Is college really a form of indoctrination?

Of course you don't, because you've been suckered into believing you came to these conclusions independently.

Actually what you became is more tolerant of evil, which is always attended by a reduction in awareness; so your self-assessment is pretty much upside down.

See? You're not even aware enough to understand that such people have been the unconscious instruments of your indoctrination, one of which you are now becoming to others.

 

So do you really think we're dumb enough to believe that, or are you just hoping we'll find such an abject expression of idiocy sufficiently irritating that you'll at least be able to draw us into an argument about nothing?

 

,,

Yes, and conservative translate into.authoritarian. I came from just such a home.

Although, I have very little education, I chose to seek out what was happening and taught myself. I gathered everything I could about the world and contrast and compared. I prolly have a Phd by now., maybe even 2. Through all that, I popped out a liberal.

So school in America does not indoctrinate. Real information does by default.

Authoritarian morality fears anything that threatens control. They are unbending, they want control based on their vision of morality. They really can't see self, what actually motivates the decisions they make. Because of this, they possess a lot fear.

In their defense, it is not their fault. Too hard for them to look deep inside and see what REALLY motivates them. See, authoritarians believe there are no other issues except self-discipline. Self-discipline has its flaws. The can't see the flaws. Anything imaginary or real that in any way threatens the status quo is met with outright rejection. They don't really know anything so they come out with boxing gloves and insults and lousy arguments. What they don't get is nobody knows any thing.

Take Rush Limbaugh for instances, his bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with right-wing is extremely effective and he makes a lot money doing it. He preachers on slogans. He has gained so power in this way, he doesn't even have to do his own research to find a good slogan. Look at Hannity! Look at who influences the right, not science, religion yes, slogans yes. Religion controls their capacity for deviant thought that are inherit in human nature.

They demand from others (self-control) what they do not possess in themselves. This is very reason they can't see that there are other factors affecting the poor because of the bootstrap mentality. They actually flatter themselves by saying they did it all by themselves, they did it, you can too, you don't need nothing. All slogans. They had help every step of the way. They like the bootstrap SLOGAN. They don't have to look at the details or try to changes what is actually happening. Man is tribal, you cannot live without others. We depend on them and so do they.

They vote based on slogans through their authoritarian morality. Liberals vote based on morality as well but it is in a more nurturing capacity. That is why we don't get along, we have different moral values. Our values are similar, good education, family we have a different way of achieving them based on those moral. We could actually change America if we could begin to compromise by listening to one another. We must first understand "self". It is not that liberals don't need conservatives, we do, and they need us.

STOP SLOGAN POLITICS OK MAMA BEAR!

 

Do tell.

 

My history book that cost me almost $200, is nothing but a 500 page blast of Western civilization and capitalism. There is an entire chapter devoted to Marx, Engels, and other Socialists, and their incessant criticisms of industrialism and capitalism, but no such chapter blasting their social policies. If I had the time, I could probably pick out hundreds of attacks on capitalism in that book, but not the criticisms of socialism, either 0, or single digits. That's just one class. When I was in a political class during Benghazi, I tried to warn my fellow classmates that this probably was a coordinated attack by our old enemy AQ, and we should be wary and not underestimate their capabilities. Instead, the class conversation took the form of advocating for censorship of religiously offensive material on the internet. I could not get them to talk about the real problems Benghazi exposed for our nation, and instead had to babble on about nonsense, a Youtube video, and the possible benefits of the UN proposing such anti-religious inflammatory censorship. Yeah there is a little indoctrination going on. Maybe a lot. It's difficult to tell because they are very smart about it. But I can see how in many historical/political assignments, the requirements are so narrow as to not allow a real conservative argument to be written.

 

To the contrary, I suspect that some may actually be dumb enough not to. Educating oneself has consequences. There is no need to resort to nefarious conspiracies to explain educated folks' behaving as educated people are apt to behave.

 

I just lost all the stuff I wrote. There are so many holes in this argument. But now, I don't have time to reconstruct it. I will get back on it though. I also wanted to say it is well presented and thought-out and says a lot about character. You took time. Time is valuable, very valuable in our country and people to that take the time is very meaningful and honorable. At least, I think.

 

Since we live near a major US military installation, I am surrounded by civilian government employees who are constantly railing on about true capitalism while waiting to cash their government checks. Every single one of them watches Fox Noise and listens to Limbaugh.

 

You mustn't have got much of an education in high school.

I worked my way through college making change in my head, and never took a math class.

I detect in your remarks an entirely different view of education that others here are discussing. You seem to view it as a glorified trade school, not as a place to experience the world outside your bubble or broaden your horizons.

 

I have a PhD in Economics, I found a lot of my Economics classes the professors were very right wing and had very right wing political views, on the other hand I also have a Masters in history and many of my professors in these classes were left wing.

My husband is incredible liberal, as I fall in between I think this is because I relate to things on both sides, I can look at liberal economics and see it is a joke on the other side of that coin I can look at conservative social policy and see all the bigots/ignorance.

 

No. I listed the only two possibilities - assuming, of course, that you're not actally dumb enough to believe it yourself, which possibility PF rules forbid me from exploring here.

 

Do you have any evidence that colleges are ideologically diverse places?

 

It seems this thread has reached the point where educational institutions are now being portrayed as being ideologically bent to the left. That's probably a very false generalisation.

Any minute now the discussion will focus on private versus state educational institutions. Someone will come along and argue that since Harvard, Yale, Stanford and others of high repute are private universities which exist to sell education then they must be right-wing pro-capitalist and state universities which are publicly funded, such as UC Berkeley, are left-wing pro-socialist.

The point is that we're discussing "education v. indoctrination". The two are radically different, opposing ideas. Education is about asking questions and finding answers; indoctrination is all about developing an uncritical acceptance of ideology.

 

If one concedes the obvious, that ideological diversity exists amongst educated people, it is self-evident, and denying the obvious demands, rather, that one produce evidence that colleges are ideologically homogeneous.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people," as Jefferson opined.

 

You are free to impose limits regarding possibilities upon yourself, but you are not accorded the privilege of limiting others.

 

Traditionally, it comes froma view that women are over inferior and are not able to do work on the same level as men.

 

Yes, in the social sciences and Liberal Arts disciplines....but not engineering, math, etc.

 

In the Philosophy department of your college/univ, check for a course of Logic... Philosophy of Logic. Take the course. Study it, learn it, live it.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346240/philosophy-of-logic

 

In math textbooks all of the examples are about global warming.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not that they are inferior its that they are not the same.

 

If that's true...I've been away too long...or maybe, not long enuf!!!

 

Aww..... sorry for my typos, its been hectic buying a second home this month. Lawyers, realtors and all that.

 

It has been shown with science that people who generally go to college are more open minded and the ones that don't are generally more closed minded. (The Republican Brain is a great read, BTW). Just because people want to learn more about something, doesnt mean that those that are instructing are indoctrinating. CONS just say and believe that because to them..........every thing is black and white with no grey areas.

When you go to college and end up meeting people from around the world, you start to see that things are not black and white. There's always some grey area or some nuance that needs to be made. So, if you are closed minded person and everything is either black or white, then learning to "think" and be nuanced will always seem like its indoctrination.

And just like the poster below..............people that cannot learn something new will always think that teachers are arrogant narcissists. Imagine trying to teach someone that 2+2=4 and they don't understand. To that person, you will end up seeming to be arrogant the longer that person shows that they are incapable of learning that 2+2=4. The person that is incapable of learning will always think the teacher is arrogant and narcissistic..............when its ONLY a fact that one person isn't capable of learning what the other has to teach. No wonder the teacher seems arrogant!!!

 

I agree with much of what you say (having traveled this world and met many ppls), but there are some truths in regard to 'knowledge':

In Proverbs (most were written by Solomon who was considered the wisest of his times):

Knowledge + Understanding = Wisdom,

w/o the 'understanding' of how to use that knowledge, one can become just the proverbial 'educated fool!'

And Paul summed it up with, ""Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." ...and 'pride goes before a downfall'....

 

Sounds true superficially, but I don't think you can have knowledge without some form of understanding. I don't believe you can separate them in such a "cut and dry" kind of way. But I do agree that there is a difference in how you "apply" what you know/understand.

How do you know how a car engine works when you have no understanding of engines?
Do you understand how a car engine works when you have no knowledge of engines?

The more you understand something, the more knowledge you have. The more knowledge you have the more you understand. The more you understand about car engines the more knowledgeable you are about them. Without any understanding of car engines, you can have knowledge OF engines(know they exist), but you don't know much about how they work.

So understanding and knowledge are virtually synonyms(I give, I looked them up)..................and wisdom(or being wise) just means lots of understanding/knowledge.

 

Pure knowledge w/o basic understanding can be a baseline to start from. Much better than total ignorance.

But wisdom (a word not often used these days!) is having BOTH knowledge and understanding (often past experience) , ergo how to make use of it (knowledge)!

If one has all 'raw knowledge' (often referred to as 'Book knowledge') but no understanding, then they are unprofitable as is the proverbial 'educated fool.'