"Government is dumbing down schools" says former Director of Education

espinolman

Torakx wrote: »

We happen to have gotten smarter,invented technology whch allows us to have all the necessities and more without having to light a fire.

No , no , if someone invents something , that does not make everyone else smarter . If people think they are smarter based on someone else being smart , well they are not , they are stupid if they think someone else inventing something makes them more intelligent .
Its a good way to dumb people down , tell them they are smart because someone else invented everything they have , therefore they don't have to try , they don't have to work at figuring things out , because someone else has done it for them . That would really work to keep people dumb and stupid .

Torakx

espinolman wrote: »

No , no , if someone invents something , that does not make everyone else smarter . If people think they are smarter based on someone else being smart , well they are not , they are stupid if they think someone else inventing something makes them more intelligent .
Its a good way to dumb people down , tell them they are smart because someone else invented everything they have , therefore they don't have to try , they don't have to work at figuring things out , because someone else has done it for them . That would really work to keep people dumb and stupid .

lol you have a point,but i ment the technology allows people to focus on bigger ideas.
This i think has helped science progress like it has.Ok we made a nuclear bomb, that wasnt smart..but you know what i mean i hope in relation to the maths and calculators

espinolman

Torakx wrote: »

but you know what i mean i hope in relation to the maths and calculators

Why not do calculations and complex simulations in their minds ! i think it is because people today have less intelligence than previous generations .

Monty Burnz

espinolman wrote: »

No , no , if someone invents something , that does not make everyone else smarter . If people think they are smarter based on someone else being smart , well they are not , they are stupid if they think someone else inventing something makes them more intelligent .
Its a good way to dumb people down , tell them they are smart because someone else invented everything they have , therefore they don't have to try , they don't have to work at figuring things out , because someone else has done it for them . That would really work to keep people dumb and stupid .

Espinolman, that's actually the smartest thing you I have ever seen you post on this board, and it's a very good point. I'm not arguing that it's anyone's deliberate policy to keep us dumb, but throw 100 modern city dwellers and 100 people from 2500 years ago out into the wilderness and think how many of each group would be left after a year or two...

Sparticle

espinolman wrote: »

Why not do calculations and complex simulations in their minds ! i think it is because people today have less intelligence than previous generations .

I'm not sure if you're serious so bare with me. :pac:

No-one ever did complex simulations in their minds. That's simply impossible.

Not many did complex calculations in their head either. They used pencil/pen/quill+paper , Abacuses and other mathematical aides. The average brain is not built to do sums with more than 3 steps accurately.

I'm going to answer this from a leaving cert student's perspective. When you say "doing calculations in your mind" I assume you mean tedious arithmetic and not algebra/Differentiation as that is still done without calculators in the education system today. As I said earlier becoming proficient in mental arithmetic while being helpful in day to day life is still pretty much useless in industry given the tendency for error in mental calculation.

We're not less intelligent for using calculators as breaking a problem into mathematical components is still the part that requires intelligence. Calculators just speed up the tedious calculations we can all do on paper.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Espinolman, that's actually the smartest thing you I have ever seen you post on this board, and it's a very good point. I'm not arguing that it's anyone's deliberate policy to keep us dumb, but throw 100 modern city dwellers and 100 people from 2500 years ago out into the wilderness and think how many of each group would be left after a year or two...

All 200 would die as after the inevitable cannibalism the high sugar obese city dwellers would give the group from 2500 years ago diabetes and heart disease.

Torakx

Yes smartness and so on can be relevant to the times we live in.But i am presuming we are talking about current times and not a post apocalyptic time or stone age time.
In this day and age survival depends on more than being able to count without a calculator.
We are getting side tracked even talking about calculators lol
Intelligence isnt based solely on maths and id hoped people would see the bigger picture on that one and save me the stupid story on making fire

I was just pointing out that just becuase the educational system lets them use calculators doesnt necessarily mean people are getting dumber.
It might be true they are getitng dumber or beign dumbed down(in fact it is my opinion that is the case), but i wouldnt count that as an indicator.

hooradiation

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But throw 100 modern city dwellers and 100 people from 2500 years ago out into the wilderness and think how many of each group would be left after a year or two...

What do you imagine that'd prove?

Torakx

Lol probably the city dwellers because of genetic immunity to many things like the common flu

Naikon

Totting up prices mentally is a pet habit of mine. Good to teach mental tricks, but I honestly believe concepts are more important. Mental Arithmetic is mostly useless when it comes to programming for example. At least in my experience.

Treora

Mahatma coat wrote: »

seriously folks, the question is not whether Schools are being dumbed down, the question is WHY.

with all ths talk about a 'knowledge based Economy' wouldnt it be a good idea to invest in Knowledge.

It is very simple. Systems based on growth need increasing through-put. Humans can be directed by fear or hope. Too much stress from fear increases hormonal damage, and productivity, so hope towards a personal objective (consumption and achievement) is the main individual control. Society is directed away from things by fear.

So in order for politicians get votes parents have to see that their little one's are achieving without cracking up, too much, and the easiest way is by removing challanges like numeracy. These are replaced with machines today so they skills of the masses can be focused on person to person services and most importantly sales.

The lowering of public numeracy, but allowing the odd patent creator to pop up, also helps financial ignorance to bloom while the affects of mass production and perpetual growth in a world of limited resources goes unquestioned. Most people really have to think about the relative percentage change of going from 50 to 100 versus going from 100 to 50. Now try that with personal or sovereign debt amounts!

Treora

Sparticle wrote: »

Would you trust a person building a bridge who did the calculations for it's weight threshold "in his head". I wager you would not.

That reminds me of the time the Americans lost a rocket, I believe, because they were working with Europeans who had stated that all measurements were in metric. The Americans typed in the metric number blindly without even doing a quick sum in their heads to realise that it was too big for the calculation and there goes several million in product.

Me thinks you sound like a sock puppet.

ed2hands

As my teenage son informs me from time to time, teenagers today are far smarter than anyone thats come before them. And cooler too.;)

Sparticle

Treora wrote: »

That reminds me of the time the Americans lost a rocket, I believe, because they were working with Europeans who had stated that all measurements were in metric. The Americans typed in the metric number blindly without even doing a quick sum in their heads to realise that it was too big for the calculation and there goes several million in product.

Me thinks you sound like a sock puppet.

Are you talking about the Mars orbiter? I thought the problem was that they didn't convert imperial to metric if that's the case (/Metric fanboyism). It sounds like an error of judgement mixed with laziness and poor rechecking rather than a sign of poor numeracy skills. Are we talking about the lack of ability to do the sum mentally("dumbing down") or the laziness not to do it (Bad work ethic) because they're two completely different things? The problem would also have been spotted if he inputted it into a calculator (just saying).

I'll re-phrase the question you quoted. You're about to cross a rickety bridge and the two people who designed it are standing beside it. The first assures you the bridge will withstand your weight as he/she has done the calculation mentally. The other person is holding a calculator. When he/she inputs the values it gives a different answer. The bridge cannot support your weight according to the calculators answer.

Would you trust the calculator or the first person?

IMHO mental arithmetic is essentially useless in industry as it's job is done better by machines. The exporting of this menial task to machines is not a sign of "dumbing down" of the populace but rather gives people more freedom to tackle more difficult and abstract problems quickly without the fear of tiny errors making the answer moot. The tool is only as good as it's operator btw.

If we're going to talk about the numeracy of students going into university declining I would attribute this to the fact that the structure of the leaving cert encourages people to focus on 6 subjects only. Since maths is generally more difficult than lets say for instance Biology but worth the same points and may not even be counted, people are going to opt for the easier option. It's just logical if you're going for a course that doesn't require a high level of maths. IMO This can be solved by scrapping this whole "Best six" business all together.This is infinitely more plausible than a worldwide corporate conspiracy hell bent on blinding the people to the unsustainability of eternal growth.

I assure you I'm not a sock puppet. Are you a sock puppet?

Treora

Sparticle wrote: »

Are you talking about the Mars orbiter?

Could be.

Sparticle wrote: »

I thought the problem was that they didn't convert imperial to metric if that's the case (/Metric fanboyism). It sounds like an error of judgement mixed with laziness and poor rechecking rather than a sign of poor numeracy skills. Are we talking about the lack of ability to do the sum mentally("dumbing down") or the laziness not to do it (Bad work ethic) because they're two completely different things? The problem would also have been spotted if he inputted it into a calculator (just saying).

It is more a case of looking at a glass and knowing the difference between, half full and full and a half. The number were that obvious, not noticing that is not laziness, but a lack of basic numeracy.


Am I a sock puppet? Nah, but they are fun to toy with, abuse and poke holes in.

ed2hands

espinolman wrote: »

Why not do calculations and complex simulations in their minds ! i think it is because people today have less intelligence than previous generations .

Agreed, and to go further, The ancients has unfathomable intellect and knowledge. Look at Giza, Angkor, the navels of the earth. Their astronomy and building techniques and tolerences were far superior to ours. Reckon it's modern living taking it's toll.

Monty Burnz

ed2hands wrote: »

Agreed, and to go further, The ancients has unfathomable intellect and knowledge. Look at Giza, Angkor, the navels of the earth. Their astronomy and building techniques and tolerences were far superior to ours. Reckon it's modern living taking it's toll.

The stuff about Giza etc. is myth to be honest, a bit like the stuff about how we only use 10% of our brains. Their astronomy was great for ancients, but woeful compared to modern knowledge, and their building methods were likewise truly remarkable for the time, but hopelessly backwards by today's standards.

ed2hands

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The stuff about Giza etc. is myth to be honest

If you get time could you link some info on that. Is this the mirroring at 10,500 BC and stuff by Bauval/Hancock you're referring to? Thought that theory still held water. Ta.

profitius

ed2hands wrote: »

If you get time could you link some info on that. Is this the mirroring at 10,500 BC and stuff by Bauval/Hancock you're referring to? Thought that theory still held water. Ta.

Try this one. Very interesting 50min chat with Hancock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCxWUkaar5k

profitius

Governments don't want free thinkers. They want people to believe what they're told and be good little workers who'll keep their mouth shut and pay their taxes.

ed2hands

profitius wrote: »

Try this one. Very interesting 50min chat with Hancock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCxWUkaar5k

Cheers. O yes have seen it. Awesome stuff. Most Egyptologists despise him for daring to revise their long-held dating of the Sphynx:)

And this is his masterwork:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/quest-for-the-lost-civilisation/4od

Mahatma coat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The stuff about Giza etc. is myth to be honest, a bit like the stuff about how we only use 10% of our brains. Their astronomy was great for ancients, but woeful compared to modern knowledge, and their building methods were likewise truly remarkable for the time, but hopelessly backwards by today's standards.

Which Giza stuff??? about the pyramids lining up with specific constllations at the Precessions????? cos thats a fairly credible theory, or the mathematics of its shapes??
we realy should do another ancient tech thread.

Anyway, the building methods of some of the ancients are IMO even more remarkable nowadays when you see how Piss Poor our constructions are even wth the advances in technology available to us.

Roman concrete has lasted for over 2 Milenia modern concrete has a lifespan measured in Decades.

it is arguable that they were Cleverer.

namloc1980

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Which Giza stuff??? about the pyramids lining up with specific constllations at the Precessions????? cos thats a fairly credible theory, or the mathematics of its shapes??
we realy should do another ancient tech thread.

Anyway, the building methods of some of the ancients are IMO even more remarkable nowadays when you see how Piss Poor our constructions are even wth the advances in technology available to us.

Roman concrete has lasted for over 2 Milenia modern concrete has a lifespan measured in Decades.

it is arguable that they were Cleverer.

You have to also consider however that in general the ancients built their mega buildings to last such as Giza/Roman Temples. However most ancient buildings (houses) were construted out of simple items such as mud bricks and relatively speaking not much of these remain.

It's easy to say they were cleverer because their buildings lasted, but the reality is the vast majority of their buildings have succumbed to the elements over the millenia with obviously notable exceptions. Nowadays the vast majority of buildings are not intended to last more than a few decades or a century at the most, although I'm pretty sure that if engineers etc. put their mind to it (and had huge resources) long lasting buildings could be built today as well.

Monty Burnz

ed2hands wrote: »

If you get time could you link some info on that. Is this the mirroring at 10,500 BC and stuff by Bauval/Hancock you're referring to? Thought that theory still held water. Ta.

Ed, there are a few documentaries out there that discuss the simple but brilliantly effective techniques that were used in building the pyramids for example. The 'astronomical alignment' of the pyramids as described by Bauval at Giza is interesting. I hope it was planned and not coincidence, because it's really cool, but I've seen/read somewhere that someone studied the plateau and found that the pyramids are located as they are for construction reasons - they are built on the most suitable spots on the plateau to support such huge structures. I don't know if I'll be able to remember where I got that from though - and anyway, I hope they are deliberately aligned to mimic Orion.

We might also say that the fact that the buildings are still standing is a tribute to their construction (and it is), but bear in mind that a stone pyramid is the simplest and most stable type of construction in existence - a series of stone platforms, each smaller than the last laid on top of each other.

When I've a little more time I'll see if I can find any interesting videos about this that you might enjoy: I find this stuff really fascinating. Can you imagine what the pyramids would have looked like to a person 4500 years ago who had never even seen a stone building before, with their polished white casing stones making the surface smooth? It must have been an awesome sight!

ed2hands

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ed, there are a few documentaries out there that discuss the simple but brilliantly effective techniques that were used in building the pyramids for example. The 'astronomical alignment' of the pyramids as described by Bauval at Giza is interesting. I hope it was planned and not coincidence, because it's really cool, but I've seen/read somewhere that someone studied the plateau and found that the pyramids are located as they are for construction reasons - they are built on the most suitable spots on the plateau to support such huge structures. I don't know if I'll be able to remember where I got that from though - and anyway, I hope they are deliberately aligned to mimic Orion.

We might also say that the fact that the buildings are still standing is a tribute to their construction (and it is), but bear in mind that a stone pyramid is the simplest and most stable type of construction in existence - a series of stone platforms, each smaller than the last laid on top of each other.

When I've a little more time I'll see if I can find any interesting videos about this that you might enjoy: I find this stuff really fascinating. Can you imagine what the pyramids would have looked like to a person 4500 years ago who had never even seen a stone building before, with their polished white casing stones making the surface smooth? It must have been an awesome sight!

Nice one. Yea have read some of the criticisms and as you say hope so too. It's an awesome one alright. Some of the observations may stand up for the most part. The bit that really blew me away was in episode 3 in the "Quest.." doc about the navels of the world Giza, Angkor, Easter Island and their global positioning etc. Quite a bit of evidence to support the sea travel idea; from the Olmec statues to the now known timing of the melting period. I'll personally go for a civilisation of seafaring pre-historic master navigators and master architects for the moment;).


Hancock discussing it a bit more:
"The central claim of my 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods is not that there was, but that there could have been a lost civilisation, which flourished and was destroyed in remote antiquity. And I wrote the book, quite deliberately, not as a work of science but as a work of advocacy. I felt that the possibility of a lost civilisation had not been adequately explored or tested by mainstream scholarship. I set myself the task of rehabilitating it by gathering together, and passionately championing, all the best evidence and arguments in its favour.
In the early 1990's when I was researching Fingerprints there were a number of new ideas in the air that seemed to me to have an important bearing on the lost civilisation debate. These included Robert Bauval's Orion correlation, Rand and Rose Flem-Ath's work on Antarctica and earth-crust displacement, and the geological case presented by John Anthony West and Robert Schoch that the Great Sphinx of Giza might be much older than had hitherto been thought.
At the same time I was aware of a huge reservoir of popular literature, going back more than a century to the time of Ignatius Donnelly, in which the case for a lost civilisation had been put again and again, in many different ways and from many different angles. I knew that not a single word of this vast literature had ever been accepted by mainstream scholars who remained steadfast in their view that the history of civilisation is known and includes no significant forgotten episodes.
But, I thought, what if the scholars have got it wrong?
What if we've forgotten something important in our story?
What if we are a species with amnesia?
After all, scientists are now pretty sure that anatomically modern humans, just like us, have been around for at least the last 120,000 years.
Yet our "history" begins 5000 years ago with the first cities and the first written records. And the prehistory of this process has presently only been traced back (often quite tentatively) to the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago when it's thought that mankind began to make the transition from hunter-gathering to food production.
So what were we doing during the previous 110,000 years?
...."
http://www.grahamhancock.com/archive/underworld/underworld1.php?p=1