Anti-Bush protests...in Kentucky?

[Cerek]

John D. Harris - ROLL TIDE!!!

There will never be another coach to equal Bear Bryant.

[Lucern]

Of course, some professors want to be regarded as Authority and the dispensers of Truth. Naturally, if your truth disagrees with their Truth then you can try to take the class again next semester under a different professor....

Lol, indeed Azred. This falls under the lousy profs category. If you can back an opinion in a framework that's relevent to the class, perhaps demonstrating that you were paying attention or read something, only a lousy prof would hold that against you. Those don't want human students; they want parrots.

Of course, my calculus professor didn't like my more creative answers

[Davros]

Originally posted by Cerek: Davros - I have to disagree. (C'mon, you knew that was coming ) Seriously though, I don't agree that parents "indoctrinate" thier kids - and especially not their teens. Teens naturally rebel against their parents as they struggle to form their own identity and a parent or parents that push a "hard-core" line are only going to face an even larger rebellion. And while I know you were just using the repugs to be consistent, I do take issue with repugs and conservatives always being considered "afraid" or worse "incapable" of independent thought. To be perfectly honost, I was a registered Democrat in high school. I changed my registration after going to college and actually learning what ideals and issues the Democratic party supported. I admit I registered as a Democrat because my parents were also Democrats - but that isn't because they "indoctrinated" me. It's because I really had no idea what the difference between the two parties were and voter registration is a very important issue...so I just naturally chose what my parents were. Since then, we have ALL changed our registration as the Democratic party became more and more liberal. And - despite my deeply conservative values - I am not registered as a Republican either. Instead, I chose to register as an Independent because it was the best reflection of my values. The only reason I didn't register as an Independent sooner than I did is because - for many, many years - Independent voters were not allowed to vote in the primary elections for either party. Primary elections are the ones held to choose which candidate will represent the party in any given race, whether it be President of the United States or Sheriff of the local town. As soon as the rule was changed so that Independents could also vote in the Primaries, I changed my registration. I don't think either party has a lock on the moral or intellectual high ground. The Repubs are generally more conservative, so they get my vote more often than the Demo's, but I've voted for plenty of Demo's in my time too (for State and Congressional Representatives and Senators) because the Democratic candidate endorsed more of the issues that were important to me than their Republican opponent. I know it is a popular thought that Universities are "breeding grounds" for liberals and liberal thought. To some extent, that may be true. But I attended two Universities in my college career - one was a major state university and the other was a much smaller uni closer to home. I did encounter more diversity of ideas, lifestyles and everything else at the larger university, but that was just a factor of the sheer numbers there (around 25k students at the time). I freely admit that the smaller college was much more "conservative" in their views than the larger one - at least in my experience. Then again, the smaller university was set in a very small town while the major university was in our state's capitol. So the environment made a big difference too. Anyway, I think that colleges don't necessarily "promote" independent thought so much as the "coming of age" of the students. I began establishing my own identity in high school, but I didn't really start looking at "world issues" until I was in college. And the biggest influence on my thinking came from my friends and classmates instead of my professors. So while I would like to accuse University's in general of being bastions of liberalism, I have to admit that both sides of the spectrum are usually represented equally enough (though I will agree that most prof's do tend to lean more towards the liberal side. Again, that is based on personal experience and observation, not hearsay and indoctrination).

BOLLOCKS and definitely worthy of further debate [img]smile.gif[/img] .

You make the point that you feel that parental upbringing (what I referred to as conditioning) doesn't stick well in teenagers, but did nothing to refute that it exists or that it is strong.

You reject a notion (supposedly made by me?) that repugs are not capable of independant thought, but indeed such has never been my contention. The notion that was originally advanced (by another) was that it was universities loaded with democrats that were incapable of independant thought, and I merely observed that that was a rather avuncular view of the world, and it might take a rather dyed in the wool, pure bred conservative, who lives his life only watching Faux News and was incapable of independant thought to come to that conclusion. Please to note that the post I was answering was attemting to impose a derisive value judgement on a universal set of academics, wheras I set out to depict a subset of people that could make such a judgement as being rather close minded and not themselves in fact open to other ideas.

The heart and sould of your post then goes on to fully support my contention that university was a phase of your life where you took in other data feeds and considered what was best for you and chose a course. The course you chose was very close to the one I myself chose. While I used one side of politics in my previous postto combat slander from the other, I never contended that independant thought means that you arrive at the conclusion of democrat. I am also mildly right wing and have only ever voted what you would term conservative. I do so on economic grounds rather than any conservative christaian moral dimension. I also don't see either party in my country being morally or ethically superior to the other.

I can agree with your coming of age theory, but I don't see it as fundamentally different from what I was saying. I will agree that fostering independant thought or exposing to new ideas are better terminologies than "encouraging independant thought" but I don't think you can exclude the latter either. That professors favour the left is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things, as long as (you yorself pointed out) there is such a diverse range of input available.

Cheers and good fortune fellow academician

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Davros: BOLLOCKS and definitely worthy of further debate [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Originally posted by Davros: You make the point that you feel that parental upbringing (what I referred to as conditioning) doesn't stick well in teenagers, but did nothing to refute that it exists or that it is strong.

You called the parental upbringing "indoctrination", not conditioning. That was why I disagreed with it. I DO know some parents that told their kids "You WILL think like this and you WILL support this party/that party at election time." But these are in the vast minority.

I will agree that "conditioning" is a much more appropriate and accurate description of the parental influence.

Originally posted by Davros: You reject a notion (supposedly made by me?) that repugs are not capable of independant thought, but indeed such has never been my contention. The notion that was originally advanced (by another) was that it was universities loaded with democrats that were incapable of independant thought, and I merely observed that that was a rather avuncular view of the world, and it might take a rather dyed in the wool, pure bred conservative, who lives his life only watching Faux News and was incapable of independant thought to come to that conclusion. Please to note that the post I was answering was attemting to impose a derisive value judgement on a universal set of academics, wheras I set out to depict a subset of people that could make such a judgement as being rather close minded and not themselves in fact open to other ideas.

I didn't say that you were the one who had made the accusation of Repubs being incapable of independent thought. I acknowledged that you only used that example in order to remain consistent with a previous post or example given by another member. But that accusation has been made or implied on this forum several times (especially right after the election) and - even though you were giving a hypothetical example - it only serves to reinforce that notion in the minds of some of the members.

I apologize if I didn't clarify my post well enough and certainly did not mean to imply you had said something you didn't.

Originally posted by Davros: The heart and sould of your post then goes on to fully support my contention that university was a phase of your life where you took in other data feeds and considered what was best for you and chose a course. The course you chose was very close to the one I myself chose. While I used one side of politics in my previous postto combat slander from the other, I never contended that independant thought means that you arrive at the conclusion of democrat. I am also mildly right wing and have only ever voted what you would term conservative. I do so on economic grounds rather than any conservative christaian moral dimension. I also don't see either party in my country being morally or ethically superior to the other. I can agree with your coming of age theory, but I don't see it as fundamentally different from what I was saying. I will agree that fostering independant thought or exposing to new ideas are better terminologies than "encouraging independant thought" but I don't think you can exclude the latter either. That professors favour the left is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things, as long as (you yorself pointed out) there is such a diverse range of input available. Cheers and good fortune fellow academician

I like the "coming of age" theory better than the "indoctrination by professors and/or parents" theory. To be perfectly honost, I liked several of my professors in college, but they had very LITTLE influence on changing my values, morals or ideals. And - unless the student is a Political Science major - I would question just how much influence any of the professors had on their students world view. Most students have prof's they admire and respect and some they don't like or respect at all. But either way, the influence any given professor has usually doesn't extend very far past the classroom walls.

Cheers and good fortune to you as well, mate. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 01-25-2005, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[John D Harris]

Cerek, There t'aint but one "BEAR"

I believe parents do Indoctrinate their children, but what is wrong with that? After all indoctrination is teaching. The problems are not that children are indoctrinated, but rather what is the indoctrination, and why are they indoctrinated with the teachings they have been indoctrinated with.

My wife and I indoctrinated our children to think for themselves. Did that cause conficts, YOU BET IT DID, as they grew older they came up with their own ideas and thoughts, many where not in agreement with my wife's and mine. We also indoctrinated them to understand that others have the right to think for themselves. A person has to decide for themselves what they want, it's their life, as it is the lives of others. If somebody wants to believe something, great. They had better be ready to except the consequences of their beliefs. If they wish to discus their beliefs and persuade others, they had better be ready to be persuaded themselves. Ask questions, listen to the answers, if the answer makes sense why do the make sense, if the answers don't make why do they not make sense.

[Davros]

JD - that might be the most sense you have made to me in a post this year [img]smile.gif[/img] . And no - I wasn't saying that it was bad that parents indoctrinate their children - I just said that it happens. It is entirely natural that a parent bringing up their child will empart in large their value system and beliefs - what they think best prepares the child for the future.

What I was saying though is that they are exposed largely in early life to the value set of the parents. I can imagine for example that if I was reared in a household where dad sits down and watches CNN I would have a different sort of conditioning than if my father insisted over dinner that we watch FOX News followed by the O'Rielly Factor. Whichever political, ethical, moral conditioning you grow up with, a place like a university will expose you to diversity and other views. It will foster independant thought, which is the exact opposite of what was glibly thrown out by someone to start this line of debate.

BTW - kudos to you for your ideas on nurturing - some people I know wouldn't be as open minded as yourself in encouraging thinking for oneself and valuing others' opinions. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: What I was saying though is that they are exposed largely in early life to the value set of the parents. I can imagine for example that if I was reared in a household where dad sits down and watches CNN I would have a different sort of conditioning than if my father insisted over dinner that we watch FOX News followed by the O'Rielly Factor. Whichever political, ethical, moral conditioning you grow up with, a place like a university will expose you to diversity and other views. It will foster independant thought, which is the exact opposite of what was glibly thrown out by someone to start this line of debate.

That's why you teach them to think for themselves. Using your examples, If my children watch CNN or FOX because I do, then I am thinking for them. If they watch CNN or FOX because they want to then they are thinking for themselves. That doesn't mean there were not things we told them to do because we said so, with the 4 walls of the house we own we have the right to decide what is exceptable and what isn't. By the same token when we go to our oldest daughter house she and her Husband have the right to decide what is and isn't exceptable inside their 4 walls. Our daughter is a coaster freak, my wife and I aren't, in our house we don't use coasters, but in our daughters house we do. They happen to have the same or simular values as my Wife and I, not because we believe in the values but because they do. For example we told them not to beleive in God because we do, if they believe in God because we do they are actually believing in us, and we are not worthy of that kind of belief. If they have questions ask, we'll answer to the best of our ability. If the answers don't satisfy them (make sense) ask somebody else, seek the truth.

Edit because a customer came and I had to make money

The statement was about diversity of thought not about independance of thought. There can exsist diverse thoughts without the thoughts being independant, thoughts can be independant without being diverse, there also can be independant diverse thoughts. As I explained to Sham, the majority (over 50%)of Profs in the USA Uni's are left leaning and there is nothing wrong with that. The Profs have the right to think as they wish.

The problem lies in Profs grading work based on agendas(no matter which agenda the Profs have) and not on wiether the work is done correctly, the I's are doted and the T's crossed. If work is graded on agendas and not the 3 R's (read'n, rite'n, & 'rithmatic) then diversity of thought is squished. No Matter what the agenda is! Throw out the Left-Right crap. This truth works for both sides. A rightwing economics Prof shouldn't grade work of a leftwing student's on the values of the welfare state, though the prism of the rightwing agenda (Prof not beleiving in welfare). It should be graded on does the work address the issues, is the same logic used on both sides of the arguement, or is the logic applied unfairly. Then graded on the 3 "R's", if diversity thought is the goal. Same is true for a leftwing Sociology(sp?) Prof should not grade a rightwing stundent's work on the values of captial punishment through the prism of the leftwing agenda (Prof believing captial punishment is bad). If either of those happen the Profs are squishing diversity of thought.

[ 01-26-2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Here's a question for anybody,(it is not a trick question it is an Honest open question.)
How does one decide if another person's thought or thoughts are independant?

[ 01-26-2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Stratos]

One can't, or at least it's very difficult.

Nonetheless, an independent thought you can generally back up with reasoning like why you think the way you do. If you haven't reached your opinions from independend thinking, that's much harder.

Further, people who have reached their opinions through independent thinking generally have a good idea what any opposing or alternative ideas are about, while people who have just adopted their opinions without much thinking can be completely clueless about all ideas except their own, and sometimes those as well.

[ 01-26-2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[John D Harris]

Stratos, Thanks I use pretty much the same logic. Short of somebody saying their thoughts aren't independant, it's a tough call.

*JDH draws Strat closer to the darkside*