eftychia: Photo of clouds shaped like an eye and arched eyebrow (sky-eye)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 03:41pm on 2014-09-05

Yesterday I was in a couple of conversations that I found frustrating and bewildering, and I eventually put my finger on at least part of the reason they seemed so strange. From my point of view, they went very much like this (though about a different topic, and X wasn't a single person):

X: Factoring is bullshit. You can't factor 31, factoring is pointless, all numbers are prime.

Me: While a minority of numbers are prime, most can be factored. Some are even squares or cubes.

X: Yeah, but 31, man. Numbers are evil. All of them. Also prime. Not like words. Words are nice. You can always split them up into smaller pieces.

Me: No, not all numbers are prime, not even most. Only some numbers are prime. You're ignoring the differences. Besides, not all words are splittable. Look at 'a' or 'I'. Just like numbers, some are and some aren't.

X: Oh hey, I never said that factorable numbers were evil, only primes. And I have nothing against words, so whether words are splittable or not is irrelevant. Just numbers that you can't factor.

Me: So we agree then, that most numbers can be factored and primes are a minority?

X: No, because they're all prime. Didn't you notice 31? Sheesh, liberals. You can talk all mathy, but that doesn't change 31.

Me: Yes, I noticed 31. And 17, too. But 12 can be factored -- it's 2x2x3; and 30 can be factored -- it's 2x3x5. Some numbers are prime. But no, not all numbers are prime. Just some of them.

X: Well, if you're going to deny that prime numbers exist, go factor 31, smartypants.

Me: I already admitted that 31 is prime. But what about 12 and 18 and 25 and 300?

X: Numbers are allowed to change how they look, like 12 can claim to be 10+2, so they're just deceiving you into thinking they can be factored. Any number that looks factorable has to be faking it.

Me: Wut?

It's a curious pattern. And it's a frustrating pattern. There's a bizarre cognitive shift in there, where one statement fails to connect up to another, and anything that challenges the initial premise is misunderstood, not-heard, or forgotten from one breath to the next.

It's a rigidity of thought, where anyone who challenges the assumptions using reason is first deemed mistaken, then deemed dangerous. New information is not allowed in. Reasoning is "just being fancy" and doesn't count. Arguments in favour of the initial premise don't have to make sense -- can even be contradictory -- and as long as they're dogmatically-correct the sound perfectly sensible to the speaker and his allies. "Have you thought of ____ as a sign that you might be mistaken?" never applies to the dogma, only to challengers of it. Positions cannot evolve, and nuance is seen as evidence of confusion, not evidence that the world is more complex than what is modelled in the dogma.

It's an odd pattern. And it's (*cough*) fundamentally broken.

There are 10 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] realinterrobang.livejournal.com at 08:20pm on 2014-09-05
That's an analogy, maaan. You can't explain things using analogies! That's like saying grass is like a carpet, and everyone knows grass and carpets are nothing alike!
corylea: A woman gazing at the sky (Default)
posted by [personal profile] corylea at 10:21pm on 2014-09-05
The arguments exist to justify the position, but the position doesn't depend on them, because the position comes first.

This is part of why so many conservatives hate universities, because they might teach young people that arguments matter, that evidence matters, that reasoning matters.

*sigh*
siderea: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] siderea at 02:48am on 2014-09-06
There was an article I read several months ago. It was about how the religious right got the bright idea of having its own (largely unaccedited) colleges, which would serve as feeder schools to the halls of power in the US. The idea would be to raise up a generation of arch-conservative Christian lawyers who would then go about remaking this country in their image.

As part of that agenda (the article explained), debate teams were popularized in fundamentalist Christian homeschooling circles. Debate team was seen as preparatory for this high calling as part of the forthcoming Christian legal offensive, so promising and ambitious young folks took to it in droves.

The homeschooling religious right is now dealing with a massive apostasy problem.

Turns out, teaching kids formal rhetoric is exactly as dangerous to fundamentalist faith as the most starry-eyed idealist liberal school teachers always hoped it would be. Even when rhetoric teachers are teaching it with a whopping bias.

Aristotle would be so fucking pleased.
corylea: A woman gazing at the sky (Default)
posted by [personal profile] corylea at 02:52am on 2014-09-06
That's. So. Cool!

Thanks for sharing that!
siderea: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] siderea at 03:10am on 2014-09-06
You're very welcome. Ah, here, I found the article: The Homeschool Apostates.
To the parents and the movement that brought them up, the ex-homeschoolers know they must seem not just disappointing but unfathomable. Their parents believed they had a recipe for raising kids who would never rebel and would faithfully perpetuate their parents’ values into future generations. But the ex-homeschoolers say that it was being trained as world-changers that led them to question what they were taught—and ultimately led them to leave.

“I grew up hearing that we were the Joshua Generation,” says Rachel Coleman, a 26-year-old leader in the ex-homeschooler movement. “We were the shock troops, the best trained and equipped, the ones who were to make a difference in the fight—a fight between God and Satan for the soul of America.” Coleman, who co-founded the watchdog site Homeschooling’s Invisible Children, is writing a doctoral dissertation at Indiana University about children and the rise of the Christian right in the 1970s and 1980s. Her parents, she says, told her and her 11 siblings that they hadn’t become missionaries themselves because “they’re raising up the 12 of us to go be pastors, missionaries, and politicians. They’re changing the world through these kids.”

When he addresses incoming students at Patrick Henry, Michael Farris likes to dream aloud of the day when the president of the United States and the Oscar winner for best picture are homeschooling graduates who roomed together at the college. That would be a sign that fundamentalist homeschooling was, in the movement’s lingo, “winning the culture.” Youth civics ministries like TeenPact, which hosts training camps for homeschoolers to mingle with lobbyists and write sample legislation, encourage homeschoolers to “change America for Christ.” HSLDA’s youth-activism group, Generation Joshua, works on voter-registration drives, lobbies at state legislatures, and door-knocks for conservative candidates. As Farris told The New York Times, “If we put enough kids in the farm system, some may get to the major leagues.”

For Ryan Stollar and many other ex-homeschoolers, debate club changed everything. The lessons in critical thinking, he says, undermined Farris’s dream of creating thousands of eloquent new advocates for the homeschooling cause. “You can’t do debate unless you teach people how to look at different sides of an issue, to research all the different arguments that could be made for and against something,” Stollar says. “And so all of a sudden, debate as a way to create culture-war soldiers backfires. They go into this being well trained, they start questioning something neutral like energy policy, but it doesn’t stop there. They start questioning everything.”
and
Some homeschooling leaders have reacted just as the ex-homeschoolers expected—by suggesting that parents further tighten the reins. Kevin Swanson of the Christian Home Educators of Colorado warned listeners of his podcast, Generations with Vision, about “apostate homeschoolers” who were organizing online. Swanson, who helped bring debate clubs to Colorado, said he’d seen a “significant majority” of debate alumni turn out wrong, becoming “prima donnas” and “big shots.” “I’m not saying it’s wrong to do speech/debate,” Swanson told his listeners, “but I will say that some of the speech/debate can encourage sort of this proud, arrogant approach and an autonomous approach to philosophy—that truth is relative.”
It's a bright spot in a pretty sad article.
meowdate: Dr. King and Gandhi worked for Enough For All (Default)
posted by [personal profile] meowdate at 02:19pm on 2014-09-11
:-)
meowdate: Dr. King and Gandhi worked for Enough For All (Default)
posted by [personal profile] meowdate at 02:16pm on 2014-09-11
How do we get them to be willing to open up?

(*cough* as my in-laws chide me for arguing that the death penalty may in fact be an option for a man who tortured a 4 year girl to death, telling me that *I* am not being logical...)

How do we make them feel sufficiently safe to talk openly with us?
Shira, MEOW Date: 11 September 12014 H.E.
selki: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] selki at 10:34pm on 2014-09-05
Reasoning is "just being fancy" and doesn't count.

Anti-intellectualism, argh.
stori_lundi: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] stori_lundi at 04:47am on 2014-09-06
To take your analogy further, some people just don't stop to consider numbers in the first place. What makes up a number? Why are numbers numbers? If you understand all the aspects of say 5, does that mean that other numbers are lesser numbers? Does it change other numbers? Should those numbers question why they are numbers? No. Some numbers are prime. Some numbers can be factored. Some numbers are imaginary, negative, positive, rational, irrational, and all sorts of things in between. They're still numbers. If we only had one kind of number, we couldn't do many of the things we do now nor would we have many of the things we have now because numbers make up math and math is the language of science.

All numbers are useful and we need them all.
 
posted by (anonymous) at 02:01pm on 2014-09-06
Numbers! Phah! Don't trust 'em. Sneaky things those numbers are. Just an excuse to pick your pockets.

X-D

-m

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31