lukeprog comments on Rationality Quotes June 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Thomas 03 June 2013 03:08AM

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

Comments (778)

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

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 14 June 2013 09:21:39AM 3 points [-]

there are powerful political forces who want to optimize education to let universities teach skills that are valuable to employeers. On the other hand you do have people on the left who think that universities should teach critical thinking and create a society of individuals who follow the ideals of the Enlightment. There's a real conflict of values.

In this specific conflict, I would prefer having two kinds of school -- universities and polytechnics -- each optimized for one of the purposes, and let the students decide.

Seems to me that conflicts of values are worse when a unified decision has to be made for everyone. (Imagine that people would start insisting that only one subject can be ever taught at schools, and then we would have a conflict of values whether the subject should be English or Math. But that would be just a consequence of a bad decision at meta level.)

But yeah, I can imagine a situation with a conflict of values that cannot be solved by letting everyone pick their choice. And then the powerful people can push their choice, without being open about it.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 June 2013 10:44:21AM 1 point [-]

Seems to me that conflicts of values are worse when a unified decision has to be made for everyone. (Imagine that people would start insisting that only one subject can be ever taught at schools, and then we would have a conflict of values whether the subject should be English or Math. But that would be just a consequence of a bad decision at meta level.)

You do have this in a case like teaching the theory of evolution.

You have plenty of people who are quite passionate but making an unified decision to teach everyone the theory of evolution, including the parents of children who don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Germany has compulsory schooling. Some fundamental chrisitan don't want their children in public schools. If you discuss the issue with people who have political power you find that those people don't want that those children get taught some strange fundamental worldview that includes things like young earth creationism. The want that the children learn the basic paradigm that people in German society follow.

On the other hand I'm not sure whether you can get a motivation like that from reading the newspaper. Everyone who's involved in the newspaper believes that it's worth to teach children the theory of evolution so it's not worth writing a newspaper article about it.

Is it a secret persecution of fundamentalist Christians? The fundamentalist Christian from whom the government takes away the children for "child abuse" because the children don't go to school feel perscecuted. On the other hand the politician in question don't really feel like the are persecuting fundamentalist Christians.

The ironic thing about it is that compulsory schooling was introduced in Germany for the stated purpose of turning children into 'good Christians".

In a case like evolution, do you sincerely believe that the intellectual elite should use their power to push a Texan public school to teach evolution even if the parents of the children and the local board of education don't want it?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 14 June 2013 11:02:00AM *  2 points [-]

The ironic thing about it is that compulsory schooling was introduced in Germany for the stated purpose of turning children into 'good Christians".

Yeah, when people in power create tools to help them maintain the power, if those tools are universal enough, they will be reused by the people who get the power later.

In a case like evolution, do you sincerely believe that the intellectual elite should use their power to push a Texan public school to teach evolution even if the parents of the children and the local board of education don't want it?

The trade-offs need to be discussed rationally. The answer would probably be "yes", but there are some negative side effects. For example, you create a precedent for other elites to push their agenda. (Just like those Christians did with the compulsory education.) Maybe a third option could be found. (Something like: Don't say what schools have to teach, but make the exams independent on schools. Make the evolutionary knowledge necessary to pass a biology exam. Make it public when students or schools or cities are "failing in biology".)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 June 2013 06:27:52AM *  1 point [-]

Something like: Don't say what schools have to teach, but make the exams independent on schools.

Why have governments control exams at all? Have different certifying authorities and employers are free to decide which authorities' diploma they accept.

Comment author: Osiris 15 June 2013 06:39:25AM 1 point [-]

That could work! On the other hand, it may set up a situation where a person who is only guilty of being raised in the wrong place may never get a decent job. Wonder what can be done to prevent that as much as possible?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 June 2013 06:54:31AM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, it may set up a situation where a person who is only guilty of being raised in the wrong place may never get a decent job.

And this differs from the status quo, how?

Comment author: Osiris 18 June 2013 04:56:46AM 1 point [-]

I was under the impression you wanted to improve things significantly. Hence why I mentioned that issue--and it IS an issue.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 June 2013 06:26:20AM -2 points [-]

My point is that a child's parents are more likely to make good decisions for the child then education bureaucrats.

Comment author: CCC 21 June 2013 08:36:15AM 2 points [-]

That depends on the parents. Yes, many parents (including mine and, presumably, yours) have the best interests of the child at heart, and have the knowledge and ability to be able to serve those interests quite well.

This is not, however, true of all parents. There's no entrance exam for parenthood. Thus:

  • Some parents are directly abusive to their children (including: many parents who abuse alcohol and/or drugs)
  • Some parents are total idiots; even if they have the best interests of the child at heart, they have no idea what to do about it
  • Some parents are simply too mired in poverty; they can't afford food for their children, never mind schooling
  • Some parents are, usually through no fault of their own, dead while their children are still young
  • Some parents are absent for some reason (possibly an acrimonious divorce? Possibly in order to find employment?)

An education bureaucrat, on the other hand, is a person hand-picked to make decisions for a vast number of children. Ideally, he is picked for his ability to do so; that is, he is not a total idiot, directly abusive, dead, or missing, and he has a reasonable budget to work with. He also has less time to devote to making a decision per child.

Comment author: Jiro 21 June 2013 09:45:53PM 2 points [-]

That's like claiming that bicycling is better than driving cars, as long as "driving cars' includes cases where the cars are missing or broken.

If the parents are missing, dead, abusive, or total idiots (depending on how severe the "total" idiocy is), they can be replaced by adoptive or foster parents. You would need to compare bureaucrats to parents-with-replacement, not to parents-without-replacement, to get a meaningful comparison.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 June 2013 02:37:29AM -1 points [-]

An education bureaucrat, on the other hand, is a person hand-picked to make decisions for a vast number of children.

You have an extremely over-idealistic view of how the education bureaucracy (or any bureaucracy for that matter) works.

For evolutionary reasons, parents have a strong desire to do what's best for their child, bureaucracies on the other hand have all kinds of motivations (especially perpetuating the bureaucracy).

he is not a total idiot, directly abusive, dead, or missing,

You haven't dealt with bureaucracy much, have you?

he has a reasonable budget to work with.

There are a lot of failing school systems with large budgets. Throwing money at a broken system doesn't give you a working system, it gives you a broken system that wastes even more money.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 June 2013 11:26:52AM *  0 points [-]

For example, you create a precedent for other elites to push their agenda.

Maybe elites that push their agenda have a much better chance keeping their power that don't? I'm not sure how much setting precedents limit further elites.

Something like: Don't say what schools have to teach, but make the exams independent on schools. Make the evolutionary knowledge necessary to pass a biology exam. Make it public when students or schools or cities are "failing in biology".

Basically you try to make the system more complicated to still get what you want but make people feel less manipulated.

Complicated and intransparent systems lead to conspiracy theories.