White kid cries because he got segregated on the basis of race

[Parththakkar12]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/the-school-that-tried-to-end-racism-henry-white-privilege-race-a4481176.html

Is this a bit much yet? How far do we want to push this?

[Forestluv]

This looks like a good exercise to better understand the experience of others and to develop empathy. I like how the school setting and parents allow space and support for realizations and growth. This is an example of how deep and important direct experience and empathy is for understanding. If a person is simply told intellectually, it’s at a surface level. 

I would consider this a green form of education to learn about Blue. . . Of course there is a spectrum of intensity and we don’t want to go so intense that it becomes counter-productive and traumatic. As well, there is a spectrum of sensitivity. I don’t consider this exercise to be too intense. I think it is fairly mild and most of the children were getting direct experience realizations with very mild discomfort. The boy they focused on is higher on the sensitivity spectrum and may have empathic potential.  

If I was the teacher here, I would be very tempted to expand this to marginalization in general - not just based on race. 

[Raze]

I think the antiracism narrative that is being pushed is ridiculous for reasons like this. This video actually isn't that bad compared to other things I've seen. Of course I am anti-racism, but "antiracism" to me is pushing a bizarre narrative that builds a identity around race, and generally speaking the stronger the identity around something the worse it gets. I predict it'll probably cause a backlash of further racism, and generally be counterproductive by inserting strong victim complexes in people, which is not a good place to be, especially if you are actually a victim.

I disagree with a lot of this forum's analysis because it feels like most people on here assume anything coming from the left is stage green and the more extreme it is, the more stage green it is. I strongly disagree with that, and I think a lot of the extreme left is not stage green, but rather people in lower stages pushing normally stage green concepts. Which is why they get corrupted and begin seeming like a bizarre imitation of stage green. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Raze

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

I disagree with a lot of this forum's analysis because it feels like most people on here assume anything coming from the left is stage green and the more extreme it is, the more stage green it is. I strongly disagree with that, and I think a lot of the extreme left is not stage green, but rather people in lower stages pushing normally stage green concepts. Which is why they get corrupted and begin seeming like a bizarre imitation of stage green.

Developing empathy for marginalized people is as green as it gets. That is the heart of green. Being able to empathize with marginalized people allows for a genuine desire for inclusion, which is another fundamental green value. 

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Developing empathy for marginalized people is as green as it gets. That is the heart of green. Being able to empathize with marginalized people allows for a genuine desire for inclusion, which is another fundamental green value. 

But this video shows a lack of empathy, first off the teacher says white people don't normally feel excluded, that's kind of ridiculous, everyone feels that at some point in their lives, and even if it's true the solution to that is not to practice segregation to make white people feel excluded. Trying to imprint cultural guilt into someone is not inclusive. For example if you read the article, you'll see the white students were asked about their heritage and it was awkward and felt like a funeral, but the non white students were asked about it and were excited and dancing etc. Is this good? This just looks like an attitude to cements further divisiveness. 

[commie]

23 minutes ago, Raze said:

 This just looks like an attitude to cements further divisiveness. 

That's the whole point of identity politics.

Obviously validating and reinforcing racist delusions isn't anti-racist work. People have done this kind of work earnestly in the past, for instance by roleplaying discrimination based on eye color.

[Forestluv]

44 minutes ago, Raze said:

But this video shows a lack of empathy, first off the teacher says white people don't normally feel excluded, that's kind of ridiculous, 

From a green perspective, the value here is understanding the experience of marginalization through direct experience and empathy. Not through intellect. An intellectual understanding has value, yet so does empathic understanding. They are two forms of understanding and green places a high value on empathic understanding. Intellectual understanding is orange and empathic understanding is green. They both have value, just like a hammer and screwdriver both have value when building a house. 

In terms of direct experience understanding, drawing on one’s own related experience can be a useful tool. As you suggest, one can draw on their own experience of being marginalized to better understand what other marginalized people have to go through. For example, I am a male and cannot directly relate to what it would be like to be a woman that has to be mindful of sexual harassment and assault. There are many situations in which a woman needs to be mindful of this risk and have a heightened alert level, which involves a heightened stress level. Women who hike solo in our local nature preserve need to be mindful of risk. This heightened alertness for risk generally involves slight elevation of stress hormones like cortisol. I don’t have to worry about this when I hike in the nature preserve and I don’t know what it’s like to experience this. I can have an intellectual understanding and that has value, yet so does an empathic understanding. As you suggest, I can draw on my own experience to indirectly gain empathic understanding. For example, when I was in Medellin Colombia, there were elevated risks for a white tourist like me. I wasn’t in immediate danger, yet there was elevated risk wherever I walked. As a result, my alertness and stress level got bumped up. I wasn’t in a panic, the stress level went up from perhaps my normal 2/10 to a 4/10. I’ve spoken to women about their experience regarding risk of assault as a woman and they often tell me “yea, it’s sorta like that”. . . The important thing is that I had similar direct experience to draw on. However, not everyone is good at developing indirect empathic understanding. One common block is thinking “Everyone goes through that”. This attitude can block empathic understanding. It can be helpful to have more direct forms of direct experience to “get it”. I think the exercise in the video is excellent to stimulate that direct experience understanding. 

44 minutes ago, Raze said:

the solution to that is not to practice segregation to make white people feel excluded. 

I agree. The solution is not to marginalize a group for their entire life for them to develop empathic understanding. That is counter-productive to the goal. This is very different. This is very mild and temporary exposure to give people direct experience to develop empathy toward others that regularly experience it. 

44 minutes ago, Raze said:

Trying to imprint cultural guilt into someone is not inclusive. 

This is a very important point. Imprinting guilt and shame is counter-productive when the person genuinely wants to grow and is undergoing direct experience. That is why I said I like how the school created a safe and supportive environment. Without this, there will not be development of empathic understanding. For example, a few years ago some of my own privilege and subconscious biases surfaced. It felt uncomfortable to look at it. If people around me had shamed me and stigmatized me for it, I would have internalized guilt and shame. I would have gotten defensive. These are major blocks to developing deeper understanding. There needs to be safe space. I was fortunate that the people around me didn’t shame or guilt-trip me. Instead, they helped me grow through it and develop deeper understanding. Yet the key is that I was open and willing to it. If I became aware of it and continued to behave with those attitudes purposely, that is a very different dynamic. Here, allowing safe space is counter-productive. Rather than allowing for growth, it enables the attitudes. 

This is one of the most critical things for green to realize. Shaming has it’s place, yet allowing safe space for growth also has it’s place. Many immature greens do not see this distinction and they are shaming everyone. Yet mature green knows when to offer someone safe space to work through it. 

It’s also important to be aware of the distinction between valuing empathic understanding and the best methods to develop empathic understanding. One of the major resistances Orange has against green is that Orange does not value empathic understanding. Orange values intellectual understanding. Therefore, Orange won’t even want to teach empathic understanding. They will criticize from below. They will criticize in a way that resists the teaching of empathic understanding. Green and above values empathic understanding and they will criticize from above. They will want to develop the best methods to teach empathic understanding. If components of their lessons are inefficient and counter-productive, they will adapt those components so they can better transmit empathic understanding. 

[Parththakkar12]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

This looks like a good exercise to better understand the experience of others and to develop empathy. I like how the school setting and parents allow space and support for realizations and growth. This is an example of how deep and important direct experience and empathy is for understanding. If a person is simply told intellectually, it’s at a surface level. 

I would consider this a green form of education to learn about Blue. . . Of course there is a spectrum of intensity and we don’t want to go so intense that it becomes counter-productive and traumatic. As well, there is a spectrum of sensitivity. I don’t consider this exercise to be too intense. I think it is fairly mild and most of the children were getting direct experience realizations with very mild discomfort. The boy they focused on is higher on the sensitivity spectrum and may have empathic potential.  

If I was the teacher here, I would be very tempted to expand this to marginalization in general - not just based on race. 

There's a big assumption that's kinda like the elephant in the room - the assumption that narcissism/self-centeredness is objectively bad. The way you're 'trying to teach empathy for others' is by teaching white boys to make an enemy of themselves. You realize that if you tell them 'You're racist', they won't rebel, instead they'll internalize it, right? They won't be able to call your bluff cuz they don't know any better.

Also, in my experience, lessons of empathy being shoved down your throat is not a very pleasant experience. Whenever I've empathized with someone, it's always been by choice. I believe that kids have the right to be as self-centered as they want, because they aren't committed or responsible towards anyone the way adults are. Child-child relationships are just fun and games. This stuff is what adults need to be concerned with.

If you really want to teach kids empathy, I have a better suggestion - be empathetic towards them yourself. If you role-model empathy to them, they will pick up on that. Same goes for adults, but kids pick up on it very quickly.

Kids aren't born with racial identification, it's indoctrinated into them. I don't think it's necessary to really pro-actively indoctrinate them with awareness of racial issues. If they come asking you questions, well, no problem answering them then!

[Forestluv]

I can see how this exercise could be problematic, yet I think the underlying empathic understanding is of value. This exercise might not be the best way to convey that. For example, it might be better to do it with children that are older or modify the exercise. For example, teaching the children intellectually about exclusion and showing them some examples in life. This could help prepare the students. As well, it could be that it’s best to scrap the whole exercise and try a new method. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

There's a big assumption that's kinda like the elephant in the room - the assumption that narcissism/self-centeredness is objectively bad.

Claiming absolute can a form of resistance within relative constructs. 

An alcoholic beats his children and loses his job due to his excessive drinking. His wife says “You are acting like a ‘bad’ father. We need to get some counseling as a family to heal and get healthy”. The alcoholic responds “You are assuming that my narcissistic and abusive behavior is objectively bad. My behavior is relative and objectively neither good or bad.” That is fine within a nondual discussion at Starbuck’s, yet in relative constructs it can be used as a cop-out of avoidance.

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

The way you're 'trying to teach empathy for others' is by teaching white boys to make an enemy of themselves. You realize that if you tell them 'You're racist', they won't rebel, instead they'll internalize it, right? They won't be able to call your bluff cuz they don't know any better.

No. That is not how I’m teaching empathy at all. You added that in there. 

If you read my post, I strongly stressed how critical it is not to tell them they are racist. I wrote a whole paragraph about it!!! When someone is gaining insights of subconscious biases and has a genuine interest to grow, it is critical that we don’t call them racist. This is a form of guilt and shame and it is a major barrier toward growth. There needs to be safe space and support. However, if one becomes aware of it and consciously continues the behavior, it is a totally different dynamic. In this case, allowing safe space and support enables the bad behavior. Even in a situation of conscious bias , it generally isn’t productive to call them a racist because it triggers intense defense mechanisms. However, I do think that shaming and mocking can be productive in certain stimulations. For example, I know thing mocking people who support the Confederate flag on shows like SNL can be productive.

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Also, in my experience, lessons of empathy being shoved down your throat is not a very pleasant experience. Whenever I've empathized with someone, it's always been by choice. I believe that kids have the right to be as self-centered as they want, because they aren't committed or responsible towards anyone the way adults are. Child-child relationships are just fun and games. This stuff is what adults need to be concerned with.

There is an important distinction between the value of teaching empathic understanding and the best effective way to teach that understanding. You are arguing against the value of teaching empathic understanding here. From this orientation, you would not be open to a discussion of how best to teach empathic understanding (because you don’t value it).

It would be like someone saying teaching children a second language has no value. This mind will not be open to the best way to teach children a second language because they don’t even value it. Any form of teaching children a foreign language would be seen as “shoving the foreign language down your throat”. This is an actual dynamic in Southwestern U.S. states and Spanish. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

If you really want to teach kids empathy, I have a better suggestion - be empathetic towards them yourself. If you role-model empathy to them, they will pick up on that. Same goes for adults, but kids pick up on it very quickly.

This is one component, yet it is insufficient IMO. There is too much counter-noise in society and simply role modeling would delay growth and development. I would estimate that only about 20% of the population in the U.S. is at a high enough level of empathic embodiment to transmit it to under-developed people. It’s just not enough - or would take an extremely long period of time. 

This is the equivalent of people getting upset that LGBTQ people who wanted inclusion and equal rights were “shoving their lifestyle down the throats of others”. This was a super common attitude and has only recently begin to shift. Part of that shift was educating people about LGBTQ and part of this education came through empathic understanding. 

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Kids aren't born with racial identification, it's indoctrinated into them. I don't think it's necessary to really pro-actively indoctrinate them with awareness of racial issues. If they come asking you questions, well, no problem answering them then!

The problem with this is idealism and realism. As well, the power of conditioning.

This view does not acknowledge that there is systemic racism and subconscious biases in society. This conditions children and makes the de-conditioning as an adult much harder. I think it is appropriate to point out biases to children to counter-act the conditioning biases. However, this should be done in a way that does not guilt-trip or shame the child. 

Again, everything I write in this thread assumes that there is value to green and evolution toward green. To me, the question is: How can we evolve from lower developmental stages to higher stages in an efficient and healthy manner? I think teaching children empathic understanding is of value. Yet I’d be open to discussing wether this exercises is the best method to teach that understanding. I can see how it could be potentially problematic and counter-productive.

In terms of efficiency and healthy, I would be against teaching empathy that was too intense. This would miss the point, be counter-productive and could cause harm to the child. Yet to me, the above exercise is temporary and mild. It gives the children a decent idea of what it feels like to be marginalized and excluded. I wish they had this type of thing when I was a kid. I think society would be much more developed than it is today. 

[Boethius]

I wonder how they "sort" students who are biracial. I mean, it's not like people are "all Black" or "all white", and is it really the place of school administrators to determine which students have sufficient Blackness to qualify as being Black? Maybe I'm reading a bit into this, but for me that is where things start to get potentially problematic and maybe even dehumanizing.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Boethius said:

I wonder how they "sort" students who are biracial. I mean, it's not like people are "all Black" or "all white", and is it really the place of school administrators to determine which students have sufficient Blackness to qualify as being Black? Maybe I'm reading a bit into this, but for me that is where things start to get potentially problematic and maybe even dehumanizing.

I hadn’t thought of that. That’s a good question about how to be most efficient with the exercise. I would say there are grey areas and they need to make some judgement calls. Perhaps they could speak with the parents before-hand to include them in the exercise. I think it would be much more effective with parental involvement for re-enforcement. If there were a few bi-racial kids, they could ask the parents which group would be most appropriate. For example, they could ask the parents which lesson they would prefer their child learn. 

I also agree that this exercise can potentially become problematic and dehumanizing. There is some skill necessary to pull it off. 

[Parththakkar12]

20 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Claiming absolute can a form of resistance within relative constructs. 

An alcoholic beats his children and loses his job due to his excessive drinking. His wife says “You are acting like a ‘bad’ father. We need to get some counseling as a family to heal and get healthy”. The alcoholic responds “You are assuming that my narcissistic and abusive behavior is objectively bad. My behavior is relative and objectively neither good or bad.” That is fine within a nondual discussion at Starbuck’s, yet in relative constructs it can be used as a cop-out of avoidance.

I'm on board with good vs bad being relative. It's relative to what you want from the situation. In the example of the father being an alcoholic, the wanted outcome is him taking ownership of his family and honoring his commitments. So, when he does the opposite, that's bad relative to the specific situation. I still maintain that it isn't bad from an objective, universal perspective.

Likewise, self-centeredness isn't objectively bad. Self-centeredness isn't an antithesis to being empathetic. Now kids are naturally empathetic, much more so than adults. The reality is that you lose that capacity when you're socialized into a cold and brutal world.

Kids are naturally self-centered from age 2 up until a certain number of years. So, the best way to ruin someone's capacity to be empathetic is to shame them for being self-centered, or for 'having biases'. (The biases we have a problem with are anti-black/anti-POC biases, not anti-white biases!) Their self-centeredness will only get suppressed and express itself covertly and manipulatively.

27 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

The problem with this is idealism and realism. As well, the power of conditioning.

This view does not acknowledge that there is systemic racism and subconscious biases in society. This conditions children and makes the de-conditioning as an adult much harder. I think it is appropriate to point out biases to children to counter-act the conditioning biases. However, this should be done in a way that does not guilt-trip or shame the child. 

I'd suggest we trust subsequent generations of people to be much more empathetic than us. Human beings have progressively become more conscious and loving throughout history and this will only get better with time. They're much farther ahead from what you're wanting to teach them. They'll be able to see stuff like systemic racism much better than us.

As far as biases go, every human was biased, is biased and will always be biased. Good luck indoctrinating this basic nature out of humans.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Likewise, self-centeredness isn't objectively bad. Self-centeredness isn't an antithesis to being empathetic. Now kids are naturally empathetic, much more so than adults. The reality is that you lose that capacity when you're socialized into a cold and brutal world.

In a relative contexts, there are degrees of self-centerdness and the harm impact it has on oneself and others. Burning down your neighbors house because you are bothered by their loud music is a more extreme form of self-centerdness than getting a massage to recover from a hard week of work.

The problem with saying “saying self-centerdness isn’t objectively bad” is using that for self-centered purposes in a relative context. Someone could say “Self-centerdness isn’t objectively bad!! I can go out and rape women and kill children and it isn’t objectively bad!!”. In one context it is true. However, it can be used by the ego to justify bad behavior in a relative context. This is conflation between absolute and relative. 

11 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Kids are naturally self-centered from age 2 up until a certain number of years. So, the best way to ruin someone's capacity to be empathetic is to shame them for being self-centered, or for 'having biases'.

I’ve written two paragraphs about this and have used bold and italics font. I’d rather not use 36 pt. font or all caps because it looks like I’m screaming. . . Again, I think it is critical  that we *do not shame* people as they become aware of subconscious biases and their participation in societies with systemic biases. This is a major block against realization, growth and the development of both intellectual and empathic understanding. It is very important that people be given a safe and supportive space for this. However, if a person is aware of their behavior and intentionally behaving in this manner, then things like mocking can be effective.

I would say this is a difference between immature green and mature green. Immature green wants to shame everyone, mature green does not. 

22 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I'd suggest we trust subsequent generations of people to be much more empathetic than us. Human beings have progressively become more conscious and loving throughout history and this will only get better with time. They're much farther ahead from what you're wanting to teach them. They'll be able to see stuff like systemic racism much better than us.

This passes the buck to future generations. This resists progress and supports the status quo. Imagine saying “Let’s not do anything about slavery for now. Future generations will be wiser and they can figure out the ethics of slavery.”

25 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

As far as biases go, every human was biased, is biased and will always be biased. Good luck indoctrinating this basic nature out of humans.

There are two distinctions here: subconscious and conscious biases as well as degree of bias. 

Of course 100% of bias can be removed from humans. Being human itself is a bias. Simply being human means you are not a dog or a bat. Perceiving reality as a human is a form of bias. It’s not a binary issue. It’s about reducing the degree of bias and becoming aware of bias.  

[Parththakkar12]

21 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I’ve written two paragraphs about this and have used bold and italics font. I’d rather not use 36 pt. font or all caps because it looks like I’m screaming. . . Again, I think it is critical  that we *do not shame* people as they become aware of subconscious biases and their participation in societies with systemic biases. This is a major block against realization, growth and the development of both intellectual and empathic understanding. It is very important that people be given a safe and supportive space for this. However, if a person is aware of their behavior and intentionally behaving in this manner, then things like mocking can be effective.

I find it hard to trust that shaming won't happen. Schools have relied on shaming since the beginning of time and it takes an extremely conscious parent or teacher to not do it.

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This passes the buck to future generations. This resists progress and supports the status quo. Imagine saying “Let’s not do anything about slavery for now. Future generations will be wiser and they can figure out the ethics of slavery.”

Here it seems like your priority is to have a politically correct, pleasant cover of non-racism as opposed to giving kids a healthy up-bringing and schooling. Which one is your priority? It's okay to want to use kids as an accessory for your agenda of anti-racism, lets just be honest about what we're doing here.

Are you assuming racial biases are unhealthy? That is an assumption. Saying that they're unhealthy is the textbook definition of shaming someone for having biases. What we need to be concerned with is people (mostly adults in positions of power) unconsciously acting according to those biases.

I understand what you're wanting. We need a Turquoise society to really pull off what you're asking for. It takes extremely conscious people to not shame a child for being unconscious, or to do a call out without adding in your projections.

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I find it hard to trust that shaming won't happen. Schools have relied on shaming since the beginning of time and it takes an extremely conscious parent or teacher to not do it.

Nonsense. This is what cultural evolution is all about. There becomes a critical threshold of awareness and then there is a shift.

My school is approaching that threshold. The awareness is getting out that shaming interferes with growth (when one is open to growth). When a critical threshold is reached, there is a turning point. We recently had an external review of my school and they estimated that 25% of our workers is the threshold needed for the cultural shift to occur.

13 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Here it seems like your priority is to have a politically correct, pleasant cover of non-racism as opposed to giving kids a healthy up-bringing and schooling. Which one is your priority? It's okay to want to use kids as an accessory for your agenda of anti-racism, lets just be honest about what we're doing here.

This goes back to an earlier point. The foundation of what I am describing assumes developmental progress has value. Evolving from lower developmental stages to higher developmental stages has value. Without that agreement, the dynamics of the conversation completely shift. 

For example, if we are to discuss how to best create inclusion and equality for LGBTQ, there needs to be agreement that inclusion and equality for LGBTQ has value. Then, there can be a discussion how to best attain that. However, without that agreement things regress to a debate about wether LGBTQ inclusion and equality is of value. The person who does not see it of value will try to obstruct the person who sees it as value.

In this context, the value is developing empathic understanding of excluded groups. If you don’t value that, there cannot be a discussion about how best to achieve it. However, if you do value it then there can be a conversation about how best to achieve it. For example, in the above video there may be ways to improve the method or try a totally different method. Or perhaps we wait until the children are a bit older. We might discover that our teachings have pros and cons. We can modify our approach to make it healthier. For example, if we agree that physical exercise is of value for children, we can have a discussion about the best ways to introduce exercise to children. Perhaps we find out that teaching them gymnastics when they are 8 years old has a high injury risk. We can scrap that and try soccer. Perhaps gymnastics is more appropriate at 12 years old. . . This is a very different mindset than saying “there is not value of exercise for children”. That mindset will try to obstruct any exercise program. 

Similarly, a mindset that does not value teaching empathic understanding of exclusion will won’t to prevent that understanding, rather than explore the best ways to transmit that understanding. 

23 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Are you assuming racial biases are unhealthy? That is an assumption. Saying that they're unhealthy is the textbook definition of shaming someone for having biases. What we need to be concerned with is people (mostly adults in positions of power) unconsciously acting according to those biases.

No. You are adding in elements of shame. Imagine I am hiking with a friend. I stop by a stream and drink some water. My friend tells me that there are microbes in the water and it’s unhealthy to drink it. My friend tells me that we should boil it. I respond “Oh, I was unaware of that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Let’s gather some water to boil over the campfire tonight”. There is zero shame in that. It’s totally different if my friend said “Don’t you know that microbes are in the water? Are you an idiot? I thought you said you were a Boy Scout. Didn’t you learn anything? I just posted a picture of you drinking the water on IG and everyone is laughing about how stupid you are”. <= that is adding in shame. 

37 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

I understand what you're wanting. We need a Turquoise society to really pull off what you're asking for. It takes extremely conscious people to not shame a child for being unconscious, or to do a call out without adding in your projections.

Nope. It’s mature Green. 

[Parththakkar12]

23 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Nonsense. This is what cultural evolution is all about. There becomes a critical threshold of awareness and then there is a shift.

My school is approaching that threshold. The awareness is getting out that shaming interferes with growth (when one is open to growth). When a critical threshold is reached, there is a turning point. We recently had an external review of my school and they estimated that 25% of our workers is the threshold needed for the cultural shift to occur.

First of all, your definition of growth may differ from someone else's definition of growth. Lets keep in mind that coming to school is not a commitment that kids voluntarily make, it's forced upon them. Only the most conformist kids would be open to your definition of growth. They're the ones who will end up getting the best grades.

It is very likely that you will be in the illusion that kids are growing, when really they're just conforming to your expectations. In such scenarios, shame is always beneath the surface of conformity. It's okay if you're willing to make this compromise. Conformity at Green will be less painful than at Blue/Orange.

The reason I keep saying it's okay to compromise, is that any mass-scale program will have to be a one-size-fits-all. It isn't logistically possible to tailor it to the individual. This responsibility lies with the parents.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Epikur]

3 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

First of all, your definition of growth may differ from someone else's definition of growth. Lets keep in mind that coming to school is not a commitment that kids voluntarily make, it's forced upon them. Only the most conformist kids would be open to your definition of growth. They're the ones who will end up getting the best grades.

It is very likely that you will be in the illusion that kids are growing, when really they're just conforming to your expectations. In such scenarios, shame is always beneath the surface of conformity. It's okay if you're willing to make this compromise. Conformity at Green will be less painful than at Blue/Orange.

I agree I guess 70% of people are conformists. They  go along with any ideology that is the flavour of the day. That is why Germany and Japan could switch so fast. Most people and kids don't care about the system they care how to practically run with it. 

You see it in Latin America where they switch between fascism and socialism regularly like now in Brazil.




 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

First of all, your definition of growth may differ from someone else's definition of growth.

By definition, conservatives don’t want growth and change. I’m using the term “growth” in the context of learning and expanding. 

In any hierarchal system, there will be disagreements on what qualifies as “growth” - yet there are reasonable constructs that can be made. For example, algebra is a component of calculus. We could there for say going from algebra to calculus is growth. However, this does not mean that calculus is “better” than algebra or that people who only know algebra should be shamed as being ignorant of calculus.

4 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

It is very likely that you will be in the illusion that kids are growing, when really they're just conforming to your expectations. In such scenarios, shame is always beneath the surface of conformity. It's okay if you're willing to make this compromise. Conformity at Green will be less painful than at Blue/Orange.

This also goes back to “growing”. I would consider learning and expansion to be forms of growing. For example, if someone learns about the cultures of South American countries in a classroom, that is one form of learning. If they also travel to South America and actually experience and participate in the cultures, that is another form of learning. Taken together, I would consider this learning and growing. 

4 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

The reason I keep saying it's okay to compromise, is that any mass-scale program will have to be a one-size-fits-all. It isn't logistically possible to tailor it to the individual. This responsibility lies with the parents.

Creating a standardized unified system has value as does flexibility within localities. For example, legalizing LGBTQ marriage and equal rights at the federal level has value. It prevents localized areas of discrimination at the state level. Waiting for states to individually progress to LGBTQ rights would have taken decades longer. Places like Alabama would probably need another 100 years or so. The south is still dragging their feet about confederate monuments. Yet pushing too fast also has drawbacks. For example, a state may feel like the law has been imposed upon them by an external power. If the support level is too low, this can cause problems. For example, if LGBTQ support in the south is 28%, a federal LGBTQ law is going to cause tension.

As well, there should be flexibility in how concepts are taught. Teaching in an inner city school in NYC is very different than teaching in a rural school in Oklahoma. 

 

[Raphael]

13 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/the-school-that-tried-to-end-racism-henry-white-privilege-race-a4481176.html

Is this a bit much yet? How far do we want to push this?

I had an experience like this. For 18 months I worked in a company of ~20 people and was the only one to have some different origins, and yes I felt excluded and attracted some comments based on my origins. I also experienced a clash between stage blue and orange, most people in the company where at blue where I was mostly at orange.

It was an emotionally difficult situation but was not the first time that I felt excluded based on my appearance. It helps to do perspective switch exercises to experience and understand the pain in other groups.

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Raphael

[Yog]

I think that we can agree here, and start from the point that:.

Racism is a feature, a very good feature, old and primordial feature that goes way way beyond humans, its very old code, it is intelligence hammered by the test of time, if i were far-right I might go and say that its way more intelligent than this recent fragile human thinking and that in the test of time it will prevail.

Well if we take it with that level of seriousness, respect and humility, .....we might not treat it as some kind bug that happen to be written on the blank human slate, as we socially constructed everything. As something that is man-made, or approach it as if it were something that should/can be fixed, training people for racial bias and forcing ideology into kids minds... I find it distasteful, arrogant and ungrateful.

Well how do we make it better...... we certainly do not like some of its outcomes, obviously. How do we edit ? Its a deep and great question.

But lets say it can start with a dance between STEM and the social sciences. Social scientists, especially the ideologically post modern leaning ones like to thing that they got it figured out, all that remains is action! And that is how you get generations of repressed kids, by telling that what they see is wrong.

Humans are not blank slate, but are the blankest there is.
That is my point, maybe we should start treating ourselves as such.