What is the point of Higher Education?

[Immanuel Can]

Lefties don't "denigrate teaching history in schools".

Around here, they do. They advocate less and less of it all the time, and only revisionist nonsense they've come up with themselves. They hate history, because it exposes their own history.

Lefties are generally much in favour of history as an academic discipline especially when it is associated with anththropology, geography, and archaeology.

More like the disciplineless "disciplines," like Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Educational Studies...and just about half of the new Humanities pseudo-studies, none of which have an actual specific methodology of their own, but instead try to pirate the various methods of other disciplines and turn them to propagadistic uses. They insist that disciplined subjects, subjects that use logic, data, evidence, science, and so on are just "white privilege" or "male privilege" subjects, and thus should be disregarded. Likewise history: so long as they can play fast-and-loose with the historical facts that are allowed, they'll refer to it selectively; but the minute it crosses them, they'll accuse it of being "too male" or "too white" "being written by the winners" or "supporting colonialism," and deny its value altogether.

As for reportage, higher secondary and tertiary education aims to give students the mental tools to sort the lies from the truths.

That's hilarious. No, that's not what it does. It used to claim to do that. Now it just indoctrinates with "critical consciousness" (their term) which is actually the opposite of critical thinking, though they want you to think it's the same. "Critical consciousness" is nothing but Marxist analysis. Your academic prowess is now measured by your ability to repeat, in various forms, the errant doctrines of a dead, upper-middle-class white male.

[Immanuel Can]

Speaking as a person who has studied historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects at the highest level I find just about everything you say as laughable.

Nope, not buying it.

If you had studied anything worthwhile "at the highest level," you'd at least have SOME critical faculties. All you've got is knee-jerk cynicism and insults. Anybody can see that.

I call fake on that.

[Sculptor]

Really? well then try this, my work in education.
https://archive.org/search.php?query=jo ... publicdate

Yes. I see no contribution here. Mostly just a vanity project, with little or no relevance.
Please show your "work in education", please.
You do not seem to know the meaning of the word.

And especiallay.
https://archive.org/details/AUniversalLanguage

A mind, when functional, is the most powerful life support system possible, so tell me genius, how is it that people do not know what they are, why they are nor even how to do their biologically defined job as the major life support system of their own body?

You implied you had contributed to education. Where is that?
Where are your students and what have they done with this?

Thank you for validating just what you are, another who, when pointed to overwheling evidence, are too stupid to examine and learn. What does such a person, who refuses to learn anything, have to say about education? Absolutely nothing.

SO you are not going to answer the questions!

[Sculptor]

Speaking as a person who has studied historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects at the highest level I find just about everything you say as laughable.

Nope, not buying it.

If you had studied anything worthwhile "at the highest level," you'd at least have SOME critical faculties. All you've got is knee-jerk cynicism and insults. Anybody can see that.

I call fake on that.

You are ignorant, so little you say has any worth.

[Sculptor]

Only accidentally, not reliably. Sometimes things like "experience" or "perspective" say the same as "science" or "logic," but most of the time, they don't. They mislead us.

And the the Leftists know it, too. That's why they denigrate things like reason, science and logic, and appeal to this emotive things instead. They know their agenda can be advanced only by fooling people into thinking with their feelings, not with their heads.

Examples can be multiplied.

Why do you think they don't want us to know the history of Marxism, and denigrate teaching history in schools?

Speaking as a person who has studied historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects at the highest level I find just about everything you say as laughable. What a strange little world you have constructed for yourself.
Maybe you should drop the chip off your shoulder and actually get some education - you might learn something - "might" being to operative word.

Education helps the educated man to have the insight to know when he has a chip on his shoulder, and also when he succumbs to confirmation bias. This is one of the uses of reason. Reason confers insight into own motivations.Your response was to denigrate the person whose opinion you disagree with: this is a dishonest ploy and is not how your God would wish you to seek His truth.

SO all of a sudden you know the mind of my "god" ? And you expect me to take you seriously?

[Immanuel Can]

Speaking as a person who has studied historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects at the highest level I find just about everything you say as laughable.

Nope, not buying it.

If you had studied anything worthwhile "at the highest level," you'd at least have SOME critical faculties. All you've got is knee-jerk cynicism and insults. Anybody can see that.

I call fake on that.

You are ignorant, so little you say has any worth.

[uwot]

... in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

..."disciplines," like Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Educational Studies...and just about half of the new Humanities pseudo-studies, none of which have an actual specific methodology of their own, but instead try to pirate the various methods of other disciplines and turn them to propagadistic uses.

You mean like intelligent design?

[Atla]

When I was in grade school, my teachers and the principle staff was certain that I was mentally retarded

They probably thought you had a developmental disability.
They were probably right tbh.

They cannot teach an Eskimo how to make ice.

Do the Eskimo's often need to make ice? I thought they had plenty lying around already.

I suspect the kid is on a different level. It takes unparalleled genius to (re)invent things like the unit, numbers, binary thinking. He's so smart he doesn't even need his right hemisphere.

[FlashDangerpants]

When I was in grade school, my teachers and the principle staff was certain that I was mentally retarded

They probably thought you had a developmental disability.
They were probably right tbh.

They cannot teach an Eskimo how to make ice.

Do the Eskimo's often need to make ice? I thought they had plenty lying around already.

I suspect the kid is on a different level. It takes unparalleled genius to (re)invent things like the unit, numbers, binary thinking. He's so smart he doesn't even need his right hemisphere.

Is it possible that the whole account is just a joke with the punchline being that it just says "recursion" over and over again?

[Atla]

They probably thought you had a developmental disability.
They were probably right tbh.


Do the Eskimo's often need to make ice? I thought they had plenty lying around already.

I suspect the kid is on a different level. It takes unparalleled genius to (re)invent things like the unit, numbers, binary thinking. He's so smart he doesn't even need his right hemisphere.

Is it possible that the whole account is just a joke with the punchline being that it just says "recursion" over and over again?

Don't think so, his archive.org page seems to be filled with his works. I guess it's possible that some people can only use binary thinking and its recursion, which is what the left hemisphere does imo (what come to mind are some autists, some people with right hemisphere damage, maybe even some extreme INTP types?).

Looks like the guy went on to reinterpret the entire world history, using his kind of thinking. But most stuff throughout history was written by people using both hemispheres.

But that's just my first guess, we have a new psychological mistery on our hands.

[Belinda]

Speaking as a person who has studied historical, archaeological and anthropological subjects at the highest level I find just about everything you say as laughable. What a strange little world you have constructed for yourself.
Maybe you should drop the chip off your shoulder and actually get some education - you might learn something - "might" being to operative word.

Education helps the educated man to have the insight to know when he has a chip on his shoulder, and also when he succumbs to confirmation bias. This is one of the uses of reason. Reason confers insight into own motivations.Your response was to denigrate the person whose opinion you disagree with: this is a dishonest ploy and is not how your God would wish you to seek His truth.

SO all of a sudden you know the mind of my "god" ? And you expect me to take you seriously?

I was replying to Immanuel Can. Sorry.

[Belinda]

Lefties don't "denigrate teaching history in schools".

Around here, they do. They advocate less and less of it all the time, and only revisionist nonsense they've come up with themselves. They hate history, because it exposes their own history.

Lefties are generally much in favour of history as an academic discipline especially when it is associated with anththropology, geography, and archaeology.

More like the disciplineless "disciplines," like Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Educational Studies...and just about half of the new Humanities pseudo-studies, none of which have an actual specific methodology of their own, but instead try to pirate the various methods of other disciplines and turn them to propagadistic uses. They insist that disciplined subjects, subjects that use logic, data, evidence, science, and so on are just "white privilege" or "male privilege" subjects, and thus should be disregarded. Likewise history: so long as they can play fast-and-loose with the historical facts that are allowed, they'll refer to it selectively; but the minute it crosses them, they'll accuse it of being "too male" or "too white" "being written by the winners" or "supporting colonialism," and deny its value altogether.

As for reportage, higher secondary and tertiary education aims to give students the mental tools to sort the lies from the truths.

That's hilarious. No, that's not what it does. It used to claim to do that. Now it just indoctrinates with "critical consciousness" (their term) which is actually the opposite of critical thinking, though they want you to think it's the same. "Critical consciousness" is nothing but Marxist analysis. Your academic prowess is now measured by your ability to repeat, in various forms, the errant doctrines of a dead, upper-middle-class white male.

Where is "around here" ? Your sample is not large enough .

Humanities disciplines are usually history-based. History as an academic discipline has a large component of scientific rigour. History also has an interpretation component which seems to be part of what you object to. Students of history therefore read both right wing (optimistic) interpretations, and left wing (pessimistic) interpretations so they get a balanced point of view.

Your own point of view seems to be that all historians are engaged in trying to influence people. This was once the case, when history was subservient to tribal myths and magical thinking but the individuals who were tasked with telling the past of their people were not historians in the modern sense, not only because the medium was oral but also because heroic myths were so important to peoples' survival. You might bear that in mind when you read The Bible.


Social sciences are rigorous and psychology in particular makes much use of statistical analysis. No anthropologist is unaware of the limitations of the craft during fieldwork and there are strategies such as participant observation for making the findings more objective. You might like to get yourself better informed instead of believing your conspiracy theory. You make it so obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

Your academic prowess is now measured by your ability to repeat, in various forms, the errant doctrines of a dead, upper-middle-class white male.

(IC)

You are a fine one to talk about others being gullible!

[Immanuel Can]

Lefties don't "denigrate teaching history in schools".

Around here, they do. They advocate less and less of it all the time, and only revisionist nonsense they've come up with themselves. They hate history, because it exposes their own history.

Lefties are generally much in favour of history as an academic discipline especially when it is associated with anththropology, geography, and archaeology.

More like the disciplineless "disciplines," like Queer Studies, Women's Studies, Educational Studies...and just about half of the new Humanities pseudo-studies, none of which have an actual specific methodology of their own, but instead try to pirate the various methods of other disciplines and turn them to propagadistic uses. They insist that disciplined subjects, subjects that use logic, data, evidence, science, and so on are just "white privilege" or "male privilege" subjects, and thus should be disregarded. Likewise history: so long as they can play fast-and-loose with the historical facts that are allowed, they'll refer to it selectively; but the minute it crosses them, they'll accuse it of being "too male" or "too white" "being written by the winners" or "supporting colonialism," and deny its value altogether.

As for reportage, higher secondary and tertiary education aims to give students the mental tools to sort the lies from the truths.

That's hilarious. No, that's not what it does. It used to claim to do that. Now it just indoctrinates with "critical consciousness" (their term) which is actually the opposite of critical thinking, though they want you to think it's the same. "Critical consciousness" is nothing but Marxist analysis. Your academic prowess is now measured by your ability to repeat, in various forms, the errant doctrines of a dead, upper-middle-class white male.

Where is "around here" ? Your sample is not large enough .

You don't know that. You don't know where "here" is, or how large.

Humanities disciplines are usually history-based.

That's an odd claim...and not true, of course.

History as an academic discipline has a large component of scientific rigour.

It used to have. Now, it does not. It's been taken over by the Woking Dead. They propose a "new historiography," in which truth doesn't matter. The 1619 Project is a fine example of that.

Your own point of view seems to be that all historians are engaged in trying to influence people.

I never said that. As with all disciplines, there are good and bad, ethical and unethical proponents.

Social sciences are rigorous and psychology in particular makes much use of statistical analysis.

Again, it used to...but now, does not.

Instead, it, like so many other professions, bows to the dictates of a politically-correct ethos in which no truth matters. That's why they're punished by law, in many places, for failing to provide "affirming therapy" to the mentally ill. It has nothing to do with truth, data, science or facts; it's all about political correctness now.

No anthropologist is unaware of the limitations of the craft during fieldwork and there are strategies such as participant observation for making the findings more objective.

Anthropology, even at its best, is extremely unscientific and speculative. It's always been that way. It's a very marginal discipline.

In terms of "hardness" of science, like logic, factuality, data, and evidence, it goes roughly like this: the "hard sciences" are first physics, then chemistry, then biology; then maybe history, psychology, sociology...on the other extreme end used to be anthropology. It's never been a true "hard science." It's always been a bit shady.

Nowadays, it's completely shady. It's deeply infected with neo-Marxist nonsense, and almost nothing that doesn't play that tune gets tenure, publication, lectures, and other academic privileges. Just try to be a conservative thinker in the "soft sciences" today! Good luck if you want any opportunities at all.

And I wasn't talking about you personally. I was just sharing how the academy operates these days. Especially in the Humanities and Education, it's basically a propaganda machine and little more.

[Sculptor]

Education helps the educated man to have the insight to know when he has a chip on his shoulder, and also when he succumbs to confirmation bias. This is one of the uses of reason. Reason confers insight into own motivations.Your response was to denigrate the person whose opinion you disagree with: this is a dishonest ploy and is not how your God would wish you to seek His truth.

SO all of a sudden you know the mind of my "god" ? And you expect me to take you seriously?

I was replying to Immanuel Can. Sorry.

Okay.
NP

[Sculptor]

Immanuel Can uses the term "Leftie" like old time Southern Baptists used the word "N1GGER".