Are Public Schools Designed to be Propaganda Systems to Indoctrinate the Young?

xMathFanx said:

@eohrnberger

I think that you make many solid observations in your post, although you are neglecting to mention the other side (i.e. PC behavior from the Right that is stifling open/honest intellectual investigation/exploration--I confronted this topic in my larger post(s))

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not seeing an 'open/honest intellectual investigation/exploration' from the right side. Maybe I'm missing something.

eohrnberger said:

From my view the only part of education that has a need to be political is studies in political science. The rest should be apolitical, purposefully even handed.

Click to expand...

This is actually much more difficult than it sounds, as the material in question is necessarily influenced (to varying degrees) based upon the social/cultural thought of the times (which people have highly varying perspectives on--some of which are more or less valid than others, depending on the subject in question)

eohrnberger said:

Well, I'm not seeing an 'open/honest intellectual investigation/exploration' from the right side. Maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

I think you accurately pointed out many of the "Left-wing" biases that are vitiating the education system, however are neglecting to mention many of the traditionally (although not necessarily limited to) "Right-wing" biases/ect. that are also having a negative impact on the education system (which I discussed at some length in my larger post(s))

xMathFanx said:

This is actually much more difficult than it sounds, as the material in question is necessarily influenced (to varying degrees) based upon the social/cultural thought of the times (which people have highly varying perspectives on--some of which are more or less valid than others, depending on the subject in question)

Click to expand...

Current events studies, perhaps, but then, both sides / variety of sides / positions all need to be presented in even handed fashion. Professional teacher / professors shouldn't have a problem with this, other than an agenda driven invented one.

Point to one of your previous posts that address this, and I'll read and consider it.

justabubba said:

it would appear, from the shown portion of your post, that you do want an indoctrination system used on students
only, the one you would want is different from the one now being applied

Click to expand...

@justabubba

First, thanks for your input and taking the time to write relatively lengthy response.

Now, I think you have made several observations that I agree with, while I have a bone to pick about other points/arguments you submitted.

The excerpt above is our first point of contention. "Pointing in the right direction" does not mean "read this one author and believe everything she says since she is an authority in this area"--rather, it is "this book makes one argument, that book makes another argument, another book makes a separate argument, ect. ect." look into them and make up your own mind, or it could mean "have you heard of "x" branch in Chemistry, if not you may be interested in finding out more--here are some popular textbooks and/or experts in the field", ect. ect.

What are your thoughts on this?

This should be no surprise to anyone. John Dewey designed government (its not public) education precisely to indoctrinate the youth.

What is the lesson to be learned in government schools?

Why it's none other than government good/liberty bad.

Knowledge cannot be gleaned by education, and especially by government education with its government employee unions; they have turned a proud liberty minded nation into a nation of docile obedient sheep.

All real knowledge is an act of rebellion. How can we like bovines turn our kids over to these dullards and expect them to learn anything useful to a free and prosperous people?

eohrnberger said:

Current events studies, perhaps, but then, both sides / variety of sides / positions all need to be presented in even handed fashion. Professional teacher / professors shouldn't have a problem with this, other than an agenda driven invented one.

Point to one of your previous posts that address this, and I'll read and consider it.

Click to expand...

@eohrnberger

I agree with your first statement completely (although it has proven much more difficult to implement then in theory based on your accurate observation of "agenda driven" curriculum--that is, the instructors don't necessarily agree what is most important to teach and what is irrelevant based on their own leanings, ect. ect.)

To your second point, I have mostly spoken about the general framework (as I see it) rather than specific examples. However, even very basic matters that have clear answers become points fierce contention (due to ideological/worldview differences). For instance: How many genders are there? How long has our Human species been around (i.e. it is measured on a scale of 100,000s of years with precursors rather than a few 10,000 years with no real further explanation aside from a big gap in knowledge)? ect. ect. And those are matters of basic science, let alone the ideological subjects (e.g. History, Literature, ect. ect.)

SirGareth said:

All real knowledge is an act of rebellion.

Click to expand...

@SirGareth

You make a number of solid points. I particularly find the excerpt/quote above highly insightful and eloquently put.

xMathFanx said:

@justabubba

First, thanks for your input and taking the time to write relatively lengthy response.

Now, I think you have made several observations that I agree with, while I have a bone to pick about other points/arguments you submitted.

The excerpt above is our first point of contention. "Pointing in the right direction" does not mean "read this one author and believe everything she says since she is an authority in this area"--rather, it is "this book makes one argument, that book makes another argument, another book makes a separate argument, ect. ect." look into them and make up your own mind, or it could mean "have you heard of "x" branch in Chemistry, if not you may be interested in finding out more--here are some popular textbooks and/or experts in the field", ect. ect.

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

the video found within (my) post #11 addresses your question in an articulate manner i could only wish to achieve

xMathFanx said:

I largely agree with your notion concerning the type of literature the k-12 system arbitrarily confines people to when many may enjoy/profit from other stories much more that may or may not be considered "classic/great literature".



Job market and applications aside, Mathematics is still one of the best ways we know of to train abstract reasoning in that one needs to follow strict/rigorous lines of logical argumentation, identify a pattern, utilize strong mental visualization, assort the pattern into a working model, make swift and accurate computations, ect. ect.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Higer math is utterly pointless like learning Klingon.

It is essentially rigorous training for your brain/mind in a very similar way that lifting weights/jump rope/sprints/jumping exercises/ect. ect is rigorous training for your body. That is, to continue with this analogy, if one's mathematical knowledge is limited to arithmetic, they may or may not have the mental strength to "bench press" 350+lbs (since a person can still be of very high intelligence and not have studied math) however, if a person's knowledge of mathematics extends to through modern Graduate school level, they definitely can "bench press" 350+lbs.

Click to expand...

Understanding higher math is equally a useless skill to bench pressing. It's done strictly for bragging rights.

since the nature of the material necessitates that level of strength or higher. Thus, one of the surest ways to get to that level (that we currently know of), is to study higher Maths (i.e. even though it is not requisite to know high levels of Math to be highly intelligent, if one does know high level Maths then they definitely are at a higher level of abstract reasoning by necessity--it is "push ups" for your brain/mind)

Click to expand...

I see no benefit to being at that level. Just like picking up and putting down heavy things for the sake of simply doing it is absurd so its understanding how to use the quadratic equation.

I can learn Klingon and how to recite lemrics one latin. Sure a vey narrow group of people will be impressed, but such people are of no real consequence.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of higher math. Its main academic purpose is a barrier. Being able to calculate pointless nonsense is like knowing how to say the pledge of allegiance in elvish.

CLAX1911 said:

I don't get why they teach higher math. Or liturature.

Click to expand...

I half agree with you. You are right on the higher math part. Less than 10% of jobs use anything more than basic math - addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and for the rest its a horrible waste of time.

However, at its core, literature is about the story of man and the human condition and we can all learn the lessons contained in the great books of literature - and even those perhaps not so great. And that helps us understand our own humanity and ourselves.

CLAX1911 said:

I disagree. Higer math is utterly pointless like learning Klingon.

Understanding higher math is equally a useless skill to bench pressing. It's done strictly for bragging rights.


I see no benefit to being at that level. Just like picking up and putting down heavy things for the sake of simply doing it is absurd so its understanding how to use the quadratic equation.

I can learn Klingon and how to recite lemrics one latin. Sure a vey narrow group of people will be impressed, but such people are of no real consequence.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of higher math. Its main academic purpose is a barrier. Being able to calculate pointless nonsense is like knowing how to say the pledge of allegiance in elvish.

Click to expand...

Do you disagree that(?):

A. It is possible to strengthen your mind and/or body through training
B. Strengthening your mind and/or body is useful
C. Both (A) and (B)

xMathFanx said:

I am not suggesting that the "indoctrination" occurring is anywhere remotely approaching that seen in much of popular literature such as "The Giver", "1984", ect. ect. Rather, I am submitting it is much more like "The Matrix" in which the people "unplugged" are vastly outnumbered by the people "plugged in". The adults/parents that are "plugged in" are not wicked, rather they (generally speaking) are doing what they see as the correct course of action is for the children/youth--which, based on their highly, fundamentally flawed worldview, necessarily indoctrinates the children/youth (unless the youth are able to finds the means to "unplug" on their own (or happen to have adults in their life that are "unplugged" that can help guide them/raise relevant questions/ect.)). Also, there are many useful skills learned in the education system which I think is what you are focusing in on the most (Note: my fundamental criticism is equally relevant to the overwhelming majority of Private schools as well), some of which have been mentioned by other members that will help the youth more properly navigate "The Matrix" program--the issue is that there is a Matrix program to begin with (which is not the Schools' fault, but rather societies at large) and/or there are not tools in place to potentially help them "unplug" (as most adults don't have any idea what that would even mean or look like).

Out of curiosity (and to continue this discussion, if you would like), what were your thoughts concerning my discussion of the Higher Education system? (Note: I am from the USA and this is my perspective-bias. Also, I understand why based on my title it may appear that I am singling out k-12 Public schools, but this is not necessarily the case)

Click to expand...

my thoughts are that we should stop undercutting public schools via the private voucher strategy and that we should also remove the paywall between students and post-secondary education / job training if we want to remain competitive in the 21st century.

haymarket said:

I half agree with you. You are right on the higher math part. Less than 10% of jobs use anything more than basic math - addition, subtraction, multiplication and division and for the rest its a horrible waste of time.

However, at its core, literature is about the story of man and the human condition and we can all learn the lessons contained in the great books of literature - and even those perhaps not so great. And that helps us understand our own humanity and ourselves.

Click to expand...

I'm telling you the only lesson I learned from Reading bull**** literature. Is that people will believe something's good if they're told it's good. It can be the most mind-numbing derivative crap that ever came to be and there will be people saying how great it is because a teacher told him it was great.

Again the human animal is naturally curious they look for meaning and subtext by their nature they don't need to be taught this. Using garbage that people before you thought it was good to beat people over the head with this nonsense is insulting.

xMathFanx said:

Do you disagree that(?):

A. It is possible to strengthen your mind and/or body through training
B. Strengthening your mind and/or body is useful
C. Both (A) and (B)

Click to expand...

No I don't disagree with any of those. But you can't strengthen your mind with any host of useless nonsense.

Math particularly higher math is not used for that it is used as a barrier.

CLAX1911 said:

No I don't disagree with any of those. But you can't strengthen your mind with any host of useless nonsense.

Math particularly higher math is not used for that it is used as a barrier.

Click to expand...

Do you agree that Mathematics follows a highly rigorous course of logical argumentation that necessitates at minimum equally rigorous logical reasoning (as well as visual abstraction) to follow and ultimately solve (in a timely manner)?

(Note: I am not arguing that the practical application is necessary, I understand your point on that front. Rather, the type of mental training involved is an invaluable tool)

xMathFanx said:

Do you agree that Mathematics follows a highly rigorous course of logical argumentation that necessitates at minimum equally rigorous logical reasoning (as well as visual abstraction) to follow and ultimately solve (in a timely manner)?

Click to expand...

Well yeah but so do video games and solving puzzles and learning fictitious languages.

xMathFanx said:

@eohrnberger

I agree with your first statement completely (although it has proven much more difficult to implement then in theory based on your accurate observation of "agenda driven" curriculum--that is, the instructors don't necessarily agree what is most important to teach and what is irrelevant based on their own leanings, ect. ect.)

Click to expand...

Variances in curriculum based on instructor's experiences and what they which to highlight isn't the issue. Instructors have always been free to cover other aspects of the topics they are teaching and there is no constraints to continue to do so in the future. This is quite different than delving into politics, most likely not related to the curriculum, and pushing the political agenda one side and condemning the other side. You are conflating the two, and they need not be.

To your second point, I have mostly spoken about the general framework (as I see it) rather than specific examples. However, even very basic matters that have clear answers become points fierce contention (due to ideological/worldview differences). For instance: How many genders are there? How long has our Human species been around (i.e. it is measured on a scale of 100,000s of years with precursors rather than a few 10,000 years with no real further explanation aside from a big gap in knowledge)? ect. ect. And those are matters of basic science, let alone the ideological subjects (e.g. History, Literature, ect. ect.)

Click to expand...

"I have mostly spoken about the general framework"
Highlight a post # or link it here, and I'll read it.

Specific to genders, depends if you are talking biology and genetics, or if you are talking about something else.

"How many genders are there? How long has our Human species been around (i.e. it is measured on a scale of 100,000s of years with precursors rather than a few 10,000 years with no real further explanation aside from a big gap in knowledge)?"

Not sure what you are getting at here. Knowledge cannot be accumulated from generation to generation until the advent of both language and printing, both quite recent developments for humankind. Since this advent, knowledge has been accumulating at an ever increasing rate, and with the advent of networked computing systems, the and collection and spreading of this knowledge (well, at least raw information anyway) has grown logarithmic, available to just about everyone, on their mobile devices.

CLAX1911 said:

Well yeah but so do video games and solving puzzles and learning fictitious languages.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said here. Now, if a video game (or Puzzle) could be constructed that were at as high a level to rival Maths we currently know of (or higher), then I would be arguing for learning/training in such video games based on the same reasoning (I actually think everything you listed can in fact be beneficial--depending on the particulars). It is just Math is one of the best tools we currently know of in this area at the moment, which is why it is a highly useful (even if one doesn't do anything directly with Math but wants the benefits of the abstract reasoning gained--in a very similar way that perhaps a construction worker may want to perform a strength training regiment in order to gain and apply the newfound physical strength in a completely separate area (such as Construction work, ect. ect.)

CLAX1911 said:

I disagree. Higer math is utterly pointless like learning Klingon.

Understanding higher math is equally a useless skill to bench pressing. It's done strictly for bragging rights.


I see no benefit to being at that level. Just like picking up and putting down heavy things for the sake of simply doing it is absurd so its understanding how to use the quadratic equation.

I can learn Klingon and how to recite lemrics one latin. Sure a vey narrow group of people will be impressed, but such people are of no real consequence.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of higher math. Its main academic purpose is a barrier. Being able to calculate pointless nonsense is like knowing how to say the pledge of allegiance in elvish.

Click to expand...

mathematics is the language of science. higher mathematics is the language of higher science

the best opportunity for earning a high income is going to be available to those having a strong STEM education

those without an aptitude for math beyond arithmetic will be denied the opportunity for good earnings by comparison

thus, there is a legitimate financial incentive to excel at higher math

CLAX1911 said:

I disagree. Higer math is utterly pointless like learning Klingon.

Understanding higher math is equally a useless skill to bench pressing. It's done strictly for bragging rights.


I see no benefit to being at that level. Just like picking up and putting down heavy things for the sake of simply doing it is absurd so its understanding how to use the quadratic equation.

I can learn Klingon and how to recite lemrics one latin. Sure a vey narrow group of people will be impressed, but such people are of no real consequence.

I disagree with you about the usefulness of higher math. Its main academic purpose is a barrier. Being able to calculate pointless nonsense is like knowing how to say the pledge of allegiance in elvish.

Click to expand...

Mathematics is the gateway to the modern world. We are back in the middle ages without it. If one can not master at least basic algebra, geometry and trig in high school along with literacy in at least their own language, they have no business wasting their time and often our money in college.

If you want to learn post-modern bull feces learn it in a correspondence course or better yet just stare at the TV .

I'm not saying everyone should be literate in math, only those attending colleges and universities. About the top 10% The rest should go to trade schools where one can learn sorely needed skills.

xMathFanx said:

I agree with everything you said here. Now, if a video game (or Puzzle) could be constructed that were at as high a level to rival Maths we currently know of (or higher), then I would be arguing for learning/training in such video games based on the same reasoning (I actually think everything you listed can in fact be beneficial--depending on the particulars).

Click to expand...

I would not. Higher levels of math are largely useless to 99% of people. As would higher video games and puzzles be.

Mathematics reasoning and logic must be understood at the most basic level. You cannot count of you don't know that 1 is greater than 0. That is the profound reasoning that all mathematics is based on. And it is a vastly important thing to understand.

Higher mathematics don't bring any new reasoning to the table because 1 will always be greater than 0.

It is just Math is one of the best tools we currently know of in this area at the moment, which is why it is a highly useful (even if one doesn't do anything directly with Math but wants the benefits of the abstract reasoning gained--in a very similar way that perhaps a construction worker may want to perform a strength training regiment in order to gain and apply the newfound physical strength in a completely separate area (such as Construction work, ect. ect.)

Click to expand...

Math is highly useful, i never made the claim that it wasn't. Higher mathematics is highly useless. Nobody outside of engineers and mathematics teachers have any use for algebra and calculus.

The major or the primary use of such maths Is as a barrier. Though I studied them and fond them elegant... to the length that I could understand them, they were nothing more than a than a shiny bobble to me. Completely useless. The logic and reasoning I got from the very first concept of mathematics.

A construction worker has a use for high levels of physical strength a banker does not. A math teacher or an engineer has a use for higher maths a psychologist or MD or a vast list of professions that are required to take higher maths as a basic regiment do not.

In college and even high school or exists first and foremost as a barrier.

SirGareth said:

Mathematics is the gateway to the modern world.

Click to expand...

Of course mathematics are, they are a vastly important practical skill in any society. But i don't think that if higher mathematics.

We are back in the middle ages without it. If one can not master at least basic algebra, geometry and trig in high school along with literacy in at least their own language, they have no business wasting their time and often our money in college.

Click to expand...

I personal think most people waste their money and time going to college. Many people take on massive amounts of debts and end up not being able to find a job all because public schools utterly failed them by telling them that first flipping burgers is a menial job that only dropouts and teen girls that became mom's do. I know a great number of people that love operating restaurants that serve mainly burgers.

And then by telling them the only way to salvation is through college.

Both statements are absolute lies.

But I digress. Algebra and trig serve very few uses. Their first use is as a barrier to higer education. Their second use is to prepare for the next level of barriers to education. Their third and smaller use is to educate people that need it.

The fact that you believe people need to know such useless things to be educated is a testament to indoctrination.

I know many professionals with high levels of Education that have never once had to solve a polynomial. Search mathematics are only useful to a very narrow group of professions.

It is useful as a barrier first and foremost.

If you want to learn post-modern bull feces learn it in a correspondence course or better yet just stare at the TV .

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying people should learn these things I am saying they are as useful and Modern Life is Advanced algebra and trigonometry to the average person who is not an engineer a physicist or a math teacher.

I'm not saying everyone should be literate in math, only those attending colleges and universities. About the top 10% The rest should go to trade schools where one can learn sorely needed skills.

Click to expand...

I disagree literacy in higher math first only exists in people who practice it on a daily basis if you don't you forget it you forget it because it is useless to you she do it in some sort of hobby like astronomy.

It is mainly to keep professors employed I understand you couldn't pay someone enough money to teach people something as useless as calculus unless you got the masses to take it. I remember going to college my father is an engineer and he uses trigonometry daily I was in a trigonometry class struggling first to understand why the hell I was in a trigonometry class why it was required. My father explained it is a hard course and they make it difficult so is to keep the dirty unwashed Heathen masses out of college I disagree I think it's so they can justify having a math department.

The tiny amount of engineering and chemistry students wouldn't be enough to keep a calculus Professor employee it wouldn't be enough to entice people to do it for a living. But requiring search things across the board for everyone is it a waste of money resources time and talent.

justabubba said:

mathematics is the language of science. higher mathematics is the language of higher science

Click to expand...

absolutely agreed and if you're going into physics or engineering or chemistry it's very important to learn those languages but if you're going into therapy you are not going to learn that you will learn enough to make it through the class and then you will quickly forget it because if you don't use a language you lose it.

Thus making it a waste of time money talent and resources to educate people that have no intent of ever truly learning this language.

It's like trying to teach Klingon to people who don't write scripts for Star Trek.

the best opportunity for earning a high income is going to be available to those having a strong STEM education

Click to expand...

I would say the best opportunity for higher-income is not going into massive debt that you can never resolve that will make you an indentured servant for the first 10 years of your professional life.

those without an aptitude for math beyond arithmetic will be denied the opportunity for good earnings by comparison

Click to expand...

absolute and total b*******

Real estate agents doctors lawyers software developers some of the most high-income people in the world probably have forgotten everything about highrer maths they ever learned in college. They learned just enough to pass the classes and quickly forgot it because it is useless.

Further it restricts people that would have otherwise had those talents that don't require higher maths from their true aptitude.

It is more of a hazing ritual than education

thus, there is a legitimate financial incentive to excel at higher math

Click to expand...

you're not really learning mathematics you're just learning how to play the game to get through the stupid course and then you quickly forget it. That is an exercise in futility.

CLAX1911 said:

The major or the primary use of such maths Is as a barrier.

Click to expand...

As well as it should be. Being sighted is also a barrier to piloting commercial airliners.

A degree is supposed to mean something, not just that you put up with listening to bovine flatulence for four years and regurgitated a fraction of it.

Visbek said:

Higher mathematics is highly useless. Nobody outside of engineers and mathematics teachers have any use for algebra and calculus.

Click to expand...

It does not take a college education to use a computer, this is trade school stuff. Its takes higher math to design them and most often to program them effectively
You talk to most computers now, this is done using Fast Fourier Transforms. It's not child's play

We are not short of keyboard pounders, we are short of thinkers and creators in ALL fields and math is critical to all of them.


The world is in no crying need of psychologists, most of them have more problems than their clients. Pre-med involves statistics or the efficacy of meds cannot be appreciated.

I tutor math as a volunteer in a local HS and it is truly sad. The teachers rarely understand what they are teaching or why they are. They make students take it in the hopes that they can pass a dumbed down SAT test that will allow them to enter a college, learn nothing, and leave saddled with a lifetime of debt.