7 ms·

Yeah, that's the one. Fake "controversy" playing on ignorance.

NicolasGorden 6y ago
I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence. The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along. It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it. It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony. Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM
- karatestomp 6y ago
  I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for. That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards. The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied. You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      > Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. The original premise does not call for any such thing, though. The position is uncomfortable. It's far from indefensible. One can even adopt a position well outside what most would consider "authoritarian" and not render it indefensible—and which position the student is able to adopt, or feels they must adopt, to defend it, may be instructive. What else they do with the prompt, which is pretty open, is also valuable signal. Express any regrets? Shift blame? Cite history? Take responsibility? Make promises? Resign? Why does the student seem to have chosen to do these things? Do they do them effectively? This on top of having some basic ability to understand and articulate[1], if not agree with, any of the many common or uncommon positions that allow that state violence can be morally justifiable to maintain order. > You assume much. Yes. [1 EDIT] Understand and articulate and express to a broad and diverse audience which includes many of the very people who were upset in the first place, that is! Simply quoting their preferred political philosopher won't do. The prompt in fact probably asks so much of the student that there's almost no hope they'll do a great job, but then, that's not the point—how much of the subtlety of the task to they even notice, and so attempt to take on? How effective is the attempt? It's a damn good prompt, really.
- op03 6y ago
  People have been making the point long before Chomsky. Education for the masses is about training people to fit into domination based hierarchies[1]. In the past such systems produced better outcomes. As info explodes and people learn there are other structures besides Hierarchies that can produce outcomes (such as Networks) the Hierarchies start teetering. And training for obedience becomes less important. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc
- kbenson 6y ago
  Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life. If the student does support the action, accurately anticipating the objections of the other side and explaining why the action is justified in a way meant to mollify them is also useful. Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way. Truthfully, I'm much more worried about what I see as the common trend of only viewing and reacting to the surface level of any event or topic, and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose. That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common. That seems like one of those things that has always been extremely common, but is difficult to see when reading history rather than news. People always justify their own thoughts and goals over trying to understand another point of view.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Yes, but I think the differences in the ability to disseminate criticism to a large audience over time have have changed how this affects society. That is, people have always done this, and probably always done it about the same amount, but haven't always had it visible to hundreds, thousands or millions of others as easily as it is now. That's not really what I said before, but I think better encapsulates what I mean (or, at least, what I mean now that you've forced me to think about it a bit deeper ;)
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
- nradov 6y ago
  Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want? https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/ https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/

I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence. The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along. It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it. It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony. Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM

karatestomp 6y ago
I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for. That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards. The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied. You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    > Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments. The original premise does not call for any such thing, though. The position is uncomfortable. It's far from indefensible. One can even adopt a position well outside what most would consider "authoritarian" and not render it indefensible—and which position the student is able to adopt, or feels they must adopt, to defend it, may be instructive. What else they do with the prompt, which is pretty open, is also valuable signal. Express any regrets? Shift blame? Cite history? Take responsibility? Make promises? Resign? Why does the student seem to have chosen to do these things? Do they do them effectively? This on top of having some basic ability to understand and articulate[1], if not agree with, any of the many common or uncommon positions that allow that state violence can be morally justifiable to maintain order. > You assume much. Yes. [1 EDIT] Understand and articulate and express to a broad and diverse audience which includes many of the very people who were upset in the first place, that is! Simply quoting their preferred political philosopher won't do. The prompt in fact probably asks so much of the student that there's almost no hope they'll do a great job, but then, that's not the point—how much of the subtlety of the task to they even notice, and so attempt to take on? How effective is the attempt? It's a damn good prompt, really.
op03 6y ago
People have been making the point long before Chomsky. Education for the masses is about training people to fit into domination based hierarchies[1]. In the past such systems produced better outcomes. As info explodes and people learn there are other structures besides Hierarchies that can produce outcomes (such as Networks) the Hierarchies start teetering. And training for obedience becomes less important. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc
kbenson 6y ago
Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life. If the student does support the action, accurately anticipating the objections of the other side and explaining why the action is justified in a way meant to mollify them is also useful. Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way. Truthfully, I'm much more worried about what I see as the common trend of only viewing and reacting to the surface level of any event or topic, and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose. That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common. That seems like one of those things that has always been extremely common, but is difficult to see when reading history rather than news. People always justify their own thoughts and goals over trying to understand another point of view.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Yes, but I think the differences in the ability to disseminate criticism to a large audience over time have have changed how this affects society. That is, people have always done this, and probably always done it about the same amount, but haven't always had it visible to hundreds, thousands or millions of others as easily as it is now. That's not really what I said before, but I think better encapsulates what I mean (or, at least, what I mean now that you've forced me to think about it a bit deeper ;)
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
nradov 6y ago
Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want? https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/ https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/