Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers"

Revision as of 14:32, September 7, 2008

4 and 5 are too vague to be helpful. They are not concepts or principles, and I suggest replacing them.--Aschlafly 12:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

As a teacher I would disagree. Perhaps they are not worded well, but teaching teens how to make decisions, and how to evalulate information in this world is critical to their becoming successful and moral adults. This site is a perfect example. Why is the information on this site valuable? We state that Wiki is biased, but how do we teach teens to figure that out for themselves? How do we teach teens the tools to say "ah, sex is not for me", rather than just parrot us. When teens parrot, they only know the answers to the question we provided. But when we teach them how to look at evidence with a critical eye, and say "fine so science says X, but how do we know it is true or not" - we do our kids in our schools a disservice. Critical thinking seems to be core here. So teaching that skill is far more important than just teaching what you or I or some other adult has found using "critical thinking". That's my 02 cents, anyhow. Michelle. --MHayes 13:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Six is WONDERFUL. Something I wish I were more aware of as I watch my "babies" turn 9 and 6. gak!--MHayes 13:22, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

4 through 7 are ineffective or worse. 4 and 5 can be interpreted any way anyone likes (making them useless), and 6 and 7 are not going to persuade any teenagers.--Aschlafly 13:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

And 1-3 will persuade any teenagers? I know teenagers, it's hard to get them away from the tellie. DLerner 18:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I doubt you've taught 145 teenagers, as I have. Teaching the meaning of opportunity cost is effective.--Aschlafly 18:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I've taught roughly a thousand. I agree that cost-of-opportunity is a useful concept to teach them. I question, however, the addition of "destructive" to the point about values. Surely values can also have constructive effects? Teaching them to avoid destructive values is only half of the equation. --Benp 19:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

You've taught about a thousand teenagers??? I bet quite a few of them ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed, after adopting Hollywood values. Tell them beforehand and the disastrous outcomes are less likely.--Aschlafly 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Andy, I've taught about a thousand teenagers. Is that really so surprising? --Benp 20:13, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

If so, Benp, then please tell us how many ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed. Hundreds?--Aschlafly 20:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

To the best of my knowledge, not one has been imprisoned. I can think of a few who have unfortunately been foolish enough to cultivate addictions (mainly to tobacco.) I doubt that if any of them has cultivated addictions stronger than that, they'd make that knowledge public; likewise, I'm not in a position to say how many of them have suffered from depression in the time since I taught them. I am neither their confessor nor their psychiatrist, and while I do have a degree in psychology, it's only a BA; as such, speculations would be irresponsible of me. I do know that there have been no suicides; one former student died, but that was a tragic accident.

In general, though, I've been blessed with well-adjusted and optimistic students and supportive parents, and I'm fortunate enough to teach in a well-ranked and well-to-do suburban school in a conservative district. I suspect that the story would be much different if I were teaching in an inner-city school. --Benp 21:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Most teens I've met (and I'll concede that I haven't yet taught 145), don't care about opportunity cost, (the same reason you objected to 6-7). That said, I agree that opportunity cost is a great life lesson, but also that some things are more important than money, (spending time with family even though you can be earning $$$). DLerner 18:43, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

They care once it's explained to them. But most people won't explain opportunity cost to young people.--Aschlafly 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

There are three kinds of teachers: those who can count, and those who can't. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

There are 10 kinds: those who understand binary, and those who don't. ;) --Benp 19:36, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I stand corrected, sitting right here! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

What about teaching trust as a positive value, rather than encouraging a negative attitude of expecting deceit? Sideways 19:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Trust of one's superiors can be good, when the superiors merit that trust. Overlooking evil in proven liars is no virtue, though.

We don't expect other people to deceive us, but "he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" is a good description of Satan. Fred Schwarz wrote a book about "trusting" the Communists. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, the text as it stands is "deceit exists far more than you expect", so that is saying that we should expect deceit, & in fact we should expect it more than we already do. If a generation of young people is brought up with this outlook, it will result in a generation of cynical and distrusting adults, who may be hesitant to take chances, make commitments or form relationships for fear that they will be let down or are being deceived. Sideways 20:14, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

The Liberal Notion that Authority is necessarily Wrong

Well the liberals are correct on this one. Some things are better than others, while still being less than perfect. As there is only one truth this truth would be perfect. A claim to not being wrong is a claim to perfection. I think we can all agree that any earthly authority is necessarily less than perfect. Thus it is necessarily not true, thus it is necessarily wrong. It might be spectacularly good, it might be very valuable but there is still room for improvement. That improvement in an authority can only arise through criticism (which may be self-criticism) of the authority. Many authorities have not just avoided being good but have been positively bad. It is essential that children are taught to question and not blindly obey "authority", lest they obey bad instructions of authority later in life. If we do not teach children to question we run the risk of happy, drug free, intelligent people pushing other people into gas chambers because they were always taught at school to do what they were told without question. --Toffeeman 08:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Toffers, you are the incorrigible Liberal. How you can claim that authority is neccesarily wrong, I do not know. We Conservatives hold that freedom of thought is essential: seek truth from facts, not leftist dogma, and challenge authority when it is seen to be in error. But authority as neccesarily, as intrinsically a Bad Thing? No! Bugler 09:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't see much freedom of thought in this list - just teaching a kid a series of absolutes and prohibitions. The entries on teaching them to think for themself, evaluate situations and come to their own decisions were deleted. Sideways 09:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

They are not prohibitions, they are freedoms. Freedom from disease, from pre-marital pregnancy, from ruined education and ambition, from addiction, crime and untimely death. Discipline, and self-discipline, is the doorway to freedom and should be embraced. Bugler 09:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but if freedom of thought is to be embraced, then surely this is one of the most important things to teach, allowing the young person to think for themself. The list as it stands has quite an authoritarian, commanding look to it. Sideways 09:21, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that far too many people think of freedom as a privilege or an entitlement--not a stern responsibility and duty. It most manifestly is. --Benp 10:46, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Better that than 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!' Bugler 09:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Not necessarily a bad thing - I did specifically say that it might be "spectacularly good" - but it must necessarily have something wrong with it. "Good" and "bad" is a matter of gradient, "right" and "wrong" are binary, the two only meet at "perfection". The problem with authority is that its a good place to hide from responsibility. "Why did you do that?", "Because x told me to" nicely shifts the blame onto x. (I've just seen what you wrote above on self-discipline. From authority may come discipline, but it prevents self-discipline)--Toffeeman 09:27, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

You need to learn discipline before you can discipline yourself. Bugler 09:31, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

What's the difference between freedom of thought and 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!'? Sideways 09:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

It is the distinction between liberty and licence. Bugler 09:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, I find it interesting that somebody who holds freedom of thought to be essential is so keen to narrow the range of belief here at Conservapedia. Sideways 10:10, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

If you read my statements carefully, instead of just looking at the header and jumping to erroneous conclusions, you would see that I have no wish to narrow any field of debate, nor to advocate hatred of atheists (in fact, quite the reverse), but merely to enable Conservapedia to operate free from the overt and covert sabotage being carried out by those people. Were they able to debate properly, there would be no problem. Bugler 10:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I agree with Bugler on this point; the idea of "questioning authority" has been perverted into the universal rejection of authority. Questioning authority is both valuable and necessary; had the Founding Fathers not questioned the authority of the King, we would not enjoy the freedoms we know today. The Founders were also well aware that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people required that the people take responsibility for holding government to task.

Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority. One leads to anarchy and self-worship; the other, to totalitarianism and repression. --Benp 10:44, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:"Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority." Agreed. But we have to be very careful not to conflate "question" with "reject". If you were teaching my son, told him something he disagreed with and he asked you "why's that?" I would expect you to have an answer. If that answer where "because I said so, I am the authority, you will not question that authority", well, you haven't given him much of an answer, you haven't taught him anything and you haven't done anything to equip him for life. I'm sure that you do allow kids to question you, and I sure that it gives you a great opportunity to impart your wisdom. When it is wisdom it has an answer to the question and doesn't need to rely on "authority".--Toffeeman 13:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

No-one wants to stop children asking questions, and good answers help an enquiring mind to grow. But sometimes lines have to be drawn. Bugler 13:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I'd suggest that two lines are between 1)speech/thought and action and 2)questioning/holding-to-account and dismissing out of hand. Both give reasonably clear divides between what you/society/the school should allow and where you/society/the school are perfectly entitled to dictate. --Toffeeman 16:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I generally agree with freedom of thought, but particularly when it comes to adults resisting government propaganda aimed at squelching their religion. Also, in education, I prefer to let my students come to their own conclusions - instead of mandating that they believe a certain way. I tell them the truth, and if I can't convince them of it, maybe I'm not a very good teacher.

But "one is not free to thirst while drinking". So it's not true freedom to cling to a lie; and I'm not helping you to be free if I stand by idly while you fool yourself. I can't make a horse drink, but I owe him nothing less than to lead him to water. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:02, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Ed, can you explain how #12 is not at odds with #8? In #12 you tell kids that they are responsible for their choices (correct), even if their choice was to listen to others in authority like their government (still correct). Yet in #8 you're telling them that constant questioning of authority is counter-productive and destructive. If you are responsible for the consequences of every decision you make, no matter whose advice you were following, how is it wrong not to always be questioning and evaluating that advice to make sure you can live with the consequences? --DinsdaleP 22:03, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Voting Buttons

Would voting buttons be a good idea? My vote would go for "develop good habits", I like that one. After the "fun to decide" one - I wrote that, so obviously it's brilliant :) --Toffeeman 08:39, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

In Middle Earth, much of our behavior is governed by hobbits. It is therefore critical to consciously cultivate good hobbits, and to work to overcome bad hobbits. Sideways 09:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

That's actually painful. (But "good habits" and self-discipline is the reason Sam is the real hero of LOTR) --Toffeeman 09:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

And elf-discipline is what makes Legolas so great. X-( Sideways 18:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Hobbits are the strongest of all. Try reading the preface of LOTR. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Master of one's body

The idea that each person is the master of their body is used by abortionists. They regard the "proper term" for an unborn child to be the fetus - whereas conservatives regard the proper term to be nine months.

Liberals argue that the unborn child is "not human" until it takes its first breath, or can survive on its own or some such nonsense like that. This is as stupid as Mary Shelley's old horror story, Frankenstein. It takes a human mother (and father) to make a human baby, and the unborn child is human from the moment of its conception.

Moreover, no one is master of their own body to the extent that they may decide what to "do with it" without regard to their obligations to their parents, to God, to society, and so forth.

Don't go down this rabbit hole. Not in a "concepts for teenagers" list. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

You have misinterpreted me entirely (possibly the fault of my original wording). I am not referring to abortion at all. I am referring to the conquest of bodily impulses, and have rewritted accordingly. Bugler 16:08, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Number 6?

This one's a bit too much of a generalization, and contradicts #12. To pick an extreme example, what would most of the folks say here about the advice a young person gets if both parents are liberals or atheists? --DinsdaleP 12:18, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh #6 sounds like a joke. That's basically saying "Parents are never wrong!". If someone actually takes this seriously and tells that to their kids, they'll have some real backlash when the kid grows a mind of their own. (Unless the purpose of this list is to prevent that, in which case... good luck) ATang 22:57, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

No joke, and you've misinterpreted what point 6 says.--Aschlafly 23:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I made my comment not to mock, but to ask for just such a clarification or modification. Can you or Ed explain what's meant by #6 then? It seems like it's stating that when both parents work together to give advice, that advice is never going to be based on bad ideas. I agree with heeding the advice of wise parents, but I've also seen more than a few many dysfunctional couples with kids, and I shudder to think of the advice their kids get from them. Unfortunately, you don't need any training or qualifications to be a parent, so being one doesn't suddenly impart wisdom to the clueless.

To be constructive, I'd suggest that #6 be more along the lines of "Respect the advice given by your parents, and give it more weight no matter how opposed to it you may be at first. No one other than a future spouse will ever care for you as much, or have your best interest at heart." --DinsdaleP 10:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Sheep or Shepherd

Surely the latter part of point 9 is contradictory to point 17 --J00ni 09:52, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess it depends on what one is obeying!--Aschlafly 09:59, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

J00ni, if you weren't so blinded by Liberal ignorance and indoctrination you'd be able to see that the two are perfectly compatible. If you conceive of obedience and honourable behaviour as beeing sheeplike, heaven help you. Only through obedience, discipline and self-discipline can one acquire the living skills that qualify you as a 'shepherd'. To allow teenagers the licence - under the false flag of 'independence') - to do as they please, without guidance or discipline, and you will truly condemn them to be sheep, and sheep that are prey to the ravening wolves of depravity, self-indulgence, atheism, addiction, disease and early death. Bugler

Bugler, you worded that far more eloquently than I could! From my side I see no contradiction in being obedient and retaining your individuality at the same time. --KotomiT^{Hajimemashite!} 10:08, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, there's no need to be personally insulting. The points are at least contradictory to a degree - if not conceptually, then certainly in the way they are put across. I feel it is important to be both a sheep and a shepherd, depending on the situation in which you find yourself. As Aschlafly wisely implies, there is nothing wrong with being a sheep, if the shepherd you are following has been wisely chosen.

All I was objecting to was the latter sentence of point 9 - as it seems to confuse matters unnecessarily, as the point is a good one without it - ie resisting peer pressure, because as you rightly say this can often lead to young people (and a great many adults for that matter) being lead astray. However young people aren't universally bad - and giving in to peer pressure where it is to stop doing drugs, to resist premarital sex, and to attend church and worship Jesus - which is admirable peer pressure I have witnessed and taken part in in the past, is the kind of peer pressure where being a sheep is a good thing. Also your point about teenagers doing as they please without guidance seems to agree with my point, that being a shepherd without the skills necessary for that role, can lead to disaster. --J00ni 10:31, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

The key comes back to point #13. In the end, we are obedient to others by choice, so this is about choosing to be obedient to the right leaders, the right role models and the right authority figures. --DinsdaleP 10:32, 7 September 2008 (EDT)