort if for no other reason than to get their parents off their backs. All I'm suggesting is that we should push them just a little more.

I don't think I can agree with you here. Your comment above sounds like you see things in a rather black or white manner. I think the issue is far more complex than that. I don't think of people in an elitist manner that assumes there are some people who are incapable of improving their skills at thinking. There may be a lot of people who don't want to make the effort, but that is an entirely different thing. If we had a society that praised critical, creative and pragmatic thinking, I believe many more people would make an extra effort to improve their thinking. But instead I see a lot of anti-intellectual attitudes. I've heard politicians use "expert" as if it were a derogatory term. I've seen women who played dumb because they thought smart was unattractive.

The point of critical thinking is to better understand the question at hand. It doesn't ensure a well thought out conclusion, but it will generally get you closer to one. With a bit more skill at critical thinking, you might find solutions to problems just a little quicker and perhaps get a promotion or create a salable product. By teaching people to think for themselves, you give them the tools to improve their own lives rather than having to sit around waiting for someone to come and do it for them.



The above makes the assumption that there are monolithic entities that have the capability of manipulating the population to its will. This falls into the conspiracy theory kind of thinking and there are plenty of problems with that - mostly any fairly complex group of individuals will generally not cooperate sufficiently that a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off. Just look at this PPR forum if you want to see an example of many people not getting along.

You say that "few teachers could be able to teach in this fashion" and maybe the number of teachers who can teach others to think for themselves is small, but does that mean we shouldn't try? What about in the future? If we start pushing better thinking skills today, the population of 20 years from now might benefit a great deal. And those better educated adults might raise even more capable children. Does the fact that it will take a while to pay off mean we shouldn't bother? I want more people in the future who think well. The way I see it is I am going to be an old man and I sincerely believe that people who are better at thinking will be less likely to be drawn to crime. I'm selfishly advocating teaching people today so the future will be a better place.

How?

ruveyhn

If we are doing an ideal wish list I have some long satanding suggestions.

But man proposes God disposes or the atheist equivalent - there has to be one, but I don't know how it goes - applies.

Good manners make a good society.

ruveyn

I think in a good society the effects of class and social inequality wouldn't matter and the child of a street sweeper would have the same life chances as the child of a CEO. People like to pretend that western democracies are a meritocracy but the evidence of poor social mobility tells us otherwise. The most advanced and prosperous countries are the Scandanavian Social Democracies that make an attempt to strive for this. The highest living standards in the world exist in these countries.

Life is not about fostering winners and losers or competition. I feel a genuine pity for those who can only find happiness by looking down on others from the lofty perch of financial gain or academic achievement.

There are lots of crappy things about any society that requires exceedingly bad manners to tear up and throw away. I's mostly the guys with bad manners who get important things done.

The problem is that I just don't see where this would occur. After all, the kind of cognitive abilities used by most people aren't ones of critical thinking. Often times over-analyzing a situation can be worse for those individuals. So, it is a nice assertion, but I don't see it having any benefit like you think.


Well, if you are thinking about the kind of ability used in argumentation. Then I do understand and I assume you are wrong.

As for "creative and pragmatic thinking", that isn't critical thinking. Sometimes it is the opposite. Even further, it would take a kind of education ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than all of the schooling I've ever seen to hone that. As such, your point is very very easy to lose.


I find that I am very good at argumentation, but that at many other tasks I am not as skilled. For this reason, I feel very aware of the gulf. Even if there is some manner of moderate improvement, most of the jobs I've had would have never/rarely seen it.




Actually, I don't see very much. In most jobs, people basically follow the rules. There are some who can do better, but if they do better, it is usually due to some creative way of thinking that does not correspond to any test, and these changes do not happen daily to each person. There isn't ONE single intelligence at play here, but the entire structure of much of the noticed education system is around something like ONE intelligence.

I mean, I've had jobs. Most of them required very little actual thinking.


Yes, I know that. The issue is that the current model of science and technology building is highly dependent upon reaching a high level of education, not a general education. Even further, I don't see evidence that entrepreneurship tends to correspond much to education, or even a real mechanism for education to increase entrepreneurial activity. In fact, most education systems seem like they would dampen entrepreneurial activity.


Well, ok? But it still does not follow that these tiny modifications correspond to most educational systems.

Even further, I really doubt that this is all a matter of "they don't bother to try". I don't think most people would know how to improve things, and I don't see a reason why most education systems would change this. Any education that would change this would be so practical in orientation that it wouldn't really be called "education" in the standard sense. Also, the "not bothering" might not be so simple, as people don't change things for very good reasons, due to their comfort, due to their practice, and so on and so forth. A lack of change actually can help people, while changing systems up too much can actually be disruptive.


But why? Even further, doing something to please your parents doesn't mean deep engagement in it. If you just do something for their sake, then you are just trying to satisfy the grade book. You won't be looking for further application. You won't be engaging the material on a deeper level. It will be pointless.

That being said, I don't even accept your starting point that education will DO something.


Umm.... right? Because you're the one whole-heartedly maintaining an unsupportable myth.

Are there people who are incapable? For all practical purposes, yes. There are people for whom improvement will not be sufficient to significantly change their role in the scheme of things due to their lack of ability to change, as well as their relative lack.

Not making the effort isn't a different thing. "Just push" won't create substance. The people who do things because they are pushed are not really better, they're usually less engaged, and only trying to get good outcomes. They're worker bees, not thinkers or dreamers.

As for anti-intellectual attitudes, part of the women issue is just historical. Part of the larger issue is just that people DO assume too much from the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia even assumes it can do too much. The issue is that these people are not as clever as they think they are, and for this reason, they do merit some of our distrust. Yes, I am saying that it is right to sometimes distrust experts. I am not saying that this should be spiteful, only that the value of these people, and of the education that represents them, is really very inflated.


Ok, but critical thinking isn't relevant to all questions. Even for the questions it is relevant for, it is not necessarily the case that thinking more "critically" gets better answers. Sometimes that less trainable practical intelligence that nobody learns from schoolwork is more important. Even more, often what is really needed is just people who know well enough to follow directions or ask for help.

Now, you appeal back to possibilities, but really, schools don't teach you to sell things. They don't even provide much context for it. Nor are all jobs really about problem solving to any large extent. Some do use it. Most of the ones I have had have never required very much ability at all.

Ok.... but, most of the training people need is "On the Job training". Very little education is necessary. Most jobs don't anything more than a fraction of the education that any worker has received. This even includes college level jobs that specifically ask for people of a certain background. Now, I hear that these jobs are getting better at using background knowledge, but still your point is completely at variance with my experience.


No, I don't make the assumption at all. I don't even know where it comes from. Questioning the status quo is a local concern. If kids come home asking about their nation's values, their religions, etc, parents will get upset, systems will change.



I think that your idea is false all the way down. I think it is entirely dependent upon an overblown view of what education means. I think you also are avoiding that issue of what education is and how it works, and what it does like mad. Even at the college level, the average student really isn't deeply impacted by what they see, but rather the above average student is the one receiving most of the benefits. And even then, the benefits are not very high at all, unless that student is going for a field with practical applications. And even then, what they learn in that field is kind of irrelevant, even though just studying this field often does not lead them to really be better thinkers. Business majors at colleges can land jobs a lot easier than most, but they are not known for their thinking skills at all.

Not necessarily. Good manners can elicit co-operation which can get things done.

ruveyn

Good fences make good neighbours is the one part of Frost I appreciate