Indoctrination

[quatona]

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.

That´s your definition (or - in your idea - an epitome) of "being challenging"?

I was under the impression that when you asked me whether I would challenge my children´s conclusion you were thinking of something else .
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Thus, in light of what you gave here as an example of "challenging" someone my answer would be different:
No, I would never give my children the feeling that I think they were idiots just because they asked for help.
Au contraire, I would encourage them to be very upfront about anything they needed help with.

 

[The Paul]

Even that carries a message. Why don't you know? Because you're no longer searching or because it's impossible to know? Whatever the reason, one of those messages will come through.

A less powerful message than if you mysteriously "go dark" all of the sudden.

And apparently that is bad ... from your perspective. So you will try to indoctrinate your kids to think like you do. What if, in spite of your efforts, they adopt some religion?

Well at some point it may happen that kids don't believe all the same thing their parents believe and nothing can be done about it.

 

[Resha Caner]

But I do understand how, why, to whom and for which purposes such an equivocation can be convenient. As I like to say: If you ignore the differences, any two things are the same.

Hmm. To whom is equivocation convenient?

But since - as you yourself have submitted - challenging your children sends a message and not challenging your children sends a message, as well, I think it´s obvious that sending messages to your children is inevitable: It´s the very nature of human communication and interaction.
Personally, I am working from definitions that differenciate between having an inevitable influence on someone (no matter what you do or don´t do) and "indoctrinating" them.

I didn't come to this with a prepared definition, so I was just pushing to find the boundaries. You make a good point. The word "indoctrination" implies a deliberate effort to instruct someone, so some of my examples would fall outside that bailiwick.

[edit]

That´s your definition (or - in your idea - an epitome) of "being challenging"?

Don't get worked up. I'm rambling - just having a conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well at some point it may happen that kids don't believe all the same thing their parents believe and nothing can be done about it.

Sure, but does the quest ever end? If everyone remains civil about the subject, wouldn't you continue to try to influence them? I think I would. My reasons for ending such a discussion would be if it became destructive in some way - to the relationship, to the actions it invoked, etc.

But, you're right. There does come a point where one needs to be silent ... oh, that's a comment that just begs for someone to connect the dots.

 

[quatona]

Hmm. To whom is equivocation convenient?

Answering your questions in the general way you asked it: To those who have an interest in ignoring the differences of two meanings of a word, thereby implying that two distinct things or concepts are the same just because they happen to be subsumed under the same term.

I didn't come to this with a prepared definition, so I was just pushing to find the boundaries. You make a good point. The word "indoctrination" implies a deliberate effort to instruct someone, so some of my examples would fall outside that bailiwick.

Glad to see we have some common ground concerning semantics.

 

[quatona]

Don't get worked up. I'm rambling - just having a conversation.

What makes you think I am getting worked up?
Does "I´m rambling" mean: "I didn´t expect a serious response"?
If so, my apologies for considering what I understood to be your thoughts and for taking your ramblings seriously.

 

[Resha Caner]

What makes you think I am getting worked up?

Cool. Do I get to explain all the documentary clues in Internet forums that people interpret as emotional signals? Hmm. Probably too much of a digression. But it might be a fun thread.

Does "I´m rambling" mean: "I didn´t expect a serious response"?
If so, my apologies for considering what I understood to be your thoughts and for taking your ramblings seriously.

I meant what I said earlier. I wasn't stating a definition. I was playing with the word - testing it's boundaries. I think we agree we found a boundary.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The pile problem?

It might be called the heap problem?

Basically as I understood it when you see a heap of leafs you recognize it as a heap.
Now lay leafs on the floor one by one and try to identify at what point it becomes a heap.

I thought it was funny.

 

[Resha Caner]

Basically as I understood it when you see a heap of leafs you recognize it as a heap.
Now lay leafs on the floor one by one and try to identify at what point it becomes a heap.

Thanks.

 

[quatona]

Cool. Do I get to explain all the documentary clues in Internet forums that people interpret as emotional signals?

No, explaining all the documentary clues in internet forums that people interpret as emotional signals is not what I asked for. Rather: Explaining what you interpreted as the particular emotional signal you interpreted it as in this particular case.

Hmm. Probably too much of a digression. But it might be a fun thread.

I agree.
( Is there a Communication Forum on CF? )

I meant what I said earlier. I wasn't stating a definition. I was playing with the word - testing it's boundaries. I think we agree we found a boundary.

 

[KCfromNC]

I just noticed something in this thread.
When did indoctrinate become a synonym of raised?
Would telling your kids that brown bread is better then white bread be indoctrinating?

If you mean taste better - i.e. pushing an opinion as fact - then it's closer to indoctrinating. A pretty benign case of indoctrination, and probably not all that effective unless the kids agree with you already (good luck getting a kid to eat something he hates just because you say he's wrong and it really tastes good).

IF you say that whole wheat bread is more nutritious and can back that up, then it's simply teaching a fact. Now you wouldn't try to explain the results coming from PhDs in excruciating detail to a 4 year old, but that doesn't mean that you're trying to pull one over on them either.

Of course some will wonder if you believe that fact just because you've been indoctrinated into a metaphysical naturalist world view rather than another one. I guess in some ways "reality works as a way to tell the difference between good and bad idea" is an "opinion", but that doesn't mean that all other things which we can label opinions are equally well supported.

 

[KCfromNC]

KC always assumes I have an ulterior motive.

Don't get worked up. I'm rambling - just having a conversation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Analogy: should a child be taught meta ethics and given freedom to choose between rival theories, before we teach him or her "right from wrong" or actually leave him or her to make up their own moral standpoint on what is right and wrong?

Children perhaps grow up by standing on the shoulders of giants not by reinventing the wheel from scratch for themselves. Remember that religion or the lack of it is a psychological adaptation. I dont think its wrong per se to share ones adaptations with children, in fact that is what parents are for.

It may be true that some parents hold bad views, or are "epistemologicaly maladapted", but I dont think the answer is necessarily to demand they leave their children alone in the big wide world to work things out for themselves at the age of 5.

Fussing over the fine points of parenting regarding theology if everything else is going well may actually be a bit foolish. Not because the theology is justified, but because adapted children are precious and not to be subjected to ideological forces which might in practice jeapordise their development and functioning.

Or are you going to say "If you want a religious child, use a condom"?