What should, in your opinion, be taught first ?

[JUN]

Lately I've been thinking a lot about why are people so unreasonable or jealous and so on. And this, of course, instantly reminded me of religion.

Think about it: Religion being nothing more than a way to help people be happy and organize them between each other with morals and etc. then... What happens in a time like ours... When religion is completely ignored ? The kids no longer feel obliged to be good because they don't believe in Jesus or God or Hell. Same as everyone else in all ages. So basically what I'm trying to say here is that... People who, unlike those who recognize a NEED to act respectfully to others, don't believe in God, don't fear Hell and who are total BS-filled... They stop feeling the need to respect, or work. Just overall... be good.

There seems to be a consensus nowadays that... In the end you die therefore do whatever the fuck you want, etc. People have been choosing idiocy over non-idiocy because it makes them feel "free". People abandon the social rules because they feel the need to be... "free".

So... What I'm trying to get at here is that... Children should be taught... I wouldn't say harshly... Patiently, of course, but strict social rules. They should be taught and questioned all the time. Forced to think about themselves and their actions.

Instead of punishing them... You should make them LOGICALLY understand why they shouldn't do such things. Make them realize that society is an organism as much as the human body is an organism. And that... by behaving against society you are behaving against yourself. You are destroying yourself

Thoughts like these... They should be taught early to people, really get into people's heads that they need to behave in order to HAVE freedom. That's just the thing, people don't realize that they would be much much happier (which is all we have in life... all we have in our lives is the chance to be happy and enjoy it.... A hedonistic purpose, like a friend once said) is they behaved accordingly to other's liberty.

There's a saying in Portuguese: "A nossa liberdade acaba onde começa a dos outros."

Translated it means: "Our liberty ends where the liberty of others begins." And this is what i think should be totally CARVED on the soul of our kids.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Think about it: Religion being nothing more than a way to help people be happy and organize them between each other with morals and etc.

Axiomatically, I disagree with the claim that this is what religion is. I agree that religion can be dressed up to look like this, however.

then... What happens in a time like ours... When religion is completely ignored ? The kids no longer feel obliged to be good because they don't believe in Jesus or God or Hell. Same as everyone else in all ages. So basically what I'm trying to say here is that... People who, unlike those who recognize a NEED to act respectfully to others, don't believe in God, don't fear Hell and who are total BS-filled... They stop feeling the need to respect, or work. Just overall... be good.

This was Hume's point. He was an atheist who argued for the teaching of religious belief if for no other reason than to keep the ignorant masses in line. I happen to disagree with intimidation, humiliation, manipulation, shame, and the general belief that "others" are too stupid to control themselves, so, for as much fun as it is to read Hume, and though part of me is inclined to nod in assent, I think he's wrong.

There seems to be a consensus nowadays that... In the end you die therefore do whatever the fuck you want, etc. People have been choosing idiocy over non-idiocy because it makes them feel "free". People abandon the social rules because they feel the need to be... "free".

Right. This is one of the many things that happens when people with adult bodies have children and then fail to raise them with dignity and respect because these people aren't really adults, they just have body parts that function as though they were adults.

So... What I'm trying to get at here is that... Children should be taught... I wouldn't say harshly... Patiently, of course, but strict social rules. They should be taught and questioned all the time. Forced to think about themselves and their actions.

Agreed.

Instead of punishing them... You should make them LOGICALLY understand why they shouldn't do such things. Make them realize that society is an organism as much as the human body is an organism. And that... by behaving against society you are behaving against yourself. You are destroying yourself

A very wise INTP friend of mine once pointed out "All discipline is education, or else it's not really discipline."

Thoughts like these... They should be taught early to people, really get into people's heads that they need to behave in order to HAVE freedom. That's just the thing, people don't realize that they would be much much happier (which is all we have in life... all we have in our lives is the chance to be happy and enjoy it.... A hedonistic purpose, like a friend once said) is they behaved accordingly to other's liberty.

There's a saying in Portuguese: "A nossa liberdade acaba onde começa a dos outros."

Translated it means: "Our liberty ends where the liberty of others begins." And this is what i think should be totally CARVED on the soul of our kids.

There is this American sense that most people have. If, for example, you ask a pregnant woman about what she wants for her child, she's likely to say something like "I don't care if it's a boy or a girl, I don't care if it turns out to be rich or poor, I just want it to be happy."

Nobody says I want my child to be good, or courteous, or kind, or compassionate. They all want happy kids.

And then the kids all end up neglected and self-abusing and dysfunctional and unable to set limits, etc., etc.

If you really want happy kids, don't focus on the happy. Focus on everything else. Good people will end up happy.

Dave

 

[Cryss Winters]

If you really want happy kids, don't focus on the happy. Focus on everything else. Good people will end up happy.

Dave

Nice.

 

[eudemonia]

I was facilitating a group of young people talking about responsibility in business. They all agreed that they probably would not put themselves out to buy goods produced by more ethical companies because:

they couldn't be bothered
it was hard to break habits
they couldn't afford the products
it wasn't their job to take responsibility for people they did not know
it wasn't a company's role to seek to make the world a fairer place; their role was simply to earn profits
they might if they has personal experience of the hardships of the workers but they would then probably revert to type

The vast majority of them had not heard of Rwanda; most found it difficult to name any African countries.

We explored what was important to them - happiness, money and friends.

None of them had received any 'moral' education at all.

My friend/advisor who is a monk claims that there are three main temtations - power, possessions and pleasure. It seems like many of this generation have been brought up on the religion on pleasure. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My feeling, of course, is that they will eventually see through this and begin to seek 'meaning' through a more spiritual view of the world!

But then I would, wouldn't I

 

[Latro]

If you really want happy kids, don't focus on the happy. Focus on everything else. Good people will end up happy.

Dave

I think this generalizes to other cases. For example, if you want successful kids, don't focus on driving work ethic into their heads. Focus on getting them interested in topics that could lead them down a successful path.

As for my stance on the OP: I think social mores can be taught in a variety of ways. Religion is one, and is convenient because it is typically fairly well-organized and also offers a source of fellowship for children (in the case of the religions with the highest number of followers) in the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever building the followers choose to meet in. I don't think there is necessarily a "best" one, but I do think that not teaching any kind of specific social mores is probably not the way to go.

 

[JUN]

I'm not saying you should TEACH moral rules like...

RULE 1. etc, because that doesn't work, I'm saying that the actual education... Ergo, the way kids are treated, should be more strict. You know, don't indulge the kids with stupid things...

Like, for example, if they hurt a classmate... Make them understand what they did. Explain to them every single bit, it won't cause traumas. It'll just teach them to be good people, and that's the thing... Make them understand WHY things are wrong... based on their experience. Don't let them do the stuff just because "they're kids" and "that's what kids do". No, that's an awful way to grow children.

 

[preilemus]

People have been choosing idiocy over non-idiocy because it makes them feel "free". People abandon the social rules because they feel the need to be... "free".

I cant speak for everyone who chooses not to uphold social rules, but for me it's not a drive to be free so much as it is a lack of drive to be constrained.

by behaving against society you are behaving against yourself. You are destroying yourself

I disagree. why should society come before the individual?

I dont really see the solid ground your argument stands on. Is there some general consensus on what is "right" without religion? perhaps the law? though laws can be changed. I dont see any objective morality, and without that this makes no sense.

 

[Claverhouse]

The very first thing children should be taught by teachers is to question everything their teachers tell them and to think things out for themselves and reject what they find wrong.


Teachers rarely make this a priority.



Claverhouse

 

[Dormouse]

I think the point isn't that religion is necessary, it's that an upbringing teaching children basic decency is necessary. Most rules are logical and exist for a reason, to prevent harm to yourself and others.
Not that rules are completely beyond scrutiny... People have to learn to question them, determine their motives and whether they have any validity.
Eventually it will be up to them to decide what their system of ethics will be. We can't force everyone to value peace and unity and happiness... There will always be people driven by ambition seeking power or monetary gain. But we should stress going about your life with some consideration for others.
Because it's true that you can harm society. And while I do not believe society should come before the individual, today's individuals are extremely dependant upon society.
I mean, if anyone here is able to go build themselves a grass hut and live like a woodland hermit for the rest of their lives, wow.
I congratulate/envy you.

Also, total agreement with Claverhouse. Like I said before, before laws are accepted, they must be critisized. Authority is there for a reason, but it's our job to question it and not become mindless zombie-slaves and whatnot.

 

[Agent Intellect]

If you really want happy kids, don't focus on the happy. Focus on everything else. Good people will end up happy.

Dave

The very first thing children should be taught by teachers is to question everything their teachers tell them and to think things out for themselves and reject what they find wrong.


Teachers rarely make this a priority.



Claverhouse

Second this.

I think critical thinking, understanding (instead of just memorization) and good reasoning skills should be top priority. Most education is giving people knowledge, but not telling them what to do with it or how to use it. Being social primates, things like the golden rule are pretty much 'common sense' to most people, but indoctrination turns people into arrogant, hedonistic, self serving ignoramuses that can pass a mid-term (well, in some cases) but don't know how to think for themselves. If people are taught how to think instead of what to think, I would say that socially/culturally cohesive morals and positive personal ethics would follow.

 

[Dormouse]

Is it possible to teach open-mindedness? I think that would fit well into the curriculum.

Also tolerance and moderation, but I'd like to think those would follow...

 

[Felan]

They was an article I read in Psychology Today that stipulated that children have far less freedom than Marine Boot Camp recruits. In my own observations of adults interacting with children I see that confirmed. Children don't have the right to be present, to make noise, to carry their cup across a room, and so on and on.

I think a big part of responsible freedom is making choices. But children aren't given choices they are given orders. Amazingly enough giving children choices (any of which you can live with) not only makes parents lives easier but the children are happier and better equipped.

Depending on what is meant by discipline is generally not very helpful. You may discourage one "bad" behavior but you don't really encourage a "positive" behavior. So the child is left to try and figure out what is the good. Encouraging replacement behaviors are almost always more successful and less stressful. This is true of pets as well.

At present children mostly interact with children, occassionally an adult intervenes with discipline. The surprise to me is how well society manages to continue to work populated with children raised by their peers.

You don't need religion to be involved with kids or to set them on the right path. And while its some while since I've been in church the problems with children were as present there as anywhere to my recollection.

 

[Latro]

They was an article I read in Psychology Today that stipulated that children have far less freedom than Marine Boot Camp recruits. In my own observations of adults interacting with children I see that confirmed. Children don't have the right to be present, to make noise, to carry their cup across a room, and so on and on.

I think a big part of responsible freedom is making choices. But children aren't given choices they are given orders. Amazingly enough giving children choices (any of which you can live with) not only makes parents lives easier but the children are happier and better equipped.

Depending on what is meant by discipline is generally not very helpful. You may discourage one "bad" behavior but you don't really encourage a "positive" behavior. So the child is left to try and figure out what is the good. Encouraging replacement behaviors are almost always more successful and less stressful. This is true of pets as well.

At present children mostly interact with children, occassionally an adult intervenes with discipline. The surprise to me is how well society manages to continue to work populated with children raised by their peers.

You don't need religion to be involved with kids or to set them on the right path. And while its some while since I've been in church the problems with children were as present there as anywhere to my recollection.

I see this problem with my nephew, who is 5. My sister gets so frustrated as she tries to raise him (she's divorced; she has him 6 or so days a week I think) and she lived in my parents' and my house for the last two years. He never really had any freedom whatsoever. Everything was structured out for him, he was given orders CONSTANTLY, etc. And he's reacted negatively. He's defiant, he's aggressive towards his peers (he growls when you say something that makes him uncomfortable, such as a word that he doesn't know; he has also been violent and aggressive in ways that are just weird, such as licking), etc. He loves the unstructured conversations that he can get with me it seems (I talk to him about space, primarily, though that hasn't happened since they moved out) but struggles (I can see his frustration as he tries to think and it won't "click") to come up with sufficiently coherent thoughts to really keep them going. (Despite my skepticism about a lot of ADD diagnoses especially in children, I think he might have it.)

...That was a little incoherent, but hopefully it got the message across...

 

[Da Blob]

Personally, I don't believe one can 'teach' a human child anything of substance. One can train a child through the use Pavlovian Conditioning much like a dog though. This usually is a temporary fix though as most children are smarter than dogs and will eventually simply exhibit the required behavior in order to receive reward or avoid punishment. They learn to pretend to 'be good'.

An adult can help a child to learn - which is seemingly a subservient role, many adults are not practiced at, it is easier to 'teach' to dominate and demand attention and the obedience due a superior. Childrens' minds are like sponges. They desire, want and need to learn -something -anything. All adults have to do to 'teach' a child is to provide a child with an environment with a wide range of educational options, devoid of garbage such as most television programming or popular music. I really think that Country and Western music will rot a child's brain... (not to mention rap)

Children are selfish little creatures, this is to be tolerated, but not punished. Sometimes it takes decades to realize that the word, We is so much more important than the word, Me. The We, the social identity, of an individual is the province for morality and social consciousness. To pound moral rules into a child before that child's brain is capable of dealing with social values is not a good thing. One just gets a child who has learned how to pretend to be moral. It is much better for a child to learn of the need for morality in the World of We and become a moral being on his or her own initiative, with appropriate guidance from adults...

 

[Felan]

I see this problem with my nephew, who is 5. My sister gets so frustrated as she tries to raise him (she's divorced; she has him 6 or so days a week I think) and she lived in my parents' and my house for the last two years. He never really had any freedom whatsoever. Everything was structured out for him, he was given orders CONSTANTLY, etc. And he's reacted negatively. He's defiant, he's aggressive towards his peers (he growls when you say something that makes him uncomfortable, such as a word that he doesn't know; he has also been violent and aggressive in ways that are just weird, such as licking), etc. He loves the unstructured conversations that he can get with me it seems (I talk to him about space, primarily, though that hasn't happened since they moved out) but struggles (I can see his frustration as he tries to think and it won't "click") to come up with sufficiently coherent thoughts to really keep them going. (Despite my skepticism about a lot of ADD diagnoses especially in children, I think he might have it.)

...That was a little incoherent, but hopefully it got the message across...

It seemed pretty coherent to me. "The kid is out of control" "I just don't know how to handle him" "I would smack him" are responses my memories evoke of what many people (even myself at one time) would say of him.

I think the instinctive reaction is to apply more force, more control. It just worsens the situation. Often at some point the parents give up and give what the kids want, then you've taught the kid that doing X naughty rewards them.

My interest in this really grew when I got my parrot. I wanted to learn how to reinforce the good behavior in my avian friend and discourage negative behavior. I made mistakes and undoing those mistakes took far long and far more patience than if I had avoided the mistake at the start.

An example of a negative behavior I unintentionally encouraged in my bird was biting. Initially I responded by pushing into the bite, which I read was effective at saying you aren't scared of the bird's bite. The problem was that he began to associate that if he bit me it was going to escalate. Then something that wouldn't normally evoke a bite would and in a degree out of proportion of the situation.

I had to slowly ween him from biting. He isn't overly fond of toweling, which is wrapping him in a towel; and while it is a slight negative but a very essential habit to train in him for vet visits. So I would still towel him and then I would wad the towel and present it near his beak, if he lashed out at it then I would towel him again, until he didn't lash out at it. Over time I was able to encourage him to give kisses rather than bites and my fingers suffer less for it.

My interest grew from building a great relationship with my parrot to wider application. It was surprising to me how much is true of reinforcing behavior in animals, pet to human. Not sure if the techniques would work snakes, lizards, fish and some other types. But I know from personal experience it works with kids, birds, and cats. From talking with a friend that has and continues to extensively train hunting dogs much of what I've learned applies there as well.

 

[Devercia]

Skip to 3:00

YouTube- Neil Tyson - "Children do not read horoscopes!"

 

[Firehazard159]

One thing I cannot fathom, is why there has to be a separation of "we" and "me", I see some of you arguing that the society identity is more important than the individual identity, and vice versa.

But to me, it's all the same. My individual identity creates positive feedback in a community, which in effect creates a communal identity, but there's no separation of me and we, just me being me inside the 'we'. I guess.

I'm probably just incoherently rambling or not understanding something here, but that's my two cents, on that little bit. Sorry for being off topic-ish.

 

[Firehazard159]

I guess on topic, I feel like children really shouldn't be taught anything specifically. They should be encouraged to explore, they should learn by the example you set for them.

If a child shows an interest in music, encourage it by giving them a musical instrument and lessons, if they desire. If they show an interest in art, take them to art galleries and give them the tools to create their own.

I never really learned anything directly from my parents, if I followed the example they set, I wouldn't like who I am. However, they did everything to encourage my curiosity, though unbeknownst to them they hampered me a little bit due to always arguing about money. I assumed we couldn't afford certain things, so I hid my interest in new things from them, which I found out later they would've found a way to explore said interests had I mentioned them. But they still did a lot for me in that regard.

I don't know how I thought I was going to tie this in, but, really my morality came from books. I read stories of good and evil, mythology, fantasy, and I consider the bible to fit amongst that same set, fairy tales / mythology all. All through example, I compared and contrasted all the differences between the books, the moralities and such, and decided for myself what was the most positive. My point here is the key again is in exploration. If you're only shown the bible, and all of the sudden your world view could be shattered when you learn that there's alternative religions out there. If you're shown all the religions at once, all the mythology, you've got a chance to absorb all that knowledge and come to conclusions of your own, you have something to witness and compare against with the real world.

So, that's what it's all about for me I guess. Don't teach children anything, allow them to grow. It's more about experience. A tree doesn't teach it's sapling how to be strong against the wind blowing, it learns by experiencing the wind itself. I think our brains are well enough off that they can decently simulate what they read, and that's why we can learn so much from books, gain so much experience. Encourage exploration and experience, through various mediums (not always firsthand.)

 

[JUN]

One thing I cannot fathom, is why there has to be a separation of "we" and "me", I see some of you arguing that the society identity is more important than the individual identity, and vice versa.

But to me, it's all the same. My individual identity creates positive feedback in a community, which in effect creates a communal identity, but there's no separation of me and we, just me being me inside the 'we'. I guess.

I'm probably just incoherently rambling or not understanding something here, but that's my two cents, on that little bit. Sorry for being off topic-ish.

I completely understand what you are trying to say and it is exactly what I meant before when someone tried to tell me that i was wrong and that only the individual matters.

It's true there is no me or them or we, people may want to refuse that society is an organism and that if they work for the good of society you'll get positive feedback from it... I could make some metaphors here to try and explain things, let's see:

CANCER:
on the individual: a part of your body turning against itself, it destroys not only itself but the whole body, right ? i think we all agree on this.

on the "society": a part of society (an individual) turning against society... Which I think we can all agree is the same as an individual turning against itself, since we all belong... inherently to society. We are social beings as much as our cells and shit are part of our biological organism.


So my point here is that... Kids should be taught this.
Kids should understand that as much as their body is an organism, society is one too, and in order to obtain good things from it you need to give good things, you need to work, like a clock, all need to work in the same direction or else it will fail.

Personally, I don't believe one can 'teach' a human child anything of substance. One can train a child through the use Pavlovian Conditioning much like a dog though.

Not true. Not true at all, if you talk to a child like it is a decent human being with a brain (which they all are), you are going to naturally make it strive to understand concepts and thoughts and ideas and so on. Seriously, It is more than common for me to see my older family members talking harshly to their kids because they did something wrong or because they lied... And they can't seem to get the truth out of the kid... And then I talk to them and they just let it all out because I made them understand that they should tell the truth for their own good.

Pavlovian Conditioning is total bullshit by the way. Beat up a kid when he does something wrong ? Enjoy having him traumatized and totally stuck up. Talk to him about it and explain things... Enjoy raising a decent human being.

You don't need religion to be involved with kids or to set them on the right path. And while its some while since I've been in church the problems with children were as present there as anywhere to my recollection.

Of course you don't, I wasn't saying that there is such a need, I was just pointing out WHY our grandparents and so on were much better people than kids nowadays are. And that's simple: they were extremely religious and believe in hell, etc. They were afraid of being bad and got conditioned to it, that's why they are so... erm, shit, dunno how to say it in English erm... Outdated. rofl, yeah, outdated is the word for it.

So basically I just wanted to point that out. I'm sorry, I tend to leave certain things out of my speech because I tend to find them pretty obvious (for me) and I forget that other people are not me... ;__; Sorry about that.

The very first thing children should be taught by teachers is to question everything their teachers tell them and to think things out for themselves and reject what they find wrong.


Teachers rarely make this a priority.

Hmmm... I think that's too powerful of a thing to teach children, that will naturally come to that ability if you exercise their brains and show them that the things they do might be wrong or might be right... My point here is that children should be questioned...

I seriously think that's not a good idea... Children are naturally selfish since they lack a notion of "we" and the best really... Is to teach them the notion of "we" as soon as possible, make them understand it and uhh... I can totally see kids going berserk on their parents for the things they want. Seriously not a good idea to teach something like that hahahahah.

 

[Felan]

Conditioning behavior is the foundation, doorway even to better things. I don't anyone is assuming I mean to deal with behavior alone but just wanted to be clear. I agree with what has been said about encouraging kids in the things that interest them.

One trap my parents fell into and I've seen others fall into is the idea that kids won't pursue something for long so why spend money on it. Encouraging kids is more than just cost of the interest it's taking time to engage in it with the kid. Being a part of it is far more important.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I dont really see the solid ground your argument stands on. Is there some general consensus on what is "right" without religion? perhaps the law? though laws can be changed. I dont see any objective morality, and without that this makes no sense.

I think beneficence and justice are two.

Morality is objective. Else there is no such thing as moral progress. I, for one, believe there is moral progress. I think torture and slavery are wrong and not simply different.

Religion usually muddies the waters, as it were. Worse, many people seem to believe that since there is some disagreement on some moral issues, and that there seems to be some disagreement from culture to culture, that morality is therefore relative or arbitrary or non-existent.

But none of that follows.

We agree on far more than we disagree. Anyone who believes that raping toddlers is right is simply in error.

If we all disagree about the answer to the problem 6 + 7 = N, it does not follow that there isn't a right answer. Disagreement is simply disagreement, it's not evidence of a lack of objective truth.

Dave

 

[Da Blob]

We are each part of a greater society. The problem is that the 'society as a living organism' analogy is not as humanitarian as it it seems. There is not one, but thousands of societies - each competing against one another for scarce resources and perhaps preying on weaker societies. There is an ecosystem of societies.



Not true. Not true at all, if you talk to a child like it is a decent human being with a brain (which they all are), you are going to naturally make it strive to understand concepts and thoughts and ideas and so on. Seriously, It is more than common for me to see my older family members talking harshly to their kids because they did something wrong or because they lied... And they can't seem to get the truth out of the kid... And then I talk to them and they just let it all out because I made them understand that they should tell the truth for their own good.

Pavlovian Conditioning is total bullshit by the way. Beat up a kid when he does something wrong ? Enjoy having him traumatized and totally stuck up. Talk to him about it and explain things... Enjoy raising a decent human being.

There is billions of dollars spent annually on Pavlovian conditioning of the consumer via advertising etc. It works! It works far too well!
However, I was trying to suggest that 'teaching' can only happen to facilitate learning. If a child does not wish to talk, to learn - then what can he or she be taught? It is the Learner that is of prime importance and not the Teacher. This fact eludes educators in the US. They are still building schools to meet the needs of the Teachers and not the Learners...

.

 

[JUN]

Well, it works, but it's not a safe way to get things done since it leaves scars instead of leaving a good solid set of ideals and etc. Do you think publicity is a good influence ?

As I said before: Total Bullshit.

And yeah, I totally agree with what you said afterwards.

 

[Kidege]

Repeat after me: Pavlovian conditioning doesn't work.

*buzz*: You didn't repeat it.

Repeat after me: Pavlovian conditioning doesn't work.

.
.
.

Seriously now. 'Conditioning' is based on association, and association works with basic stuff, like memorizing a phone number. But the actual building of mental structures is a more delicate and lenghty process that includes introducing kids to logic, modeling thought processes, helping kids to work their way into metacognition, etc. It also includes memorization, of course, but memorization itself is significantly better -do you see the pun there?- when it's based on comprehension.

In the example above, if you're helping a kid understand why truth is better, that's not conditioning (Unless the reason why it's 'better' is like, getting out of a beating or getting candy. *That* would be conditioning).

 

[eudemonia]

There are many psychological experiments that demonstrate how behaviour is often elicited by the context rather than individual traits. Some situationist psychologists believe that all behaviour is elicited by the context. Hence the Darley and Batson experiment that asked a group of priests in training to rush across to the other side of the campus to give a talk on the Good Samaritan. The first group were told that they had plenty of time. The second group were told they were late. On their way to the talk a volunteer pretended to fall ill. In the first group 60% of the priests helped the volunteer in some way such as informing someone as they arrived at the hall where they were to give their speech. In the second 'hurry' group, 10% stopped. The experimenters measured traits and found no relationship. These people were highly religious and had had lots of 'ethical' training.

There are many such examples of experiments that elicit conformist and immoral behaviour - Millgram, Zimbardo etc .I have a lot of sympathy with the situationist psychologists. I think that no matter what you 'teach' kids (in whatever way you teach them) when they go into the work place they will conform. Many people leave their values at the door as soon as they walk into work.

Secondly, I have just started teaching in a university. I encourage students to think for themselves but Ioften come across apathy. I have an interesting article that shows moral thinking is located in a particular part of the brain, -which is quite different from normal day-to-day thinking. In effect, it takes more effort. Many experiments have shown that people do not like to invest a lot of effort in thinking (bottom up processing) they would rather engage in automatic processing (top down processing). One of my students said she couldn't be bothered to think - it was too much like hard work.

Thirdly, we have many examples in public life of people who do not think morally about the situations they are in. One of the most interesting cases was when two doctors in a hospital in Bristol were incompetent and as a result many babies and young children died unnecessarily at their hands. They were exposed by an anaethestist, Stephen Bolsin, who was pressured out of the hospital and could not find another job in theUK. He had to go to Australia where he now lectures in medical ethics. It often does not pay to be moral - one inherits the label 'whistleblower' which has overtones of betrayal.

I don't believe we can train people in ethical behaviour but we can encourage it through the values perpetrated by organisations and society as a whole.

 

[Da Blob]

.

Secondly, I have just started teaching in a university. I encourage students to think for themselves but Ioften come across apathy. I have an interesting article that shows moral thinking is located in a particular part of the brain, -which is quite different from normal day-to-day thinking. In effect, it takes more effort. Many experiments have shown that people do not like to invest a lot of effort in thinking (bottom up processing) they would rather engage in automatic processing (top down processing). One of my students said she couldn't be bothered to think - it was too much like hard work.

I have come to the conclusion that for many thinking for themselves is hard work, very hard work in some cases. Part of it can be explained by upbringing and parenting styles but it seems that top-down processing is actively encouraged by society at large...(?) It even seems as though as the majority of current psychotherapies are of the top down processing mode..

I have found that the bottom up processing is actually so much more effective. However, bottom up processing requires active, voluntary and sincere effort to be effective. It is real work!

It does seem a shame that in an era when so many assets are made available for people to think about, that so few utilize these assets. A single book was once a treasured possession and a Library was a Mecca. Yet today we have the entire world seemingly at our fingertips and so few go on thought explorations and expeditions. It is just easier not to think - myself, I am compelled to think...

 

[JUN]

One of my students said she couldn't be bothered to think - it was too much like hard work.

Only recently have i realized that there are actually people like that... I mean, gosh.
My mind has been getting totally blown lately, by so many things. I think i refused to believe in the sad "reality" we're surrounded by for too long... And only now am i accepting emotional/psychological reasons, etc. As real reasons. Fuck, it's hard to accept that there are people which are actually dumb.

But I can't help but to feel obliged to educate them, hence this topic... I just really wish everyone had a better education <sigh>.

 

[Cassandra]

Think about it: Religion being nothing more than a way to help people be happy and organize them between each other with morals and etc. then... What happens in a time like ours... When religion is completely ignored ? The kids no longer feel obliged to be good because they don't believe in Jesus or God or Hell. Same as everyone else in all ages. So basically what I'm trying to say here is that... People who, unlike those who recognize a NEED to act respectfully to others, don't believe in God, don't fear Hell and who are total BS-filled... They stop feeling the need to respect, or work. Just overall... be good..

hmm. A little judgemental, there. But, besides that, I really do not comprehend the assumption that religion teaches a person to be good. I cannot comprehend, because I was raised without any concept of what religion was (until I was 6). My father is a phd in Moral Development and Psychology...so you could say I had a VERY good foundation in morals. I feel the NEED to act respectufully to others...it makes me slightly nauseated to do otherwise. Although socially awkward, I have always managed to at least be considered polite and concienscious.

But, that is just a personal experience. Take it how you will.

There seems to be a consensus nowadays that... In the end you die therefore do whatever the fuck you want, etc. People have been choosing idiocy over non-idiocy because it makes them feel "free". People abandon the social rules because they feel the need to be... "free"..

To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." Just because something is a social rule, like segregation was, doesn't mean it should be followed. Even if it is in a "Holy" book.

Also, I would assert that there never was, and likely never will be, any sort of "consensus" about any of these issues.

So... What I'm trying to get at here is that... Children should be taught... I wouldn't say harshly... Patiently, of course, but strict social rules. They should be taught and questioned all the time. Forced to think about themselves and their actions.

Instead of punishing them... You should make them LOGICALLY understand why they shouldn't do such things. Make them realize that society is an organism as much as the human body is an organism. And that... by behaving against society you are behaving against yourself. You are destroying yourself.

Thoughts like these... They should be taught early to people, really get into people's heads that they need to behave in order to HAVE freedom. That's just the thing, people don't realize that they would be much much happier (which is all we have in life... all we have in our lives is the chance to be happy and enjoy it.... A hedonistic purpose, like a friend once said) is they behaved accordingly to other's liberty.

There's a saying in Portuguese: "A nossa liberdade acaba onde começa a dos outros."

Translated it means: "Our liberty ends where the liberty of others begins." And this is what i think should be totally CARVED on the soul of our kids.

Yay! I agree with this one...give the good INTP a cookie!