Women and the School System

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)

102

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

That’s quite the claim.[/quote]

Not really, that is a statistical fact.

103

Some of this discussion is bullshit.

Everyone is free to look up what effects single motherhood (baby mammahood?) has on children.

There is no question that this is on of the worst risks you can burden a child with, male or female.

Ohhhhh, he made it sound unevitable?

Well then, we can obviously ignore the children how were fucked from the word go and we can ignore that there is a whole incentiove system in place that produces as many of them as the market will bear.

Cause winning semantic points on the interwebz.

That is what counts.

104

[quote]orion wrote:
Some of this discussion is bullshit.

Everyone is free to look up what effects single motherhood (baby mammahood?) has on children.

There is no question that this is on of the worst risks you can burden a child with, male or female.

Ohhhhh, he made it sound unevitable?

Well then, we can obviously ignore the children how were fucked from the word go and we can ignore that there is a whole incentiove system in place that produces as many of them as the market will bear.

Cause winning semantic points on the interwebz.

That is what counts. [/quote]

No one would have had an issue if he hadn’t put it in such an obviously false manner. Basically everyone has acknowledged that single parent isn’t ideal. It isn’t a death sentence though that has 100% certainty so acting like it does deserves to get called out. If he had simply refrained from the hyperbole no one would have called him out. Losers exist from two parent households, single dad households, single mom households, etc. You’re not screwed by being born into any of these situations though.

Not a single person has argued that significant risks don’t take place from single parenthood nor that we have a system that places an incentive on having children. It’s often uneducated fuckups who are having the most kids and no one would deny that isn’t a serious issue going forward.

105

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Single moms raise criminals and/or psychologically castrated men.[/quote]

That’s quite the claim.[/quote]

Not really, that is a statistical fact. [/quote]

Only if the statistic is 100 percent. You are a smart guy. And this isn’t a semantic point. It’s about lazy thinking.

Or is it true that “blacks are murderers?”

106

[quote]orion wrote:
Some of this discussion is bullshit.

Everyone is free to look up what effects single motherhood (baby mammahood?) has on children.

There is no question that this is on of the worst risks you can burden a child with, male or female.

Ohhhhh, he made it sound unevitable?

Well then, we can obviously ignore the children how were fucked from the word go and we can ignore that there is a whole incentiove system in place that produces as many of them as the market will bear.

Cause winning semantic points on the interwebz.

That is what counts. [/quote]

I’m all for talking about it. And yes, as I’ve already acknowledged, broken homes pose dangers to kids and to society.

Bu that isn’t what he said, is it?

By the way, my father was raised by a single mother. He’s a veteran with a PhD, a happy family, a boat, and a golden retriever. I am sure that he would love to hear from you and Raj about how it is a statistical fact that he is a criminal and/or psychologically castrated.

107

Also, let’s get something straight here. Everybody knows that single-mother households are intimately related to criminal delinquency. But if you want to go any further than that, stop hyperventilating and show me that anything close to a majority of kids raised in single-parent homes end up as criminals. In order to justify this “it’s a statistical fact” talk, show me a statistic. Not a statistic for the number of criminals who come from broken homes–a statistic for the number of kids raised in single-parent homes who become criminals.

You’d think, just reading this thread, that number would be somewhere around 75, 80, 90-or-so percent. But it isn’t, is it?

I focus on criminality and not “psychologically castrated,” the other proposition that opened this debate, because the latter is essentially meaningless and immeasurable, so there is no use in even discussing it.

108

From Umberto Eco:

“All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

109

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
From Umberto Eco:

“All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

[/quote]

Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”–

"Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.

A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

110

Can’t resist. One more excerpt, from the same:

[i]In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

“While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”[/i]

111

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not a statistic for the number of criminals who come from broken homes–a statistic for the number of kids raised in single-parent homes who become criminals.
[/quote]

Ding ding ding.

112

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. Having to stop and think about what you read actually forces meditation on the subject that you don’t get with other versions that put scripture in modern language.

Edit: Not trying to derail with religious debate, simply further illustrating the point.

113

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. Having to stop and think about what you read actually forces meditation on the subject that you don’t get with other versions that put scripture in modern language.

Edit: Not trying to derail with religious debate, simply further illustrating the point.[/quote]

Hardest part is how damn time-consuming it is!

114

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. Having to stop and think about what you read actually forces meditation on the subject that you don’t get with other versions that put scripture in modern language.

Edit: Not trying to derail with religious debate, simply further illustrating the point.[/quote]

Hardest part is how damn time-consuming it is![/quote]

Hahaha. This is true! However, all it takes is for me to read the quotes above supplied by zecarlo and smh and I’m all the more ready to put the time in.

I was always called smart in school, but it was only because I read everything I could get my hands on. What was that quote? “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.” Calvin Coolidge.

Work augments and intensifies the benefits and makes you seem more genius than you really are. A select few can reach the soaring stratosphere of Einstein on mental talent alone, and even they have to work at it. However most of us can reach the Himalayas with resolve. We may never be Isaac Newtons, but hey man if work gets me to the level of a Francis Bacon then I’m pretty ok with that.

115

Tradition and history are good enough reasons to read literature from the past be it poetry, prose, fiction, non-fiction, philosophy, history, etc. All of it is connected anyway. The history of Western literature is a part of and reflects the history of Western culture.

To understand the Renaissance you need to be familiar with its art, philosophy, science, politics, and other things that influenced the period which is now a part of history. All of these elements that make up history, that act upon history, are what created our culture and is behind why we are what we are today and how we are today. We didn’t get here by accident. We don’t think the way we do by accident.

By preserving and studying the elements of our past that formed our culture and created our traditions we can keep from straying too far from those values. If we say that there is nothing of value there then we would be saying that we are not better but rather the same or worse than our predecessors since their goal was to improve the human condition. If they failed then we are the product of failure…centuries of failure.

Maybe it’s fashionable, hip or enlightened to not value tradition and history, the things that make up our culture, but when a society has no culture, or tries to be made up of separate cultures, with separate histories, with no common ground, it will cease to be a society and become a collection of self-centered strangers. I once read that Rome fell because the Romans forgot what it meant to be Roman.

117

[quote]groo wrote:

At what point did I claim that Moby Dick was a book solely about a man catching a fish? Man versus Nature is certainly timeless but its expressed in modern works as well.

[/quote]
In case anyone who has read Moby-Dick or is planning on reading it wants to know, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, it wasn’t really about man vs nature. It was more about man vs God.

118

During the Civil War documentary on PBS, which I’m sure most here are familiar with, they would recite actual letters from soldiers. LOL and emoticons did not apply. They actually communicated.

119

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

There is another point here as well that I want to touch on–old lit, while maybe tedious and hard to read, the writing itself teaches in a way that modern literature cannot hope to equal. The very cognitive process of translating “old english I’m not sure of” to “english in today’s words” inside the brain forms the ability to process and think critically and adds to the vocabulary. Vocabulary is a fundamental building block to all human communication and old classic lit uses a variety of words that nobody will likely encounter in day-to-day life. Consequently it teaches or reinforces cognitive abilities–and especially “mental flexibility”-- that are already sorely or almost completely lacking.
[/quote]

I never thought about it this way but it makes perfect sense.[/quote]

I know, it’s an interesting phenomenon. It’s incredibly important, therefore, to be able to translate those processes as many different ways as possible. I was editing my post when you wrote this, but I was going to say that there are entire books on the subject (compendiums of scholarly studies, of course). Vocabulary size is directly proportional to reading comprehension, and as an extension of that critical thought capabilities…even if you never use the words in conversation :). The fact you translated them and their meanings helps build those cognitive cross-bridges.[/quote]

That’s actually how I prefer to study. I like to involve as many senses as I can use to acquire, synthesize, recall, and apply what I was studying. Helps build synapses! (I don’t really know if it does, but I like saying that)[/quote]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. Having to stop and think about what you read actually forces meditation on the subject that you don’t get with other versions that put scripture in modern language.

Edit: Not trying to derail with religious debate, simply further illustrating the point.[/quote]

Hardest part is how damn time-consuming it is![/quote]

True. Right now I’m reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson which of course includes many quotes by him and his contemporaries. While I normally read at a pace that might approach “speed reading” I find I have to slow way down and often re-read these quotes. The flowery language of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s forces me to do so.

It’s kinda fun in a way, like deciphering a code of sorts.[/quote]

Yeah, that’s how my studying is. Usually if I estimate that something should take 2 hours, then it will probably take double that from getting “side-tracked” from having to look up what other aspects that relate to what I’m studying. Helps generate a thorough understanding of the material.

120

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It’s kinda fun in a way, like deciphering a code of sorts.[/quote]

Yep, very much so. Almost like solving an equation when you absorb something written by a genius of a bygone time.