I'll get back to the topic but like idiots everywhere, you guys are going to have the stupid things you say pointed out and if you, like idiots everywhere, find that insulting, do what other idiots do and whine and complain. I'm really liking this use of the word "like". Thanks Okie! Now you <insert insult> have already admitted that conservatism increases or prospers in the absences of critical thinking. You have actually even come down against the idea of critical thinking as a method of learning. OK although I am unsurprised by this given all the things you've all written what exactly do you see as an alternative to critical thinking or what do you suggest replacing the learning method with? I'm just flabbergasted that anyone would suggest that critical thinking was wrong and that they would openly admit that their political party does better in the absence of critical thinking. That's quite an admission by you three but nothing I didn't already know.
There is no such thing as "traditional" "old-fashioned thinking". Now I'm really tempted to compare you to a termite or a cockroach or some other vermin but instead I'll simply point out that the critical thinking method is 2500 years old. Is that old fashioned enough for you? Liberalism is based in the idea of critical thinking.
Well, nothing that you have the courage to acknowledge anyway... | | | \/ You seem to prefer insults so that you don't have to acknowledge perfectly good points. You, like any Right-wing nut job, would rather play the wounded victim rather than actually have to counter a valid point even one using your own words which I did agree with. Agreeing with you isn't "adding to the conversation"? So to make you happy, I'll throw my points out there, you'll keep ignoring them and I'll just keep lowing myself to your level to get some kind of response from you. I respond to reasonable people very well. You earn the responses I give you. You like it that way, admit it.
I think that one problem with "critical thinking" is that it relies on what we used to call doing a "close reading" back in English class. For those of you who never took advance literature classes in college or university, a "close" reading is done by looking at a paragraph of a work and dissecting it for all meanings, both on the surface and underlying meanings. It is possible, doing this, to write a five-page paper on less than a page of text. When people accuse others of "reading too much into something," it generally means that the accuser prefers to look at only the surface information--much like the vast majority of the general public--and chooses to ignore any existing subtext. The problem with teaching a close reading process in lower grades is that children can be influenced on what is important in those close readings; that is, teachers with a bachelor's degree in middle grades education grading their papers based on opinions or agendas rather than how well a student has expressed his or her thoughts and supported those thoughts with information from the text. By teaching the mind to perform an analysis such as the close reading, it is possible to use critical thinking in other ways. Commercials that sell food or drink based on making ridiculous claims of popularity or sexuality become obvious. Movies like John Q, Avatar, and Finding Nemo reveal a subtext. The problem with using critical thinking in these ways is that it requires that people engage their brains rather than shut them off as we are usually compelled to do with our "entertainment." I am not a huge fan of Jean Piaget, but he has some good points. One point I agree with in his theory is that most people do not reach a level of abstract thinking capability that allows them to be "good" thinkers. The majority of people are still in the "concrete operational" phase in which they rely on physical evidence and their senses for drawing conclusions.
The platform states that the "focus on behavior modification" in schools may result in an "undermining (of) parental authority" at home. Sounds like they want more control over their kids. Maybe if they didn't lie to their kids so much they wouldn't be having this issue. But, Texas doesn't want their schools encouraging rebeliousness in their children. The parents want their kids to believe what the parents say without questioning it, lies and all. lol It's still an attempt at controlling what their kids do and say, through their own attempts at behavior modification. You want good kids? Stop lying to them all the time and have an honest conversation with them once in a while. You should know that respect for each other isn't something that can be forced...that would result in fear, and not respect. Some kids will always be rebellious though. Some kids will always question. I really like those kids lol
I seem to remember someone saying that it takes a village to raise a kid (or something close to that). Think about what that means and you might find a group who wants someone else to raise their kids.
(raises hand) Me. But that's under my assumption that "control" over kids involves mentally "breaking" (much as you do a horse) them to a point where they will obey a parent or person of authority without question, typically receiving a punishment for failure to comply. The only thing I wish for my kid is for him to live a long, healthy, happy life. I have no need to "break" any insubordination or "sass" out of him (as the article suggests occurs as a result of the school's teaching of "critical thinking"). If we have an issue we talk about it.
I don't believe that critical thinking undermines parental control in any way. If it were actually the case that a parent was trying to lead their children to a conclusion that wasn't the same conclusion that the children came to due to applying the process of critical thinking, then I don't think the solution is to dumb down the children to the level of their parents which is exactly what this Texas Republican platform is trying to accomplish. In other words, if the parents never learned to critically think, neither should their children. What kind of bassackward logic is that?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...oses_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php Don't get me wrong, I still think Texas is one bass ackward state, just posting what I found when I read past the first posted article.
Here is what was "mistakenly" added: I'd argue that children have few "fixed beliefs", and that's why these Texans are so aggitated...they worry that their child will not accept ALL of their brainwashing parenting... ...but the document itself is far more interesting than this single point.
You are certainly free to disregard any information in that article that goes against your deeply held beliefs. After all, this isn't Texas. Kidding aside...I figure you are probably correct. But, then again, I am one cynical bass turd.
You know, I have watched the Right sit here and defend a guy for shooting an unarmed teenager, support a presidential candidate that at best isn't Obama, cheer the loss of the 2016 Olympics to another country, defend throwing 30 million people onto the ranks of the uninsured with no alternative plan whatsoever, call teachers, firefighters and policemen union thugs, support a guy that publicly called a young woman a slut, BUT, I never could have conceived of the Right coming out against the critical thought process. That one even surprised me and I am rarely surprised by the likes of these knot-heads. If you think about it though, it does make sense that they feel this way. Think about the organizations that attract conservatives. The military is certainly an organization where thinking isn't required, you just have to do what you are told. Organized religion is another institution where one doesn't question what one is told but simply relies on faith to provide any and all answers. And then there is the fact that conservatives completely fixated on the 2nd Amendment? There are lots of Amendments but none as precious and important to Right-wingers as the 2nd. It’s easy to see why since any and all discussion stops at the point of a gun. Again, no real thinking required. Comfort within an authoritarian environment seems to dominate these little rule followers like nothing else. Hum? How to use that? ...Later.... I think that they are a pretty transparent lot and glimpses into the way they actually “think” or react and view the world surface from time to time in documents such the Texas Republican platform. After all, isn't Texas the Mecca of the Right?
Since you continue to ignore what you don't want to hear I have to mention that at least you are consistent…..Consistently cowardly. Note that I am not calling you names. I am simply pointing out that your behavior resemble that of a coward and of course by extension.... I won't go there but I do enjoy watching you play your semantic games. You, like any weasel, can never be straight with people because you feel like you have the intellectual capacity to "outwit" them with your superior wordsmithing. Granted it does work on dumb people pretty effectively and Lord knows you have tried to keep anyone with any amount of intellectual capacity out of the conversation to increase your chances of "winning" your semantic wars. I consider it an honor and a compliment that you try to shut people like me out. It says a lot about the both of us.
People shouldn't think it gives them headaches and boosts the Pharmaceutical companies profit margins Alternatively people should be made to think and given headaches to boosts the Pharmaceutical companies profit margins
I don't think that the *teaching* of critical thinking is the problem--although the vast majority of children in middle school and a number of the children in high school are incapable of forming critical thought. The problem is the school system telling the kids what to think, rather than teaching them how to think. I have had several professors push their agendas on me in university. One wanted everyone to write a "research" paper on Obamacare and all of these papers were molded to have a positive bent. One was a feminist who had an anti-man perspective and objected to any students writing papers that gave literature anything other than a feminist perspective. The third was a lesbian who assigned "alternative lifestyle" literature on the class for the entire semester and who rejected readings that were less than favorable of those perspectives. I was able to deal with what they all threw at me and was able to carefully interject my views into the papers while simultaneously avoiding failing grades. I admit that I learned something in each of my classes but I feel it was despite the professors who taught them and not because of them. I doubt that high school students or lower could not have done sufficient critical thinking to balance the professors' perspectives with those that they hold and with those of their parents.
For being such a supposed advocate of critical thinking, moen sure doesn't come across as someone who puts the concept into practice.
