A More Perfect Education
#1
Lots of talk in the Chatterbox about the best way to educate children. I've decided to make a thread to consolidate the discussion.

The main points put across boil down to:
  • Geniuses are neglected due to the current education system which favours raising the mean while neglecting the outliers.
  • Most people in fact do not need much more than a primary education to function in society, and education after that should be kept for the high-IQ students willingly accepting further studies.
  • Credentialism is bad .

Sorry if I missed the other points put across.
#2
Relevant article:
https://www.unz.com/article/are-women-de...-probably/

Here is the key(ed) point(s) for me:

Quote:Similarly, new ideas, or being contradicted, will likely upset some people. But, in the pursuit of academic debate, you have to ignore this and calmly present both sides. However, this is more difficult for females, because they are more sympathetic, meaning that “not hurting people’s feelings” can become their highest ideal. Higher in Conscientiousness (“rule-following”) and lower in intellectual curiosity than males, females are also more conformist. This means they are less able to understand that, in academia, the truth is ever more closely reached by being non-conformist—by questioning the current “truth.”



Quote:He argues that geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness. This means they are clever enough to solve a difficult problem, but being low in rule-following, can also “think outside the box,”. And, being low in Agreeableness, they don’t care about offending people, which original ideas always do.

An aspect of Agreeableness is empathy—being concerned with the feelings of others and being able to guess what they might be. Dutton shows that people who are high in “systematizing” (which males typically are compared to females, with systematizing being vital to problem solving) tend to be low in empathy. Thus, Dutton argues, you don’t get many women geniuses because their IQ range is more bunched towards the mean; and also because they are too high in Agreeableness and Consciousness.

Universities, traditionally dominated by males, have in essence been about giving geniuses a place in which they can attempt to solve their problems, working at their chosen problems for years on end. But Dutton argues that female academics tend to be the “Head Girl Type” (chief prefect at all-girls schools in the UK) with “normal range” high IQ and high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness—the exact opposite of a typical genius. Accordingly, once you allow females into academia, they will be promoted over genius males because they come across as better people to work with—more conscientious, easier to be around and more socially skilled. But this will tend to deny geniuses the place of nurture they need.

As females come to dominate, the culture of academia will feminize. High in Conscientiousness, women will create a rule-governed bureaucracy where research occurs through incremental steps and a certain number of publications must be presented every few years, rather than through genius breakthroughs. But geniuses typically work on huge problems for years. So this bureaucracy will make it impossible for them to do this and keep their jobs.

Women will also create a culture of co-operative “research groups,” anathema to the kind of anti-social loners who tend towards genius. And females will, of course, tend to create an atmosphere of emotion and empathy, the enemy of the unemotional, coldly systematic style of the genius—and, traditionally, of academia.

In this atmosphere, “not causing offence” will become much more important. But genius breakthroughs are only made, ultimately, by causing offence.


This article speaks of Higher Education, but I believe that it is nevertheless relevant to a Discussion of Education in general, as broad Feminization is a trait found throughout the Education System. A free and open Space for young boys of high potential and IQ to freely express their inborn Curiosity and Will, combined with a Good Classical Curriculum, would be far better for Education and for the direction of Society as a whole. Geniuses are, by and large, highly disagreeable and often ill-tempered people, cruel and monomaniacal in their ends.
#3
(11-01-2022, 08:31 AM)JohnnyRomero Wrote: Relevant article:
https://www.unz.com/article/are-women-de...-probably/

I find the understanding of 'empathy' used in this article completely confused.

Quote:An aspect of Agreeableness is empathy—being concerned with the feelings of others and being able to guess what they might be. Dutton shows that people who are high in “systematizing” (which males typically are compared to females, with systematizing being vital to problem solving) tend to be low in empathy.


The people destroying academia are not empathic. At least not an idealistic and all-encompassing way suggested in describing someone as generally 'empathic'. How does concern with the feelings of others and a superior ability to to conceptualise the minds of others turn you into a nigger communist cry-bully? It doesn't. I believe that concern with the feelings of others and a superior ability to conceptualise the minds of others is a male brained autist trait more than a normalfag woman trait. The trouble is conflating this definition of empathy with base social instincts, which are instincts. What doesn't occur to these idiots is that it's possible to systematise the minds of others. Not only do I believe that this is possible, I believe that this is the only kind of thought which can build what we would consider to be an empathic society which actually attempts to respect the inner lives of others impartially. I believe that this was our society's baseline at one point, how we got our justice systems, laws, sense of idealistic religiosity and human dignity, and that to get here we had to suppress our low social instincts, which make you seem steady and agreeable on a baseline interpersonal level, but can't accomplish anything above that.

Where is this concern for the feelings of others when these sobbing degenerates are destroying the careers of honest intellectuals? Of course this depth of feeling comes and goes arbitrarily because it's feeling. Not principle.

Idealistic autists are the truly empathetic ones. Perhaps we should start taking the word back.
#4
(11-01-2022, 06:31 PM)anthony Wrote: How does concern with the feelings of others and a superior ability to to conceptualise the minds of others turn you into a nigger communist cry-bully?

Empathy is defined as being able to identify with the feelings and situation of someone, if there are more nigger communists crying that are also crying louder than male autists then empathy will make you (more of) a nigger communist cry-bully.

Quote:I believe that concern with the feelings of others and a superior ability to conceptualise the minds of others is a male brained autist trait more than a normalfag woman trait. [...] What doesn't occur to these idiots is that it's possible to systematise the minds of others.

Concern alone with the feelings of others is sympathy rather than empathy. Systematizing has nothing to do with relating to the feelings of others. Autists have an inferior theory of mind, you can make the argument (for the high functioning ones) that it's not because they are incapable but because they refuse to; if they didn't refuse they could develop a better one than 'normalfags'.

Quote:Perhaps we should start taking the word back.

That would refute the article Johnny shared. If anything the idea that university is meant to be cold and mechanical should be advanced, as that would drive most of the people currently going to university away, the ones that shouldn't be there.

Quote:Where is this concern for the feelings of others when these sobbing degenerates are destroying the careers of honest intellectuals?

A truly empathetic person would feel bad/sorry about this situation if they knew about it, but not only does feeling sorry about something not do anything, I don't think the average person knows when an intellectual's career is being destroyed. Even if they did, it wouldn't be a good decision to end someone's career completely depending on if there's more people who feel negatively or positively about that person('s career).
#5
(11-02-2022, 12:52 PM)Verily Dow Wrote:
(11-01-2022, 06:31 PM)anthony Wrote: How does concern with the feelings of others and a superior ability to to conceptualise the minds of others turn you into a nigger communist cry-bully?

Empathy is defined as being able to identify with the feelings and situation of someone, if there are more nigger communists crying that are also crying louder than male autists then empathy will make you (more of) a nigger communist cry-bully.

This breaks down as soon as we consider that these people will treat people they disagree with like shit one on one. They aren't connected to a global psychic field where the dominant world-feeling controls their emotional reaction to the world. They just have likes and dislikes like everyone else. And like a lot of other people they have a moral and metaphysical framework to justify their preferences and biases.

Quote:Concern alone with the feelings of others is sympathy rather than empathy. Systematizing has nothing to do with relating to the feelings of others. Autists have an inferior theory of mind, you can make the argument (for the high functioning ones) that it's not because they are incapable but because they refuse to; if they didn't refuse they could develop a better one than 'normalfags'.

Again, as these people are not psychic I see no meaningful difference between sympathy and empathy. To feel concern for the feelings of someone else you have to be mindful of their feelings and situation. How you get there is only really important for judging the intelligence and rationality of the sympathiser/empathiser.

And I knew this would happen while writing the above post. I don't believe in autism. When I said autists I meant white man brain. People capable of not chimping out in response to their most base feelings and instead consciously judging everything before them. These people had the best theory of mind. Modern diagnosable 'autists' are just stupid deformed people, so yes, inferior theory of mind due to a lack of intelligence, which makes them poor systematisers.

Quote:That would refute the article Johnny shared. If anything the idea that university is meant to be cold and mechanical should be advanced, as that would drive most of the people currently going to university away, the ones that shouldn't be there.
I'm not saying turn men into weepy retards who vicariously cry over the narcissistic delusions of their pet niggers. I'm saying be cold and mechanical, and on top of that be confident in the knowledge that this is ultimately the source of the kindest and warmest human feeling. Men who see and judge are the only ones who can be fair to all human experience.
#6
I'm pretty sure there was a thread about this - or I am misremembering since indeed the subject pops up periodically in the chatbox.
#7
I saw this in a Twitter thread not so long ago - apologies for the lack of sources, as there were some included: homeschooling strongly correlates with future academic success, and by extension, possibly in other respects as well that follow from this.

I don't see this as meaning that homeschooling is right for everyone, but if you care for your children's cognitive development at all, neglecting to play an active role as someone who is reasonably intelligent is feeding them to the wolves. Older generations in particular seem to struggle to comprehend this. Some of them drawn the line at 'trannies in different sex locker rooms', but seem to be oblivious to the many other things that have laid the foundation for it to even become an issue. Restructuring a whole education system is the same to them as living on Mars.

I would take some of what he says with a grain of salt - particularly "urbanism bad, ruralism good" - but Rousseau has a fairly comprehensive treatise, or "guide", if you will, in Emile, following from natural law on a boy's education compared to that of a girl, the latter being more of an afterthought. The main premise is that a boy should be raised in a manner to best allow him to develop his own natural inclinations and curiosities, as opposed to imposing interests upon him. It's an insightful read.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)