RoR: Forum

Please define "coercive".

Post 161

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:39am

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at:
http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: co�er�cive
Pronunciation: -'&r-siv
Function: adjective
: serving or intended to coerce
- co�er�cive�ly adverb
- co�er�cive�ness noun

Main Entry: co�erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co�erced; co�erc�ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat
synonym see FORCE

All three definitions apply to the discussion.

The questions is: What do you do when the child says "No, I do not want to study X"?

a) simply accept the choice
b) try to convince them with reason to change their minds
c) try to convince them with bribes to change their minds
d) force them to study X regardless of their desires

Depending on the context, Annie and I use methods A or B. If we attempt B and fail, then A it is. While C is non-coercive we do not consider it desirable for many reasons. D is completely unacceptable.

--jorge

Post 162

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:44am

Thanks, Jorge. Sorry I don't have time to write more at the moment, but I am satisfied with your explanation. - Hong

Post 163

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 9:54am

David wrote:

> There was no need to address Joe R. or you or Laure on the
> topic of children allegedly not knowing when they don't
> know something. With good parents as information guides,
> that issue simply doesn't arise.

The saying "the more you know, the more you realize how little it is you know" is very true.

The more knowledge they acquire the more the girls realize how much more there is out there. They also realize that they can't possibly learn it all. So start making choices. Start evaluating what is worth the effort to learn and what is not.

Since they trust us, they tend to ask our opinion on things as well.

--jorge

Post 164

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:35am

[David]"This thread is not scientific; it is philosophical."

It's scientific because you have to address the arguments about children's -nature- and the cases in which their "desires" and "wants" will not lead them to rational choices. It's scientific because Rand derived her ethics of reasoned choice and free will and self-interest from science, from human nature, and human needs. It's scientific because if you, David and Kelly and Aquinas and Jorge, blank out the "reasoned" part of "reasoned choice" you fail to integrate the fact that children only gradually are capable of adult reasoning about desires vs. hard work, the short range pleasure of play vs. the long range hard effort of mastering grammar. It is science that their minds are not yet fully developed enough that they can -rationally- choose not to learn to read because it ain't no fun. That they are not yet capable of giving up present hedonism for a future gain from reading, grammar, etc. that is baffling or "on authority" or abstract to them since they haven't "been there" yet.

It's scientific because all of it (philosophy, educational principles, child-rearing) is inductive, drawing from observation about children's nature and cognitive status and -then- their rights. Not rationalistically, deductively the other way around.

You can't put "philosophy" and "do what you feel like, children, if it makes you happy" before scientific facts about children. That is intrinsicism and the dropping of context. And you are guilty of dropping the context of the Objectivist ethics as applied to parental responsibility and the rights of children.

You may be arguing for something in your claims about philosophy. But it reminds me of Catholicism or Kantian "duty". It ain't Objectivism, which is a contextual philosophy. And Objectivism differentiates between the rights of infants, toddlers, nine year olds, and adults who have had enough experience, time to think, and ..yes.. education to be able to make their own choices in *every* area of life.

You unschoolers remind me of the anarchists because you drop the context of the non-initiation of force principle. And you substitute anecdote and emotion for careful thinking both scientifically and philosophically.

By the way, in my praise for the detail of Jorge's long posts, I failed to notice some ominous things: He has a nine year old daughter who does not yet "desire" to learn how to read. That is getting very close to the age when she will fall irreparably far behind cognitively. Reading is the tool to open all the other doors. Had she been reading since six, she would have already been able to learn more about her areas of interest and to stock her mind with information, ideas, connections.

Studies show the best time to learn language skills (including grammar and reading) is when one is very young. And early 'academic' learning makes lots of connections in the mind. Children who don't do this, aren't stretching their minds in key conceptual, abstract thinking areas. Harder to do later, to play catch up.

So, I have to withdraw my unqualified praise for Jorge's child-rearing. This is a disastrous, crippling error. And yes, Jorge, you have to force her ... or offer a trade or an inducement or *something* ... to learn to read. NOW!!

Again this is science, so one shouldn't succumb to the possible temptation to debate it purely "philosophically" without any reference to cognitive psychology.

I could make another whole set of posts about building self-discipline in children, and the need to overcome present desires for future adult success, and not just giving in to immediate desires and pleasures. And balancing this against the need to gratify (vs. postpone till after school...or chores) immediate curiosity.

You can't always have just what you want in the quantity you want right now, unless you are a hippy. You have to do certain things even if they don't please you right now.

Childhood is a time to teach your children that..in other spheres besides cleaning up, doing tasks around the house, etc.

Children who are *not* taught these virtues of character early on don't usually grow up knowledgeable, disciplined, able to overcome adversity, highly educated, or highly successful.

Post 165

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 10:40am

[Jorge] "Phil, the ball is in your court."

Actually, it's not.

Post 166

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 12:01pm

This thread can use a dose of Aristotle. He says that we should not demand precision in subjects such as this. We are speculating here. The birth of volition and motivation in a child is a mystery and the best we can expect is to get a little closer to the target.

Coercion is a terrible thing for a child when the child sees it as coercion for coercion's sake. If the child trusts you then you can explain (in terms he can grasp) the logical conclusions of a course of action and he'll likely make the best choice on his own.

Trust looks to be the essential characteristic in creating a good learning environment for a child. If he trusts you then he will see your coercion (anger, passion) as a sign of your love for him. Without trust, he will view the same coercion as an attack. So where does trust come from?

The term "unskooling" has an empty ring to it. I'd prefer a term that emphasizes the positive.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 5/17, 12:04pm)

Post 167

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 12:39pm

Phil,

The young man who learned trig after calculus and is currently in a combined BA/MA program learned to read at age 11. This is according to his mother, I did not know him at the time.

I learned to read at about the same age. The first three books I remember reading were �1984�, �All Quite on the Western Front� and �Brave New World�. This is after having been classified reading disabled and my parents having been told I would never read well. Basically they said I was retarded. I believe the psycho-babble is different today, but the content is pretty much the same.

I personally know a boy, currently 16, who started reading two years ago. He reads at university level and is a voracious reader (he raids my library all the time, so I know his reading level). I know a girl who did not start reading until age 12, she reads without any problems now at age 17. My nephew started reading at age 9. He is now 16, no problems.

None of these individuals are mentally impaired. Except possibly me. Their experiences are fairly typical of unschoolers and homeschoolers who adopt a �learn when ready� approach.

Here is a fairly typical example: http://sandradodd.com/r/carol.

Please post references to back your claims that children who do not learn to read by six years of age have mental deficiencies later in life. My experience, including personal, is that this is false. Of course, all my experience is anecdotal. Show me the statistics that prove me wrong.

Now for a binary question: Is coercion a valid tool in education? Yes/No

--jorge

Post 168

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 12:59pm

Jorge,

I'm having a hard time believing the anecdotal evidence you are giving about the ages at which people you know, including yourself, learned to read. So, tell me if I understand you correctly.

Let's take you as an example. Are you saying that, prior to the age of 11, you could not sound out the words in a written sentence or comprehend what the words in the written sentence meant? Then, around the age of 11, you learned how to read sentences aloud and to comprehend them using the novel "Brave New World"?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 169

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 2:59pm

Yeah, Glenn, I don't buy it either. Unless he has a very strange definition of what constitutes "reading".

Post 170

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:08pm

Phil, from all that you have posted here, I do not think you have children. Observation of children, in their �natural� environment, for any significant period of time, shows this to be wrong.

Phil said:

> ...David and Kelly and Aquinas and Jorge, blank out the "reasoned" part of "reasoned
> choice" you fail to integrate the fact that children only gradually are capable of adult
> reasoning about desires vs. hard work, the short range pleasure of play vs. the long
> range hard effort of mastering grammar. It is science that their minds are not yet fully
> developed enough that they can -rationally- choose not to learn to read because it ain't
> no fun. That they are not yet capable of giving up present hedonism for a future gain
> from reading, grammar, etc. that is baffling or "on authority" or abstract to them since
> they haven't "been there" yet.

Ayn and Ada both learned some clear lessons from their own choices before they were one year olds. We had two cats (still have them), one very gentle the other who would scratch you if you bother her.

As babies do, they both grabbed the cats. The ginger cat let them, or at worst ran away. The black & white scratched them. After that they never grabbed the black & white again. Simple feedback. Unreasoned choice becomes reasoned choice. It starts there. You don't take a baby, throw them into a corporate board room and expect them to decide the fate of a multinational business. They make REASONED choices in the context of their environment. They receive feedback which lets them know if the choice was correct or not. This influences their subsequent choices.

My spelling and grammar were appalling until my early 30s. What actually ended up helping me in this area was the spelling and grammar checker from Microsoft Word 7 (which gives you an idea of how old I am :). The instant feedback combined with a reasonably decent memory, helped me improve both dramatically in a matter of months, after I started using the program. Never could grasp it as a child, or as an adult for that matter. Still don't know the rules. I just know that the spell and grammar checkers don't complain (much) any more. Somehow, it did not stop me from writing good software, selling it to clients, shopping, paying rent, buying property, starting and selling a company, falling in love, having my heart broken, falling in love again and getting married (to Annie), having children, and many other things. I even have the hubris to think that I can compose a reasonably coherent post on this topic. Is it good to learn correct grammar and spelling? Sure. Is it vital to survival and success? Not by a long shot.

Seeing the way the girls manage their business, and the amount of money they have accumulated, I am confident that they somehow have learned the value postponing gratification. We never taught it explicitly. Just let the feedback signals get through unimpeded. On the other hand if you only watch them play computer games, or if you were to watch Annie and I play computer games, which are all about instant gratification, you might not think any of us had this skill. Just like us, sometimes they play computer games, sometimes they work at their business, sometimes they build legos, etc, etc.

Also, learning is fun. As long as no one manages to convince the individual that it isn't. Some things are not fun to learn, for some individuals. Ayn and I are never going to learn accounting. Annie loves it and Ada at least doesn't seem to mind it. There are very few things that everyone needs to learn.

> It's scientific because all of it (philosophy, educational principles, child-rearing) is
> inductive, drawing from observation about children's nature and cognitive status and
> -then- their rights. Not rationalistically, deductively the other way around.

Given what you have been writing, I know we have been observing very different children. Regardless, it is an interesting view of rights. If I understand the above correctly, what you are saying is that the rights of a specific individual depend on that individual's cognitive status. As their cognitive status increases, their rights increase. Logically then, if their cognitive status decreased their rights would decrease as well. I assume status means ability in this context. This of course implies a proven, as in mathematically, not scientifically, proven way of measuring cognitive ability and an objective method of linking the appropriate quantity of rights to the appropriate quantity of cognitive ability.

Kindly provide the references to this approach.

I specify a mathematical proof, as that is certain, whereas a scientific proof simply has not yet been falsified. To base rights on something that may be falsified any day, is more than dangerous.

--jorge

Post 171

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:24pm

Phil said:

> You may be arguing for something in your claims about
> philosophy. But it reminds me of Catholicism or Kantian
> "duty". It ain't Objectivism, which is a contextual
> philosophy. And Objectivism differentiates between the
> rights of infants, toddlers, nine year olds, and adults
> who have had enough experience, time to think, and ..yes..
> education to be able to make their own choices in *every*
> area of life.

Don't recall Rand or Branden doing this. Peikoff and Kelly put me to sleep so if it is there I haven't read it.

But I am especially interested in an objectivist defense of how a person with a Phd will have more rights than someone who dropped out of school, or than a Birri tribesman. If it is not based on formal education, what is it based on? How is it determined?

References please.

--jorge

Post 172

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 3:46pm

I still can't sound out many words, especially complicated ones. I have a disconnect in between what is on the page and sounds. I am very good at pattern matching. This is why I have no problem reading French but speak it very badly.

I think I learned to read when I stopped trying to sound out every word and just read.

What I learned to do in my late teens (after I left school) is ask people, how do you pronounce this, while pointing at the written word. Technology is wonderful, when they came out with talking dictionaries I immediately bought one. Now I use an online service. When I see a new word I plug it in and then know how it is pronounced. Great stuff.

I have a much easier time with Spanish for some reason. Probably because it is more phonetic.

--jorge
(Edited by Jorge
on 5/17, 3:48pm)

Post 173

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:43pm

This article:

"Teens' Multitasking Talents Emerge Late"
Recently popped up on the science sites.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/106/108085.htm

It includes this comment:

"Researchers say the study lends support to brain imaging data that suggests that the frontal cortex doesn't fully mature until late adolescence."

Does the fact that a child's brain is not fully developed until late teens add credence to the argument that parents serve a useful function by providing guidance and direction in teaching their children habits that may be literally impossible for them to acquire on their own early in their development? Even without this article I think it is obvious to most people that children are not adults and I personally believe they are not comfortable being treated as adults as suggested by the Nathaniel Branden quote posted late yesterday, here:

http://solohq.com/Forum/Quotes/0668.shtml

Post 174

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 9:41am

That is a very good point, Mike. Most higher animals watch over and teach their young. At some point human beings should too. Physical biological development - including immature physical mental capacity - is important.

I am pretty convinced by Kelly and Dave's approach (and Jorge's) because they set very good "love of learning" and civilized examples for their offspring and they also have materials available. If they did not, the outcome probably would be disastrous.

For example, I can think of many places in the Northeast and North of Brazil where home schooling is all those people have. The illiteracy rate is extremely high and most all of them have TV sets, radios and access to books, magazines and newspapers. The poverty level in these places breaks your heart. Starvation is a real issue, not something that happens to others. And this is despite irrigation, farming techniques and other resources being available to them. They simply do not know how to obtain this information and resources and make use of them. Undernourishment is obviously a motivation factor - but they still somehow get their TV sets.

Some of those whom I personally know who managed to get out of that environment would almost kill anyone who tried to stop their children from going to school. They know from experience what one alternative to that is. They also dream about being able to take schooling back to their people and actively work toward that goal.

Jorge, from what I read, came from a restricted environment and still made a success of himself. I think he is a very remarkable man. I imagine that for every one of him there are dozens or hundreds who stayed backwards, though. He is a marvelous influence on his own children because his "love of learning" and civilized attitude is present together with his children's freedom. I wonder if he would be willing to let his children be freely home educated by one of those backward people he left behind. Somehow I doubt it.

This is why it is so important to me to include standards other than simply freedom of choice for children with the home schooling - or unschooling - concept.

How about a suggestion for another excellent though-provoking article from Kelly on this aspect of this issue, i.e. the standards and conditions other than freedom of choice for children for successful unschooling - and why it does not work, say in instate Piau� or Par� (or any other similar place)?

(No sarcasm here, Kelly. I do admire your articles and I normally sanction them.)

Michael

Post 175

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:15am

Please visit this site on Homeschooling that is written by an Objectivist individual name Gail Paquette (formerly Withrow). She gives a rational explanation why unschooling is not the rational choice in training a young mind. The following is a quote from her site.

Education, in its broadest sense, is the process of training the young mind to think. Thinking is not an automatic process�we humans have a fundamental choice: to think, or not to think. Free will doesn�t come with a guarantee that we�ll make the right choices. We can act in accordance with our best interest and gain success, or we can keep making the same mistakes over and over again and struggle through life. Ideas have consequences. That�s why it�s best to teach a child to use his mind well

Sean Sikes

Post 176

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:26am

Hi Sean,

I don't see a URL for Gail P.'s site in your post. Can you post it?

Thanks,

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/26, 10:27am)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/26, 10:29am)

Post 177

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 2:24pm

I'm in public school and I don't like it at all, nor do I feel that I am learning anything. The Government wastes 8 hours of my day, 5 days a week, in an attempt to brainwash and warehouse me to become the person that they want me to be with the beliefs that they want me to have. And that time doesn't include the hours upon hours of busy work I get each night that the school calls "homework." I could be spending that time actually doing something productive! But, sadly, school is required and "homework" is required as well.

I also want to say how ridiculous it is that the schools today are so aggressive in enforcing their absence policies. They want me there all the time, and if I miss one day, or even the first minute of one day, they freak out! And it's NOT because they want me to learn more, or even think I am learning; it's because when I'm there, they make more money! Our district has sent so many rude letters to my parents about my being tardy that my mom is actually scared about getting me to school on time.

Post 178

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 8:34pm

I also want to say how ridiculous it is that the schools today are so aggressive in enforcing their absence policies. They want me there all the time, and if I miss one day, or even the first minute of one day, they freak out!

Try telling that to your boss someday..... ;)

"The attendance policy at this job is ridiculous! You want me here all the time! Not only that, but you freak out if I miss a day or I'm a minute late! WTF??"

Think of it as "practice."

Post 179

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 9:33pm