Down The Slippery Slope

[MurBob]

Based on these two quotes I believe that you've somewhat flip flopped what is meant by 'conditioning' as the word has been used in the posts in this thread.

I'm not aware of anything I have said that could be construed as flip flopping.. Please point out what you mean.

I believe that what he is saying is that the education system is part of what is doing the conditioning, not in fact a tool to combat it. I trust that he will correct me if I'm wrong.

I can't make a reasonable argument on this because my child is not of school age, thus my knowledge on some of the more specific aspects is going to be very limited. I have some funny personal experience stories I could share about my experiences with young adults that do not give me a lot of confidence in our school systems, and I could argue certain things that I read about, but I have not been exposed to the daily homework assignments or have first hand experience watching my own child's progression.

...I believe that what he is trying to say is that many of us have been conditioned without even realizing it, you and I included. I don't believe that he would agree with the thought that older people tend to be more easily 'conditioned' than younger people do, I'm betting just the opposite.
Though it is logical that continual bombardment over a greater period of time could have more impact, I don't think that is what he was trying to convey. Honestly, I believe that the more malleable subject would be the younger more impressionable mind which would yield much greater success in the long run, and I believe that he would agree. Especially when that conditioning is started early, which I believe it definitely is.

The term "conditioning" as was used, refers to a process involving time and frequency. You defined it quite nicely with the phrase "continual bombardment". (Continual = time and bombardment = repeated exposure)

The most ubiquitous example I can think of would be going to church every Sunday, Easter, Christmas, saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes, phrases like "Oh My God" and the list goes on. All designed to impart conditioning and familiarity.

Lacking a conscious awareness or defense for it, the older an individual gets, the more effective the continual bombardment becomes. (EDIT: its a cumulative effect) The key words here are "lacking awareness"
Once someone is made aware of the conditioning process, they can begin to learn skills to defend against it. But it not over yet.

You guys see conditioning as the source of a problem in the battle over the gun control debate. But the susceptibility to such conditioning is a symptom, not the root cause.

The root cause is a lack of a skill called "Critical Thinking". It is one of the most important skills a person can learn. Do not misinterpret its meaning, critical thinking is not about how smart you are, its about how you interpret the things you experience. It is a learned skill that is no different than learning how to play tennis or shoot a gun accurately, or twirl a baton. It takes practice and a conscious effort to become proficient at it.

You should love this conclusion because here is where we come full circle.

If you want to keep your guns, I would start shifting some of your attention to our educational system. Start demanding that we pull taxpayer money from less important things and start funneling it into our public schools and demand that our schools emphasize the sciences.

Its a difficult strategy to imagine and accept because its short term effectiveness in the gun debate is pretty much nonexistent.. but in the long term, its the most cost/effort efficient thing that can be done and its generational long term effects won't be subject to political length timelines. No more back and forth every time a new guy takes office.

When a media story says "The vicious crazed killer man used a high power assault rifle to murder these innocent victims", a "conditioned" person becomes emotionally charged.. the emotion blocks out logic and reasoning and the snowball gets going.

A person with critical thinking skills who objectifies the story hears "A man used a firearm to kill people". There's a lot less emotion in that.. logic and reasoning can remain intact.

Its great practice to watch and read advertisements and pick apart the filler words that elicit undue responses.

 

[44 AMP]

Some may say conditioning, some may say training, life teaches us things, and we learn them. Different people can learn different lessons from identical experiences.

Conditioning is a process that involves time an frequency, but that is just the method, and is the method for all training and teaching.

The conditioning I'm referring to is the kind that is designed to produce a desired result, one that would not otherwise be likely to occur.

The classic example is Pavlov's dogs.

Another example is the "Big Lie"

perhaps another example is our 24hr news and entertainment cycle.

 

[turkeestalker]

I'm not aware of anything I have said that could be construed as flip flopping.. Please point out what you mean.

I am not saying that you yourself flip flopped in any way. I am saying that you misunderstood the intent of previous posts and flip flopped their meaning.

You stated that education may be one of the more effective tools to combat conditioning, when what Kilimanjaro was trying to convey is that the education system is a primary tool used to condition.
You then reaffirmed that by implying that older people are more subject to conditioning than younger people are, which leads me to believe that you missed his meaning all together.

You are absolutely right regarding critical thinking, but critical thinking is not necessarily what our educational system is teaching our children, I would venture to say almost not at all. Here is a link to part 1 of an interesting article that may help explain my perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-breslin/why-public-schools-dont-t_b_7956518.html

If you want to keep your guns, I would start shifting some of your attention to our educational system.

Without question, but what is it that our educational system is actually teaching? A better question might be, what ability do we as parents have to influence what our public educational system is teaching our children? I'm going to say that over time it has gone from a great deal, to virtually none.

To say that your child is not yet of school age so your knowledge is limited, leads me to believe that you missed 44 AMP's meaning as well.
If this 'conditioning' has been going on for the last 50 years through our education system, then my being only 52 years old means that I was subject to it my entire life.
I don't know your age, but if I had to guess I would say that you are nearer to half of mine, which would mean that you too were subject to this 'conditioning' your entire life as well, but it doesn't seem as if you believe or accept that possibility. That is where this statement comes in:

The most subtle (and effective) conditioning is the kind you don't even realize exists.

This is something that I posted in another forum. I think that it might help to better explain my perspective here.

Our education system has been attempting to mold the 'model citizen' since before my time as a student much less as a father of students. Their doctrines have changed some through the years but their intentions have not. One example would be when my oldest came home from school in the 2nd grade and proceeded to excitedly share with me about a book that they were being read in class. The book "was about a boy who has two fathers", he told me. I first assumed the premise would be that of a broken home due to divorce and one parent remarrying. No, because his next words were "but it's okay dad... they're just different"! I was shocked. (I'm not trying to chastise or judge someone for their sexual orientation here and don't want that to become the topic in any way shape or form, this is merely a pointed example.) I fully understand the necessity of teaching children tolerance, but have to question doing so at the tender young age of a child in the 2nd grade.
When I did try to question this with school officials, the initial response leaned toward them not having any control over what an individual teacher taught in their class. I decisively cut them off and warned against attempting to take such a stance, but in the end I don't believe I had any effect what so ever on what they were teaching to whom when, then or since.
I can not count the number of times that my oldest fell asleep against my chest as we sat in the spring woods while turkey hunting. He watched me legally and respectfully harvest turkey and deer since before he was even of school age and has always enjoyed sharing the experience with me as much as I've enjoyed including him. He has always understood since he's been at the age of awareness to, that animals are not capable of regulating their own numbers based on the available resources and nature has a much more cruel and inhumane way of doing it for them. Yet one day based on what he had learned in elementary school, he expressed to me that hunters were "bad". When I asked him why, what was it that made them bad? His response was, "because they kill things". I reminded him that I was a hunter, and asked him if that meant that I was bad for killing things? I could visibly see the struggle he was having inside himself to be able to reason that out. Regardless of my influence, what we had shared, and what he already knew of me and what he knew to be true, our education system was able to plant enough of a seed in him that he questioned all of it, even my integrity as his father.

One could argue that the latter is an example of critical thinking, but the school never presented him with any idea other than 'hunters are bad because they kill things'. Had it not been for my influence, he'd have accepted that perspective as the bottom line truth. If that is not 'conditioning', I'm not sure what would be.

 

[MurBob]

You are absolutely right regarding critical thinking, but critical thinking is not necessarily what our educational system is teaching our children, I would venture to say almost not at all. .

Agreed. The greater majority of the population doesn't even know what the term critical thinking means, or is even aware that its a thing. But if we think about it, a school attempting to teach it directly would be much more difficult than a parent doing it. We could compare this to teaching manors and integrity and a host of other things that parents are supposed to teach... Its not impossible for a school to do it, but its much much easier for a parent. (Lets not drag this to parental responsibility or this could get really long and I'd have no idea how we'd work firearms into that )

Without question, but what is it that our educational system is actually teaching? A better question might be, what ability do we as parents have to influence what our public educational system is teaching our children? I'm going to say that over time it has gone from a great deal, to virtually none.

Again, I agree... but its not a conspiracy of the government, if I had to throw out an idea, I would say it's the result of lack of involvement by the parents. I could throw out another idea in that it might also have something to do with a few wacky school systems (isolated communities) teaching things that are not generally accepted by the wider community.

I don't know your age, but if I had to guess I would say that you are nearer to half of mine, which would mean that you too were subject to this 'conditioning' your entire life as well, but it doesn't seem as if you believe or accept that possibility. That is where this statement comes in:

You and I are within two years of each other. I don't know what you guys see as some kind of intentional conditioning, but it does make me wonder if some of what you think you see is just a natural progression of a maturing society.

Our education system has been attempting to mold the 'model citizen' since before my time as a student much less as a father of students. Their doctrines have changed some through the years but their intentions have not. One example would be when my oldest came home from school in the 2nd grade and proceeded to excitedly share with me about a book that they were being read in class. The book "was about a boy who has two fathers", he told me. I first assumed the premise would be that of a broken home due to divorce and one parent remarrying. No, because his next words were "but it's okay dad... they're just different"! I was shocked.

There's religion pasted all over your statement here. A perfect example of being conditioned to think a certain way. Would you have been shocked if the example was a child in a wheel chair with no legs? Or maybe someone with a genetic deformity? The fact that the example shown is a subject of religious contention and that you were shocked by the use of it, appears to show symptoms of intentional and organized conditioning. I do not know your personally so I my statement above is made from a distance which does not afford me the opportunity of a closer inspection. But I say it anyhow because its my first impression.

(I'm not trying to chastise or judge someone for their sexual orientation here and don't want that to become the topic in any way shape or form, this is merely a pointed example.) I fully understand the necessity of teaching children tolerance, but have to question doing so at the tender young age of a child in the 2nd grade.

The more tender they are, the easier it is to teach them, and since tolerance can be a very difficult thing to teach, starting early seems like sound reasoning.

Yet one day based on what he had learned in elementary school, he expressed to me that hunters were "bad". When I asked him why, what was it that made them bad? His response was, "because they kill things".

Well that's a serious issue. Did you go to the school and investigate how and where he got that idea? What school lesson or teachers comment led him to think that? As I'm sure you and every parent are aware, children are easily confused and sometimes misinterpret things. More information is needed to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I would tow my kid to that school and ask the principle to explain where he could have come up with that idea. Then you can work from that. For all you know, it could have been another child that said that and your kid just picked up on it.

I think its great that you take your child hunting with you. I have considered doing the same but am concerned that the loud bang could initiate hearing damage. Bow hunting would be cool but my kid isn't able to keep that quiet and that still for so long.

 

[turkeestalker]

Agreed. The greater majority of the population doesn't even know what the term critical thinking means, or is even aware that its a thing. But if we think about it, a school attempting to teach it directly would be much more difficult than a parent doing it. We could compare this to teaching manors and integrity and a host of other things that parents are supposed to teach... Its not impossible for a school to do it, but its much much easier for a parent.

No argument here regarding a parent's responsibility, and from my perspective, the seeming lack of many of today's parents to fulfill that responsibility (but agreed, we just won't go there).
I don't believe that comparing teaching critical thinking to teaching manners is appropriate.
Manners are something that should be learned long before a child reaches our educational system, and without question should be taught by a child's parents and or guardians. Integrity however, is something that will be gained over a much greater period of time and will be learned in the home as well as in the educational system.
What good would education be without critical thinking? I'm not saying that it is an easy task by any means, but attempting to educate without critical thinking isn't really an education is it?

Again, I agree... but its not a conspiracy of the government, if I had to throw out an idea, I would say it's the result of lack of involvement by the parents. I could throw out another idea in that it might also have something to do with a few wacky school systems (isolated communities) teaching things that are not generally accepted by the wider community.

I'll again not argue about a lack of involvement by many of the parents. But are you certain that it is not an aim of the government through the educational system? Who is it that sets the standards and guidelines for our educational system? Just in recent years think about the 'No Child Left Behind' laws, and now the push of the 'Common Core' program and all of the system of tests and curriculum that go along with it. So how is it that you can be so sure that there is not a good deal of influence there? Aimed at a specific outcome?
I personally believe that it is overwhelmingly influenced by government and designed to a very specific end.

The community in which my children have been and are still being raised, is in no way isolated. I don't believe that anyone would label Saint Louis and it's surrounding communities as such. I'll not argue the 'wacky' part, but I don't think the two of us mean the same thing in using the word.

You and I are within two years of each other. I don't know what you guys see as some kind of intentional conditioning, but it does make me wonder if some of what you think you see is just a natural progression of a maturing society.

That truly surprises me, I would not have guessed that we were so close in age. My impression is that you come off as much younger, but that is my impression, no offense intended.
As I've stated my perspective, whether you agree or not, intentional conditioning to a desired end is not a natural progression of a maturing society. More like a manipulation toward an idealistic society.

There's religion pasted all over your statement here. A perfect example of being conditioned to think a certain way. Would you have been shocked if the example was a child in a wheel chair with no legs? Or maybe someone with a genetic deformity? The fact that the example shown is a subject of religious contention and that you were shocked by the use of it, appears to show symptoms of intentional and organized conditioning. I do not know your personally so I my statement above is made from a distance which does not afford me the opportunity of a closer inspection. But I say it anyhow because its my first impression.

I won't even touch that. Doing so would be about as productive as addressing parental responsibility.

The more tender they are, the easier it is to teach them, and since tolerance can be a very difficult thing to teach, starting early seems like sound reasoning.

Agreed, and that line shows that you do understand what was being said in previous posts regarding conditioning, you just aren't willing to accept it. That's fine.
My point was starting with a child that averages seven years of age in the 2nd grade, regarding sex education, or what is acceptably referred to as an alternative type of sex, education. If you do not see a problem with this, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well that's a serious issue. Did you go to the school and investigate how and where he got that idea? What school lesson or teachers comment led him to think that? As I'm sure you and every parent are aware, children are easily confused and sometimes misinterpret things. More information is needed to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I would tow my kid to that school and ask the principle to explain where he could have come up with that idea. Then you can work from that. For all you know, it could have been another child that said that and your kid just picked up on it.

Yes that is a serious issue, and yes it came from a teacher, and yes the school administration supported her despite my protest.

 

[MurBob]

But are you certain that it is not an aim of the government through the educational system? Who is it that sets the standards and guidelines for our educational system? Just in recent years think about the 'No Child Left Behind' laws, and now the push of the 'Common Core' program and all of the system of tests and curriculum that go along with it. So how is it that you can be so sure that there is not a good deal of influence there? Aimed at a specific outcome?
I personally believe that it is overwhelmingly influenced by government and designed to a very specific end.

Yes, I am certain. Many times people do the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons.
The common core program is one of those things were the folks in charge determined that what we had needed improvement. Unlike many other aspects of government business, they decided to actually do something and make a change. Was the change for the better? No one could know that until some results could be examined. Its not working, it wasn't an improvement. The teachers are all up in arms about it and I'm confident they will modify and make appropriate adjustments as they see fit. Will those adjustments be better? Know one knows.. It really is one of those things where improvement is achieved by trial and error.. in this case, a very slow process where verifiable results (or lack of), can take a decade or more.

But a conspiracy to subjugate the public by making them placid idiots? That would be very bad for national security because those kids in school will be the ones making decisions in a few decades. Very bad strategy.

That truly surprises me, I would not have guessed that we were so close in age. My impression is that you come off as much younger, but that is my impression, no offense intended.
As I've stated my perspective, whether you agree or not, intentional conditioning to a desired end is not a natural progression of a maturing society. More like a manipulation toward an idealistic society.

What is it that surprises you about my age?

Agreed, and that line shows that you do understand what was being said in previous posts regarding conditioning, you just aren't willing to accept it. That's fine.
My point was starting with a child that averages seven years of age in the 2nd grade, regarding sex education, or what is acceptably referred to as an alternative type of sex, education. If you do not see a problem with this, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm a bit confused.. you're original statement implied a school lesson about tolerance and understanding on how people can be very different from one another. You didn't mention that there was any kind of sexual education involved.
But even if there was, barring any comprehension issues, I would never hide information from my child. If I'm reading about neutron degeneracy support within a compact pulsar and my child asks me what I'm looking at, I will quickly change the subject because there no way for a kid at such a young age to comprehend things of that nature. But if my child asks me about something such as sexuality, or the death of an animal, I would never hide that information, quite the opposite in fact. I would probably jump at the opportunity and take advantage of the focused curiosity. Again, so long as there wasn't an issue with comprehension. I don't hide anything, and I don't lie to my kid.. not even about silly things like Santa Clause.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.. and that's cool with me.. everyone has their own way and I certainly can't say that mine is better than yours.

We should get back to guns eh?

 

[turkeestalker]

The teachers are all up in arms about it and I'm confident they will modify and make appropriate adjustments as they see fit.

As they should be because by and large they had no part in it's design, the government did. Not sure if that will change as it is revamped.

But a conspiracy to subjugate the public by making them placid idiots

I never said that, I said mold the model citizens. There is a difference, and there is truth in that line of thinking. A bad strategy yes, but how often have you actually witnessed our government employing a good strategy in recent years? Seldom at best.

I'm surprised by your age because you don't seem to me, and mind you this is MY impression, you don't seem to have the perspective of someone who has actually been on this earth for either 50 or 54 years. Like I said, I would have guessed about half my age, but again that is NOT intended offensively, it is just my perspective.

So you're going to go with the stance that you never read or just didn't comprehend the line about having two dads? The comment that it's ok, they're just different? I'm sorry but I won't accept that you're not a deep enough thinker to have gleaned my meaning there.
So on that note, what you're saying is that children should have sexual education as a part of their curriculum in the second grade?
You're right, we'll disagree and get back to firearms. Sorry, but this isn't going to get us anywhere productive, and honestly it's pretty well off the topic of the OP, though it is still related to it.

 

[MurBob]

So you're going to go with the stance that you never read or just didn't comprehend the line about having two dads? The comment that it's ok, they're just different? I'm sorry but I won't accept that you're not a deep enough thinker to have gleaned my meaning there.

My assumption was that the lesson for the students was about the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parental structures.

So on that note, what you're saying is that children should have sexual education as a part of their curriculum in the second grade?

Actually its supposed to start in Kindergarten. I think what you're really getting at is a question that deals with the level of sexual education a child receives for their age. Its a progressive thing.. Experts set the progressive age curve..

I take it you don't like the curve?

 

[turkeestalker]

Honestly no, the Taurus Curve is a butt-ugly pistol!

I'm joking obviously... well no, the Taurus Curve is a butt-ugly pistol, but I know that's not what you meant.

Yes,

...the lesson for the students was about the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parental structures.

How is it that you actually provide any understanding about that specifically, without providing some rudimentary understanding of sex and sexual orientation? Yes, I do have a problem with that regarding a child of mine at seven years old, without question.

Its a progressive thing.. Experts set the progressive age curve..

...the same experts who conceived No Child Left Behind and Common Core?
No, that would be correct, I do not like that curve.

 

[MurBob]

No, that would be correct, I do not like that curve.

You sound like a typical over-protective father doing your job.

Better figure out a way to keep your blood pressure low because I'm betting there are going to be more curves you don't like.

 

[turkeestalker]

You mean curves that I don't like much the same as the 'curves' that our educational system's teachers do not like related to something such as say... Common Core?
I'm betting you're right, though I'll not accept what my own convictions do not allow me to agree with even when it is presented by supposed experts, or more importantly simply because of that fact.

I've no qualms with being labeled an over protective father doing my job, I rather find that a point of pride actually.
Though I must say that does sound a bit like an 'ad hominem' attack when you throw in the blood pressure bit, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning. By the way mine is fine, but I do appreciate your concern.

 

[MurBob]

It was not a sarcastic remark meant as an attack in any way.. normal dad, normal concerns..

Think I'm kidding about the blood pressure? Take your pressure a week before your kid starts driving a car and then right after you watch him leave the driveway on his own. If its not at least 5-10 points higher, I'll eat my shoe.

 

[turkeestalker]

My sons are 16 and 20, I've already experienced that. I guess when yours that is not yet school age gets to that point, you'll know it first hand then as well.

 

[44 AMP]

But a conspiracy to subjugate the public by making them placid idiots? That would be very bad for national security because those kids in school will be the ones making decisions in a few decades. Very bad strategy.

Actually, most of those "placid idiots" won't be making any decisions of import, beyond their own personal lives and whom they vote for. And they already have long term programs about voting.

Remember that the programs that are "dumbing down" our kids are GOVERNMENT mandates, for PUBLIC schools. And that they are for the masses. The children of the elite get a different kind of education.

 

[MurBob]

Actually, most of those "placid idiots" won't be making any decisions of import, beyond their own personal lives and whom they vote for. And they already have long term programs about voting.

Remember that the programs that are "dumbing down" our kids are GOVERNMENT mandates, for PUBLIC schools. And that they are for the masses. The children of the elite get a different kind of education.

Please elaborate.. what do children of the elite have to do with this?

 

[turkeestalker]

Please elaborate.. what do children of the elite have to do with this?

Shouldn't that be obvious? How many children of the 'elite' as the term is used here, do you suppose go to public schools? How many private schools that do not receive funding from our government are forced to follow government mandates? I would think that would be a fairly simple concept to comprehend.

Again I'll suggest that you do a little research on your own MurBob, there is a wealth of information out there that supports what 44 AMP is saying.

 

[MurBob]

Shouldn't that be obvious? How many children of the 'elite' as the term is used here, do you suppose go to public schools? How many private schools that do not receive funding from our government are forced to follow government mandates? I would think that would be a fairly simple concept to comprehend.

So private schools provide a higher quality education. Is this something you just learned? Its been that way for longer than you or I have been around and its generally regarded as common knowledge among most people..

I still don't see how this is relevant to the context of our conversation... you obviously think it is in some way...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The issue is about what happened in England and not a general discussion of educational standards.

We do not discuss religious issues or those of sexual identity. Oblique references to how those values may in your opinion related to gun rights isn't really on this topic.

Looking at the last set of posts, I'm closing this.