Philosophy of education and educational psychology

[Il Matto]

the system does not really factor in "the psychology" as it really is

Whether or not individual educators see things 'as they are', the psychological assumptions of our state education systems don't include the idea that there is significant variation in human cognitive ability and competence. Inevitably this creates tensions in a 'one-size-fits-all' standardised system and often gives rise to a legalistic imposition of rules and policy.
As you've suggested, the 'common psychological worldview' (and that of education policy makers) doesn't take - enough? - account of the existence of characteropathies in a minority of the population.

I was thinking that, at least, we would be able to ask the teacher "hey, wouldn't it be that you could indeed assert that some kids are... different and ... that it would be somehow a polarization towards ... bad... something like that?!" And that we could get an answer.

But given what you say, well, it can be that it would not be successful indeed. If those teachers have the mental level of the basic redditors / virtue signalers, well, chances are that it will not work because the indoctrination is too strong. In addition, chances are that some educators are just STS in sheep clothing. Remains a small part of dedicated people who'd be able to positively comment.

I have no doubt that some educators would be able to identify an 'intuition' along those lines (I know I have), but the difficulty is that that many of those will assume, for instance, that the child who bullies and manipulates others always does so because deep-down they are "really very hurt and suffer from low self-esteem", and what follows are all those therapeutic overlays I mentioned above. As I suggested, I think this comes from a place of genuinely good moral intuition, but not one that is informed with regards psychopathologies.
As to your suggestion that some educators are "just STS in sheep's clothing", I've understood that to mean that some educators bear characteropathies / psychopathologies - is that right? Assuming that my interpretation of that is right, I would say that it must inevitably be the case that a minority do, though I don't think that the education sector attracts as many of these types as other lines of work - even our modern system primarily selects for people who care about the wellbeing and development of others and, for the most part, doesn't exactly offer much in the way of lucrative hierarchies of power and influence to climb!

I mean: would it be time for an assessment of those places? Did anything took place, in a concealed way? Do we have LGBT & virtue signalers at those places?

I would certainly be in favour of an appropriately in-depth psychological training for educators (as Lobaczewski would conceive of it), as well as selection based on moral as well as cognitive competence (as opposed to letting anyone with a university education apply to train as a teacher).
Thank you for engaging with this discussion @palestine

 

[palestine]

Hello @Il Matto! Thank you for your inputs and phrases. I appreciate this discussion because it puts a lot of concepts in perspective and this is something quite rare. The ponerology book is full of raw basic concepts and it is really refreshing than to be in the context of a use of those, meaning "from the theory" to practical examples, be it only discussing it. Like a math class room, but for a specific field of study. This simply helps, in a pedagogic way. We can see our flaws, our miss-understandings, and it helps to grow this knowledge.

I was thinking if there was a specific angle that you would like to speak of, for instance an aspect of the book that you believe is the most important - so that we may introduce concepts, for others.

As to your suggestion that some educators are "just STS in sheep's clothing", I've understood that to mean that some educators bear characteropathies / psychopathologies - is that right?

I was picturing it from the C cosmology, the STS aspect with the underlying "STS beings" motion; so, more like "STS agents" planted, conscious. If you look at the LGBT groups, or even those Black Lives Matter groups - there is always a boss, in those organizations, who's completely out of the basic motto of the group, but still match his people with a facade. He trains people, he encourages people within the doctrine - but overall, that's always a sort of "intelligence insider", a person who has other interests at hand, than strictly speaking "carrying on the doctrine - for a better world". This type of person. Having planted some, here and there - or, as a basic systematic way (because education allows future power).

Raising a question here, but I don't know if it is anything really mattering.

I don't think that the education sector attracts as many of these types as other lines of work

Yes this is true; the question I am asking myself is "how much of an interest would STS dedicate to youngsters education". But it is true that the first sectors would be banking and politics. After they seize politics, then, in turns, they would start to work on the above-mentionned sector (education).

A. Lobaczewski left me cold with the sentence "during pathocratic times, there is a special bureau, an office". I tend to picture the existence of a cohesive, structured and organized "squid". Those educators of mine would fall into this context.