Skepticism

-=- But I can't wrap my mind around an ethos-=-

What makes it "an ethos"?

If you think of every word you use, you won't be able to berate yourself with the voices of others.

It seems that some of your writing is recitation of things people have told you in the past. Everyone has those little loops of voice in their heads. You can "simply accept" that or you can decide on a case by case basis which ones to keep until you die and which ones to start talking back to.

If you use language without careful examination, you won't be speaking mindfully. School-style responses and reports involve parroting back, sounding confident, using the right buzzwords. But to be truly original and thoughtful, each word needs to be the one word a person really meant to use. It's a different kind of thinking.

-=- I not only believe that you would encourage people to ask questions about the world around them, but that you would also encourage them to use their common sense and good judgement when considering those answers. -=-

I think that's what I was saying to you. But by writing to me one-on-one and saying (probably without meaning to) "I have doubts about your veracity" and "I suspect your own experiences are bullshit" (not that you consciously thought that) isn't cool.

-=-I don't know if skeptical was the correct word for me to use. However, if we do not ask questions we do not get answers. If we simply accept the answers as fact, how do we get to the truth?-=-

It's not that skeptical wasn't a good word, but under the circumstances (private e-mail) it was a little too close and personal. If I answer everyone's personal questions, not only is the repetition incredible, but I would have no time to be with my own kids.

My volunteer time is put into collecting the good stuff where others can get to it, and participating on discussion lists. You're welcome to join some of those lists (I'm on two, but there are several linked from that help page I sent you), but it would probably be best to wait until you have a child to really spend that kind of energy (and other people's energy).

I do encourage people to ask questions, but you're not going to ask a question someone else hasn't asked in the past dozen years. YES the questions are new to you, and that's how people learn, by running ideas through their own minds and connecting them where they'll fit.

One thing that WILL keep people from assimilating or even considering new information is those voices in the head. If your super-ego (the home of those voices 🙂) gives you a counter-argument for every new idea, it's that zen-teacher teacup situation. ( SandraDodd.com/deschooling )

-=-I can imagine you get a fair share of criticism for your opinions. But unless you password protect your website and make it request only access, you in fact have an open invitation to all. A website is like hanging a sign on your door saying 'this is what I think, please come in and I'll tell you all about it."-=-

It's an open invitation to read it.
It's "Please come in, where the words here will tell you all about it."

-=-I am a perfect example, I was in fact looking for math equations and now your views are (at least partially) known to me. Any visitor to your site must be exposed to your ideas before they can know them (and possibly disagree).-=-

But I don't care if people disagree. Most probably do. It doesn't hurt me or what I'm doing that others disagree.
And they're not "my ideas." John Holt wrote most of this in the 60's and 70's. Thousands of families do this. I've just been collecting the purest of it the longest, maybe.

-=-All I mean is that there are many arguments you can use with people who may critcize you, but that they read the content on you site of their own free will is not a very good one. 🙂 -=-

What do you really mean here?
Are you suggesting that I'm obligated to carry on long correspondences with anyone who says "Oh HUH!" about something on my site?

I don't make a cut of "nothing" when someone tries unschooling. When someone unschools instead of buying a $600 (for one child for one year) curriculum, I don't get 20% of what they saved. There's a lot of stuff on the internet. Some is way more useful than other stuff. Some is downright nutty. Same as books in libraries, magazines, documentaries.

-=- On the other hand (as I was discussing with my fiancee) our time on this earth is finite, when do I stop and smell the roses. As a matter of fact, when does one allow their children to do that... -=-

Some people never do.
Or they might schedule a hike and demand that their children smell the roses RIGHT NOW because the hike cost them money and there won't be another one until next year.

Even when parents do have an inkling of "it" they often screw it up.

There are conditions that make unschooling more difficult to consider. Living in Delaware and Maryland seem really inconvenient. Being of Jewish intellectual families can make it hard, but in such cases go with traditional rabbinical Q&A traditions arguments (works while kids are little, anyway, and later there's direct evidence of progress). Having parents who are science professionals makes it hard. They're too busy and ensconced to want to accept that maybe they had options. The worst things of all are ex-spouses or hostile in-laws. Sometimes the answer is just "No, you can't unschool. Sorry."

But the fact that some can't or won't or think it's wrong/stupid/wasteful doesn't change the fact that in those families in which it HAS worked out well, it has worked. The fact that it CAN work doesn't mean that it can always work. The fact that some people are Olympic or professional athletes or competent local athletes doesn't mean everyone who buys a pair of gym shorts and some sneakers can "do what they do." It doesn't mean people who come by who've never seen the sport should say "I'm skeptical." Fact is, people are doing it.

-=-I sincerely thank you for replying and I will read more about this.-=-

But you didn't read what I sent before writing again. 🙂

Sandra

In 2011, someone wrote on Always Learning that what was being said wasn't true. The conversation ended up in side mail, and eventually involved the original poster, Joyce Fetteroll and me/Sandra Dodd. If I had remembered this "skepticism" page existed, I might have sent that, but Joyce found the page while looking for the cup-too-full story, and so here it all is.

Part of what I had first written (on the side, to the original poster) was:

There were other ways you could have worded what you said. You just haven't earned enough credit in these discussion to tell Joyce she doesn't know what she's talking about. The next time you think maybe she is flat-out wrong, reconsider. And if you still think she might possibly be wrong, write something nice, if you can, please. She's probably not wrong.

The Always Learning list will be ten years old in a month and some, November 24. I don't know what you were doing ten years ago, but I had kids who were 15, 12 and newly 10, who hadn't been to school. You are as welcome as can be on Always Learning, but be nice to those people who are helping me help people. That's been the deal for ten years. It's not about you. Always Learning

Joyce wrote:

I can see how what Sandra wrote could sound like shut up and just memorize what we tell you.

Clearer is "Examine your own understanding rather than attack the understanding of an experienced person."

Attacking new ideas won't help you understand them. It sets up defensive barriers between you and the new idea.

Better for learning would be questioning *your* understanding. Ask why it seems like kids in school are reading between 7 & 8.

Instead you said "Your idea isn't true. Here's what's really true," putting you in the position of defending your understanding rather than allowing a new understanding in.

If your purpose is to learn something new, that strategy will get in the way.

List members explained why your observation *seemed* true but wasn't. From how you worded your replies it was clear those explanations slid off your defenses. Your focus was on getting people to understand your idea. (I'm still not confident you understood what we explained. And those would be good to reread, perhaps several times.)

*No one*'s telling you to absorb without question. (Even if it sounds to you like Sandra's saying that.) But part of the process of learning something new is some of the ideas are going to sound counter to what you understand.

Did you read the page on deschooling with the story about the Zen master? And about how you need to empty your cup of old ideas before you can fill it with new ideas. SandraDodd.com/deschooling

It's okay to let old ideas go (temporarily) when learning something new. If you decide you don't like the new ideas, the old ideas will still be there waiting to be picked back up again.

It's okay if some of the old ideas set off alarm bells. But you'll learn faster if you begin by questioning the old idea rather than the new one.

But then I did think school is THE place where belittling inexperienced people for daring to challenge "truths" is considered a helpful way to encourage learning. Maybe I need to revise that!

My purpose is to keep peace on the list, not to encourage your personal, individualized learning.

If the list is solid and on topic and the information is good and my best volunteers are content, THEN the list will be helpful to you and a thousand or more others.

You're still on it as a personal thing.

"Daring to challenge 'truths'" sounds all dangerous, brave and noble. But what it seemed you were doing was defending school while attacking Joyce. It wasn't about "truths." it was about Joyce's far greater experience with natural learning than yours. That's crucial. It's huge. You want to ignore it. Don't.

Sandra

A reader on the Always Learning list had taken her skepticism to a professional to a fraud posing as a professional, who wrote this, among other things:.... (read the rest there)

Negativity (in case "skepticism" is veiled cynicism or pessimism)

How the Always Learning list works and why

Deschooling

Respect