Voting: What is more important

[ZDL]

Partly, yes. It also takes place outside of the home, specifically in school settings. Not everyone has, or can have, stay-at-home parents, so it's almost a given that at least some education will not be at home. eguns-com is dead on, here. Learning as a whole takes place continuously and doesn't just turn off when children aren't under their parent's/parents' roof. Further, not so many parents are as educated in a wide variety of topics as school teachers are; I'm not the best historian out there, so I'd like my kids to have the chance to learn from someone who actually has a scholarly background in that area.



No, a poor public education system is a result of that. Removal of a public education system is to remove the only chance many children have of receiving an education at all. What you're seeing is a result of an extremely top-heavy system where the US government's hands are dipping into things they ought not to be. Cut off or severely limit the Dept. of Education so that the money flow doesn't keep reinforcing bad habits. Get public with the need to reform the way educators are trained and "flood the market" with quality educators. Re-prioritize where and how money is spent in public schools, with the strongest focus being on educators, on physical education, and on school safety. Oh, and maybe enforce lesson plans so that instructors are passing on knowledge, not personal beliefs.

ZDL, you made a point to mention your desire to pass on your beliefs and values to your children. All well and good, but when they're older the great likelihood is that they won't choose any different than that which they were raised with. You might think this is a good thing, but you've effectively eliminated that "choice" you just spoke of. Something to think about.


What's worrying me is that this conversation seems to be moving towards whether or not we should limit people's ability to vote. To this, I've questioned everyone who brings it up with my why they vote the way they do. Quizzed them on what they knew about the person they're supporting. I've encouraged them to look it up if they're not sure, and to dig deeper than a candidate's website and televised speeches. Simply put, I encourage folks not to vote unless they know what they're voting for. You can tell when it's working by the troubled face of a coworker the day after you had that conversation.


-B

I already answered all your concerns directed at me in posts prior.

The part about my effectively limiting my children ability to choose? WHAT??? Think about that again. You teach your children the values you feel are correct and more importantly why. When they are on their own they will choose their own path.

Even by your own logic it still won't work. If you decide to not choose you have still made a choice. I think you need to revisit that statement.

[chadbag]

The reality is that what is occurring within public ed is just a symptom of a much deeper issue in our culture.

I rather think it is the reverse. The deeper issue in our culture comes from the public education kids are subjected to from the time they are toddlers (including preschool etc).

It is self perpetuating too. People grow up in this system and then have kids and behave and react having grown up in the system which just reinforces the whole thing for their kids. Who then have kids.

There are a lot of good books on the NEA, public education, and the stated public goals of those who pushed for public education 150 years ago. Their basic goals were to get us to where we are at today.

Human nature, like water, is to take the path of least resistance. Unfortunately. So when parents are told to send your kids to school, that is the path of least resistance, and they do that. That education, from the time of 3 or 4 years old for many kids, shapes them and their attitudes for the rest of their lives. The minority who have active parents who help guide them are the exceptions (and most likely the majority of M4C members fall into that exception).

There is a reason why school vouchers have great support in the black community (not including politicians).

[BAC]

I already answered all your concerns directed at me in posts prior.

Your solution is to not have kids if you can't be home to educate them. That is a seriously sorry-assed answer. Circumstances change; marriages end, parents die or become disabled, time become harder, etc. What your solution does is let every child fend for themselves. The point of public schooling is exactly so that children of parents who can't, for whatever reason, be intensely involved at every stage of educational growth will still have a chance. What they do with that chance is up to them and their parents.

The part about my effectively limiting my children ability to choose? WHAT??? Think about that again. You teach your children the values you feel are correct and more importantly why. When they are on their own they will choose their own path.

As a psychology student studying exactly this, no, they won't. By and large, the vast majority of childrens' political education occurs in two ways: 1) if the parent is highly involved in indoctrination, it begins and effectively ends in the home, and 2) if the parent is largely uninvolved in indoctrination, family has has some influence and peers/school seems to have at least as large an influence (that is to say, there are more mixed influences). This is not an argument in logic, this is a subject that falls squarely in developmental psychology.


-B

[ZDL]

Your solution is to not have kids if you can't be home to educate them. That is a seriously sorry-assed answer. Circumstances change; marriages end, parents die or become disabled, time become harder, etc. What your solution does is let every child fend for themselves. The point of public schooling is exactly so that children of parents who can't, for whatever reason, be intensely involved at every stage of educational growth will still have a chance. What they do with that chance is up to them and their parents.

You're going to need explain how the 2 are connected for 2 reasons.

1. They're not
2. It would be entertaining.

As a psychology student studying exactly this, no, they won't. By and large, the vast majority of childrens' political education occurs in two ways: 1) if the parent is highly involved in indoctrination, it begins and effectively ends in the home, and 2) if the parent is largely uninvolved in indoctrination, family has has some influence and peers/school seems to have at least as large an influence (that is to say, there are more mixed influences). This is not an argument in logic, this is a subject that falls squarely in developmental psychology.


-B

As a case study this holds water in less cases then you think.

They way I was raised has had little effect on the way I turned out. I have made my own choices which happen to be contrary to most of what my parents believe. And we are both financially, morally, and socially successful. My parents were HEAVILY involved.

You really feel if I tell my daughter to vote _____ that she will when shes older simply because I said so? Come on. I would consider her and me a failure if that was the case.

I was taught to think. Therefore, because I have, I disagree with a LOT of what my parents did raising me, their political beliefs, there religious beliefs, etc. etc.

[BAC]

You're going to need explain how the 2 are connected for 2 reasons.

1. They're not
2. It would be entertaining.

What two things? Your proposed solution vs. real life circumstances?

As a case study this holds water in less cases then you think.

They way I was raised has had little effect on the way I turned out. I have made my own choices which happen to be contrary to most of what my parents believe. And we are both financially, morally, and socially successful. My parents were HEAVILY involved.

You really feel if I tell my daughter to vote _____ that she will when shes older simply because I said so? Come on. I would consider her and me a failure if that was the case.

I was taught to think. Therefore, because I have, I disagree with a LOT of what my parents did raising me, their political beliefs, there religious beliefs, etc. etc.

Case studies hold little water regardless of what I think. Something about a sample size of one.

In addition, your case example of yourself is also incomplete: your political education did not come completely independent of your parents, it did not come independent of other aspects of the relationship between you and your parents, and it did not develop solely within yourself. Would you have grown to believe what you do had you grown in an environment where your parents were less involved, or not present at all? What if they were more into teaching you what to think rather than how?

Telling your daughter to vote for whoever is not indoctrinating. Telling her to vote Republican because the Democrats are always wrong is. Just clarifying.


-B

[rmecapn]

I rather think it is the reverse. The deeper issue in our culture comes from the public education kids are subjected to from the time they are toddlers (including preschool etc).

There is a point to be made there. It sorta becomes a chicken or egg issue.

There is a reason why school vouchers have great support in the black community (not including politicians).

It's too bad the black community doesn't understand or appreciate why they will never be allowed to have vouchers.

[ZDL]

What two things? Your proposed solution vs. real life circumstances?



Case studies hold little water regardless of what I think. Something about a sample size of one.

In addition, your case example of yourself is also incomplete: your political education did not come completely independent of your parents, it did not come independent of other aspects of the relationship between you and your parents, and it did not develop solely within yourself. Would you have grown to believe what you do had you grown in an environment where your parents were less involved, or not present at all? What if they were more into teaching you what to think rather than how?

Telling your daughter to vote for whoever is not indoctrinating. Telling her to vote Republican because the Democrats are always wrong is. Just clarifying.


-B

We aren't discussing the same things.

Anyone telling their children to vote republican because the democrats are always wrong are not only doing a giant disservice to their own children but also are further hindering real social growth in our society. I know parents do this all the time.. doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make the fact that they are wrong and I am right a Utopian theory.

You ask: Would you have grown to believe what you do had you grown in an environment where your parents were less involved, or not present at all? What if they were more into teaching you what to think rather than how?

What answer are you looking for here? Yes and no are both incorrect. The hand that was dealt to me is the hand I played and I'm the outcome of it. How can anyone accurately speculate what would have happened differently given different variables?

Clergy kids turning into rapist and murders.
Ghetto children becoming CEO's.

The children in both of those cases decided to go against what was indoctrinated in them by their surroundings.

Clergy kids becoming respectable members of society.
Ghetto children becoming rapist and murders.

The children in both of those cases decided to accept the indoctrination that was surrounding them.

Both scenarios happen. As a psychology student you should know by now that by nature it is not scientific. You yourself said case studies hold little water.... That is by itself as unscientific as one could possibly get.

Lastly dealing with your first question:

Your solution is to not have kids if you can't be home to educate them. That is a seriously sorry-assed answer. Circumstances change; marriages end, parents die or become disabled, time become harder, etc. What your solution does is let every child fend for themselves. The point of public schooling is exactly so that children of parents who can't, for whatever reason, be intensely involved at every stage of educational growth will still have a chance. What they do with that chance is up to them and their parents.

I'm confident you didn't read what I wrote. Here it is again:

1. If your situation precludes you from being able to effectively raise kids then don't have kids. Having kids is a choice.

2. Both parents working and/or you ignored the first point? Plenty of families make it work. To say you can't is lazy and wrong. (did I say that already?)

My only correction is in red it was a typo.

So your situation was indicating you can have kids. You have kids. GREAT. Shit happens. Then you refer to #2.

My brother in law, as much as I can't stand the guy, has 4 kids on his second wife at age 25, broke as SHIT, working 12 hour night shifts 6 days a weak so his wife can go to college is still raising his kids. And his kids are great. He made a lot of bad decisions in his life but there is no doubt he is a good father. People do it all the time.

To the second part of what you said:

The point of public schooling is exactly so that children of parents who can't, for whatever reason, be intensely involved at every stage of educational growth will still have a chance. What they do with that chance is up to them and their parents.

You really believe that's the point of the public school system? A glorified babysitting machine? You definitely have the right mindset for being a psychologist.

Lastly, I have increasingly become more and more involved in political and/or social discussions here much to my personal dismay. The internet is quite possibly the worst place to debate reason. I am going to reduce the amount I involve myself starting now.

[BAC]

We aren't discussing the same things.

Anyone telling their children to vote republican because the democrats are always wrong are not only doing a giant disservice to their own children but also are further hindering real social growth in our society. I know parents do this all the time.. doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make the fact that they are wrong and I am right a Utopian theory.

Alright, still with you. You do know that teaching "what" not "how" is the most common form of parental education regarding politics, right?

You ask: Would you have grown to believe what you do had you grown in an environment where your parents were less involved, or not present at all? What if they were more into teaching you what to think rather than how?

What answer are you looking for here? Yes and no are both incorrect. The hand that was dealt to me is the hand I played and I'm the outcome of it. How can anyone accurately speculate what would have happened differently given different variables?

You missed the point - I wasn't looking for a specific answer at all, but trying to illustrate what I've seen saying about the influence of parents on their children during the younger years. The early developmental years are the ones that are most impressionable on children, period. As an example, new research indicates attitudes towards alcohol use have already been established by the 4th and 5th grade. Kids pick up a lot more at a lot earlier ages than we ever realized.

Your example about clergy kids and ghetto children seems to imply a sense of randomness that simply isn't present in reality. Yes, some children do go against the indoctrination by their parents, but the vast majority won't. The exceptions prove the rule (this is partly why case studies hold little external validity). Researchers acknowledge that out-of-the-ordinary results do occur, which is perfectly normal. Sometimes they are extreme enough to warrant study ("Why did this turn out so differently?") but usually they're not and are simply a result of statistical error and the diversity of humans. Nothing "unscientific" about that.

Lastly dealing with your first question:
I'm confident you didn't read what I wrote. Here it is again:

1. If your situation precludes you from being able to effectively raise kids then don't have kids. Having kids is a choice.

2. Both parents working and/or you ignored the first point? Plenty of families make it work. To say you can't is lazy and wrong. (did I say that already?)

To respond to both, having children is usually a choice, but extenuating circumstances could change what new parents thought was a viable situation into something that no longer is. Some parents make it work. I don't deny that at all. How many, though? A few? Several? Many? Most? There is no context behind the word "plenty", nor any explanation offered for why it would work for some and not for others. I think it's quite reasonable to say that for every example like yours there's also a counter-example of a mother working a full time and part time job to pay rent and put food on the table who can't be there for their kids. Sucks, but that's reality, and no fault of the mom's.

To the second part of what you said:

You really believe that's the point of the public school system? A glorified babysitting machine? You definitely have the right mindset for being a psychologist.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no understanding of what "mindset" a psychologist is supposed to have. I won't hold it against you; most don't.

Anyway, absolutely not. I never said, nor implied, public schooling is or should be "babysitting machine". But it is designed to be an education substitute for parents who can't educate kids themselves, either because the parents do not have the knowledge to pass to their children, or because the parents do not have the opportunity to teach their children. They are not remotely the same. That parents choose to, or must, yield that education to others is all the more reason they remain involved in their child's development.

Public schooling isn't bad. It's misused, but it isn't bad. Used correctly, it might be one of the only things to produce an educated voting population. How fast the pendulum would swing, then, if most children coming out of public schooling were doing so with a solid grasp of elementary economics, historical precedent, and basic state and federal constitutional law.


-B

[ZDL]

BAC-

Citing the 3rd part of your response: Most of your arguments consists of a "do they?" approach continuing on to a "lets deal" with it mentality. My approach is a "they can". so everything else, including how hard it is, means little.

Citing the 2nd part of your response: We agree there are exceptions to most rules but telling me case studies hold no water is like saying we don't need to actually have proof that our theories are correct lets just inject fecal matter into the blood stream and we will cure cancer. Anything that shows contrary doesn't hold water. I will however lend that any scientific research in the way of charting developmental patterns of children in a particular environment would be less then scientific since no case would have the same variables.

Continuing the 2nd part of your response I ask this. At what age do you hold a human responsible for their actions? Is it less an age and more a maturity or self awareness level? How do you substantiate your answer if in fact it is a maturity or self awareness level being that age would be different for everyone?

Citing the 4th part of your response: My best man in my wedding and good friend is a PHD in your field. We have many-a-discussions concerning issues like this and others. More to the point he deals solely with children. He surmises much of his training has taught him to allow for feelings and beliefs similar to what you have described. He is also very good and separating his PHD from his intellect and observing the conflict. This has been more illuminating for him than me I feel, as he understands the perpetuation of the victim mentality that many psychologist are taught to play into. While their responses and/or treatment regimens might include some positive self empowering exercises the "it's ok it's not your fault" line still runs at the heart of most of his visits if not for comfort then financial motives. So yes, I feel I have a better than average grasp on the mentality of a psychologist due to my personal experience being qualified with an actual PHD.

Lastly, you feel the public school system works and that it was designed to supplement the parent that doesn't know or doesn't have the opportunity to educate their children. I don't believe in the lack of ability to educate your children. If someone falls into that category they would have been better served following my rule number one OR educate themselves so as to be an appropriate parent to their children. This goes back your "do they?" and "let's deal" with it mentality compared to my "they can" so nothing else matters.

What I'm getting is you aren't so concerned with parents being sub par as you are with fixing/helping the children that are subject to their sub par parents. I like to deal with the source of the issue you like to deal with the result of the issue. Am I tracking correctly here?

I'm fine with the idea of a public education system in theory. I however would like to be in the room, as I'm sure most parents would, when people are quantifying what is going to be taught. Since we can't be, parents are left to make a decision. Do the pro's of the public education system outweigh the cons and am I capable and/or willing to fill in the gaps where need be. If so GREAT. If not, there are other options.

You won't be changing my mind anytime soon and I'm sure that goes both ways. I think we have debated this fairly and without insult. Rare on the internet. I enjoy M4C for this reason. Seems to be more the norm than the exception here. Good luck in your studies. It's been fun.

[Abraxas]

Personally I think that there should be some sort of qualification to even get the chance to vote.