MugaSofer comments on Open Thread, January 16-31, 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 January 2013 03:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 January 2013 09:42:12AM *  0 points [-]
  • History books tend to be extremely biased (America is a christian nation, gosh darn it) (but my parents somehow mostly avoided this)

  • Biology books tend to be completely wrong because you have to lie a lot when you don't believe evolution (I'm still pissed about this)

  • Science/astronomy books tend to have wrong sections because you have to lie a lot when you believe the earth is 6000 years old.

These three seem like one point (biased curriculum.)

</nitpick>

I'm surprised by the socialization ones; I thought there were studies saying homeschoolers were actually socialized just fine, thank you? (It's possible you were just unusual in this regard, I guess.)

Comment author: lavalamp 21 January 2013 02:52:37PM 3 points [-]

These three seem like one point (biased curriculum.)

Agree, similar points, I split it out because it's apparently possible to be relatively sane about american history and relatively insane about evolution, which I wouldn't have expected. From my large sample size of two or three, other homeschoolers I know got both or neither.

I thought there were studies saying homeschoolers were actually socialized just fine, thank you?

I have two hypotheses; first, most of my social-interaction-hours growing up were spent with adults. As a result I got (I think) very good at impressing adults, but pretty much didn't understand my peers at all. I'm not sure if the studies can confirm or refute this, I haven't looked in detail. I wouldn't trust homeschoolers themselves to be rational about this. It's also worth noting that homeschooling is not terribly unified, my experience may have been atypical. Second hypothesis is that I started life out with -3 S.D. social skills and public school wouldn't change that.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 22 January 2013 02:27:23PM 2 points [-]

I have two hypotheses; first, most of my social-interaction-hours growing up were spent with adults. As a result I got (I think) very good at impressing adults, but pretty much didn't understand my peers at all.

Incidentally, I suspect that it would be great if most kids spent most of their time interacting only with adults, so that when they did meet each other kids, much of the painful conflict and pointless costly signaling associated with typical teenage years could just be skipped over.

Comment author: lavalamp 22 January 2013 03:15:50PM 0 points [-]

Hm. I was going to say that I don't think that policy will have that effect-- but after a bit of thought, I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean by "painful conflict and pointless costly signaling associated with typical teenage years." Can you give an example?

...maybe this supports your point...

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 22 January 2013 04:43:34PM *  4 points [-]

Things like smoking and excessive drinking for the sake of showing that you're Cool and Rebellious for doing the exact things that the adults say you shouldn't do, for example. It's easy to see why that kind of behavior might emerge in an environment where other kids your age are your ingroup that you want to impress, and adults are the outgroup that you can attack in order to distinguish yourself. But if adults were actually the ingroup you were trying to impress, it seems like people would be more likely to try to impress them by actually acting more mature, and that "maturity is high status" would carry over even to the more limited interactions they had with folks their own age.

Comment author: lavalamp 22 January 2013 05:32:47PM 0 points [-]

I see. I guess I am an example in favor of your theory. I'm not entirely sure that this is an unambiguously good thing, though, because sometimes you should impress your peers in ways adults would not approve. Or, to put it another way, the optimal balance of grown-up-ness and fun shouldn't have a factor of 0 for either category...

(I suppose if the adults were never wrong about classifying things as fun-but-harmful, then I'd change my mind.)

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 January 2013 04:10:37PM -2 points [-]

I have two hypotheses; first, most of my social-interaction-hours growing up were spent with adults. As a result I got (I think) very good at impressing adults, but pretty much didn't understand my peers at all.

Ooh, I hadn't though of that one.

I wouldn't trust homeschoolers themselves to be rational about this. It's also worth noting that homeschooling is not terribly unified, my experience may have been atypical. Second hypothesis is that I started life out with -3 S.D. social skills and public school wouldn't change that.

On the one hand, I don't think these were conducted by homeshoolers or based on surveys.

On the other hand, I only think that this is supported by studies because a homeschooling-related website told me so, while I was looking for material to support my argument regarding a specific individual (who I'm pretty sure was at -1 S.D and wasn't likely to improve in public school.) I hadn't seen anything to contradict it till your comment, and it seemed like it should have a fairly high prior, so...