- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
We can teach women to code, but that just creates another problem
|
|
|
Comments (42)
22 earlier comments in the full thread.
>prejudice is: you are different, and therefore you can never be trusted. nothing you do or say will change that.
I agree...
>thank you for this enlightening discussion.
Always happy to plod through a dark and stormy topic... In an armchair, of course.
I agree...
>thank you for this enlightening discussion.
Always happy to plod through a dark and stormy topic... In an armchair, of course.
> The Earth is one country, and mankind its citizens
Well, it's a nice sounding feelgood ideal, but there is absolutely no indication that it's ever going to be the case.
Let's put it this way to give just one of a multitude of examples: The Hutus and the Tutsis were a lot closer to being the same tribe than to the rest of humanity. How did that work out?
Well, it's a nice sounding feelgood ideal, but there is absolutely no indication that it's ever going to be the case.
Let's put it this way to give just one of a multitude of examples: The Hutus and the Tutsis were a lot closer to being the same tribe than to the rest of humanity. How did that work out?
it doesn't matter who is fighting whom. every one of these conflicts is motivated by prejudice. and only education can remove that prejudice.
you are assuming that this education is bound to fail. sure, i can accept that. i won't agree, but i grant you that the situation may look hopeless to you. i don't know what it would take to make you more hopeful, i can only tell you what i believe and hope.
as we use up our resources, the battles for the remaining resources will be more fierce. also our tools of destruction are becoming more powerful. and with every war, devastating selfdestruction of humanity is getting more and more likely.
given that perspective, i see two choices: do nothing and let humanity destroy itself, or work towards world peace. nothing less will do. without the hope to achieve this, life itself becomes meaningless.
you don't see any indication of achieving this ideal because you don't see enough people working on it, but some people are, and as with every movement, it starts small. we can chose to be part of the group that believes that change for the better is possible, or we can ignore it.
i don't believe we have anything to loose from trying. not trying it the only way to fail for sure.
greetings, eMBee.
you are assuming that this education is bound to fail. sure, i can accept that. i won't agree, but i grant you that the situation may look hopeless to you. i don't know what it would take to make you more hopeful, i can only tell you what i believe and hope.
as we use up our resources, the battles for the remaining resources will be more fierce. also our tools of destruction are becoming more powerful. and with every war, devastating selfdestruction of humanity is getting more and more likely.
given that perspective, i see two choices: do nothing and let humanity destroy itself, or work towards world peace. nothing less will do. without the hope to achieve this, life itself becomes meaningless.
you don't see any indication of achieving this ideal because you don't see enough people working on it, but some people are, and as with every movement, it starts small. we can chose to be part of the group that believes that change for the better is possible, or we can ignore it.
i don't believe we have anything to loose from trying. not trying it the only way to fail for sure.
Quoting:all men have been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization
greetings, eMBee.
> i don't know what it would take to make you more hopeful,
An even moderate historical record of such education working.
> ...you don't see any indication of achieving this ideal because you don't see enough people working on it,...
I don't see any indication of achieving it because it runs counter to observed human nature over millennia. That doesn't mean I'm right, of course.
> as we use up our resources, the battles for the remaining resources will be more fierce.
The resources people actually need are food, water, and shelter. We have more than enough of those. The difficulty is getting them to the people that need them. Discussions as to how those difficulties can best be resolved would soon lead us afoul of the TOS.
> we can chose to be part of the group that believes that change for the better is possible, or we can ignore it.
Or we can note that 50% or more of everything we try to do to make the world better either fails miserably or actually makes things worse than it was when we started, and acknowledge that we actually have very little idea as to how to fix things. Small things that help individuals seem to have the least chance of backfiring.
> all men have been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization
Tell it to the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. All civilizations rise and fall.
An even moderate historical record of such education working.
> ...you don't see any indication of achieving this ideal because you don't see enough people working on it,...
I don't see any indication of achieving it because it runs counter to observed human nature over millennia. That doesn't mean I'm right, of course.
> as we use up our resources, the battles for the remaining resources will be more fierce.
The resources people actually need are food, water, and shelter. We have more than enough of those. The difficulty is getting them to the people that need them. Discussions as to how those difficulties can best be resolved would soon lead us afoul of the TOS.
> we can chose to be part of the group that believes that change for the better is possible, or we can ignore it.
Or we can note that 50% or more of everything we try to do to make the world better either fails miserably or actually makes things worse than it was when we started, and acknowledge that we actually have very little idea as to how to fix things. Small things that help individuals seem to have the least chance of backfiring.
> all men have been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization
Tell it to the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. All civilizations rise and fall.
eMBee & JD
May I suggest your both reading a book that may not support either of you and the beginning of the second by the same author that has looked deeply into human endeavors? The first is "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" and the second "Homo Deus", which will argue cogently you are both off the mark. Below is a brief section in the conclusion of the first portion of the second named book:
[...] History has witnessed the rise and fall of many religions, empires and cultures. Such upheavals are not necessarily bad. Humanism has dominated the world for 300 years, which is not such a long time. The pharaohs ruled Egypt for 3,000 years, and the popes dominated Europe for a millennium. If you told an Egyptian in the time of Ramses II that one day the pharaohs will be gone, he would probably have been aghast. ‘How can we live without a pharaoh? Who will ensure order, peace and justice?’ If you told people in the Middle Ages that within a few centuries God will be dead, they would have been horrified. ‘How can we live without God? Who will give life meaning and protect us from chaos?’
Looking back, many think that the downfall of the pharaohs and the death of God were both positive developments. Maybe the collapse of humanism will also be beneficial. People are usually afraid of change because they fear the unknown. But the single greatest constant of history is that everything changes.
_______________________________________________
Be prepared to be offended along with seeing some strongly held personal beliefs discounted.
As always,
TxtEdMacs
May I suggest your both reading a book that may not support either of you and the beginning of the second by the same author that has looked deeply into human endeavors? The first is "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" and the second "Homo Deus", which will argue cogently you are both off the mark. Below is a brief section in the conclusion of the first portion of the second named book:
[...] History has witnessed the rise and fall of many religions, empires and cultures. Such upheavals are not necessarily bad. Humanism has dominated the world for 300 years, which is not such a long time. The pharaohs ruled Egypt for 3,000 years, and the popes dominated Europe for a millennium. If you told an Egyptian in the time of Ramses II that one day the pharaohs will be gone, he would probably have been aghast. ‘How can we live without a pharaoh? Who will ensure order, peace and justice?’ If you told people in the Middle Ages that within a few centuries God will be dead, they would have been horrified. ‘How can we live without God? Who will give life meaning and protect us from chaos?’
Looking back, many think that the downfall of the pharaohs and the death of God were both positive developments. Maybe the collapse of humanism will also be beneficial. People are usually afraid of change because they fear the unknown. But the single greatest constant of history is that everything changes.
_______________________________________________
Be prepared to be offended along with seeing some strongly held personal beliefs discounted.
As always,
TxtEdMacs
What is certainly true is that communication has condensed the timescales of human activity by orders of magnitude.
I don't know if that is good or bad but I do predict a monumental clash of culture in the coming years and we are seeing a sample of that now between east and west.
The two main problems are:
1) Culture. The secular world against the non-secular. Well we're starting to see that play out now. It's going to get rather bloody.
2) Economic. As many are starting to realise, automation and technology is overtaking our ability to reinvent employment. Within 15 years, that situation is going to get rather critical, the kind of critical that can melt down countries.
I don't know if that is good or bad but I do predict a monumental clash of culture in the coming years and we are seeing a sample of that now between east and west.
The two main problems are:
1) Culture. The secular world against the non-secular. Well we're starting to see that play out now. It's going to get rather bloody.
2) Economic. As many are starting to realise, automation and technology is overtaking our ability to reinvent employment. Within 15 years, that situation is going to get rather critical, the kind of critical that can melt down countries.
> The secular world against the non-secular. Well we're starting to see that play out now. It's going to get rather bloody.
We're actually seeing three conflicts. Secular versus non-secular, non-secular versus other non-secular, and globalism versus nationalism (or, perhaps more accurately, localism).
> As many are starting to realise, automation and technology is overtaking our ability to reinvent employment. Within 15 years, that situation is going to get rather critical, the kind of critical that can melt down countries.
Didn't we just have a thread discussing that. :)
We're actually seeing three conflicts. Secular versus non-secular, non-secular versus other non-secular, and globalism versus nationalism (or, perhaps more accurately, localism).
> As many are starting to realise, automation and technology is overtaking our ability to reinvent employment. Within 15 years, that situation is going to get rather critical, the kind of critical that can melt down countries.
Didn't we just have a thread discussing that. :)
> globalism versus nationalism
I think this is just part of the economic problem. "Globalism" as practised at the moment is just another form of colonialism. They are economic expediences. Automation is rapidly making the distinction moot.
A lot of people are confused about this I think, including Mr Trump who would like to bring jobs back to the US. Those jobs of which he speaks just don't exist any more.
I think this is just part of the economic problem. "Globalism" as practised at the moment is just another form of colonialism. They are economic expediences. Automation is rapidly making the distinction moot.
A lot of people are confused about this I think, including Mr Trump who would like to bring jobs back to the US. Those jobs of which he speaks just don't exist any more.
> ...many think that the downfall of the pharaohs and the death of God were both positive developments.
You do realize that Christians and Muslims make up well over half the world's population, don't you?
You do realize that Christians and Muslims make up well over half the world's population, don't you?
> "Globalism" as practised at the moment is just another form of colonialism.
I can't really argue with that. :)
I can't really argue with that. :)
> You do realize that Christians and Muslims make up well over half the world's population, don't you?
That's quite a significant improvement compared to even 100 years ago when choice of belief was not even an option for pretty much everyone on the planet. That almost half of the world's population has turned away from major religion is barely short of miraculous.
Personally, I think that in the western world, that turning away is going to accelerate. Unfortunately (for my perspective), many will turn to something other than sceptical atheist and probably some wishy-washy "spirituality" that doesn't even have a refutable dogma.
That's quite a significant improvement compared to even 100 years ago when choice of belief was not even an option for pretty much everyone on the planet. That almost half of the world's population has turned away from major religion is barely short of miraculous.
Personally, I think that in the western world, that turning away is going to accelerate. Unfortunately (for my perspective), many will turn to something other than sceptical atheist and probably some wishy-washy "spirituality" that doesn't even have a refutable dogma.
Quoting:many will turn to something other than sceptical atheist
agreed, because i believe it's not the concept of a supernatural being that created the universe that they reject, but (mal-)practice of religion as can be seen in major religions today. that's no surprise given that all the religions are more than 1000 years old and their teachings just can't adapt to the world as it is today.
those religions were suitable for the time period they were created, but lost their relevance some time in the 1800s.
interestingly around that time a lot of new age religions appeared seemingly in the search for the return of christ, and turning to other explanations when they failed to find him.
(wow, quite a turn this discussion has taken. we started with gender equality and now we are discussing the role of religion)
Quoting:If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it
greetings, eMBee.
> That almost half of the world's population has turned away from major religion is barely short of miraculous.
Not even close. Less than 1.1.billion people consider themselves secular, nonreligious, agnostic, or atheist. That's 15% or so. See https://infogalactic.com/info/Religious_populations
If I had to guess, I'd guess that most of those are actually agnostic, who simply consider the matter undecided.
> If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it
Religion as cause for dislike, hatred, or division is often simply an excuse for a dislike, hatred, or division that already exits. And why exactly should division be considered in the same category as dislike or hatred? Shouldn't different groups be allowed to separate as they see fit? Isn't that what freedom is all about? Do you really want to force vi and emacs users or KDE and Gnome users into the same groups? :)
In any case, the ultimate state of dislike or hatred is war, and there religion plays a very small part: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-t...
Not even close. Less than 1.1.billion people consider themselves secular, nonreligious, agnostic, or atheist. That's 15% or so. See https://infogalactic.com/info/Religious_populations
If I had to guess, I'd guess that most of those are actually agnostic, who simply consider the matter undecided.
> If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it
Religion as cause for dislike, hatred, or division is often simply an excuse for a dislike, hatred, or division that already exits. And why exactly should division be considered in the same category as dislike or hatred? Shouldn't different groups be allowed to separate as they see fit? Isn't that what freedom is all about? Do you really want to force vi and emacs users or KDE and Gnome users into the same groups? :)
In any case, the ultimate state of dislike or hatred is war, and there religion plays a very small part: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-t...
Organised religion is just a different kind of tribalism, and tribalism is the problem. After all though, it is probably an innate part of our psyche, a practical offshoot of our natural desire to categorise our friends (from who we would get help/support) and enemies (who would cause us harm, compete for resources/mates).
Given that, it is hardly a surprise that so many religious differences are felt so fiercely and so violently. Just consider the violent divides caused by insignificant differences in dogma. Is Jesus your messiah or Mohammed? Outside that environment, it seems rather difficult to understand why such a question is important and certainly not worth killing people over. Could you imagine people killing each other over the question of who was the most influential scientist: Einstein or Maxwell? Can't we agree that they were both important in their own way, and move on? :)
And to bring it back to vi and emacs, the "religious" divide on such things that are not even black or white (vi and emacs are not the only two options of course).
Given that, it is hardly a surprise that so many religious differences are felt so fiercely and so violently. Just consider the violent divides caused by insignificant differences in dogma. Is Jesus your messiah or Mohammed? Outside that environment, it seems rather difficult to understand why such a question is important and certainly not worth killing people over. Could you imagine people killing each other over the question of who was the most influential scientist: Einstein or Maxwell? Can't we agree that they were both important in their own way, and move on? :)
And to bring it back to vi and emacs, the "religious" divide on such things that are not even black or white (vi and emacs are not the only two options of course).
> Organised religion is just a different kind of tribalism, and tribalism is the problem.
Agreed. But tribalism appears to be innate to the human species. Which is why I'm so pessimistic about education overcoming it.
Agreed. But tribalism appears to be innate to the human species. Which is why I'm so pessimistic about education overcoming it.
Education allows us to rise above our native instincts, encouraging self-reflection and permitting us to understand that which seems unintuitive.
The very essence of "science" and the scientific method is designed specifically with our fallibility in mind.
It is such a shame that the word science has become so associated with technology for so many people, that they don't realise that it is purely a method for discovering truth. I blame that partly on schools for partitioning science in our curricula in a way that fences it off from other pursuits.
Perhaps we should, instead, teach a separate subject of logic, reason and philosophy to all students as a tool for all of life's endeavours.
The very essence of "science" and the scientific method is designed specifically with our fallibility in mind.
It is such a shame that the word science has become so associated with technology for so many people, that they don't realise that it is purely a method for discovering truth. I blame that partly on schools for partitioning science in our curricula in a way that fences it off from other pursuits.
Perhaps we should, instead, teach a separate subject of logic, reason and philosophy to all students as a tool for all of life's endeavours.
> Education allows us to rise above our native instincts, encouraging self-reflection and permitting us to understand that which seems unintuitive.
To an extent. But human nature doesn't change. Nature or nurture is also one of the eternal questions we grapple with.
> The very essence of "science" and the scientific method is designed specifically with our fallibility in mind.
Yes.
> Perhaps we should, instead, teach a separate subject of logic, reason and philosophy to all students as a tool for all of life's endeavours.
But that would mean the students might question authority, and then where would we be? :) I really don't expect the government run schools to adopt such a standard, do you?
To an extent. But human nature doesn't change. Nature or nurture is also one of the eternal questions we grapple with.
> The very essence of "science" and the scientific method is designed specifically with our fallibility in mind.
Yes.
> Perhaps we should, instead, teach a separate subject of logic, reason and philosophy to all students as a tool for all of life's endeavours.
But that would mean the students might question authority, and then where would we be? :) I really don't expect the government run schools to adopt such a standard, do you?
i just came across an article that discusses how different groups interact with each other in highschool:
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi...
it makes for an interesting read, resonating some of the points being made in this thread.
please also read the followup where the author quotes students comments on the topic:
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/01/centerville-students-...
greetings, eMBee.
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begi...
it makes for an interesting read, resonating some of the points being made in this thread.
please also read the followup where the author quotes students comments on the topic:
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/01/centerville-students-...
greetings, eMBee.
eMBee:
Very good indeed...
Very good indeed...
heterodoxacademy, first link wrote:Me: So let me get this straight. You were unanimous in saying that you want your school to be a place where people feel free to speak up, even if you strongly dislike their views. But you don’t have such a school. In fact, you have exactly the sort of “tolerance” that Herbert Marcuse advocated [which I had discussed in my lecture, and which you can read about here]. You have a school in which only people in the preferred groups get to speak, and everyone else is afraid. What are you going to do about this? Let’s talk.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
there are a few points here: prejudice is not the same as scepticism. scepticism is: i don't know you, therefore i don't trust you. show me you are trustworthy, and we'll get along.
prejudice is: you are different, and therefore you can never be trusted. nothing you do or say will change that.
nothing good comes from prejudice. and eradicating it, is not at all dehumanizing humans.
what also needs to change here is the concept of a tribe:
that is to say, we are all one big human tribe. and just like learning to be nice and to show respect, this again, is something to be learned.
but, as i believe we agree, none of this can be achieved simply by making and enforcing rules. it needs to be learned.
thank you for this enlightening discussion.
greetings, eMBee.