The Folk Prophet

I'm not disrespecting your view. It's yours and valid. But as a personal p.o.v., if this were the issue I had with public school, I wouldn't have much of an issue with public school. I'll grant it's an issue...but not one that warrants much concern, in my opinion. Learning to deal with being bored, after all, is as important a thing to learn as any other lesson. Being a disgruntled kid is, really, about equivalent to being a kid, after all. I hated cleaning my room too. As I said, I respect the view though. If a parent considers this an important reason to not put their kid in public school then I'm supportive. For me, however, it's not really the issue.

I KNEW there was a reason I didn't like you!!

I may not have been fully clear. Sometimes it's trying to convey a sense of something that one hasn't ever fully interpreted into concrete terms. I'm not anti-advanced degrees. I've just known some who have them that seem to have gotten nothing but a swollen head and inflexible thoughtless views from it. That has put a distaste in my mouth in the past. And you probably need to put my specific expertise into the mix to really understand my point of view. That is to say...music. I know my stuff when it comes to music. But my hands-on (and educated) experience, combined with my unique way of thinking, has led me to some unconventional viewpoints on the matter. And boy howdy, if you think the conflicts I've had on this forum have been something, you should see the debates I've had with music Ph.D. folk. Garr! Freaking closed-minded trained-monkeys! Not an original thought in their collective brains. They cannot see past their "education" to actually THINK! And, of course, they all treat me like I'm the idiot and I just don't understand. And their degrees gives them the weight of authority in the matter, so of course they aren't going to consider someone's view who doesn't have that advanced degree. Maybe I'm bitter.

I'm not dismissive. If I were hiring for certain jobs I'd demand it. I just have a strong "It depends" point of view on the matter. The degree, in and of itself, isn't fully persuasive.

I think, partially, that the pendulum that needs to swing is the nature of formal education itself. The attitude against it stems from what it has become.

I guess I haven't seen that culturally. I'll take your word on it. My view on Ph.Ds comes from interacting with people who have them, rather than a cultural thing. I'm not actually down on Ph.Ds They just don't, in and of themselves, impress me as much any longer.

I'm sure you have a point, but I'm not entirely sure what it is. People with advanced education might know more than us. Sure. But they might not. Is there more to what you're trying to say than that? Because I agree that they "might". But a person with no formal education might know more than us too. And in these days of information overload, it's entirely possible the latter is just as true as the former. It also strikes me that in these days of misinformation overload that people with advanced educations are just as likely to be off their rockers on their studied subjects as those without formal education. Do you sense from me that I don't carry a ton of respect for higher degrees? Why yes. Yes you do. (To be fair, I do respect the work, time, and effort it takes to acquire them.)

Maybe. I just can't help but think that "education" isn't the problem here. Idiots are gonna idiot. Some of the most educated people in the world do the same. I see a different solution. I think you'll generally agree. What we can hope to do is help people turn to Jesus Christ in humility and faith.

I'm not sure public school's job is or should be to teach deep thinking. Moreover, I'm not fully convinced deep thinking can be taught or learned. I'm also not sure that's the job of homeschooling. Nor am I really convinced that deep thinking is individually important. I mean in the aggregate it is, but individually, there are an awful lot of people who don't think deeply who are, have been, and will be just fine. School is to teach useful skills. That's the point as I see it. People need to know how to read and write. Beyond that, specialization in any given thing needs paths for people to go down. We need ('need' being a relative word) doctors and philosophers and scientists and engineers. But, honestly, without more important and meaningful core ideals, deep thinking is likely more dangerous than helpful. Another way to put it....wisdom matters a whole lot more. But we need deep thinkers, of course -- wise ones. But we do need them. And public school should have resources for those who are so inclined. But the idea that every kid needs to come out of public school able to think deeply doesn't quite work out in a variety of ways to my thinking. My goal in homeschooling my children is useful education. I'd like it if my kids can think deeply too...but honestly it's way down the priority list. If I can instill in my kids humility, faith, love, patience, kindness, long-suffering, a work-ethic, and the basic useful skills they need for life, I'm going to consider myself pretty darned successful. Additionally I kind of think whether they end up being deep thinkers or not isn't really up to me. Don't get me wrong...I'll talk deep thoughts with them. Obviously. I never shut up about my philosophies. You can bet my kids will get an earful. But whether they learn to think deeply or not.... As I said, I don't know if that really can be taught or learned. Keep in mind.... I don't know what I'm talking about. This is just my view.

No need to be sad. I was just making efforts to ensure clarity.

Just to be clear, this is not what I was suggesting. My point was there are more failings than just "homeschooling" going on.

I've been surprised at how much my daughter learns without us as parents actually teaching her. Granted, she seems to be a little genius in a lot of ways. But it's constantly amazing to me. As an example, years back before we had ever even thought about starting to teach her how to write we came across a drawing she'd done on her own where she'd written the word "CAT" on it. What's my point? Well... I cannot help but wonder about the variables that go into how and why a child learns or does not. My daughter clearly learned to write the word CAT from television and board books. That combined with her intelligence and she just worked it out. I am, in many ways, confident that we, as parents, could never teach her a thing and she'd end up being functionally literate. (Note: we're not going to put that to the test. It's just something I believe.) That being said...we did provide her with resources to learn how to write CAT. She had board books with words in them that we read to her before bed. She watched a lot of TV/Internet shows that were learning based. So from a certain perspective, it WAS our parenting that taught her to write the word CAT. It just wasn't direct. It was moderately intentional though. We read to her because we knew reading to kids was important. We turned on educational type shows intentionally. When I see a story about a 17-year-old who can barely read above a 4th grade level though....there's something else going on besides just "homeschooling". There are other factors at play...some of which may well be intentional restriction, parental apathy, innate intelligence, genetics, etc., etc. The point being.... stupid, lazy, weird parents have stupid, lazy, weird kids. Homeschooled or not. It is interesting to think about, for sure.

I was thinking about my comment to @LDSGator last night and thought I actually needed to clarify it a bit. First, I wanted to state that the idea of the 3 Rs being important and everything else being icing is only theoretically the case for an individual, but it is NOT the case for society at large. If no one ever learned anything but reading, writing and arithmetic that would not be a better state than diversity of knowledge and learning. Second, the comment that everything else is icing isn't meant to imply that icing isn't good. What, after all, is cake without icing? Unappealing. Icing makes the cake. Third, in discussing it with my wife I had stated something along the lines of your point above... The important things to teach are actually 4 fold. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and.........wait for it........ a love of learning. Yep. That's exactly what I said to my wife. Well, it was that and how to learn sort of rolled up into a single concept. Learning to learn. So I appreciate what you've shared here. As it relates to the, which is better homeschooling or public schooling, question.... well I don't think there's an answer to that because the question isn't actually meaningful. It's the variables within either state that make either better or worse. Making the broader argument that one is better than the other is an argument about those variables. It's an argument that the overall variables involved in the public arena have changed or corrupted for the worse, making public schooling overall more dangerous, and that the variables involved in homeschooling have changed and improved, making homeschooling overall safer. That argument can never be applied individually without looking at the specific variables in the specific instance.

Seriously though. I don't recall a thing about high school chemistry. And yet I'm a functioning adult. Reading, writing, arithmetic. That's important. If you can't give your kids that you've got a problem. The rest is icing.

So what? A... who needs high school chemistry? and B... Google and Wikipedia have mastered it. 😀

I'll have to think on this. But my inclination is to not see it this way. I'm not saying no schooling is better. I'm saying they both feel as bad as each other in many cases. (I mean in the most grievous cases of terrible public schooling, no schooling might be better). I try and look at this from an eternal perspective. Who is better off? The uneducated or the corruptly educated? To be learned is good... but there's a big IF attached to that.

There are a few flaws with this thinking, imo. Firstly, it implies that drastic reform of policy, process, rules, etc., has any chance and actually reforming the issues at hand. It might help...maybe...but it's like any organization -- it's run by people. As long as the people therein are evil, the system will be evil, no matter what reform occurs. The reform needs to be in people's hearts or any system reform will fail. Secondly, and this I think matters as much, even if some level of system reform worked on the education system itself, it wouldn't reform/fix the other major problem I have with putting my kids into public education.......the other students. Even when I was in K-12 school in the 70s and 80s, looking back, the worst part was the other kids. I would not, even now, intentionally subject my children to the things I faced because of other kids. The bullying, the immoral influences, the bad examples, the importance of social hierarchy, etc. etc. Yes, I understand that children actually need to be exposed to these sorts of things. Kids have to face the bad to learn how to, you know...face it. But I believe 5 years old is too young for what they must face, even 40 years back...and much more so now. And what's going on with students now-a-days...I'm honestly not sure 12, 13, 14, etc., is even old enough. Depends on the kid, of course. And having not been totally destroyed at 5, 6, 7, perhaps 12, 13, 14 would be fine. I don't know. It's a huge challenge to consider. I lament that I must raise my children in such a world. And I don't know the answers, beyond the fact that there's no way I'm sending my kids to school at 5. And my motivation is not driven by the teachers' or the system's problems. It's driven by the other kids.

Batman was based on Zorro who was based on The Scarlet Pimpernel, the original superhero. That had nothing to do with the humorous anecdote offered. I just happened to read it the other day and thought, cool. I taught my 5 year old daughter the Batman smells version this Christmas.

This has been a point of......curiosity...maybe for me. I'm not sure that's the word. It's one of the few semi-critiques I have of the show. It doesn't, necessarily, diminish my enjoyment of the show. It's just one of those, "not how I'd have done it" things. But since we don't really know, we don't really know. There are some examples of this where I sort of just flat out think they're doing it wrong...like having Jesus needing to work out the details and then "practice" the sermon on the mount. Just feels wrong to me. But then there are the moments of Jesus's humor, about which I just don't know how to feel. I actually really love that they did it. I like the character. It's enjoyable and fun. Etc. But....... a lot of humor (including Jesus's in the show) is based on sarcasm. And sarcasm is a lie, ultimately. Everyone understands it's a lie, which is why it's funny. It's that understanding that makes sarcasm work. But when Jesus says something that is plainly false as a joke I struggle a bit with it. Because he's saying something untrue. (for example, Jesus might have a line like, "And we all know Peter never get's into fights with anyone...." and everyone laughs because Peter's known for having gotten into fights in the past.) Like I said, kind of more a curiosity than a complaint. I, personally, wouldn't dare do such a thing. Putting words into Jesus's mouth that aren't truth...nope....I wouldn't do it. But the fact that they did it hasn't really bothered me too much...because they're obviously jokes. But intellectually I'm aware of it and feel unsure.

FWIW, I recommend reading (or re-reading) Teaching in the Savior's Way and following the council therein prayerfully. In point of fact, I suggest everyone and anyone add a bit of reading from it to their daily scripture study.

I speculate that in the Celestial Kingdom we will all have the same personality. Which translates to the reality that we will be indistinguishable one from another. Which means it won't matter who we're sealed to in the end. It is the sealing that is important rather than individual personhood. This speculation doesn't tie into the topic at hand. It's just a speculation I'm making.

I don't think I can comment on this topic without being rude. So if everyone can just imagine what I said, that we got into a huge argument, and then finally I apologized for coming across rudely and walked away, I'd appreciate it. Seriously though....these sorts of discussions have me gnashing my teeth with frustration! Argh!

Almost everything should be declassified. A few things... nuclear codes, spies names, etc., qualify. The rest....declassify! Problem solved.

https://eppc.org/publication/a-science-based-case-for-ending-the-porn-epidemic/ This is a long read. But for anyone who has the patience, it was incredibly fascinating. Also incredibly scary. Beyond the porn epidemic itself, the implications re: homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, interest in trans stuff, etc., etc., are not in line with the established group think of the day at all (you're born that way, you can't help it, you can't change it, etc.) Note: He throws in the random conclusion at one point "The point is not to try to start a moral panic about the internet turning men gay—the point is that it’s not turning them gay." But the comment doesn't seem to align with the logic and evidence given behind the rest of the article at all. It seems like the more logical conclusion would be that it did, indeed, turn them gay, and then they did, indeed, stop being gay once they stopped feeding their brains on porn. But even that conclusion seems spurious. Drawing concrete black-and-white conclusions from such things when the reality is extremely complex and influenced by so many variables is problematic. Meaning, it seems reasonable, to me, to conclude that satisfying the shock lure that in turn feeds our brain certain chemicals and alters our brain chemistry is almost certainly a factor in sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a one-to-one reality of sexual orientation either. tldr responses are welcome, btw, but just be aware.... you may not know what you're talking about then. And just because of how fascinating the concepts are, I recommend taking the time and actually reading the article. There's a lot of value there when it comes to thinking through these issues.