Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 21:45

Yes, but not necessarily.
trying to teach facts, tools of critical thinking, etc
Is excellent.

does any school system in the world even follow this strategy? as far as i know all schools are manipulative, brain-washing facilities with the purpose to "dumb down" its own people, and get them to accept whatever decisions the higher authority makes.

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 15:25

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 21:45

Yes, but not necessarily.
trying to teach facts, tools of critical thinking, etc
Is excellent.

does any school system in the world even follow this strategy? as far as i know all schools are manipulative, brain-washing facilities with the purpose to "dumb down" its own people, and get them to accept whatever decisions the higher authority makes.

lol...are you following me?
Nice having a debate with you anyhow.

Well, it depends on your philosophy of education.
I think a school which teaches critical thinking, can even fix it's own biases let's say in history.
Through critical thinking you learn to be skeptic and look through other perspectives at issues.
I wish schools were more like this, I don't think tho all schools are brainwashing facilities, it's too vague and general to be true (are teachers too brainwashing? is all education brainwashing?)

/to ezz_zombie/

I wouldn't say so. It depends on students whether they accept things they have been learning or they don't because, let's face it, there indeed are people who have problems with learning ANYTHING.

@ candlemass: that's what i'm saying, does todays schools offer the chances of learning how to be skeptical and the ability to critical thinking?, some teachers might be good i give you that, but most aren't, as they simply dont want any problems.. so they just teach them math, english, and science ..etc and students grow up incapable of critical thinking, and then they become tomorrows teachers, and the following generation becomes even dumber, and the cycle continues. for example; tell me the name of ONE school in the western world that would not suspend a student who writes a report about "mein kempf" for example ... and vice versa too, tell me ONE arab school that would not suspend a student if at art class he drew people from all over the world wearing flags of their own countries and singing and holding hands in harmony while one of those "people" was wearing the israeli flag? ... it doesnt exist, in todays world.. education's very own goal is to create a population of idle-citizens, people who would roll over whenever told too.

@ Ragana: students aren't the problem, besides (there's an old proverb that says: teaching at young age is like carving wax, while teaching t old age is like digging in stone) .. so, EVEN if the students are stupid.. just teach them whatever you want them to believe in a younger age (where they're stupid and would believe anything told to them ) and BAM, you got yourself an obedient kid who would grow up with what you taught him IMPRINTED in his inner mind

I have heard that the older a person gets, the harder for someone to teach him/her something new which is why children are being taught at a very early age and it actually show why not all people after graduating high-schools don't choose to continue to broaden their knowledge by going to university (if they don't want it, how do you think someone is able to teach them stuff?).

I wasn't saying anything about someone being stupid - I said that there are people who have difficulties with learning anything since they just don't listen and think that knowledge of things will hop in their head just like that. I have a classmate who sleeps in most of everyday's lessons since he's used to that - he came from a school where he hadn't do anything but show good results in bobsleigh trainings (=lessons). Now he knows what he wants and no teacher or adult will change his mind. So, put him in the first class - he simply won't study nor he'll have any clue what is right or what's wrong when someone is going to teach him something.

Of course, little kids are not meant to learn about big bad world (=history) at the age of 7 since they are not prepared for that (and I also didn't have history lessons until grade 6 (age 13)) but they must learn about it anyway. Besides, school is a good place where to learn how to communicate. I have noticed that people who haven't gone to kindergarten at their early age are more selfish thinking than others and cannot build stable relationships (I'm not saying it's impossible, but you see, being social in an early age helps children to accept differences in others and other opinions).

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 16:17

tell me the name of ONE school in the western world that would not suspend a student who writes a report about "mein kempf" for example ...

At least I know that mexican or latin american(rest of Central and South America) schools wouldn't do that or will be less likely to do, since they don't really care too much about Mein Kampf, in this case, that would depend of the teacher, I remember I had a french teacher(she was french and teached french) in secondary school if I remember, and there was this time when before she came to the classroom, a guy drew a svastika on the blackboard and she got pissed off a really lot, but seeing the context from where she comes, which is Europe, I didn't found it strange for her to be pissed off and reporting the student, if she was mexican she wouldn't really care and possibly told the guy to stop doing dumb things. So, it isn't always correct to generalize a WHOLE part of the world.

Quote:
so, EVEN if the students are stupid.. just teach them whatever you want them to believe in a younger age (where they're stupid and would believe anything told to them ) and BAM, you got yourself an obedient kid who would grow up with what you taught him IMPRINTED in his inner mind

Maybe during their growth they'll be "obedient", but then, there comes the time when they want to rebel against the authority, and that's when they start to think by their own and to estabilish their own ideologies.

Noam Chomsky said something that sounded like: "In our western countries there are no education systems but only indoctrination systems!". I firmly believe in that. The only place where they teach you critical thinking is when you reach the upper levels of education, I mean after High School. And even then you have to be careful because there is plenty of teachers that try to make you believe what their scheme of thinking is. Let me reword this, I'm a little drunk/stoned at the moment... They try to force their point of views down your throat, then if you swallow these ideas you're fucked! Another brainwashed student!

Dealing with teachers with different ways of thinking is not an easy thing, some will tell you that capitalism will fuck up the world and that communism is the way to go, and other ones will tell you that communism is stuck in the 50's and that is a backwards system of government, others will tell you that religion is helpful, and others will tell you that it is bullshit. Here is when you gotta build your own ideas, you gotta accept and reject ideas and this is when you will start to know that your teachers not always are right about what they say. To resume it, it's when you will really open your eyes and start to see the reality.

Written by Damnated on 25.05.2006 at 13:11

I mean the education what we recieve in schools. What do you think? IMO education is manipulation, cuz we learn what the government tells us, and the simple fact that sometimes history books are different in countries, makes you think, or not?

This is a really hard topic because everyone is from such different backgrounds and societies. I think that makes it good.

Apologies for the massive f^ck-off post.

I'm not feeling you when you say that we learn what the government tells us. With specific reference to history, the victors do write the books - Goerring, the Luftwaffe general, said as much when he was on trial for war crimes (he was one of the chief organizers of the Holocaust - at least according to my history book). Don't ask me to reference that.

Based on my own education I do not believe that New Zealand is attempting to dumb down its populace by feeding them propaganda. However things like the Hitler Youth program in 1930s Germany were obviously a tool for manipulation - by extension, some public schools back then and there likely were as well. At least according to my history book, which remains unreferenced.

If you're talking small-scale, then yes, school is a vessel for a teacher to manipulate his or her students and subscribe them to their way of thinking. One of my teachers told me that he was forbidden contractually to talk to us about religion or politics, lest we be influenced by him. He also told me not to vote National (conservative) because they would make me pay for my education, which I do anyway. At least according to my account books, which I have yet to see.

The purpose of school, IMO, is to teach us to cope with society. We have evolved (using that term carefully of course as one does online) a complex society that will manipulate us, betray us, lie to us, and throw us out on the street quite happily.

To function in this world, first, you have to know how to communicate. Basic rule of any organism that wants to live in a group. This means that you must speak a language competently. Not doing so limits your capacity to be understood by others, and limits the degree to which you will be able to integrate into society. I'm not saying that this language must be english, but if it is, competence is necessary for understanding of others. This is where I must also tread carefully, to avoid the wrath of K7/Bad English. As far as I can make out, he is a great person, whose posts I really enjoy reading, but some of what he says is really unclear. Of course I can't relate to how he speaks his mother tongue, because I wouldn't understand that, and his english is much better than any attempt I could make at speaking any other language. I hope this paragraph makes sense.

Also here is the issue of immigration, and the mentality that if you come to a country, you should speak the language. I saw a great example of this the other night, when a rather drunk middle aged man staggered up to these two asian girls conversing in Japanese, and said, rather loudly "Speak New Zealand. You're in New Zealand, so speak New Zealand!" One of the girls calmly turned to him, and said, in perfect english of course, "I think you mean 'speak english.'" Not hugely relevant, but I thought I could do with a joke halfway down.

If you can communicate, you can receive the huge amount of information that is thrown at you in life. Step 1 is complete, because you can understand it. But you also have to know what to DO about that information. You have to know whether or not to trust that information before you act on it. Another role of schools is to teach you how reliable the information you receive is. Any education that tells you to implicitly trust, for example, anything you hear on TV, is about as useful as the Maginot Line. Something like history is great for this - even if you get fed crap, at least you can tell that it is crap. I personally loved history at school, for those of you who missed the WWII references. This is the critical thinking, I believe, that was mentioned above.

Our society also demands an elementary knowledge of maths. You actually need a reasonable level of competency with numbers to function. I'm not saying the everyone should be able to integrate e^-x^2, or elementary trigonometry, or even how to use a log table. I'm talking about times tables, percentages, and the ability to use basic algebra (tentative use of the word basic) to solve everyday problems. Again, analytical skills: use evidence, draw conclusion. I work as a maths tutor, so no-one can tell me that maths is useless in any walk of life. Bold statement, I know, and I welcome anyone who wants to try to argue it. Might be best for another thread though.

Where I believe schools do fail is in getting everyone who passes through their doors up to this standard. I think that it takes a bit of living as well to function in life effectively. As again was mentioned above (and remains unreferenced) there are people who simply cannot be taught, or who don't want to be. The system is not equipped to deal with so many individual cases, and it is far from perfect.

What I'd like to think I've done thus far is propose a model for what an education should achieve. Any proposed revisions are of course welcome. If you're having issues with length, then tell me, I might be able to do some editing. I think I've answered the question, and stayed on track mostly.

That's my 2 cents. A bargain at three dollars apiece. Enjoy your stay.

Written by Winterthrone on 29.04.2010 at 02:27

Noam Chomsky said something that sounded like: "In our western countries there are no education systems but only indoctrination systems!"

Written by Entropic Silence on 29.04.2010 at 14:21

I'm not feeling you when you say that we learn what the government tells us.

Noam Chomsky > Entropy/Silence

Written by Entropic Silence on 29.04.2010 at 14:21

Written by Damnated on 25.05.2006 at 13:11

I mean the education what we recieve in schools. What do you think? IMO education is manipulation, cuz we learn what the government tells us, and the simple fact that sometimes history books are different in countries, makes you think, or not?

This is a really hard topic because everyone is from such different backgrounds and societies. I think that makes it good.

Apologies for the massive f^ck-off post.

I'm not feeling you when you say that we learn what the government tells us. With specific reference to history, the victors do write the books - Goerring, the Luftwaffe general, said as much when he was on trial for war crimes (he was one of the chief organizers of the Holocaust - at least according to my history book). Don't ask me to reference that.

Based on my own education I do not believe that New Zealand is attempting to dumb down its populace by feeding them propaganda. However things like the Hitler Youth program in 1930s Germany were obviously a tool for manipulation - by extension, some public schools back then and there likely were as well. At least according to my history book, which remains unreferenced.

If you're talking small-scale, then yes, school is a vessel for a teacher to manipulate his or her students and subscribe them to their way of thinking. One of my teachers told me that he was forbidden contractually to talk to us about religion or politics, lest we be influenced by him. He also told me not to vote National (conservative) because they would make me pay for my education, which I do anyway. At least according to my account books, which I have yet to see.

The purpose of school, IMO, is to teach us to cope with society. We have evolved (using that term carefully of course as one does online) a complex society that will manipulate us, betray us, lie to us, and throw us out on the street quite happily.

To function in this world, first, you have to know how to communicate. Basic rule of any organism that wants to live in a group. This means that you must speak a language competently. Not doing so limits your capacity to be understood by others, and limits the degree to which you will be able to integrate into society. I'm not saying that this language must be english, but if it is, competence is necessary for understanding of others. This is where I must also tread carefully, to avoid the wrath of K7/Bad English. As far as I can make out, he is a great person, whose posts I really enjoy reading, but some of what he says is really unclear. Of course I can't relate to how he speaks his mother tongue, because I wouldn't understand that, and his english is much better than any attempt I could make at speaking any other language. I hope this paragraph makes sense.

Also here is the issue of immigration, and the mentality that if you come to a country, you should speak the language. I saw a great example of this the other night, when a rather drunk middle aged man staggered up to these two asian girls conversing in Japanese, and said, rather loudly "Speak New Zealand. You're in New Zealand, so speak New Zealand!" One of the girls calmly turned to him, and said, in perfect english of course, "I think you mean 'speak english.'" Not hugely relevant, but I thought I could do with a joke halfway down.

If you can communicate, you can receive the huge amount of information that is thrown at you in life. Step 1 is complete, because you can understand it. But you also have to know what to DO about that information. You have to know whether or not to trust that information before you act on it. Another role of schools is to teach you how reliable the information you receive is. Any education that tells you to implicitly trust, for example, anything you hear on TV, is about as useful as the Maginot Line. Something like history is great for this - even if you get fed crap, at least you can tell that it is crap. I personally loved history at school, for those of you who missed the WWII references. This is the critical thinking, I believe, that was mentioned above.

Our society also demands an elementary knowledge of maths. You actually need a reasonable level of competency with numbers to function. I'm not saying the everyone should be able to integrate e^-x^2, or elementary trigonometry, or even how to use a log table. I'm talking about times tables, percentages, and the ability to use basic algebra (tentative use of the word basic) to solve everyday problems. Again, analytical skills: use evidence, draw conclusion. I work as a maths tutor, so no-one can tell me that maths is useless in any walk of life. Bold statement, I know, and I welcome anyone who wants to try to argue it. Might be best for another thread though.

Where I believe schools do fail is in getting everyone who passes through their doors up to this standard. I think that it takes a bit of living as well to function in life effectively. As again was mentioned above (and remains unreferenced) there are people who simply cannot be taught, or who don't want to be. The system is not equipped to deal with so many individual cases, and it is far from perfect.

What I'd like to think I've done thus far is propose a model for what an education should achieve. Any proposed revisions are of course welcome. If you're having issues with length, then tell me, I might be able to do some editing. I think I've answered the question, and stayed on track mostly.

That's my 2 cents. A bargain at three dollars apiece. Enjoy your stay.

Maybe in New Zealand things are different but I don't think so.

1. The government of a country needs to control its population to maintain his power. One of the best way to do so is two divide the people: the poor against the rich, the middle class against the poor, the white against the black, the latino against the asian, create a war against an EVIL enemy (mmm...it remembers me of a certain George W....etc.A second way to do so (these two means of achieving control are not exclusive, in fact IMO they are always used in synergy) is to use religion and education to control the population by pushing the beliefs of the said government by:
A) Presenting an altered version of reality (So-Called History) to the masses. This altered version is always compatible with the ideals of the government and eliminates all the details that could raise doubts about the said government.
Examples: The Japanese history books used at school are not mentionning the exactions commited by the Japanese Imperial Army against Chinese civilians during WWII. The Russian government hasn't admitted until recently that the Katyn Forest Massacre was commited by the Red Army and not by the SS. The version of the Vietnam War thaught at school in the United States undermines the fact that the Americans were defeated by underarmed Vietcongs. In fact they present an altered version where the Americans won the war only to be forced to evacuate Vietnam later when the Vietcongs rose a second time.
B) Putting the emphasis only on the topics and theories that the government see as IMPORTANT: here in Quebec Maths and Sciences are very well thaught and funded while humanities, geography, history are always neglected... Why do you think they do that??? They want us to make money, not to think too much. Also even when you study Human Sciences at an upper level, they always focus on liberalism and neo-liberalism always dismissing socialism, anarchism or all the theories that are against their own paradigm...
And always remember the system choses the teachers that they want, the programs that they want, they give the money that they want to each program, etc...

2. It's perfectly normal to think you are not being manipulated to think in a way or another, it's the proof that their system works: You are integrating the school-system at an age (5 years old or younger) where you can't really think by yourself cause you don't have the cognitive tools to do so and you are depending on adults to live. At that age kids immediatly believe what they are told by adults, thats when they start building the basis on which they will develop their perfect citizen, ready to accept all the bullshit that the government will forcefeed him with... It's like building an house: if the foundations are well done every other floor will fit perfectly.

That's why I hate school, I never fitted in their system: I was reading books at a very young age and the my teachers at elementary school were complaining that I was reading too much, that I contradicted them and that I was not listening to them...Still I always had good grades... Maybe because I was intelligent enough to reproduce exactly what they wanted me to reproduce. I went to University like that... Man they see us as monkeys: reproduce what we show to you and never question, never use your creativity...that's the best way to succeed at school!

Written by Winterthrone on 30.04.2010 at 02:36

That's why I hate school, I never fitted in their system: I was reading books at a very young age and the my teachers at elementary school were complaining that I was reading too much, that I contradicted them and that I was not listening to them...Still I always had good grades... Maybe because I was intelligent enough to reproduce exactly what they wanted me to reproduce. I went to University like that... Man they see us as monkeys: reproduce what we show to you and never question, never use your creativity...that's the best way to succeed at school!

When it's put like that I can see where you're coming from.

I'm not saying that indoctrination doesn't go on, or that school isn't a forum for it. Certainly education in this country is a case of learning to work a system to get decent marks, rather than getting good marks based on knowledge.

I don't think, however, that you can simply lump school education globally and call it 'manipulation.'

School is not an environment that benefits everyone, in fact I'd almost say that it can hinder more than it can help. BUT if you can agree that a decent education teaches you to communicate, scrutinize, and think for yourself, then surely the fact that we're here, scrutinizing our education process shows that its purpose for my mind is being fulfilled to a certain extent.

Either way, people need to get life skills from somewhere.

Written by Entropic Silence on 30.04.2010 at 15:09

Written by Winterthrone on 30.04.2010 at 02:36

That's why I hate school, I never fitted in their system: I was reading books at a very young age and the my teachers at elementary school were complaining that I was reading too much, that I contradicted them and that I was not listening to them...Still I always had good grades... Maybe because I was intelligent enough to reproduce exactly what they wanted me to reproduce. I went to University like that... Man they see us as monkeys: reproduce what we show to you and never question, never use your creativity...that's the best way to succeed at school!

When it's put like that I can see where you're coming from.

I'm not saying that indoctrination doesn't go on, or that school isn't a forum for it. Certainly education in this country is a case of learning to work a system to get decent marks, rather than getting good marks based on knowledge.

I don't think, however, that you can simply lump school education globally and call it 'manipulation.'

School is not an environment that benefits everyone, in fact I'd almost say that it can hinder more than it can help. BUT if you can agree that a decent education teaches you to communicate, scrutinize, and think for yourself, then surely the fact that we're here, scrutinizing our education process shows that its purpose for my mind is being fulfilled to a certain extent.

Either way, people need to get life skills from somewhere.

No I know education is necessary, the problem is that the school systems developped in our so-called 'Developped Countries' are not Education systems, they are indoctrination system. I'd rather had lived in a time where people were thaught by their parents or a skilled man that they hired to show you the world... Then you chose what you wanted to do in life and you became an apprentice for someone who did that for a living.

Written by Winterthrone on 30.04.2010 at 18:06

No I know education is necessary, the problem is that the school systems developped in our so-called 'Developped Countries' are not Education systems, they are indoctrination system. I'd rather had lived in a time where people were thaught by their parents or a skilled man that they hired to show you the world... Then you chose what you wanted to do in life and you became an apprentice for someone who did that for a living.

Yes, BUT,

That doesn't mean that one's parents aren't another source of manipulation. In fact, I'd almost say they're a worse source because the last person on earth a child begins to question is their parents.

There is no way to police that either. At least with schools, we are here talking, its clear that something is going on and it is SPECIFIC and we can see it. With private education we don't have that luxury - parents can tell their kids anything. Also, who teaches the 'skilled men?' How do we trust them not to manipulate? What guarantees that they aren't hired by the parents to further indoctrinate their child?

The advantage of a standardised education system is that, once a child has been through it, we have a guarantee that the child has skills x and y etc and while this is not 100% true in practice, the principal holds. It is policable, although there are many cases where it is not policed as such.

Yes, manipulation goes on in schools but some form of education is necessary. If it is standardised, then an employer, for example, knows that by hiring a product of this system they are getting certain skills (theoretically of course). This is an advantage over hiring someone who i has been privately educated by people who have varying abilities to teach.

Maybe the problem does not lie in the school system as such but lies in the fact that it is not as well maintained and well policed as it should be. Also - look at the people who should be maintaining/ policing the schools. I'm sure we can agree that in general governments do not put enough of the right sort of support toward education.

School is a bit like democracy; sure it's far from perfect, but in terms of a working model it's the best we've got.

Written by Entropic Silence on 01.05.2010 at 07:34

Written by Winterthrone on 30.04.2010 at 18:06

No I know education is necessary, the problem is that the school systems developped in our so-called 'Developped Countries' are not Education systems, they are indoctrination system. I'd rather had lived in a time where people were thaught by their parents or a skilled man that they hired to show you the world... Then you chose what you wanted to do in life and you became an apprentice for someone who did that for a living.

Yes, BUT,

That doesn't mean that one's parents aren't another source of manipulation. In fact, I'd almost say they're a worse source because the last person on earth a child begins to question is their parents.

There is no way to police that either. At least with schools, we are here talking, its clear that something is going on and it is SPECIFIC and we can see it. With private education we don't have that luxury - parents can tell their kids anything. Also, who teaches the 'skilled men?' How do we trust them not to manipulate? What guarantees that they aren't hired by the parents to further indoctrinate their child?

The advantage of a standardised education system is that, once a child has been through it, we have a guarantee that the child has skills x and y etc and while this is not 100% true in practice, the principal holds. It is policable, although there are many cases where it is not policed as such.

Yes, manipulation goes on in schools but some form of education is necessary. If it is standardised, then an employer, for example, knows that by hiring a product of this system they are getting certain skills (theoretically of course). This is an advantage over hiring someone who i has been privately educated by people who have varying abilities to teach.

Maybe the problem does not lie in the school system as such but lies in the fact that it is not as well maintained and well policed as it should be. Also - look at the people who should be maintaining/ policing the schools. I'm sure we can agree that in general governments do not put enough of the right sort of support toward education.

School is a bit like democracy; sure it's far from perfect, but in terms of a working model it's the best we've got.

You're right on that one, but if they put the emphasis on developping real critical thinking abilities, opening the mind of students and also adapted the teaching to the capacities and interests of students I wouldn't complain on the actual state of education. But, they'll never do that. In fact, if they did that people would soon realize all the bullshit the governments do in our capitalist systems and they would rebel against these governments. That's why they manipulate history, focus on certain topics that are harmless to them and force you to fit in their system. Anyway I'm too much of an anarchist to believe in state organiuzed education, but you bring interesting points to this discussion and I'm glad I found someone that's able to discuss intelligently!:beer:

Written by Winterthrone on 01.05.2010 at 19:29

You're right on that one, but if they put the emphasis on developping real critical thinking abilities, opening the mind of students and also adapted the teaching to the capacities and interests of students I wouldn't complain on the actual state of education. But, they'll never do that. In fact, if they did that people would soon realize all the bullshit the governments do in our capitalist systems and they would rebel against these governments. That's why they manipulate history, focus on certain topics that are harmless to them and force you to fit in their system. Anyway I'm too much of an anarchist to believe in state organiuzed education, but you bring interesting points to this discussion and I'm glad I found someone that's able to discuss intelligently!:beer:

It's discussions like this that make the interweb what it is today.

I learned more reading books and watching movies than I did in school. I went to a inner-city public high school with 5000 students in the freshman class alone (that number was steadily cut in half as grades progressed) and all I learned was that mediocrity is better than rocking the boat.

...
depends, of kind of school.

at public schools they just want to teach things like math, english/portuguese, science, history, geography, chemic, phisycs, etc...

but at religious, military schools, beyond teach the same things as public schools, they really try to "change" your mind. But at all: I don't think that school it's an way of domination, I think that be an... knowlegde acquiring(maybe you'll never need some of this knowlegde), or something like that.

I think its in many ways a type of brainwashing but then in some places its very accurate and good.
I think if it was about making your own opinion on thje facts it would be better than the current politically correct BS. You cant change history to be PC.

You cant teach people to think, school has proven that.

Well...It may depend on the school...But fuck...Here in Estonia you sometimes can't help to get pissed about the schools and educational system. It seems that no one really gives a crap that how will your education serve you in the future...Instead of practical kwnoledge they just try to shove as much stuff as possible into your skull. Even the exams here in Estonia sometimes are god damn silly. Instead of doing an exam that's just wide and practical...an exam which really would show that you've memorized something through out the years, they make exams that are over your head so you would bang those schoolbooks into your head and learn every fact by heart...And the school stuff...I'm not a person who says that education is not needed...But I think that school diplomas and grades are over-valued these days...You can be as smart as you want but If you don't have some fancy university degree or you just didn't bother to work that hard at school then people tend to think that you really aren't that smart...Which is kinda fucking stupid in my opinion...But mostly I think that schools ain't a new brand of brainwash...Because I have to agree with Robert the Geat that: "You cant teach people to think, school has proven that."
And my point was...that yeah...schools may be "brainwashin" a little...Like that all "Education is the most important thing in life and you sould really be a good person and stay in line and be as smart or smarter than everybody else." ...but that's about all in my book.

Of course some countries use educational system for manipulation. Brainwashing is the best way to produce lemmings after all. However, only a few countries totally brainwash people, one being NK.

The most "manipulative" topics in school are history and social studies (no idea what this is called in other countries). History is about who did what, when, how, for what and so on. Some of these questions have only one true answer (Who, when...), but for example 'for what' is totally opinion based. Also the action is somewhat based. Nazis did a favour to humankind by breeding us into better beings... or did they just kill a lot of people? Depends on what you believe.
So by stating different things in history isn't manipulating. It depends on the culture and beliefs. But if you state that Kim of NK did three hat tricks in FIFA WC 2010 Final, that would be manipulating, because clearly he wasn't there at the time.

There's a big difference in Finnish and Russian history in Winter War part: They say we started the war, we say they started the war. The reason behind for the war to start was "Shelling of Mainila". Soviet Union stated that Finnish artillery shot a soviet guard post for whatever reason I do not know. Then they wanted our troops to be moved ~20 km which we refused to do and Soviet Union took it as a hostile action and thus began the slaughtering. We decline the artillery. So does our "government" lie or does the Russian one? If there wasn't any proof, another of us would lie thus manipulate the country's citizens intentionally to believe "we're better!". But in this case we're lucky and there's solid proof that Finland didn't start the war and didn't shoot the guard post. This means we Finns tell that history part as it is and aren't manipulated. Then Russia has it's own way.

So basically, in some cases the educational system is used for manipulation, but not always. I believe that Finland's educational system isn't manipulative or then the other countries of the world lie as well.

As a final tip I give: Don't chew everything that's thrown at you. Research and form your own opinion.

Written by Fane on 10.08.2010 at 03:05

Of course some countries use educational system for manipulation. Brainwashing is the best way to produce lemmings after all. However, only a few countries totally brainwash people, one being NK.

The most "manipulative" topics in school are history and social studies (no idea what this is called in other countries). History is about who did what, when, how, for what and so on. Some of these questions have only one true answer (Who, when...), but for example 'for what' is totally opinion based. Also the action is somewhat based. Nazis did a favour to humankind by breeding us into better beings... or did they just kill a lot of people? Depends on what you believe.
So by stating different things in history isn't manipulating. It depends on the culture and beliefs. But if you state that Kim of NK did three hat tricks in FIFA WC 2010 Final, that would be manipulating, because clearly he wasn't there at the time.

There's a big difference in Finnish and Russian history in Winter War part: They say we started the war, we say they started the war. The reason behind for the war to start was "Shelling of Mainila". Soviet Union stated that Finnish artillery shot a soviet guard post for whatever reason I do not know. Then they wanted our troops to be moved ~20 km which we refused to do and Soviet Union took it as a hostile action and thus began the slaughtering. We decline the artillery. So does our "government" lie or does the Russian one? If there wasn't any proof, another of us would lie thus manipulate the country's citizens intentionally to believe "we're better!". But in this case we're lucky and there's solid proof that Finland didn't start the war and didn't shoot the guard post. This means we Finns tell that history part as it is and aren't manipulated. Then Russia has it's own way.

So basically, in some cases the educational system is used for manipulation, but not always. I believe that Finland's educational system isn't manipulative or then the other countries of the world lie as well.

As a final tip I give: Don't chew everything that's thrown at you. Research and form your own opinion.

Do not fool yourself. Unless the schools in Finland are a lot more free thinking than those in Sweden, then they are also very much used for manipulation. The reason for this? Basically it is to reinforce the current system and make the ones who go to the schools into good, law-abiding citizens. For this purpose, the schools will of course mess with your way of thinking and make sure you don't get any "bad" ideas. And at least in Sweden, you can get into trouble for not accepting these universal truths.

I frequently argued with the teachers about subjects such as history. I argued that we shouldn't be praising America for ending the second world war when the Russians did most of the work. I argued that Hitler's ideological hostility against the jews was nothing but an instrument to get him into a place of power and keep him there, and that WW2 was really about the control of natural resources. Hitler served the german businessmen who were threatened by the jewish bankers and realized that for the german economy to recover from WW1, conquest was needed to secure new natural assets. The allies were those who resisted, since they felt threatened by Germany, and for the most part it was their businessmen who owned the natural resources that Hitler tried to take (which would mean the weakening of their economical standing). All of this I didn't get in trouble for. It was just another point of view, even if it wasn't the one in the school's history books. It was not a "dangerous" point of view.

It was not until I started questioning the Swedish system from a political basis that I actually got into trouble. For arguing from a point of view that was a bit too red to fit mainstream Swedish politics, I they called my parents several times in high school. This is the way the manipulation works. You are allowed to work within a set frame, but when you go outside of it, the freedom in the schools suddenly becomes an illusion. The schools have another purpose besides education. They are designed to mould the students into fine citizens who do not question, protest or rebel against the system.

Things you are not allowed to think in Swedish schools (meaning you can get into trouble if you say it out loud) include, but are not limited to:
- The industry should be nationalized.
- Weed should be legalized.
- Nazi parties should be outlawed.
- Israel is engaging in state terrorism against Palestine.
- NATO is bad.
- The US is bad.
- Today's Russia is actually not as much of a terror state as we are led to believe.
- The IMF is not helping the third world.
- The laeders of the west are using 9/11 to further their own selfish purposes.

Now, whether this is for better or worse, I will leave up to you. But you shouldn't live under the illusion that the schools are trying to shape you into a totally free thinking individual, because they are just trying to fit you nicely into the current system.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 18.08.2010 at 13:17

Do not fool yourself. Unless the schools in Finland are a lot more free thinking than those in Sweden, then they are also very much used for manipulation. The reason for this? Basically it is to reinforce the current system and make the ones who go to the schools into good, law-abiding citizens. For this purpose, the schools will of course mess with your way of thinking and make sure you don't get any "bad" ideas. And at least in Sweden, you can get into trouble for not accepting these universal truths.

I frequently argued with the teachers about subjects such as history. I argued that we shouldn't be praising America for ending the second world war when the Russians did most of the work. I argued that Hitler's ideological hostility against the jews was nothing but an instrument to get him into a place of power and keep him there, and that WW2 was really about the control of natural resources. Hitler served the german businessmen who were threatened by the jewish bankers and realized that for the german economy to recover from WW1, conquest was needed to secure new natural assets. The allies were those who resisted, since they felt threatened by Germany, and for the most part it was their businessmen who owned the natural resources that Hitler tried to take (which would mean the weakening of their economical standing). All of this I didn't get in trouble for. It was just another point of view, even if it wasn't the one in the school's history books. It was not a "dangerous" point of view.

It was not until I started questioning the Swedish system from a political basis that I actually got into trouble. For arguing from a point of view that was a bit too red to fit mainstream Swedish politics, I they called my parents several times in high school. This is the way the manipulation works. You are allowed to work within a set frame, but when you go outside of it, the freedom in the schools suddenly becomes an illusion. The schools have another purpose besides education. They are designed to mould the students into fine citizens who do not question, protest or rebel against the system.

Things you are not allowed to think in Swedish schools (meaning you can get into trouble if you say it out loud) include, but are not limited to:
- The industry should be nationalized.
- Weed should be legalized.
- Nazi parties should be outlawed.
- Israel is engaging in state terrorism against Palestine.
- NATO is bad.
- The US is bad.
- Today's Russia is actually not as much of a terror state as we are led to believe.
- The IMF is not helping the third world.
- The laeders of the west are using 9/11 to further their own selfish purposes.

Now, whether this is for better or worse, I will leave up to you. But you shouldn't live under the illusion that the schools are trying to shape you into a totally free thinking individual, because they are just trying to fit you nicely into the current system.

Umm, I don't have an idea what is going on in Sweden. If you can't express your opinions there, maybe it's time for you to do something about it? In Finnish schools you can say basically whatever, although racism and such "vices" are banned, because Finland is a democratic state which causes racism to be against our laws. If you count anti-racism as "manipulation", I'm not sure what to say. Yes, it's manipulative on some scale, but then again we have to obey laws and racism is against the law in Finland. Still we can wear Nazi symbols if we want to and say something "racist", but not repeatadly as then it would be considered racism, haha.

I'll see through your list and check is it possible to say something like that in Finnish school:

- The industry should be nationalized.
I'm not 100% sure what you meant with this. I haven't encountered this topic in school in any way. Maybe it's because I hate to study economics. Still I could think our industry should be nationalized in school. No one would blame you. In my own opinion, it would be stupid to TOTALLY nationalize it, haha.

- Weed should be legalized
If you've well thought arguments, you could easily debate on it here. Actually I recall someone doing that once in our psychology lesson. I would be for legalizing it, even though I wouldn't use it.

- Nazi parties should be outlawed
I think you messed up with this as it would be a huge surprise if you had to think in Sweden that Nazi parties have to be legal. So I'll turn it around and say "Nazi parties must not be outlawed". As I said before, racism is against the law so you can't have Nazi parties here. Then again we have a party called "Perussuomalaiset" which translates to something like "Fundamental Finnish Party". They are against immigrants, they praise Finnish culture/values and so on. Recently they have gained popularity because of our loose immigrant laws (damn I hate those...) which they are against. Also people debate on topics about immigrants even in national newspapers (both sides) and we have had couple conversations in school also.

- Israel is engaging in state terrorism against Palestine.
I cannot comment on this because I mostly slept our lessons about Middle East crisis, haha. If there are no facts, then you are free to express yourself. However if there are, then you can still express yourself although it's useless if you don't have anything concrete to back up your thoughts.

- NATO is bad.
Again, I'll turn it around. Totally no to this one. Me and my partner did a presentation about a topic "Should Finland join NATO?". We listed NATO's good and bad sides, consequences that would probably happen and ended with our own opinion whatever we should join. Also we did a quick survey what our classmates thought about NATO and joining it. Some were against it, others thought it to be quite alright and others were not sure. NATO is actually a hot topic here and I've seen politicians fighting against it.

- The US is bad.
... yet again I'll turn it around. Seriously, wtf? Our English teacher cannot survive a lesson without mocking the US and its language at least once. Our biology and geography books have stated that US is the most polluting nation in the world and so on. Yes, many students blame US or are against some of its policies and have expressed themselves during classes. Even I've. Notice to US people: No, Finland doesn't hate you nor do I. There are some things (well actually many) I hate in your system that I just can't accept.

- Today's Russia is actually not as much of a terror state as we are led to believe.
I'm starting to repeat myself greatly. Another topic which I surprisingly haven't encountered in school nor papers. I think this to be because we "must" have good relationship with Russia. Finland is a small country with no desire for war. Problem is, we've the longest borderline with Russia in Europe and they attacked us the last time around seventy years ago. If there ever will be war in Europe, I'm sure Russia will be there and that we Finnish will be fighting against Russia. Seeing how badly they got their ass kicked last time, they surely want to pay back. But as we don't want to have a war, we try to keep low profile and keep anti-Russia statements off from the society.

If you've eyes and brains, it's not hard to realize there's a lot of corruption and terrorism in Russia. Their own people state that! And as its a fact, no teacher here would go against and say "Shut up kid or I'll call your parents.". I guess they would try mild it down and then try to continue because of the reason above. In short: You can speak of it, but it's not a popular topic.

- The IMF is not helping the third world.
Cannot comment, sorry. Heck, do they even mention IMF anywhere in school? I haven't heard of it, haha. That might be because I'm full of "let's help the whole world and be friends!" crap and try to avoid hearing about it.

- The laeders of the west are using 9/11 to further their own selfish purposes.
Nope, you can talk about this freely and I've had a debate about this in a class room. Also I have even seen some documentary on TV about it. It's a possibility which cannot be proven wrong so you're free to say whatever you want.


Conclusion: FRRRRREEEEDOM! Really, it's hard for me to believe that in Sweden you would get beaten with a stick if you mentioned that US sucks. Maybe you're overreacting or you've said something offensive while debating. Idk.

Written by Guest on 03.04.2008 at 10:10

I quit teaching high school in 2005 and I'm never going back. As far as I'm concerned, half of the seats in high school classrooms are a waste of my tax dollars, because only about half the students in high school are getting any benefit from being there. The other half ought to be shipped off to boot camp and kept in the military until they're 18, where they would hopefully get some discipline, learn respect, and come away with a much-needed attitude adjustment. (Yeah, I'm talking about the girls too.)

What is being presented in this video is fairly mild. A student tried to hit me with a chair once; when I wouldn't back down he trashed the classroom. On another occasion, a group of students in a geology class threw rocks at me when I tried to put the lesson up on the board. Then there was the kid who "got back at me" by aiming a laser pointer into my eye. When I informed the school principal, the kid denied it. Of course, the principal believed the kid - not the teacher. After five years, I could write a fucking book filled with shit like this.

Whoever you are, whatever you want to do with your life - stay the hell away from teaching kids older than 10 years of age. You may never experience the pain firsthand, but trust me - that's among the best advice you will ever hear.

Assuming that you're Canadian, which province did you teach in ?
Having graduated from a public high school in Quebec just a couple of years ago I can agree with what you said about the behavioral problems of students. However in my school, the disciplinary measures in classrooms largely depended on the teacher as the administration would not hesitate to impose consequences on students.

The growing and troubling concern is that of the youth though. I think that cultural changes within our society are a big reason as to why education is of poorer influence to our generation.

in some of Montreal's school boards less than 50% of the students graduate from high school.
even the better ones don't hold much more of an impressive percentage (60 to 65 %)
Quebec is in fact the worst province when it comes to graduation rates.

Manipulation? No. Just another form of killing creativity

I can only speak about the country in which I live, which is England, therefore all I can say is the education is fantastic. ANYONE from any walk of life can get a good education here, it's up to the individual if they want it or not. Obviously, there are many variables that I'm aware of that affect one's education, primarily those of housing; healthcare; parents employment and unfortunately, social class.

I still maintain, however, that anyone can attain a 'good' education [at least up to the point of having a minimal of 5 GCSE's] if they want it. School is compulsory here until you're 18 now [was recently revissed from a previous age of 16] and in that time, it's very easy to get decent qualifications. Only a very lazy person can NOT achieve 5 GCSE's, it's that simple in my mind.

As to whether education is a form of manipulation...erm...no? How are you being manipulated? Through history textbooks that only talk about a certain countries history? I studied history for about four years [2 at school and 2 at college] and only learnt about Britains'; America's; Italy's; Russia's and Germany's history, does that mean that I was manipulated? How can it, I feel I've benefitted greatly from all that knowledge, if I wanted to read history for another 4 years now, I could be choosing what I wanted to learn about. That's how things work, you get to a high stage in academia THEN AND ONLY THEN can you begin to decide what you want to learn.

There's no great governmental conspiracy aimed at brainwashing the youngsters, the world has moved on [slightly lol] since the days of the Nazi and facist regimes whereby you were taught what to believe.

In any case, school leaves its mark on forming of personality, but every person must be able to think for oneself. as too kids, their parents have to be more responsive and, moreover, to cultivate an independence of thinking. But i'm sure, schools don't have one big goal - to create a young zombies) Though, there is a tendency to mispresenting of History in school books.

School tends to get you into the frame of mind of unoriginality. Yet, one usually needs an education to attain the knowledge required to contribute something original to this world. It's a fucked up paradox.

The word doesn't necessarily deserve its negative connotations. Teaching is, more or less, a form of manipulation ("molding" might be a more friendly adjective), and I can't imagine anyone being opposed to teaching. Teachers, on the other hand...

: The easiest way to combat the more nefarious sorts of manipulation is by keeping the church and state as fucking far away from one another as possible and to not send kids to religious schools. (Then again, many of the people I know who went to Catholic school as children are pretty hard-boiled when it comes to their anti-theism.)