Re: [Unschooling-Discussion] natural learning (religion)
Alan & Brenda Leonard
> I understand what you are saying here, but we both know the realityThis does happen. Before I go any further, please do realize that I agree
> of the situation is that many religious "unschooling" families do
> indeed coerce their children in one way or another when it comes to
> religious matters.
with you on this point.
> Somebody posted earlier the Holt dictum of "ifI understand the "no question, no teaching" concept. But as you point out,
> there's no question, there's no teaching"--so what do we call it when
> parents takes it upon themselves to teach their children the Ten
> Commandments or the Five Pillars before the children are mature
> enough to seriously wonder about morality laws for themselves?
it's got a flaw, and that's the period before children are old enough to do
the questioning. I suspect that John Holt was well wise enough to know
that, and figured that the concept would obviously be applied to the
appropriate point in a child's life.
Perhaps an agnostic might think that the whole mess of faith is far
complicated to even get into with a young child, and would ignore the whole
thing until their child is old enough to really consider the issues. But as
a person of faith, I don't see including my child in living my faith as
coercion. As I agreed with you above, some people *do* coerce. Some people
ignore it completely. But there's a non-coercive grey area between those
two!
I read to my son before he was old enough to ask me to read or not read. I
cleaned my house the way I clean, cooked meals the way I like to eat, and in
general lived my life the way I liked it before he was old enough to have
opinions on how I live.
I also live my faith in front of him. I took him to church, in part because
yes, of course I hoped that he would come to love the ritual and ceremony,
and come to believe in my God. I also took him to church because I couldn't
leave my child at home in his crib on Sunday mornings! Like anything else,
he participates in my life.
Living breeds curiosity. Far before he was old enough to "seriously wonder
about morality laws", he wanted to say the words of the prayers with the
congregation. And so he learned them. Is that indoctrination? No more
than him learning to sing the songs I sing, walk the way his daddy walks,
and eat with a fork. He's sharing our lives.
> parents who fervently argue that children should have the freedom toI don't know that I think Tim's old enough yet to consider morality laws
> do what they want with their own free time will still think nothing
> of requiring their children to attend church once a week.
much (he's 7), but he doesn't like church as much these days. That's okay,
he brings a book or paper and pencils. I don't like going to the McDonalds
Playland, either, so I bring a book there. We have a balance; we try to do
things we enjoy together, but it's not always going to happen. And he's
still to young to stay alone. Is it indoctrination that he must come to
church with me? Not in my mind.
> From my atheistic viewpoint, I don't think there should be aBut is the mathmatician who taught his children to play number games with
> religious exception to the "no coercion" rule of unschooling. If a
> mathematician who insists that his child study an arithmetic book
> cannot be said to be truly unschooling, then neither can the theist
> who insists that his child study a holy book. Both are equally guilty
> in my eyes of coercing the child and meddling with his intellectual
> freedom.
him coercing if this is fun for them, together? Is the person of faith who
tells Bible stories using character voices and making animal noises
coercing? There's so much grey.
Maybe you're only speaking of the truly forceful, coercive behaviours that
exist, and I had the wrong impression. Please forgive my passion on the
subject, if I have misunderstood you. It sounded a bit as though you felt
that children shouldn't be subjected to any of thise faith stuff until
they're old enough to ask for it. Obviously, I disagree. <g>
brenda
kayb85
> I read to my son before he was old enough to ask me to read or notread. I
> cleaned my house the way I clean, cooked meals the way I like toeat, and in
> general lived my life the way I liked it before he was old enoughto have
> opinions on how I live.part because
>
> I also live my faith in front of him. I took him to church, in
> yes, of course I hoped that he would come to love the ritual andceremony,
> and come to believe in my God. I also took him to church because Icouldn't
> leave my child at home in his crib on Sunday mornings! Likeanything else,
> he participates in my life.I don't think that's coercive at all. It's the continuum concept
idea. Parents doing their thing and kids joining along naturally. I
do know that some parents do more than just living their faith
naturally. They get into the "what should I do" parenting style. I
used to be like this in almost every area of parenting! It happens
when someone wants very much to be the best possible parent but
doesn't know how and doesn't know how to trust her instincts. She
then goes out and reads all the advice that all the mainstream
experts give and tries to do it ALL. Buy all the right toys and
books for proper development. Make sure they get the right amount of
each food group. Make sure they have the right amount of
socialization. The right amount of doctor visits. Read to them for
no less than 20 minutes each night. Follow a bedtime routine. I did
it all. And because I was so concerned about their relationship with
God, I thought I had to put extra effort into all the church stuff.
I even went as far as rearranging her sleeping schedules so that she
could go to Sunday evening services. She used to fall asleep around
6 in the evening and I got her to take extra naps in the afternoon so
that she would stay up until 8. I thought it was important that she
learn to go to every service, and she wasn't even a year old yet! I
let her cry in the nursery because she "needed to learn to be away
from me". My intentions were really good. But MAN was I offbase!
Sheila
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], Alan & Brenda Leonard
<abtleo@e...> wrote:
poeple can't help but at least passively coerce their children into
their chosen faith sometimes, even if they don't mean to. But as I
just explained in a previous post, that's just like me passively
coercing my children into not liking Barney by consciously keeping
them away from it when they were young. I wouldn't stop them from
turning it on themselves, but the very fact that I instead turned on
Sesame Street during that first year of life probably skewed their
taste a little bit. Grey areas, like you said.
I've known many "Christian unschoolers" who limit and censor their
child's activities based upon Scripture, essentially forcing their
child into compliance with the parents' chosen faith and hampering
the child's freedom to strike his own spiritual path. That was really
more of the type of hypocrisy that I was originally referring to.
be fed creation stories (and I use that term to mean anything from
Biblical creation to evolution or whatever) until they ask for it. A
human will naturally at some point start to wonder about the big
questions on his own, where we came from and how the earth started
and all that stuff--offering answers to those questions before your
child is mature enough to ask them for himself is sort of tainting
the spiritual path, so to speak. (Just my heathen atheist opinion!
Agree to disagree, LOL)
Here is a quote from my good friend Henry Lindner:
"I say never force children to learn anything outside of their
necessary duties in the family and home. The child can see and
understand the need for these tasks. He cannot see the need to learn
who George Washington is and what he did, and he will not until he is
much older and begins to wonder how his society got to be what it
is. To force him/her to learn such answers before he can even ask
the questions is to forever prevent him from ever having any
curiosity regarding the subject. To associate knowledge with
coercion in your child's mind is one of the worst things you can do
to him. Coercion prevents and perverts the child's
emotional/intellectual growth. All meaningful learning is the child's
own accomplishment. It is initiated and directed by their own
curiosity."
from http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/Natlearn.htm
He uses George Washington in this example, but you can just as
easilty substitute Jesus or Allah or Buddha or whatver you'd like
instead, it's the same concept in my eyes.
Cheers,
Deniz
<abtleo@e...> wrote:
> Maybe you're only speaking of the truly forceful, coerciveI mostly was, really. Although I still do hold to the opinion that
> behaviours that exist, and I had the wrong impression. Please
> forgive my passion on the subject, if I have misunderstood you.
poeple can't help but at least passively coerce their children into
their chosen faith sometimes, even if they don't mean to. But as I
just explained in a previous post, that's just like me passively
coercing my children into not liking Barney by consciously keeping
them away from it when they were young. I wouldn't stop them from
turning it on themselves, but the very fact that I instead turned on
Sesame Street during that first year of life probably skewed their
taste a little bit. Grey areas, like you said.
I've known many "Christian unschoolers" who limit and censor their
child's activities based upon Scripture, essentially forcing their
child into compliance with the parents' chosen faith and hampering
the child's freedom to strike his own spiritual path. That was really
more of the type of hypocrisy that I was originally referring to.
> It sounded a bit as though you felt that children shouldn't beWell, I actually AM of the opinion that children at least should not
> subjected to any of thise faith stuff until they're old enough to
> ask for it. Obviously, I disagree. <g>
be fed creation stories (and I use that term to mean anything from
Biblical creation to evolution or whatever) until they ask for it. A
human will naturally at some point start to wonder about the big
questions on his own, where we came from and how the earth started
and all that stuff--offering answers to those questions before your
child is mature enough to ask them for himself is sort of tainting
the spiritual path, so to speak. (Just my heathen atheist opinion!
Agree to disagree, LOL)
Here is a quote from my good friend Henry Lindner:
"I say never force children to learn anything outside of their
necessary duties in the family and home. The child can see and
understand the need for these tasks. He cannot see the need to learn
who George Washington is and what he did, and he will not until he is
much older and begins to wonder how his society got to be what it
is. To force him/her to learn such answers before he can even ask
the questions is to forever prevent him from ever having any
curiosity regarding the subject. To associate knowledge with
coercion in your child's mind is one of the worst things you can do
to him. Coercion prevents and perverts the child's
emotional/intellectual growth. All meaningful learning is the child's
own accomplishment. It is initiated and directed by their own
curiosity."
from http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/Natlearn.htm
He uses George Washington in this example, but you can just as
easilty substitute Jesus or Allah or Buddha or whatver you'd like
instead, it's the same concept in my eyes.
Cheers,
Deniz
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/16/03 8:23:39 AM, denizmartinez@... writes:
<< I mostly was, really. Although I still do hold to the opinion that
poeple can't help but at least passively coerce their children into
their chosen faith sometimes, even if they don't mean to. >>
Coercion isn't the same as exposure and "indoctrination," the word used
earlier, is a heck of a word. If Brenda takes Tim to church with her twice a week,
that doesn't prove indoctrination. If she presses him into every class,
summer camp or workshop she could on the history and future of her faith, maybe.
If when he said "Well what do the Presbyterians believe that's different?"
she said "Shut up about those stinking Presbyterian devils. Don't even ask, and
if they look at you don't make eye contact," NOW we're talking
indoctrination!!
I grew up going to a Baptist church in a VERY Catholic town. I know what
they told us, and I also know what the catholics were told about the Baptist
church. THAT was some indoctrination with threat of hell on both sides for nosing
around the others.
Indoctrination involves some fear and hatred of outside others.
If an unschooling family always says "When you're older you can choose," and
they mean it, I don't see that as indoctrination. If the parents eat a lot
of chicken but don't mind that the kid chooses beef or vegetarian stuff,
they're just doing what they do. If the parents never serve chicken without a
side-dish of vitriol against beef and against vegetarians, that's indoctrination.
Sandra
<< I mostly was, really. Although I still do hold to the opinion that
poeple can't help but at least passively coerce their children into
their chosen faith sometimes, even if they don't mean to. >>
Coercion isn't the same as exposure and "indoctrination," the word used
earlier, is a heck of a word. If Brenda takes Tim to church with her twice a week,
that doesn't prove indoctrination. If she presses him into every class,
summer camp or workshop she could on the history and future of her faith, maybe.
If when he said "Well what do the Presbyterians believe that's different?"
she said "Shut up about those stinking Presbyterian devils. Don't even ask, and
if they look at you don't make eye contact," NOW we're talking
indoctrination!!
I grew up going to a Baptist church in a VERY Catholic town. I know what
they told us, and I also know what the catholics were told about the Baptist
church. THAT was some indoctrination with threat of hell on both sides for nosing
around the others.
Indoctrination involves some fear and hatred of outside others.
If an unschooling family always says "When you're older you can choose," and
they mean it, I don't see that as indoctrination. If the parents eat a lot
of chicken but don't mind that the kid chooses beef or vegetarian stuff,
they're just doing what they do. If the parents never serve chicken without a
side-dish of vitriol against beef and against vegetarians, that's indoctrination.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/16/2003 2:17:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
I thought I must be wrong all these years, so I looked it up, in several
places. None of the definitions of indoctrination involved fear or hatred of
outside others.
What I found was what I thought indoctrination was, instilling beliefs or
doctrines. Here are some other definitions, none regarding hate or fear.
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of
children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents
indoctrination
\In*doc`tri*na"tion\, n. The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being
indoctrinated; instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or
system of belief; information. --Sir T. Browne.
indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
While some thing's one might be getting "indoctrinated" into might involve
teaching about fear or hatred it isn't the purpose of indoctrination to instill
fear or hatred, just instill the "doctrines".
I guess white supremacist indoctrination's could very likely instill fear and
hatred and some others too, but probably a very equal number of things one is
indoctrinated into most likely would not.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Indoctrination involves some fear and hatred of outside others.I thought indoctrination was something different from what Sandra described.
> If an unschooling family always says "When you're older you can choose," and
>
> they mean it, I don't see that as indoctrination. If the parents eat a lot
>
> of chicken but don't mind that the kid chooses beef or vegetarian stuff,
> they're just doing what they do. If the parents never serve chicken without
> a
> side-dish of vitriol against beef and against vegetarians, that's
> indoctrination.
>
> Sandra
>
I thought I must be wrong all these years, so I looked it up, in several
places. None of the definitions of indoctrination involved fear or hatred of
outside others.
What I found was what I thought indoctrination was, instilling beliefs or
doctrines. Here are some other definitions, none regarding hate or fear.
tr.v. in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing, in·doc·tri·nates
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of
children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents
indoctrination
\In*doc`tri*na"tion\, n. The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being
indoctrinated; instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or
system of belief; information. --Sir T. Browne.
indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
While some thing's one might be getting "indoctrinated" into might involve
teaching about fear or hatred it isn't the purpose of indoctrination to instill
fear or hatred, just instill the "doctrines".
I guess white supremacist indoctrination's could very likely instill fear and
hatred and some others too, but probably a very equal number of things one is
indoctrinated into most likely would not.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/16/03 12:47:40 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:
<< To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: >>
You don't become partisan or ideological without a judgment AGAINST the thing
you are determined not to be.
In the case of religion, it's one thing to be open-mindedly religious, but
very few religions are in the business of open-mindedness, and their definitions
of other religions are frequently of the basest kinds of judgements. That
means hatred. If you think your religion is the one right and true communion
with God, then other people are making a mockery of God, are ignorant of God,
are separate from God, are in league with Satan, are infidels, gentiles,
blasphemers, yada yada yada.
<<indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically>>
"Uncritically" means "without thinking."
It means "trust me."
It means "Don't worry, we're SURE this is right and the other stuff is wrong."
<<I guess white supremacist indoctrination's could very likely instill fear
and
hatred and some others too, but probably a very equal number of things one is
indoctrinated into most likely would not.>>
Like what?
In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination."
So what indoctrination are you recommending that will make unschooling easier
and better for anyone?
Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Sandra
<< To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: >>
You don't become partisan or ideological without a judgment AGAINST the thing
you are determined not to be.
In the case of religion, it's one thing to be open-mindedly religious, but
very few religions are in the business of open-mindedness, and their definitions
of other religions are frequently of the basest kinds of judgements. That
means hatred. If you think your religion is the one right and true communion
with God, then other people are making a mockery of God, are ignorant of God,
are separate from God, are in league with Satan, are infidels, gentiles,
blasphemers, yada yada yada.
<<indoctrination
n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically>>
"Uncritically" means "without thinking."
It means "trust me."
It means "Don't worry, we're SURE this is right and the other stuff is wrong."
<<I guess white supremacist indoctrination's could very likely instill fear
and
hatred and some others too, but probably a very equal number of things one is
indoctrinated into most likely would not.>>
Like what?
In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination."
So what indoctrination are you recommending that will make unschooling easier
and better for anyone?
Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 8/16/03 2:26 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... at rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:
someone else. Indoctrination doesn't describe a condition that's happened
inadvertently.
*Why* is this being done to someone?
Why does someone want to teach "someone to accept doctrines uncritically"?
Why does someone want "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of
view"?
Someone may indoctrinate for what they feel are positive reasons -- so the
child can join Jesus, or so the child can learn well in school, for instance
-- but it won't be done without fear. (Even if they don't acknowledge that
fear.)
It can also be done for power reasons, to control more people.
Can you think of an example of indoctrination that doesn't have fear that
something dreadful might happen if the person doesn't have the knowledge or
doesn't have a need to control people by controlling their knowledge?
Joyce
wrote:
> it isn't the purpose of indoctrination to instillAll the definitions indicated someone has (deliberately) done something to
> fear or hatred, just instill the "doctrines".
someone else. Indoctrination doesn't describe a condition that's happened
inadvertently.
*Why* is this being done to someone?
Why does someone want to teach "someone to accept doctrines uncritically"?
Why does someone want "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of
view"?
Someone may indoctrinate for what they feel are positive reasons -- so the
child can join Jesus, or so the child can learn well in school, for instance
-- but it won't be done without fear. (Even if they don't acknowledge that
fear.)
It can also be done for power reasons, to control more people.
Can you think of an example of indoctrination that doesn't have fear that
something dreadful might happen if the person doesn't have the knowledge or
doesn't have a need to control people by controlling their knowledge?
Joyce
Fetteroll
This month's issue of Mad (September) has a 2-page The Differences Between
Hogwarts and Your School. It's got some clever comparisons. :-)
(It's also jam packed full of its usual social commentary ;-)
Joyce
Hogwarts and Your School. It's got some clever comparisons. :-)
(It's also jam packed full of its usual social commentary ;-)
Joyce
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
used it, LOL!!! And my response to that was something like "IF the
parent is coercing the child with rewards and punishments, then I
consider that to be indoctrination." I never said that any parent who
keeps a Bible on their shelf is guilty of indoctrination--other
posters have sort of misread our posts and gone off on this whole
indoctrination tangent now.
So, let me specifically state it again for the record, I do think
there is a difference between a parent who simply reads Bible stories
to their children, and one who uses bribes and threats (i.e., rewards
and punishments) to obtain religious adherence from a child. Examples
of this would be, a child who chooses not go to Church services being
grounded, or a child getting a gold star for every Bible verse she
memorizes.
The first example of passively reading Bible stories to your child
may or may not be considered passive coercion, which is what some
people are currently debating; I do hold that the later examples are
indeed forms of indoctrination, because they are using extrinsic
motivators to stifle a child's intrinsic motivation to find his own
spritual path.
Deniz
>Yes, it IS a heck of a word-- and Sanda, you were the one who first
>Coercion isn't the same as exposure and "indoctrination," the word
>used earlier, is a heck of a word.
used it, LOL!!! And my response to that was something like "IF the
parent is coercing the child with rewards and punishments, then I
consider that to be indoctrination." I never said that any parent who
keeps a Bible on their shelf is guilty of indoctrination--other
posters have sort of misread our posts and gone off on this whole
indoctrination tangent now.
So, let me specifically state it again for the record, I do think
there is a difference between a parent who simply reads Bible stories
to their children, and one who uses bribes and threats (i.e., rewards
and punishments) to obtain religious adherence from a child. Examples
of this would be, a child who chooses not go to Church services being
grounded, or a child getting a gold star for every Bible verse she
memorizes.
The first example of passively reading Bible stories to your child
may or may not be considered passive coercion, which is what some
people are currently debating; I do hold that the later examples are
indeed forms of indoctrination, because they are using extrinsic
motivators to stifle a child's intrinsic motivation to find his own
spritual path.
Deniz
Deniz Martinez
LOL Look at Glena whipping out the dictionary definition
for "indoctrination", I love it! You go girl! ;)
Seriously though, this brings up an interesting thing about language--
the difference between denotation and connotation. Words
can have essentially equal defintions (synonyms!), but markedly
different connotations. "Overweight" and "fat" have the same
denotations, but different connotations--one is considered "meaner"
than the other, isn't it?
"Indoctrination" is one of those words that has gotten a negative
connoation attached to it. That's normal language evolution at work
there. Meanings of words naturally change over time due to historical
and cultural influences, and good dictionaries (the kind that are
descriptive rather than prescriptive in their definitions) will keep
up with these changes in their revised editions.
BTW, over at Dictionary.com, there is no defintion for the
word "unschooling", and only this defintion for the word "unschooled":
un·schooled adj.
1. Not educated or instructed; having little or no formal schooling.
2. Not the result of training; natural: "an artist of unschooled
talents."
Deniz ;)
for "indoctrination", I love it! You go girl! ;)
Seriously though, this brings up an interesting thing about language--
the difference between denotation and connotation. Words
can have essentially equal defintions (synonyms!), but markedly
different connotations. "Overweight" and "fat" have the same
denotations, but different connotations--one is considered "meaner"
than the other, isn't it?
"Indoctrination" is one of those words that has gotten a negative
connoation attached to it. That's normal language evolution at work
there. Meanings of words naturally change over time due to historical
and cultural influences, and good dictionaries (the kind that are
descriptive rather than prescriptive in their definitions) will keep
up with these changes in their revised editions.
BTW, over at Dictionary.com, there is no defintion for the
word "unschooling", and only this defintion for the word "unschooled":
un·schooled adj.
1. Not educated or instructed; having little or no formal schooling.
2. Not the result of training; natural: "an artist of unschooled
talents."
Deniz ;)
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
reread her post, and nowhere did she even remotely mention
recommending an indoctrination that would make unschooling easier, or
whatever it is that you are trying to accuse her of having said. She
seemed to be posing a purely semantical question, the way that I read
it anyway, and I answered her in kind with a little rant about
denotation versus connotation in language.
nothing inherently wrong with arguing with the sake of arguing. I
enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing sometimes--it's good mental
exercise. 8-)
And Sandra, YOU are quite the master arguing for the sake of arguing
arguer. I think this post of yours is a prime example of that. ;)
Love,
Deniz
(equally guilty of arguing just for argument's sake sometimes, LOL. I
like singing just for singing's sake too!!)
> Like what?Pardon me, but what are you talking about?? I just went back and
>
> In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is
> not "indoctrination."
> So what indoctrination are you recommending that will make
> unschooling easier and better for anyone?
reread her post, and nowhere did she even remotely mention
recommending an indoctrination that would make unschooling easier, or
whatever it is that you are trying to accuse her of having said. She
seemed to be posing a purely semantical question, the way that I read
it anyway, and I answered her in kind with a little rant about
denotation versus connotation in language.
> Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?I don't think she was doing that at all, but regardless, there's
nothing inherently wrong with arguing with the sake of arguing. I
enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing sometimes--it's good mental
exercise. 8-)
And Sandra, YOU are quite the master arguing for the sake of arguing
arguer. I think this post of yours is a prime example of that. ;)
Love,
Deniz
(equally guilty of arguing just for argument's sake sometimes, LOL. I
like singing just for singing's sake too!!)
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/16/03 7:42:08 PM, denizmartinez@... writes:
<<
I don't think she was doing that at all, but regardless, there's
nothing inherently wrong with arguing with the sake of arguing. >>
If it doesn't lead people to a better understanding of unschooling, I see a
problem with it happening on this list.
Argue for the sake of arguing all you want at your house anytime. By private
e-mail ANYtime! But people come here to learn more about unschooling, and
arguments which veer away from that are disruptive. Disruption of the list is a
waste of time and energy, and unless we just want a list full of people
arguing for the sake of arguing, it's important to veer TOWARD unschooling, rather
than swirl away from it constantly.
Sandra
<<
I don't think she was doing that at all, but regardless, there's
nothing inherently wrong with arguing with the sake of arguing. >>
If it doesn't lead people to a better understanding of unschooling, I see a
problem with it happening on this list.
Argue for the sake of arguing all you want at your house anytime. By private
e-mail ANYtime! But people come here to learn more about unschooling, and
arguments which veer away from that are disruptive. Disruption of the list is a
waste of time and energy, and unless we just want a list full of people
arguing for the sake of arguing, it's important to veer TOWARD unschooling, rather
than swirl away from it constantly.
Sandra
[email protected]
fetteroll@... writes:
coersion, right?
<<Why does someone want to teach "someone to accept doctrines uncritically"?>>
Because it's easier to learn something if your own messy ideas are out of the
way first. Not the way I like to do it, but I've learned it's value. To put
aside the preconceived notions and understand something "as it is". I think
that sometimes that is the only way to truly comprehend something.
After you comprehend something, the critical questions can enlarge your
understanding, but in the beginning, those critical questions can subvert your
understanding, instead.
I know that's not a great argument for unschooling, but I think it's true.
Isn't that why we think it's great when people read the list for a while, get
an understanding of what's going on first, before they jump in? Maybe suspend
their ideas for a while and absorb ours, and they'll better understand than
if they started arguing right away?
<<Why does someone want "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of
view"?>>
In religion in particular, it's because there is a belief system, dogma,
things that are true and right within that religion, and things that are not. If
I ,a libertarian dem, want to understand republicanism, I can't do it without
looking at if from their ideological pov. There are things I need to "accept
as correct" before I can go further into their ideology.
<<It can also be done for power reasons, to control more people.
Can you think of an example of indoctrination that doesn't have fear that
something dreadful might happen if the person doesn't have the knowledge or
doesn't have a need to control people by controlling their knowledge?>>
Well, when people choose to learn all about a certain religion, aren't they
purposely letting themselves be indoctrinated? Aren't they learning about an
entire system of belief, and don't they have to suspend their own beliefs while
they do so? Is that controlling their knowledge, or is that just a method of
absorbing a different pov?
The difference I see is that you are assuming a person of power to be
coercing another person...but indoctrination seems to me to be a complete immersion
in any complete belief system, and that can be done by choice.
Aren't people here being indoctrinated in the process of unschooling? Aren't
we purposely learning an entire system of belief, and aren't we sometimes
putting aside some of our own beliefs and opinions about things in order to
understand unschooling better?
I guess I just see it more as an immersion into a subject, but not
necessarily a brainwashing.
<<To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. >>
That first definition. Your kid wants to learn Judiasm. What would the
rabbi do? Indoctrinate, teach a body of doctrine.
The connotation of the word does trigger the cults and fundies of the world,
where power and coercion are used TO indoctrinate.
Whew. I can't believe I'm "arguing" this side of the conversation. But this
is just way too interesting! LOL
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> *Why* is this being done to someone?Hopefully, because they asked! If it's done without their agreement, that's
>
coersion, right?
<<Why does someone want to teach "someone to accept doctrines uncritically"?>>
Because it's easier to learn something if your own messy ideas are out of the
way first. Not the way I like to do it, but I've learned it's value. To put
aside the preconceived notions and understand something "as it is". I think
that sometimes that is the only way to truly comprehend something.
After you comprehend something, the critical questions can enlarge your
understanding, but in the beginning, those critical questions can subvert your
understanding, instead.
I know that's not a great argument for unschooling, but I think it's true.
Isn't that why we think it's great when people read the list for a while, get
an understanding of what's going on first, before they jump in? Maybe suspend
their ideas for a while and absorb ours, and they'll better understand than
if they started arguing right away?
<<Why does someone want "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of
view"?>>
In religion in particular, it's because there is a belief system, dogma,
things that are true and right within that religion, and things that are not. If
I ,a libertarian dem, want to understand republicanism, I can't do it without
looking at if from their ideological pov. There are things I need to "accept
as correct" before I can go further into their ideology.
<<It can also be done for power reasons, to control more people.
Can you think of an example of indoctrination that doesn't have fear that
something dreadful might happen if the person doesn't have the knowledge or
doesn't have a need to control people by controlling their knowledge?>>
Well, when people choose to learn all about a certain religion, aren't they
purposely letting themselves be indoctrinated? Aren't they learning about an
entire system of belief, and don't they have to suspend their own beliefs while
they do so? Is that controlling their knowledge, or is that just a method of
absorbing a different pov?
The difference I see is that you are assuming a person of power to be
coercing another person...but indoctrination seems to me to be a complete immersion
in any complete belief system, and that can be done by choice.
Aren't people here being indoctrinated in the process of unschooling? Aren't
we purposely learning an entire system of belief, and aren't we sometimes
putting aside some of our own beliefs and opinions about things in order to
understand unschooling better?
I guess I just see it more as an immersion into a subject, but not
necessarily a brainwashing.
<<To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. >>
That first definition. Your kid wants to learn Judiasm. What would the
rabbi do? Indoctrinate, teach a body of doctrine.
The connotation of the word does trigger the cults and fundies of the world,
where power and coercion are used TO indoctrinate.
Whew. I can't believe I'm "arguing" this side of the conversation. But this
is just way too interesting! LOL
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
SandraDodd@... writes:
difference would probably be useful here.
If we're discerning, deciding on a basis of judgement, yes, but not assigning
that preference as having inherant value, then we don't have to be *against*
it's opposite.
I understand your point, but your whole post is based on the fact that you
have to hate somebody to love another, and that's just not true!
<<it's one thing to be open-mindedly religious, >>
I don't think that's possible. You either are of the same belief as the
dogma of your religion, or you are not that religion, you're a spiritual person
on a path that has similarities to that religion. You can be open-mindedly
spirtual, no dogma, that's different.
<<very few religions are in the business of open-mindedness, and their
definitions
of other religions are frequently of the basest kinds of judgements. That
means hatred >>
This may be a mistake that many people make, but that doesn't mean that all
religious people are this way. Some people are so comfortable with their
religion they have no need to hate those who are of another religion. It's
called religious tolerance.
It happens. There's a whole website about it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
<<n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically>>
<<"Uncritically" means "without thinking."
It means "trust me."
It means "Don't worry, we're SURE this is right and the other stuff is
wrong." >>
This is very often true. But as I explained in my other post, teaching and
learning something so inflexible as religion, does have at it's base things
like faith, grace, etc, and you just can't understand some religions without
suspending disbelief, without putting aside critical, rational thinking and
questioning. It's just part of the process. Now, some people can't and won't do
this, and that's why we have agnostics and athiests. :-)
<<In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination.">>
Sure it is. Just not the nasty brainwashing, coersive connotation.
When your kid sits down to read a science book, they're interested in being
indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is called science. If they
don't understand what some of the basis' are, they're not going to have as
full of an understanding as they would otherwise. But when they're exposed
enough to science, they become indoctrinated, or immersed in the systems and
terminology of science.
<<So what indoctrination are you recommending that will make unschooling
easier
and better for anyone?
Any kind the kid wants works for me.
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> You don't become partisan or ideological without a judgment AGAINST theHere we're getting into judgement and discernment, and making clear that
> thing
> you are determined not to be.
difference would probably be useful here.
If we're discerning, deciding on a basis of judgement, yes, but not assigning
that preference as having inherant value, then we don't have to be *against*
it's opposite.
I understand your point, but your whole post is based on the fact that you
have to hate somebody to love another, and that's just not true!
<<it's one thing to be open-mindedly religious, >>
I don't think that's possible. You either are of the same belief as the
dogma of your religion, or you are not that religion, you're a spiritual person
on a path that has similarities to that religion. You can be open-mindedly
spirtual, no dogma, that's different.
<<very few religions are in the business of open-mindedness, and their
definitions
of other religions are frequently of the basest kinds of judgements. That
means hatred >>
This may be a mistake that many people make, but that doesn't mean that all
religious people are this way. Some people are so comfortable with their
religion they have no need to hate those who are of another religion. It's
called religious tolerance.
It happens. There's a whole website about it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
<<n : teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically>>
<<"Uncritically" means "without thinking."
It means "trust me."
It means "Don't worry, we're SURE this is right and the other stuff is
wrong." >>
This is very often true. But as I explained in my other post, teaching and
learning something so inflexible as religion, does have at it's base things
like faith, grace, etc, and you just can't understand some religions without
suspending disbelief, without putting aside critical, rational thinking and
questioning. It's just part of the process. Now, some people can't and won't do
this, and that's why we have agnostics and athiests. :-)
<<In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination.">>
Sure it is. Just not the nasty brainwashing, coersive connotation.
When your kid sits down to read a science book, they're interested in being
indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is called science. If they
don't understand what some of the basis' are, they're not going to have as
full of an understanding as they would otherwise. But when they're exposed
enough to science, they become indoctrinated, or immersed in the systems and
terminology of science.
<<So what indoctrination are you recommending that will make unschooling
easier
and better for anyone?
Any kind the kid wants works for me.
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Alan & Brenda Leonard
> For the sake of civility, I'm not going to state my personal opinionI wasn't asking for your personal opinion of creation stories. I was
> to the question of whether creation stories are crap or not. You
> should know the answer to that if I admitted to you that I'm an
> atheist. ;)
pointing out the flaw in your comments. So, once again, how does your
opinion on religion help me (or anybody else, for that matter) unschool? It
sounded like you were telling people that it would be better for unschoolers
(in general) to not teach children any of "that crap" until they ask. That
might be true for your kids, if that's how you feel about it. But that
doesn't make it worth telling the rest of us. Or, if you feel the need to
tell the rest of us, tell it as a story about your family. Not as advice
for how we should all unschool.
>I'm not "some people", I'm Brenda. And need not get defensive. You may go
> Okay, why is it that with some people, every time you disagree with
> them about one particular point or another, they assume that you
> either
> a. must not "get" the unschooling concept
> b. don't have kids of your own
back and read my posts; I neither said nor implied that you didn't get
unschooling. I didn't assume you don't have kids, I asked if you do. I had
a reason for asking. Thank you for answering.
> c. are only talking about theoretical/hypothetical situations (and ifI didn't "assume" that you were talking about theory, I asked. There's a
> you do indeed happen to be doing just that, that is useless)
big difference. Breathe.
Theory isn't useless. But it's courteous to call a spade as spade. If my
child is sick, I want tried-and-true advice. It can come from the medical
establishment, it can come from the homeopath, it can come from other
parents. But I want to know what will WORK. The last thing I'd want is an
untested theory. Theory is fine. But please tell me that's what you're
selling.
> a. I am an unschooler.That's nice. We're not here to judge each other.
>Congratulations. How old are they?
> b. I have kids. Two beautiful children so far, probably will be
> having more soon.
>So have I. But I've also heard those same young children regularly ask much
> c1. Yes, I HAVE heard very young children ask deeply profound
> questions about life, the universe, and everything.
more simple questions, and in general find that children prefer that you
answer the question. Just the question. Now, my son will occasionally tell
me he wants the "whole story". But generally, long, philosophical answers
are not what he's asking for. Like all children, he's often fishing for
information (who was George Washington?) not seeking a discussion of the
history of America.
>I'm interested in theory, but not the way you're going about it. As far as
> c2. I find nothing wrong with exploring theoreticals and
> hypotheticals, they can be very useful tools when not used too
> randomly. Imagining different possibilities, testing out
> logical arguments to see if lead to an illogical conclusion, thinking
> ahead about future events, etc...it's all good to me. That's fine if
> you personally aren't interested in theoreticals...I am.
this list goes, I'm interested in real people's lives and their experience
unschooling. As I attempted to explain above, *advice* based on
theoreticals is worthless. Tell me if you have actually lived this. And
don't try to tell me how to live if you have never been there.
I'm sure anyone who's been on this list for more than a few months knows
that my son is seven years old. That's because I try HARD to include his
age in my comments. To someone who has a five year old, my experiences may
yield something useful. But the parent of a twelve year old won't
necessarily find my comments useful. Age does make a difference. I greatly
appreciate advice from some of the more experienced unschoolers on this
list, because I know that they have stood where I'm standing.
>> your friend (and you, me thinks) has great expectations ofAnd how has that expectation played out in your own children's lives? Are
>> children's interest in philosophical questions.
>
> You're right, we do. Guilty as charged.
they old enough to bear up your theories? I am neither a mathmetician nor a
scientist, but I do remember (from school, no less) that not all theories
turn out to be true.
So, how old are your children? Have you found that as they grow older, they
are starting to ask probing questions, or are they still two years old and
asking, "What's that" more often than not? Tell us stories about how your
theories play out in real life.
brenda
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/17/03 1:16:51 PM, abtleo@... writes:
<< > Okay, why is it that with some people, every time you disagree with
so that others can understand unschooling.
If you have kids of your own and you're unschooling, tell us stories. Don't
just tell us school stories or quote books. We've been to school; we've read
books. This list can do what other lists can't do if we stick to our topic.
Sandra
<< > Okay, why is it that with some people, every time you disagree with
> them about one particular point or another, they assume that youMaybe because some people are here to tell stories about their own families
> either
> a. must not "get" the unschooling concept
> b. don't have kids of your own >>
so that others can understand unschooling.
If you have kids of your own and you're unschooling, tell us stories. Don't
just tell us school stories or quote books. We've been to school; we've read
books. This list can do what other lists can't do if we stick to our topic.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 8/17/03 1:16 PM, AimeeL73@... at AimeeL73@... wrote:
and not an end in itself.
But I think if we were to describe the process of learning about unschooling
(or anything) as "First you need to indoctrinate yourself and then you can
ask questions," that it would give many people the wrong image to work
towards.
The first part of learning is often gathering *data* uncritically. That's
not accepting the truth of any principles uncritically. Once there's enough
data, then people can start to see patterns and draw conclusions about why
those patterns exist.
But I don't see gathering data as:
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view
Instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or system of
belief
Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
since data isn't principles or doctines.
conclusions about how they should behave on.
To me "instruct in a body of doctrine or principles" is akin to memorizing
them. There are no unschooling principles to memorize.
There *are* though principles that we do accept as true because we've
*already* done the critical examination and have come to those conclusions.
The list and message board exist as places to explore what life is like when
those unschooling principles are accepted as true.
It's not that people can't question whether children do learn all they need
to learn by living life, or whether conventional parenting is better than
mindful parenting, but they need to do so softly so it doesn't stop the list
from serving the needs of those who accept the unschooling principles and
signed on to work towards unschooling.
As an analogy, many priests wouldn't discourage and might even encourage
someone who wants to question the divinity of Christ. But the priest (and
parishoners) wouldn't want the person interupting the church services to get
the priest to prove the divinity of Christ. The service exists to serve the
vast majority who already accept the divinity of Christ. The priest probably
wouldn't want to spend hours a day in private discussing the divinity of
Christ. The priest would expect the person to do the majority of the work on
their own and to use the priest to help clarify some thoughts.
Though understanding the foundation of a particular religion's dogma can be
helpful to people, I think they can also work just fine for people who don't
want to question, who just want to believe.
I don't think unschooling will work for those who just want to accept. I
think people need to understand why it works in order to decide how to make
it work in their families.
work to understand their point of view in order to understand why they
believe what they believe.
It does mean turning off your own point of view and preconceived notions in
order to understand. But it doesn't mean letting your own understanding go.
I find that process fascinting and have tried to describe it to some people
who are fighting what we're saying. Some people seem to naturally resist
taking on that temporary set of beliefs and temporary point of view and
temporary new truths. But I find it fascinating -- and very helpful -- to
try to understand why people believe what they believe. I find
fundamentalist Christian thinking fascinating. I've been able to better
understand why they believe what they do by trying on their point of view.
But I'm not in the least bit "indoctrinated" into their beliefs. My own
beliefs haven't changed at all just because I've tried on theirs.
To me indoctrination is done *to* someone. It is done to meet *the
indoctrinator's* needs. The people being indoctrinated may feel it's meeting
their needs. They may even want the indoctrination. But to me the big
difference between indoctrination and learning is that the indoctrinator has
a driving need to get someone (or many someones) to believe. And whether
they understand or not is irrelevant (and perhaps dangerous to the
indoctrinator's goals.)
Being indoctrinated and learning something they want to learn may look and
feel similar to the people drawing in the information. But there is no
pressure from the people handing out the information for anyone to
understand. No one offering advice has anything big to gain whether there
are 100 people or 10,000 people here who understand -- not just believe --
unschooling.
And maybe that's where connotation and denotation come in. I think there are
words that describe that immersive learning -- like "learning" ;-) -- but
people need a word that describes learning when the person handing out the
information has a vested interest in the learner believing them. Not just in
learning what they're teaching, but in believing what they're being taught
and disbelieving contradictory modes of thought. The needs of that type of
teacher are different than the needs of the teacher who leaves it up to the
student to believe or not believe, to understand or not understand.
Indoctrination serves that word need and that's how it's very often used.
Joyce
>> Why does someone want to teach "someone to accept doctrines uncritically"?>>So you're using the word indoctrinate to describe a step in understanding
>
> Because it's easier to learn something if your own messy ideas are out of the
> way first. Not the way I like to do it, but I've learned it's value. To put
> aside the preconceived notions and understand something "as it is". I think
> that sometimes that is the only way to truly comprehend something.
>
> After you comprehend something, the critical questions can enlarge your
> understanding, but in the beginning, those critical questions can subvert your
> understanding, instead.
and not an end in itself.
But I think if we were to describe the process of learning about unschooling
(or anything) as "First you need to indoctrinate yourself and then you can
ask questions," that it would give many people the wrong image to work
towards.
The first part of learning is often gathering *data* uncritically. That's
not accepting the truth of any principles uncritically. Once there's enough
data, then people can start to see patterns and draw conclusions about why
those patterns exist.
But I don't see gathering data as:
To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view
Instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or system of
belief
Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
since data isn't principles or doctines.
> Isn't that why we think it's great when people read the list for a while, getI still see that as gathering data so people have something to base
> an understanding of what's going on first, before they jump in? Maybe suspend
> their ideas for a while and absorb ours, and they'll better understand than
> if they started arguing right away?
conclusions about how they should behave on.
To me "instruct in a body of doctrine or principles" is akin to memorizing
them. There are no unschooling principles to memorize.
There *are* though principles that we do accept as true because we've
*already* done the critical examination and have come to those conclusions.
The list and message board exist as places to explore what life is like when
those unschooling principles are accepted as true.
It's not that people can't question whether children do learn all they need
to learn by living life, or whether conventional parenting is better than
mindful parenting, but they need to do so softly so it doesn't stop the list
from serving the needs of those who accept the unschooling principles and
signed on to work towards unschooling.
As an analogy, many priests wouldn't discourage and might even encourage
someone who wants to question the divinity of Christ. But the priest (and
parishoners) wouldn't want the person interupting the church services to get
the priest to prove the divinity of Christ. The service exists to serve the
vast majority who already accept the divinity of Christ. The priest probably
wouldn't want to spend hours a day in private discussing the divinity of
Christ. The priest would expect the person to do the majority of the work on
their own and to use the priest to help clarify some thoughts.
Though understanding the foundation of a particular religion's dogma can be
helpful to people, I think they can also work just fine for people who don't
want to question, who just want to believe.
I don't think unschooling will work for those who just want to accept. I
think people need to understand why it works in order to decide how to make
it work in their families.
>> Why does someone want "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point ofAlmost. You need to accept as correct *from their point of view*. And then
>> view"?
>
> In religion in particular, it's because there is a belief system, dogma,
> things that are true and right within that religion, and things that are not.
> If
> I ,a libertarian dem, want to understand republicanism, I can't do it without
> looking at if from their ideological pov. There are things I need to "accept
> as correct" before I can go further into their ideology.
work to understand their point of view in order to understand why they
believe what they believe.
It does mean turning off your own point of view and preconceived notions in
order to understand. But it doesn't mean letting your own understanding go.
I find that process fascinting and have tried to describe it to some people
who are fighting what we're saying. Some people seem to naturally resist
taking on that temporary set of beliefs and temporary point of view and
temporary new truths. But I find it fascinating -- and very helpful -- to
try to understand why people believe what they believe. I find
fundamentalist Christian thinking fascinating. I've been able to better
understand why they believe what they do by trying on their point of view.
But I'm not in the least bit "indoctrinated" into their beliefs. My own
beliefs haven't changed at all just because I've tried on theirs.
To me indoctrination is done *to* someone. It is done to meet *the
indoctrinator's* needs. The people being indoctrinated may feel it's meeting
their needs. They may even want the indoctrination. But to me the big
difference between indoctrination and learning is that the indoctrinator has
a driving need to get someone (or many someones) to believe. And whether
they understand or not is irrelevant (and perhaps dangerous to the
indoctrinator's goals.)
Being indoctrinated and learning something they want to learn may look and
feel similar to the people drawing in the information. But there is no
pressure from the people handing out the information for anyone to
understand. No one offering advice has anything big to gain whether there
are 100 people or 10,000 people here who understand -- not just believe --
unschooling.
> but indoctrination seems to me to be a complete immersionMaybe.
> in any complete belief system, and that can be done by choice.
And maybe that's where connotation and denotation come in. I think there are
words that describe that immersive learning -- like "learning" ;-) -- but
people need a word that describes learning when the person handing out the
information has a vested interest in the learner believing them. Not just in
learning what they're teaching, but in believing what they're being taught
and disbelieving contradictory modes of thought. The needs of that type of
teacher are different than the needs of the teacher who leaves it up to the
student to believe or not believe, to understand or not understand.
Indoctrination serves that word need and that's how it's very often used.
Joyce
Fetteroll
on 8/17/03 1:37 PM, AimeeL73@... at AimeeL73@... wrote:
believe.
If child's choice is to believe or end up in obvlivion or hell, then people
who love them have a huge vested interest in the child believing. I've read
the words of some fundamentalist who have come to accept that, devastating
though the consequence is, that they don't have the power to make their
child believe. Most fundamentalists aren't that comfortable. To many people,
believing, regardless of the method of getting someone to believe, is way
more important than examining and questioning. That the parents believe is
enough. Questioning can to lead to useless and mistaken doubt so it isn't a
chance they see worth taking for their child.
Most people whose religion have horrible consequences for the nonbeliever
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.
describe the process, then there must be some important difference from
learning that you're trying to help people understand.
Bottom line is that we can argue the definition of indoctrinate, but will
using that word help someone unschool or understand unschooling better? Will
describing the learning process a kid might do when immersing themselves in
a subject as indoctrination help someone better understand unschooling and
how to go about it? Or will it make it more confusing to many people? Will
describing the learning process people need to do in order to get
unschooling, make it easier to understand the process if it's described as
indoctrination? Or more difficult for some people?
as the "nasty brainwashing, coersive" kind? Clarity is important. We're
trying to help people unschool, not make it more difficult by using words
that very likely will convey the wrong meaning to some.
Joyce
> Some people are so comfortable with theirSome people's religions don't make it soul threateningly vital that they
> religion they have no need to hate those who are of another religion. It's
> called religious tolerance.
believe.
If child's choice is to believe or end up in obvlivion or hell, then people
who love them have a huge vested interest in the child believing. I've read
the words of some fundamentalist who have come to accept that, devastating
though the consequence is, that they don't have the power to make their
child believe. Most fundamentalists aren't that comfortable. To many people,
believing, regardless of the method of getting someone to believe, is way
more important than examining and questioning. That the parents believe is
enough. Questioning can to lead to useless and mistaken doubt so it isn't a
chance they see worth taking for their child.
Most people whose religion have horrible consequences for the nonbeliever
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.
> <<In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination.">>How is that different than learning? If you're using a special word to
>
> Sure it is. Just not the nasty brainwashing, coersive connotation.
>
> When your kid sits down to read a science book, they're interested in being
> indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is called science.
describe the process, then there must be some important difference from
learning that you're trying to help people understand.
Bottom line is that we can argue the definition of indoctrinate, but will
using that word help someone unschool or understand unschooling better? Will
describing the learning process a kid might do when immersing themselves in
a subject as indoctrination help someone better understand unschooling and
how to go about it? Or will it make it more confusing to many people? Will
describing the learning process people need to do in order to get
unschooling, make it easier to understand the process if it's described as
indoctrination? Or more difficult for some people?
> <<In unschooling discussions, exposure to things is not "indoctrination.">>So why use a word when helping people to unschool that some might interpret
>
> Sure it is. Just not the nasty brainwashing, coersive connotation.
as the "nasty brainwashing, coersive" kind? Clarity is important. We're
trying to help people unschool, not make it more difficult by using words
that very likely will convey the wrong meaning to some.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/18/03 7:38:38 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< Most people whose religion have horrible consequences for the nonbeliever
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.
Moslems.
Hassidic Jews. (They can believe whatever about gentiles, but about other
Jews.... other Jews are wrong.)
Religions with reincarnation can be calmly accepting of other religions.
People have many lifetimes to develop their souls.
<<> When your kid sits down to read a science book, they're interested in
being
I picked up a world history book just this morning, to decide whether to take
it to SC as a possible prize, and I was naturally sucked into reading. I
wasn't interested in being indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is
called history. I was reading a timeline.
Anyway, I can't indoctrinate myself, and a book can't indoctrinate me.
Someone with a mind and a will would have to do the indoctrination.
Sandra
<< Most people whose religion have horrible consequences for the nonbeliever
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.
>>That includes Roman Catholics and Baptists.
Moslems.
Hassidic Jews. (They can believe whatever about gentiles, but about other
Jews.... other Jews are wrong.)
Religions with reincarnation can be calmly accepting of other religions.
People have many lifetimes to develop their souls.
<<> When your kid sits down to read a science book, they're interested in
being
> indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is called science.>>I missed the original on that one, but I disagree strongly.
I picked up a world history book just this morning, to decide whether to take
it to SC as a possible prize, and I was naturally sucked into reading. I
wasn't interested in being indoctrinated into the system of understanding that is
called history. I was reading a timeline.
Anyway, I can't indoctrinate myself, and a book can't indoctrinate me.
Someone with a mind and a will would have to do the indoctrination.
Sandra
[email protected]
**Most people whose religion have horrible consequences for the nonbeliever
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.**
Several weeks ago I saw this sentiment posted on the outdoor announcement
board in front of a church in Tennessee:
"The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The bible doesn't."
Deborah in IL
are *not* religiously tolerant. They don't have that luxury.**
Several weeks ago I saw this sentiment posted on the outdoor announcement
board in front of a church in Tennessee:
"The constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The bible doesn't."
Deborah in IL
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
retorts like "it doesn't sound like you really get unschooling"
or "it doesn't sound like you have kids of your own" or "you must be
talking about something theoretical/hypothetical, not something that
you've actually experienced for yourself".
some second-generation homeschoolers here. I'd definitely be willing
to bet that out of 1200 people, not everyone went to U.S. public
school, so people who went to school in foreign countries and/or went
to private schools here may not in fact know all of the specific
horrors of the PS system that those of us who did suffer through it
know all too well.
And yes, we've read books, but we don't all read the same books, and
I for one certainly don't know every single author out there and
always appreciate getting a tip on a new "find" that I hadn't
discovered before. I first found out about John Holt when someone
quoted him to me!!
is, "let's talk about unschooling!"
It doesn't say, "just stick to telling us stories about your kids and
about your daily lives, don't talk about schools or quote books or
post links..."
In the absence of a more specific group description, it seems that
certain people feel they have the right to dictate what is and is
not "on-topic". I personally think that unschooling is simply living
life, and therefore anything and everything that one thinks and
learns is a relevant thing to discuss. But that's just my opinion,
and I'm in no more of a position to dictate such things either
because I don't own this list. If those who are in power
choose to alter the group's description to specifically make this
a "story-only" forum, then I'll happily stop babbling about things
like language and algebra and take such "off-topic" discussions to
another list, and just stick to telling YOU guys about how my
kids have done nothing but watch The Wiggles all day today, LOL.
(ARGH, those songs, I hear them in my sleep! LOL)
Cheers,
Deniz
> Maybe because some people are here to tell stories about their ownAnd when some of us tell those stories, we're met with skeptical
> families so that others can understand unschooling.
retorts like "it doesn't sound like you really get unschooling"
or "it doesn't sound like you have kids of your own" or "you must be
talking about something theoretical/hypothetical, not something that
you've actually experienced for yourself".
> If you have kids of your own and you're unschooling, tell usMaybe not everybody on this list has been to school, maybe there are
> stories. Don't just tell us school stories or quote books. We've
> been to school; we've read books.
some second-generation homeschoolers here. I'd definitely be willing
to bet that out of 1200 people, not everyone went to U.S. public
school, so people who went to school in foreign countries and/or went
to private schools here may not in fact know all of the specific
horrors of the PS system that those of us who did suffer through it
know all too well.
And yes, we've read books, but we don't all read the same books, and
I for one certainly don't know every single author out there and
always appreciate getting a tip on a new "find" that I hadn't
discovered before. I first found out about John Holt when someone
quoted him to me!!
>This list can do what other lists can't do if we stick to our topic.I know what the group home page USED to say, but now all it says
is, "let's talk about unschooling!"
It doesn't say, "just stick to telling us stories about your kids and
about your daily lives, don't talk about schools or quote books or
post links..."
In the absence of a more specific group description, it seems that
certain people feel they have the right to dictate what is and is
not "on-topic". I personally think that unschooling is simply living
life, and therefore anything and everything that one thinks and
learns is a relevant thing to discuss. But that's just my opinion,
and I'm in no more of a position to dictate such things either
because I don't own this list. If those who are in power
choose to alter the group's description to specifically make this
a "story-only" forum, then I'll happily stop babbling about things
like language and algebra and take such "off-topic" discussions to
another list, and just stick to telling YOU guys about how my
kids have done nothing but watch The Wiggles all day today, LOL.
(ARGH, those songs, I hear them in my sleep! LOL)
Cheers,
Deniz
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/19/03 6:19:02 PM, denizmartinez@... writes:
<< I know what the group home page USED to say, but now all it says
is, "let's talk about unschooling!"
<<It doesn't say, "just stick to telling us stories about your kids and
about your daily lives, don't talk about schools or quote books or
post links..." >>
Let's talk about unschooling!
If you REALLY prefer to post what other people think, I for one (and I'm
pretty sure I'm not the only one) would REALLY like for you to spend at least that
much time telling us about your own personal experiences with unschooling.
<<In the absence of a more specific group description, it seems that
certain people feel they have the right to dictate what is and is
not "on-topic".>>
In the presence of that longer group description, LOTS of people still said
"can we talk about unschooling?"
<< But that's just my opinion,
and I'm in no more of a position to dictate such things either
because I don't own this list.>>
If participants indicate preferences, you'll go against those requests
because the list owner isn't actually here participating? Not very sociable.
<<If those who are in power
choose to alter the group's description to specifically make this
a "story-only" forum, then I'll happily stop babbling about things
like language and algebra and take such "off-topic" discussions to
another list,>>
??
You'll happily stop babbling to another list?
Language and algebra are interesting. Long tirades about school are less
useful to unschoolers than information about how those topics tie in with
unschooling.
Sandra
<< I know what the group home page USED to say, but now all it says
is, "let's talk about unschooling!"
<<It doesn't say, "just stick to telling us stories about your kids and
about your daily lives, don't talk about schools or quote books or
post links..." >>
Let's talk about unschooling!
If you REALLY prefer to post what other people think, I for one (and I'm
pretty sure I'm not the only one) would REALLY like for you to spend at least that
much time telling us about your own personal experiences with unschooling.
<<In the absence of a more specific group description, it seems that
certain people feel they have the right to dictate what is and is
not "on-topic".>>
In the presence of that longer group description, LOTS of people still said
"can we talk about unschooling?"
<< But that's just my opinion,
and I'm in no more of a position to dictate such things either
because I don't own this list.>>
If participants indicate preferences, you'll go against those requests
because the list owner isn't actually here participating? Not very sociable.
<<If those who are in power
choose to alter the group's description to specifically make this
a "story-only" forum, then I'll happily stop babbling about things
like language and algebra and take such "off-topic" discussions to
another list,>>
??
You'll happily stop babbling to another list?
Language and algebra are interesting. Long tirades about school are less
useful to unschoolers than information about how those topics tie in with
unschooling.
Sandra
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], Alan & Brenda Leonard
<abtleo@e...> wrote:
and then don't read and/or delete my words. But who are you to say
that "what you feel like telling the rest of us" simply isn't worth
telling at all? Sorry, but whether you meant for it to be or not,
that came across as awfully arrogant, speaking for 1200 people like
that.
You're another one who is insisting that we should all just stick
to telling stories about our families. Someone please change the
group description please, because it's not fair to accuse people of
being off-topic and irrelevant when there is no specifically mandated
topic which to speak of beyond a very vague "talk about unschooling!"
And who says that I'm trying to dispense advice for how "everyone"
should unschool? That's not my goal at all. I really am in no
position to offer useful advice to deeply religious unschoolers,
because I fundamentally disagree with them on so many issues that
you're right, my "advice" is probably pretty worthless to them. I'm a
philosopher, and I have my own opinions that you are free to agree or
disagree with as you see fit. I'm always happy to ponder, discuss,
debate, and argue with anyone about anything, but I'm not a guidance
counselor. I can only show others the paths that I have chosen to
take and explain why I chose those paths and share whatever knowledge
I have that helped me come to those conclusions, and hope that all of
that enlightens and inspires some others too; I don't expect everyone
to agree with me though, or even care about what I have to say, LOL.
directed specifically at you. I know that you personally didn't "do"
a, b, AND c, LOL...that rant was based on my observations of the list
as a whole, and was based upon comments made by several different
people to several different other people, not just you to me.
you specifically colored that question by adding "because what you're
talking about here sounds like theory, not real life." You seemed to
be implying that if you were not all-out assuming, you were certainly
at least leaning towards one opinion over another, quite different
than asking a question with no preconceived notions about the answer.
I've been a lurker long enough to have witnessed many, many, MANY
instances of various members of this group judging various other
members of this group, on a quite regular basis.
Going on vacation to Baltimore tomorrow, won't be around to be judged
for the next few days at least...LOL
Deniz ;)
<abtleo@e...> wrote:
> But that doesn't make it worth telling the rest of us. Or, if youIf YOU don't think what I have to say is of any worth, then say that,
> feel the need to tell the rest of us, tell it as a story about your
> family. Not as advice for how we should all unschool.
and then don't read and/or delete my words. But who are you to say
that "what you feel like telling the rest of us" simply isn't worth
telling at all? Sorry, but whether you meant for it to be or not,
that came across as awfully arrogant, speaking for 1200 people like
that.
You're another one who is insisting that we should all just stick
to telling stories about our families. Someone please change the
group description please, because it's not fair to accuse people of
being off-topic and irrelevant when there is no specifically mandated
topic which to speak of beyond a very vague "talk about unschooling!"
And who says that I'm trying to dispense advice for how "everyone"
should unschool? That's not my goal at all. I really am in no
position to offer useful advice to deeply religious unschoolers,
because I fundamentally disagree with them on so many issues that
you're right, my "advice" is probably pretty worthless to them. I'm a
philosopher, and I have my own opinions that you are free to agree or
disagree with as you see fit. I'm always happy to ponder, discuss,
debate, and argue with anyone about anything, but I'm not a guidance
counselor. I can only show others the paths that I have chosen to
take and explain why I chose those paths and share whatever knowledge
I have that helped me come to those conclusions, and hope that all of
that enlightens and inspires some others too; I don't expect everyone
to agree with me though, or even care about what I have to say, LOL.
> > Okay, why is it that with some people, every time you disagreeThe reason I said "some people" is precisely because my rant was NOT
> > with them about one particular point or another, they assume that
> > you either
> > a. must not "get" the unschooling concept
> > b. don't have kids of your own
> > c. are only talking about theoretical/hypothetical situations
> >(and if you do indeed happen to be doing just that, that is
> > useless)
>
> I'm not "some people", I'm Brenda. And need not get defensive.
> You may go back and read my posts; I neither said nor implied that
> you didn't get unschooling. I didn't assume you don't have kids, I
> asked if you do. I had a reason for asking. Thank you for
> answering.
directed specifically at you. I know that you personally didn't "do"
a, b, AND c, LOL...that rant was based on my observations of the list
as a whole, and was based upon comments made by several different
people to several different other people, not just you to me.
> I didn't "assume" that you were talking about theory, I asked.No, you didn't merely innocently ask "are you talking about theory?"--
> There's a big difference. Breathe.
you specifically colored that question by adding "because what you're
talking about here sounds like theory, not real life." You seemed to
be implying that if you were not all-out assuming, you were certainly
at least leaning towards one opinion over another, quite different
than asking a question with no preconceived notions about the answer.
> > a. I am an unschooler.ROFLMAO!!! I might not join in the discussions very often here, but
>
> That's nice. We're not here to judge each other.
I've been a lurker long enough to have witnessed many, many, MANY
instances of various members of this group judging various other
members of this group, on a quite regular basis.
Going on vacation to Baltimore tomorrow, won't be around to be judged
for the next few days at least...LOL
Deniz ;)
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
preference, and I don't see why one (or 2 or 3 or even 100, on a
group of 1200!) person's wishes should mandate how another person
goes about participating on this list.
is it not okay to just talk, then?
of 1200 if I feel like it, sure. Delete my posts if you don't find
them useful.
labels, as do I, but I ever were to label myself then I probably have
a classic lifelong case of Asperger's, LOL.
babbling to THIS list and babble on ANOTHER list instead.
Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just skim through
messages and don't actually read them thoroughly before responding to
them, because you have severely misintrepeted my words on more than a
few ocassions.
fence in one way or another, who still have kids in public school, or
who have kids who want to go to/go back to public school, or who are
having doubts about unschooling and are thinking about putting their
kids back into/back into public school, or whatever...sometimes to
them, hearing "long tirades about school" will help them to finally
get off that fence and realize once and for all how horrible the PS
system is.
You seem to be willing to help only those who have already made a
full-on commitment to unschool, and less tolerant of those who are
still having doubts or haven't dove in wholeheatedly yet. It's easy
to preach to a choir; it much harder to "meet people where they are"
and help them get over their doubts.
Cheers,
Deniz
> Let's talk about unschooling!Well that's all well and good for you, but that's just your stated
>
> If you REALLY prefer to post what other people think, I for one
> (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) would REALLY like for
> you to spend at least that much time telling us about your own
> personal experiences with unschooling.
preference, and I don't see why one (or 2 or 3 or even 100, on a
group of 1200!) person's wishes should mandate how another person
goes about participating on this list.
> In the presence of that longer group description, LOTS of peopleAnd so that's what the description got changed to then? So then why
> still said "can we talk about unschooling?"
is it not okay to just talk, then?
> If participants indicate preferences, you'll go against thoseI'll go against the vocal requests of a small group people on a list
> requests because the list owner isn't actually here participating?
of 1200 if I feel like it, sure. Delete my posts if you don't find
them useful.
> Not very sociable.No, I never was one for being sociable. I know how much you hate
labels, as do I, but I ever were to label myself then I probably have
a classic lifelong case of Asperger's, LOL.
> <<If those who are in powerIs that what I said? Did you READ what I wrote?? I SAID I would stop
>
> choose to alter the group's description to specifically make this
>
> a "story-only" forum, then I'll happily stop babbling about things
>
> like language and algebra and take such "off-topic" discussions to
>
> another list,>>
>
> ??
>
> You'll happily stop babbling to another list?
babbling to THIS list and babble on ANOTHER list instead.
Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just skim through
messages and don't actually read them thoroughly before responding to
them, because you have severely misintrepeted my words on more than a
few ocassions.
> Language and algebra are interesting. Long tirades about schoolAgain, that's just your opinion. Maybe to those who are still on the
> are less useful to unschoolers than information about how those
> topics tie in with unschooling.
fence in one way or another, who still have kids in public school, or
who have kids who want to go to/go back to public school, or who are
having doubts about unschooling and are thinking about putting their
kids back into/back into public school, or whatever...sometimes to
them, hearing "long tirades about school" will help them to finally
get off that fence and realize once and for all how horrible the PS
system is.
You seem to be willing to help only those who have already made a
full-on commitment to unschool, and less tolerant of those who are
still having doubts or haven't dove in wholeheatedly yet. It's easy
to preach to a choir; it much harder to "meet people where they are"
and help them get over their doubts.
Cheers,
Deniz
[email protected]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:04:27 -0000 "Deniz Martinez"
<denizmartinez@...> writes:
and the way you discuss topics while throwing in all sorts of neat little
tidbits. It reminds me a lot of how unschooling works for us,
conversations that swirl around and spark lots of little fires of
interest and memories of related experiences. I enjoy the things you've
posted about your life and your family, too, but I for one enjoy having
some sort of framework sometimes to try to hang my thoughts and
experiences on... if they fit, it's great, and if not I've learned
something...
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<denizmartinez@...> writes:
> If YOU don't think what I have to say is of any worth, then say that,Good general advice, that.
> and then don't read and/or delete my words.
>But who are you to sayI've really enjoyed your posts, Deniz. I like the way your mind works,
> that "what you feel like telling the rest of us" simply isn't worth
> telling at all? Sorry, but whether you meant for it to be or not,
> that came across as awfully arrogant, speaking for 1200 people like
> that.
and the way you discuss topics while throwing in all sorts of neat little
tidbits. It reminds me a lot of how unschooling works for us,
conversations that swirl around and spark lots of little fires of
interest and memories of related experiences. I enjoy the things you've
posted about your life and your family, too, but I for one enjoy having
some sort of framework sometimes to try to hang my thoughts and
experiences on... if they fit, it's great, and if not I've learned
something...
Dar
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
> The reason I said "some people" is precisely because my rant was NOTDiscussion of how people post and/or "the list as a whole" have never
> directed specifically at you. I know that you personally didn't "do"
> a, b, AND c, LOL...that rant was based on my observations of the list
> as a whole, and was based upon comments made by several different
> people to several different other people, not just you to me.
resulted in anything but a big, time-wasting argument. Those kinds of posts
have never changed the nature of the list and probably never will.
Tia
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
leschke@...
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/19/03 7:22:39 PM, denizmartinez@... writes:
<< Long tirades about school
No, that's not just my opinion.
<<You seem to be willing to help only those who have already made a
full-on commitment to unschool,>>
That's why it's an unschooling list. Not a
vaguely-thinking-about-homeschooling list.
<<It's easy
to preach to a choir>>
I have no interest in teaching the music to non-singers who didn't even come
into the church.
<<it much harder to "meet people where they are"
and help them get over their doubts. >>
Probably so.
I'm meeting people on an unschooling list. Those who don't come here, I
don't hunt them down. I get e-mail from people with all KINDS of problems, and I
try to point them toward places where they can get more than one opinion
regarding their particular "place" and concern. I never send anyone to this list
who isn't really interested in unschooling. There are many more general places
to send them.
Sandra
<< Long tirades about school
> are less useful to unschoolers than information about how those<<Again, that's just your opinion. >>
> topics tie in with unschooling.
No, that's not just my opinion.
<<You seem to be willing to help only those who have already made a
full-on commitment to unschool,>>
That's why it's an unschooling list. Not a
vaguely-thinking-about-homeschooling list.
<<It's easy
to preach to a choir>>
I have no interest in teaching the music to non-singers who didn't even come
into the church.
<<it much harder to "meet people where they are"
and help them get over their doubts. >>
Probably so.
I'm meeting people on an unschooling list. Those who don't come here, I
don't hunt them down. I get e-mail from people with all KINDS of problems, and I
try to point them toward places where they can get more than one opinion
regarding their particular "place" and concern. I never send anyone to this list
who isn't really interested in unschooling. There are many more general places
to send them.
Sandra