Thoughts on Educational Elitism

Today (9/29/09), a large percentage of the IB juniors were pulled out of their homerooms and instead lectured on the upcoming PSAT/NMSQT. Part of this lecture was that these students, who were selected based upon (I'm assuming) GPA/class rank, had a better opportunity to succeed than the rest of the students at North Central. This raised two questions for me: 1) Really? Just because we have performed well in the past does not necessarily mean that we will be able to consistently do well academically in the future, nor does it mean that we are necessarily better off than any other student at North Central. In my experience, academic success hinges more on the ability to jump through hoops than on actual intellectual prowess. Just because you can memorize something once for a test does not mean that you have learned it. I believe that this facet of the educational system tends to misrepresent students' aptitude. Success on a test should not hinge on memorizing miscellany, especially in an age where, in any real-life application, said miscellany could easily be looked up if unknown. A student who happens to be a bad test-taker could be just as intelligent as any of the Top 25, but said student's test anxiety keeps them from excelling in the educational system as it is. In my mind, this is no reason to dismiss the student as "less likely to succeed." 2) Why do we get special treatment? We have proved that we can do well on standardized tests (which I believe are not an accurate measure of anything, but that's another rant), so why do we need special attention now? Should not the effort instead be directed to helping those students who are struggling academically? Or have they already been relegated to a lower rung on the intellectual ladder? I believe this policy of giving the intellectual frontrunners another push forward while ignoring the rest is both illogical and immoral. A great Vulcan (well, half-Vulcan, technically) once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." So then, is our "equal-opportunity" system of education really "equal?" Why are the test scores of the tops of the classes any more important than any other students'?

Admittedly, I do not have a full knowledge of North Central's PSAT/NMSQT policy, but I do know that the select few are being segregated from the rest of the student body during the testing. That says enough for me.

Senior Presentation- Organ Donors

I loved the topic for today's senior TOK presentation, and want to see what everyone thinks of it. The main question is: Is it okay to pay organ donors?
The arguments were mainly based on the morality of the situation. The question then becomes, Is monetary motivation for organ donation immoral? Can we even define this as an absolute moral value? If so, does that mean it should not be done?

This was one of the questions I wrote on the back of my card:
If a man with complete kidney failure needs a donor to live, should we let him die just because the donor would be giving according to monetary motivation as opposed to compassion?

No Certain Answer

I don't believe there is any right answer to this question although there may be some wrong ones. It is based solely upon human nature and how it differs in each individual. But what I hate about human nature and just don't understand is:

Why when then majority of the world advocates unity and even the steriotypical answer to a beauty pagent question is "world peace," why must we insist upon creating hate that will only create more violence and disunity?

Provocative Language

I cannot say how wonderful the discussion was today with Group B in TOK. Incredible. Here are the questions that I wrote on the board that sprang up from your discussion. Take one or two and start new posts, delving into them more deeply. Be sure to use ways of knowing other than emotion and connect deeply with issues of language, thought, and perception.

1. Why is the language of the WBC more provocative than the language of other groups?

2. It was stated that the WBC profits from its provocative language. Comedy Central makes a profit from offensive speech as well. What is the difference?

3. How much is North Central responsible for the protest today?

4. Could the message of this play have been conveyed through a less controversial play?

5. By saying "X," am I imposing "X" on my listeners?

Best vs. Strongest

When we split up into smaller groups last week, my group was given the task of deciding which way of knowing is the best. However, Mr. Perkins' original wording confused the discussion a bit when he first said "Which is the strongest way of knowing?", and later changed his wording a bit (I believe without intending to change the concept) in saying "Why is it the best?"
First of all, this pertains to interpretation because, while in Mr. Perkins mind he may have been thinking of the same concept in both sentences, I and another in my group were unsure of whether he wanted the best WOK, or the strongest.
Our group then began discussing first of all, whether or not there is a difference between best and strongest when it comes to WOK, and if so, would the best and strongest be two different ways of knowing?
I would argue that the "best" way of knowing refers to the most reliable, whereas the "strongest" would be the one used most often without taking reliability into account. I also think that these are represented by two different ways of knowing.
Emotion is, in my opinion, the strongest way of knowing. Emotion can overpower all of the other ways. How often do we hear about people who make rash and often foolish decisions because their emotion has clouded their reason? Stronger emotions can cause us to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. They can alter our interpretation of ideas obtained by our senses. They often overrule conscience, common sense, and instinct. When we really want something here and now, the strong emotional desire may cause a lapse in reason so that a potentially bad decision is made on the spot. (Hence "impulse buys") This is why commercials are so effective- we see something really cool with its supposed benefits and played-up appearance on the screen and we want it, without really stopping to consider outside factors. Is the company reliable? Is it worth the money? Could I really use this? How much did the commercial embellish the product to make me want it? Strong emotions can (and will) quell most, if not all other more trustworthy ways of knowing.
Because it is extremely subjective to several factors (personality, background, situation, etc), however, emotion is not the most reliable way of knowing by far. On this, there was a lot of disagreement within the group as well as among the rest of our class. The class ended up with it narrowed down to two: sensory perception and reason. Which do you think it is? Or is neither the best?

Language and the Novel 1984

The other day I was listening to the audiobook of 1984, written by George Orwell. The book tells the story of Winston Smith and his attempt to rebel against the totalitarian state in which he lives (cite). This government controls EVERYTHING, clothing, sleep, jobs, etc. Winston Smith works for the government and one day speaks with one of his colleagues, Syme. Syme is working on a new language called Newspeak, derived from English. For example; Ingsoc is a word for "English Socialism" in Newspeak. As one can see the language is a simplified form of English. The reason for this adaptation of English is so the government can have even more control over the people. The new language for example will not have words that have a connotation of dissension, so that there could be no dissension. The same goes for words such as "freedom" or "love". The government in the novel 1984 now has total control over the people because they have restricted the peoples' language. Furthermore, this falls in line with the article, Whorf (or Whore, depending on your eyesight) on Language. The restriction on the language also constricts a person's thoughts or perceptions. Just thought I would share this with you in the hope to prompt discussion.

The Power of Language

Someone in Group A, which meets on Tuesdays, made a powerful observation. We were talking about the difference between denotation and connotation, and from this began to talk about the different rules that govern how we speak. I pointed out that there are rules that seem connotative in nature, rules that govern when to say and not say certain words, for example, for reasons of offense or politeness. There are other rules that seem more denotative in nature, rules such as not splitting infinitives in English.

My question regarded why we seem unfazed by the breaking of the so-called denotative rules, those typically taught in school, and why we are aghast when someone breaks one of the so-called connotative rules. The student who responded made the brilliant insight that the denotative rules are about form, but the connotative rules are about content. By breaking them, we say more than meets the ear.

So what are your thoughts? In what ways does language equal power? How does someone with an excellent command of written and spoken language have power over other less-skilled practitioners of the same language?

What We Know of Language

One of our students posted the following as a comment to another post:

Why must perception, in its definition, state act of apprehending? Must one understand what one sees/views through senses or mind in order for it to be 'perception'?For example: a student who does not speak/read Greek leafs through a Greek text. Can't the student *perceive* that it is in a foreign language, while not *apprehending* its language?

This reminded me immediately of a piece in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus in which the character Socrates is talking with a young man named Theaetetus about language.

SOCRATES: Shall we say that we know every thing which we see and hear? for example, shall we say that not having learned, we do not hear the language of foreigners when they speak to us? or shall we say that we not only hear, but know what they are saying? Or again, if we see letters which we do not understand, shall we say that we do not see them? or shall we aver that, seeing them, we must know them?

THEAETETUS: We shall say, Socrates, that we know what we actually see and hear of them--that is to say, we see and know the figure and colour of the letters, and we hear and know the elevation or depression of the sound of them; but we do not perceive by sight and hearing, or know, that which grammarians and interpreters teach about them.

All this is to say, along with Rachel (I think), that I can know that the letters before me are whatever color. I can know that they have this and that shape, that some are straight and some are curved, etc. I may even recognize them as the letters of a particular language. Given all this, it could be said that I know what I see. I do not, however, as Theaetetus points out, know all that a teacher of the language could tell me about it.

A while back Magister P asked the question what is thought?
To me thought is what you perceive. You cannot think or form a thought if you have not perceived anything. You perceive through your senses and then come to a conclusion. And one can have a thought about what one has already perceived in the past.
This also leads in to the perception, thought, and language problem.
Assuming what I stated earlier is true then it seems that it is a circle except that perception can't go directly to language. One must have a thought in order to have a message to convey.

Language, Thought, and Perception

Today in my TOK class, Mr. Perkins divided us up into 4 small groups and discuss a topic he gave us. My group had to talk about the relationship between language, thought, and perception, and to try and define how they were related. We talked for a while, but couldn't really come up with relationship that everyone agreed to.

Here's what the majority of my group came up with (we defined "lead to" as one thing coming before the other [ex. perception can come before language], and "affect" as one thing making someone reconsider what they thought of or viewed before [ex. what someone tells you could make you perceive it differently]).
1) the relationship between language, thought, and perception can be best described by drawing them in a triangle/circle.
2) thought can lead to language and perception
3) perception can lead to language and thought
4) language can lead to thought, but not perception
5) all have an impact on/affect the others

When we joined with the other group, some people didn't agree with what we had come up with. Other ideas were that the relationship is better represented by a line (language had to turn into thought to become perception and vice versa), and that language could directly lead to perception.

Any different ideas of how the relationship between these three should be defined/explained? Or does anyone agree with the ideas we already came up with?

Sufficient Persuasion

Bjorn wrote in a comment to the last post, "I'm not completely sold on this concept at all. While examples have been raised, I don't find them at all valid. While my intuition tells me that sure, there are probably some ideas that cannot be communicated between specific languages, I think we need some more direct and accurate examples before I'm 100% persuaded."

Okay, what would it take for you, Bjorn, to be 100% persuaded on this particular issue? What would it take for someone else?

Bjorn, I think you have offered solid refutations of the arguments presented thus far. Do others find Bjorn's refutations successful in rebutting the arguments? Why or why not?

Language Barriers

As we left class today, Mr. Perkins called us to think of various ways in which ideas, descriptions, words, and concepts are lost in translation when moving from one language to another. What are things you can say in one language that cannot be conveyed or are simply not used in other languages?

A couple examples we have already had include things such as objects specific to a certain culture and "splitting infinitives". What are others you can think of? How might they affect communication?

A less important and yet prominent example that immediately comes to my mind is the English contraction. I haven't studied many languages besides Spanish, but a lot of others don't use contractions at all. To say "Sarah's dog" in Spanish, one must lengthen the sentence and say "El perro de Sarah", which directly translates to "the dog of Sarah". In English, we also use contractions to combine words such as "does not", "cannot", "will not", etc. I would imagine that the concept is probably a bit difficult to grasp for those learning English as a second language, just as it would be strange for us to have to always say "the book of Jim".

I also want to refer to a statement made about insults. Mr. Perkins argued that swearing shows a lack of thought, displaying that one is too lazy to come up with a witty, effective comeback. I absolutely agree with this statement. I don't say this to rebuke anyone who cusses, but I believe that language has so many words for a reason, and that is to allow people to communicate thoughts and ideas on a very specific level. When one desires to respond with a negative comment, is it not more specific to have a well-thought comeback than an impolite "**** you"? First of all, if the goal is to demoralize the other person, which is what swearing at them is meant to do, wouldn't it be more demoralizing if one were to show superior intellect by coming up with something intellegent to say? Secondly, "cuss words" are so overused today that they have almost completely lost any coherent meaning whatsoever. For example, (and I only quote this in context), "sh**" is now not only a dirty bathroom word. It has come to be used as an exclamation, often even used the a paradoxical phrase "Holy sh**!", which makes no sense whatsoever. Even more recently it has gained a positive connotation substituted for words such as "cool", "awesome", or "tight". Instead of saying "It's really cool!", people say, "It's the sh**!". Therefore, the connotations of swear words have strayed so far from their original diction that they imply no specific meaning at all upon common use. Though strong words, "F you" cannot bring across a more direct meaning than a witty comeback, and is therefore less effective in the long run. Cussing seems to be a product of human laziness to come up with more polite and more descriptive words.