Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I mean... aside from simply disappearing in a cloud of smoke without saying anything at all, what could be farther from indoctrination than agnosticism?
I think it isn't the belief or worldview or value being transmitted ("indoctrinated") in itself that is good or bad, but the closemindedness with which a person views alternatives that's bad. Fostering your own values, beliefs, or worldviews is good so long as it's attended by openness to alternatives. That is, so long as you value free thinking or at the very least tolerance for opposing views along with your own.
I have no idea how one can possibly indoctrinate a view like agnosticism, to begin with.I don't mean to pick on BB specifically. I've seen statements like this several times, so this was just a convenient one to start the conversation.
I find statements like this very interesting. If agnosticism (or atheism) is so obvious, a conviction rooted in firm evidence, why would one need to raise a child in any specific way? Isn't the evidence going to convince the child to go that route?
If a child is indoctrinated in such a way as to bias them toward agnosticism, is it a pure agnosticism or merely a deference to the parents?
IPersonally, I think it´s very important to offer your children your positions, values, ethics etc.
It´s also very important to allow and invite them to find out about others´ positions, values and ethics and finally decide for themselves what to adopt and what to reject.
It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.1) What is the minimal amount of interaction a parent & child could have that would allow the child to survive? Wouldn't that be the minimum indoctrination?
2) If one goes above that minimum, is that a bad thing?
It gets weird. Certain skills have to be conveyed, and in a certain light its going to look like indoctrination.
But regarding religious questions I can't see how you could possibly do anything less like indoctrination than saying "I don't know."
Well, if you do nothing at all there's the problem of someone else will always be eager to indoctrinate the kid into their religion...
The same challenge I gave to Exile, then. Do you really mean completely free thinking, or are there some appropriate limits?
If by completely free thinking you mean the ability to think without being bound by any beliefs, worldviews, ideas, etc., and have your thoughts unfiltered to some degree by these things, then no. By "free thinking" I mean the ability to look beyond to some degree one's current beliefs and values.
I think somewhere along the way the meaning got lost.
That's not unusual. It's easy to define the extremes, but as we move toward the middle meaning becomes fuzzy.
I wouldn't normally think recommending a choice of bread is indoctrination (though I prefer white & sourdough over brown & rye). I suppose it is (as Received said) a somewhat subjective mix of what is being taught and how it is taught.
Sure, why not?Would you ever challenge their conclusions?
At the point when Resha quoted BB saying "raised" and then asked his question about "indoctrination" as though the two were the same.I just noticed something in this thread.
When did indoctrinate become a synonym of raised?
Maybe the blur started when we (or I) talked about indoctrination as necessarily being a part of upbringing. Indoctrination here meaning the process, intentional but usually not, of implanting a doctrine (values, ideology, worldview) into a child's mind; not as the intentional propagation of ideas into a child's mind. If the latter was the case, I don't think any type of indoctrination, religious or not, rational or not, would be justified.
Add to that that the effect of talk is overrated. Simply being who and what we are, how we act and what we do is so much more effective in influencing (or "indoctrinating" - since that seems to have become the operational term, for whatever reason) our children than what we preach to them.
Challenging a conclusion (or more precisely: the reasoning leading to this conclusion) has nothing to do with "indoctrination", has it?
Yes, children are different and need to be treated individually.It could. I have 2 sons. One rarely challenges anyone. For the other the challenge begins the moment he opens his eyes in the morning. We try to impress on the one that he can't take at face value everything people say. With the other we hope that someday he'll learn what trust is.
Yes, cultures can be very different - and that can be a huge cause of inter-cultural misunderstandings.Likewise, my experience with various cultures is that people from Japan rarely challenge you - at least not to your face. At the opposite end, when I was in Germany I sometimes felt store clerks thought I was an idiot just because I asked for help. It is a much more confrontational culture. You ought to see how my Americanized kids react to their German grandfather.
I have no idea how to respond to this. I have never advocated abstaining from sending messages to your children.Again, choosing whether or not to challenge your children sends a message. If it didn't, why would you do it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?