Unvarnished Truth #3: Filters and preconceptions

[E.O.T.]

I'LL BE

          the candlestick maker. with options

[Triple Zero]

This thread sounds a lot like my philosophy Ethics course.

Except this thread is not about ethics, but about a more broader subject. The formula, however, is similar:

Every class the teacher began to explain a "solution" (a particular school of ethics, utilitarianism, egoism, deism, virtue ethics etc etc). The first 20-30 minutes were about explaining the basic ideas of this school of ethics, followed by an hour of shooting holes at it, debunking it and basically showing in what sort of ways it would not work and lead to horrible situations.

The end result, or at least, what I took home from it (apart from becoming more knowledgeable about the general field, of course), is that there apparently is no perfect solution that works in all cases. And that, IMVPO, utilitarianism seems fairest, on the whole.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc).  One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.

If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.

What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein

If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.

[hooplala]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

This is good!!  

I mean really good, as in should be a basis to build a curriculum on starting in say kindergarten!!

I am looking forward to more....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc).  One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.

If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.

What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein

If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.

Sorry, I got paged and had to run... but now I'm back for 5 mins.

My point of the quote is 'education'. The more we monkeys learn, the more adaptable we become. We begin to see more possible solutions to problems.

When Joe only knows about growing carrots, then he'll be fine, until the carrot blight hits... then Bob and Sam who grow potatoes and corn will be munching away... and Joe will starve (unless Bob and Sam are altruistic). I don't think its incidental that the feudal system in Europe began to fall apart as the effects of the Renaissance began to hit the serfs. Now they no longer knew only one thing (the same thing their father, grandfater, great-grandfater did), but they gained new and more knowledge.

There have been examples in history where specialization, or thinking 'I can do one thing, and barter for everything else' bit the monkeys in the ass. Specifically, France's tendency to grow grain... and grow only grain. They could barter the grain, the bread, etc... but when the weather changed, they nearly starved because they did not adapt, they had no knowledge beyond their grain and they refused to see anything else (more of those filters, Doc!).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm gonna run with this a bit more...

Education not only helps our farmers in the example, but it addresses the greater concern raised in Dok's original post. Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education. We don't see options that require additional education. The 'smart' people at one time firmly believed that rats were generated in piles of rags (or in the mud from the Nile river banks) and that meat generated maggots. As knowledge was shared and people became more educated, the idea of abiogenesis was abandoned (well, at least pushed back to primordial ooze).

If a person only groks one political system, then all of their solutions will be predicated on the constraints of that single system. If they become educated in the theories behind many political systems, then they have more options to look at. They may have fewer preconceptions (or at least a less restrictive filter).

[LMNO]

Filters and preconceptions seem to be more limited and narrow among those who have a more limited and narrow scope of education.

I strongly disagree.  The size and shape of filters and preconceptions are in no way connected to the amount or type of education one has.

An educated person may know more "things", but that has nothing to do with any sort of bias or self-limiting thought process.

In You Are Being Lied To, there is an essay (Chomsky, I think) which points out that while almost all top journalists and editors claim they are not coerced and can write and print what they want to, they also can't get to those top positions unless their opinions naturally line up with the accepted positions.  Someone with a different bias would probably not even be able to get their foot in the door.

There are countless cases of educated men with massive bias and preconception.  To say that education limits bias is, in fact, an elitist bias in itself.

[Requia ☣]

Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner.  You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, let's assume that three people have primitive resources (wood for cooking, hand tools for agriculture, etc).  One has grown corn, one has grown carrots, and the other has raised some chicken or beef.

If everyone eats only what they've produced, they'll die of malnutrition, eventually.

What is the most efficient solution, and why will that solution fail on a large scale?

Perhaps not directly germane to your point, but I think that the following quote is apt here:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein

If the monkeys can only do one thing, they must become entirely socialized. If the monkey is adaptable, then he can find a way to scale a good idea. Maybe.

Heinlein is incorrect (as usual).  As technology has progressed, specialization has become a requirement, at least to some degree.  The time required, for example, to become a surgeon rules out the garnering of the skills required to do any substantial work on a modern automobile.

And that was the point of the exercise, not an implication that a farmer can only grow one crop.  I can also see that I apparently didn't state my case clearly enough in the OP, because the first question I asked had a stock Heinlein response plastered over it, which I probably should have expected.

[Doktor Howl]

Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner.  You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.

I'd like to see some support for that assertion.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm gonna run with this a bit more...

Education not only helps our farmers in the example,

Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

[Requia ☣]

Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner.  You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.

I'd like to see some support for that assertion.

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
    domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
    effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
    Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
     American Educator, 31, 8–19.

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, what Rat said... if someone could only do one thing, well, yes they are sunk... but those who were adaptable would learn to do more.

I think the analogy was a little forced, but I see your point Dok.

I wonder.

I was talking about economy (the root of politics), with an analogy, not how to help farmers raise more than one crop, or the fact that humans aren't bugs, or education or any of that shit.

This is precisely what I was talking about.  The question was predicated on an example that was obviously forced.  Instead of dealing with the actual question, the filters slammed down and it became an essay on Robert Heinlien and how to train farmers, because that's just another chance to pimp out one particular brand of failed idealism.

[Doktor Howl]

Education can't remove bias, except in a very limited manner.  You can teach critical thinking skills in a narrow field, but the second the student encounters a new set of problems he or she will fall back on to old habits.

I'd like to see some support for that assertion.

Halpern, D.F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across
    domains. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
Lehman, D.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the
    effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental
    Psychology, 26, 952–960.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?
     American Educator, 31, 8–19.

Okay, thanks.  Any of that online?