[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

Heck -- I say let's go even further!

6. Everyone loves Crack Saturdays!!!
7. 16? Let's try out a hooker for the boy!

I wish you had been my parent

[DrTodd13]

sceptic, on Dec 28 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

Quote

Boy thats a loaded question. Speaking as a jew, you can't very easily just one day say "I am interested in judiasm

Yes granted, but it is a serious question

I am a non believer and by that I mean, I do not beleive in the existance of God, any God for that matter and I accept that people are entitled to thier beliefs and I respect that, it is their belief, even though I actually believe that the same people, if their parents were Muslims or Quakers or Jehovahs witnesses, then that is what their belief would be

you see what I am trying to get at is, that children will follow in their parents footsteps, how many Muslim kids brought up, suddenly change to Judism or Catholosism aged 18. is it not fair to say once brought up in a religion then that is what you bec ome and that main point I am making is that THere is no choice for these kids, their parents make them what they are


the same applies to a lesser degree with politics and perhaps more so for racist views

I also disagree with Dr Todd that it is an offensive question, it is a question he may feel uncomfortable with but it is a question and that is all it is

as for a dangerous suggestion, why is it a dangerous suggestion (perhaps because you do not like the possible answers) ?

I presume what you are really wanting to do is to indoctrinate with a humanist, rationalist worldview rather than with a religious one. There is no such thing as raising children in an indoctrination free manner. The rationalist worldwide carried to its logical extreme is I think both dangerous and inconsistent. If you try to be rational in everything, you will find that there is no rational reason to accept basic things like "minimizing human misery is good." Why should human misery matter? People will tell you that their own misery matters to them but why is this a sufficient reason for it to really matter? It is perfectly rational to say that human are insignificant specs in a gigantic mechanistic universe and that literally nothing matters or has any real value. As soon as you try to claim something has value then you are believing something for which there is no rational reason and this becomes an article of faith...something usually part of a religion.

A rationalist typically believes physics and physics currently tells us that everything is (largely except for quantum effects that percolate up) deterministic at the macroscopic level with some randomness at the quantum level. Physics and neuro-chemistry don't seem to leave room for free will and without free will all such questions as these become irrelevant because I have no choice in what I teach my children. I can argue from what is probably your own belief system that nothing matters and that choice is an illusion. Your whole question presumes we have choice and choice implies you don't accept a consequence of what is likely your own belief system.

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on Dec 28 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

~~The rationalist worldwide carried to its logical extreme is I think both dangerous and inconsistent. If you try to be rational in everything, you will find that there is no rational reason to accept basic things like "minimizing human misery is good." Why should human misery matter? People will tell you that their own misery matters to them but why is this a sufficient reason for it to really matter? It is perfectly rational to say that human are insignificant specs in a gigantic mechanistic universe and that literally nothing matters or has any real value. As soon as you try to claim something has value then you are believing something for which there is no rational reason and this becomes an article of faith...something usually part of a religion.

A rationalist typically believes physics and physics currently tells us that everything is (largely except for quantum effects that percolate up) deterministic at the macroscopic level with some randomness at the quantum level. Physics and neuro-chemistry don't seem to leave room for free will and without free will all such questions as these become irrelevant because I have no choice in what I teach my children. I can argue from what is probably your own belief system that nothing matters and that choice is an illusion. Your whole question presumes we have choice and choice implies you don't accept a consequence of what is likely your own belief system.

as usual your post contains far too much logic...

[Al_U_Card]

Teach your kids to be independent critical thinkers, able to determine their requirements based on their own appraisal without being overly influenced by others. Not really THAT hard, if you give it a try.

[Codo]

Yes Kids are very easily influenced. So I should influence them in the "right" way, else they will be influenced by the "wrong" way.

So far it is quite easy.
So what is the right way? Obviously different people have different choices about what is right or wrong.
For an taliban family it may be right to teach their kids about weapons, war and killing. For a family in Eritrea it could be about food, starving and hidding. For me in my world the goals are quite different.
But that we cannot define a "right" way is no reason not to try to follow this right way. You just need to define it for yourself. And this may or may not include to accept the different ways other people chose.

[kenrexford]

My particular point was that the question seems loaded and backwards.

I have a brother who has three kids. Whereas I was the religious nut in high school, he stayed steeped in religion whereas I am not. I have some dislikes about his views on things because of his religious blinders. He teaches his kids right down the straight and narrow as well.

IMO, that's fine. Intelligent kids will figure out what is sane and what is insane, sooner or later. Idiot follows would not understand and make good decisions on their own anyway.

I'm not saying that I like brainwashing kids. I'm just saying that the alternative of letting the kids figure it out solves little. The solution is not in how to handle kids. As often is the case, the solution is in how to handle the parents.

The intelligent parent should be able to teach right and wrong in a way that leaves real questions as questions, even to the point of admitting one's own conclusions as educated guesses to questions rather than TRUTH. The idiot parent won't understand what I mean if I try to explain anything anyway; hope that their TRUTH is not too dangerous. If it it, beat down the parents, figuritively (or maybe even literally).

[EricK]

kenrexford, on Dec 28 2007, 11:59 PM, said:

EricK, on Dec 28 2007, 06:17 PM, said:

Nice rhetoric. But your examples are not actually examples of learning "about the pros and cons of all positions"

Why not?

How do you learn the great teachings of the white supremacists unless you sit down and hear from them directly, for example?

Listening to the white supremacists is bound to give them a biased view on the topic. It's not teaching the children the pros and cons because the white supremacists will not tell them anything about the cons (and will probably lie about the pros as well).

There's nothing wrong with teaching children that there are people who have these views, and these are the reasons they have these views, and all the scientific data suggests that they are wrong.

[kenberg]

There are things that a parent will insist that a child do, and their are matters of belief. What they must do, on at least some issues, is apt to be non-negotiable. Beliefs are a different sort of thing, and develop over time. I find it hard to see exactly how I could force someone to believe something if they do not believe it. I may well be able to force them to say they believe it, but that's different.

I guess you can try to keep them from hearing about some ideas but that only works for a while. My grandson was never given a toy gun. He learned at a pretty early age how to pretend he has one.

I think, as others have noted, and seems obvious to me, that parents need to live their values. My father was not an educated man (well, he finished eighth grade) and he didn't talk much about what I should believe. I also never saw him treat another man differently because of his race or religion ("sexual orientation" meant finding the way to your date's house back then, so that issue didn't arise). That was instruction enough.

[helene_t]

Make sure your kids receive all kinds of mutually contradicting brainwashing from parents, grand-parents, siblings, peers, teachers, mass media, chatrooms etc. With some luck they will realize that it can't all be true and that the default assumption must be that all of it is BS.

[kenberg]

sceptic, on Dec 29 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 29 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

Make sure your kids receive all kinds of mutually contradicting brainwashing from parents, grand-parents, siblings, peers, teachers, mass media, chatrooms etc. With some luck they will realize that it can't all be true and that the default assumption must be that all of it is BS.

u still have not answered the question

WHAT age should kids be taught this type of crap

I'm trying to imagine the scene: No No NO You cannot go play ball with Sam. It's time for your lesson on this religious crap. Today's lesson will be on how some morons believe in the Virgin Birth. What's a virgin, you ask? Oh well, you are too young to discuss that. But the Virgin Birth is part of religion and I want to make sure you learn this crap. So you can see how stupid it is. I want you to grow up wise.


Me, I'd say let the kid go play ball.


Ruth Marcus writes a column for the Washington Post, usually about politics, sometimes about personal matters. Apparently her two daughters, ages 10 and 12, informed her that the younger Spears girl (star of some tween show and regarded as the "good" Spears girl) is pregnant. In the discussion that followed one of the girls asked Ms. Marcus when it was that she first had sex. This, it seems, might be a tricky question to deal with (my view is that it doesn't need to be answered). Religious issues I never found tough to handle with my kids. My younger, age 40, is rather religious, my older, age 46, sees things more as I do. They are both fully capable of choosing these things for themselves. That pleases me.

Somehow this seems like one of those theoretical problems. Is it really an issue with you?

[mike777]

sceptic, on Dec 29 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 29 2007, 09:54 PM, said:

Make sure your kids receive all kinds of mutually contradicting brainwashing from parents, grand-parents, siblings, peers, teachers, mass media, chatrooms etc. With some luck they will realize that it can't all be true and that the default assumption must be that all of it is BS.

u still have not answered the question

WHAT age should kids be taught this type of crap

Many start with prayer in the womb but I suppose you could start before that.

[barmar]

EricK, on Dec 29 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with teaching children that there are people who have these views, and these are the reasons they have these views, and all the scientific data suggests that they are wrong.

Isn't that the "brainwashing" that was suggested should be avoided.

Ken wasn't suggesting that you ONLY subject them to the white supremacists' views. The proposal was that kids should be exposed to all views equally, and allowed to figure things out for themselves. So you should take them to meetings of the Klan, ACLU, and NAACP. Ken's point is that by just teaching the children, rather than exposing them first-hand, everything is going to be filtered through the parents' views.

I'm not actually saying that we should take his suggestions seriously. He was using extremes to point out the fallacy in the original premise. It's ridiculous to think that parents will not try to teach their kids their own views on what's right and wrong -- not only is it normal, it's considered their DUTY. After all, when kids turn out bad, don't we usually blame the parents for not raising them properly (although in recent years it has become fashionable to blame TV, movies, rap music, etc.)?

The use of "brainwashing" in the thread title suggests the OP's own biases. He was specifically referring to religion, I think. While I agree that many of the problems in the world are because religion is instilled in children at an early age, resulting in rampant religious hatred between sects, I don't think there's a simple solution. Because of the way the parents were raised, they believe that religion is an important part of "right and wrong" (generally, our religion is right, everyone else's is wrong). If you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in your God is going to Hell, wouldn't it be totally irresponsible to allow your children to leave the faith?

So we're pretty much stuck in this cycle. The only way to break it is to somehow convince lots of religious people that they're living in a fantasy world. As long as they truly believe, they are clearly obligated to indoctrinate their children -- from their perspective it would be child abuse not to teach them the correct religion.

[Al_U_Card]

Kids are sponges. It is up to us to ensure that what they sop up does neither overfill their capacity nor leave them dried up on the shelf. As they grow, so does their sponge aspect, so .... teach your children .... you are their live-in examples and they will surely follow for the sponge contains only what it absorbs.

[EricK]

barmar, on Dec 30 2007, 03:42 AM, said:

EricK, on Dec 29 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with teaching children that there are people who have these views, and these are the reasons they have these views, and all the scientific data suggests that they are wrong.

Isn't that the "brainwashing" that was suggested should be avoided.

Therre's a difference between religion or politics - where despite what people may say their views are not primarily determined by the evidence, and science where the consensus is determined by the evidence.

Teaching kids just one religious or one political view as if it were the correct one might be called "brainwashing", but teaching them the current scientific consensus (and why it is the consensus) can hardly be considered the same thing. If you use the same word for both then the language becomes next to useless.

[beatrix45]

macaw, on Dec 28 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

The only reason to have children is to brain wash them.  Can't imagine why you'd want to have them otherwise

Maintenance of racial purity is too important to be left to outsiders.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 29 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

Kids are sponges. It is up to us to ensure that what they sop up does neither overfill their capacity nor leave them dried up on the shelf. As they grow, so does their sponge aspect, so .... teach your children .... you are their live-in examples and they will surely follow for the sponge contains only what it absorbs.

I think that this seriously underestimates the capacity of young people.

I see the activities of adolescence as, if the kids survive, a verification process. Adults tell young people all sorts of stuff. Some of it they believe themselves, other parts they don't really believe but they feel they are supposed to say it, and during adolescence kids experiment around a bit to see what's what.

Recently I read "The Book Thief". I recommend it. The central character is a young girl growing up in Nazi Germany. A line that struck me: "An eleven year old girl is many things but she is not stupid." Exactly.

[kenrexford]

I find this humorous, EricK.

Don't brainwash your children to your own views.

To accomplish that, don't take them to listen to people who will lie to them and not admit that their views are wrong.

Instead, teach them about how the other group is wrong.

Use your own viewpoints as to what is true because your group has said that their truth is THE truth, as a concensus opinion of your group.

Cite your method of analysis as proof that your world view is internally consistent.

Really amazing.

I happen to agree with your conclusions, for the most part, as to what is TRUTH, but I find your analysis of "brainwashing or not brainwashing" humorous.

[pclayton]

barmar, on Dec 28 2007, 02:15 PM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 28 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

Teach by example. They'll figure out the rest on their own.

But if your "example" is that you go to Mass every Sunday or Synagogue every Saturday, and you drag them along, doesn't that influence them? They're naturally going to be more comfortable with the church they have more experience with. And the sermons they've listened to are the belief system they'll probably adopt.

I'm not a religious person, but I was raised Jewish. So I have even less belief that Jesus was the Son of God than that there's a God at all. If forced to choose between Israel and Palestine, I'm biased towards Israel due to the cultural connection. When I went to Hebrew School, they taught us that Israel won the Six Day War fair and square, and they have a right to the territories they annexed (Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank), and being the gullible child I was I bought into this.

It's hard to shake beliefs like this that are embedded when one is young. It probably helped that my father was agnostic, despite having been raised in a pretty religious home. Although I found religious stories and practices fascinating, I was always more interested in science, and rationalism has allowed me to overcome the religious brainwashing. But that doesn't mean that I have to reject my heritage -- it's still the case that my "people" have been persecuted in many eras, and we mustn't forget things like the Holocaust.

Its quite simple really. We go to church on Sundays (try to anyway, right now Kimi is sleeping and I probably won't rouse her for about another 3 hours) and expect that the children will go with us. For some reason, they don't give us one ounce of grief about attending. We don't 'drag' them anywhere. When I was a teenager, I hated to going to Mass. I thought it was a waste of time and robbed me of sleep that I needed after tipping cows on Saturday nights in Northern Montana.

I fully expect them to make their own choice. As a matter of fact, this is a frequent topic. If they choose to belong to another faith, or become Atheist, I really don't care. Frankly I'd be disappointed if they didn't make a conscious choice for themselves.

You make two statements that reaffirm that I'm doing the right thing:

Quote

And the sermons they've listened to are the belief system they'll probably adopt.

Quote

I'm not a religious person, but I was raised Jewish.

We were all kids once. Somehow we can escape the grip of our parents influence and think for ourselves.

[kenberg]

I imagine this, like many things, could go on forever. Some parents probably cannot imagine much worse happening than that there kids could turn away from the church. You apparently would regard it as a very bad thing if your kids grew up religious. My concerns have always followed different lines. Some years back, when my older daughter was a young adult, a woman came up to me in a shopping mall and introduced herself as being a friend of my older daughter's some years back.

Oh, yes, I remember you, what are you doing now?
I'm a go-go dancer. This is my friend Jim. He's a male stripper. [I'm not making this up. His handshake was clammy, by the way.]

There are worse things than how my daughters come to see religion. I'm fine with one of them being religious and the other not. I'm glad they keep their clothes on in public.

My best wishes to all of you with young children. May you have good luck or God's blessing, whichever way you think of it. Not everything is within our control.

[jdonn]

Quote

You apparently would regard it as a very bad thing if your kids grew up religious

It would arguably be a bad thing if they grew up religious because one thing is all they knew and they were never exposed to any other choices. It would not (necessarily?) be a bad thing if they grew up religious because they made an informed decision.