Four years of college ahead . . .THEN what?

[charles brough]

A young man can look ahead and see his whole life before him---a job, house, famiy, then old age---and if he is idealistic, it somehow seems so predictable and meaningless. His parents may hold religious beliefs, but he is educated enought to dismiss the thought of a huge spirit floating down from "heaven" in "the End Times" and the like. He is not going to be suckered into believing in illusions and mythology.

So, he figures that once he gets his liberal education from the four years in college he has planned, he will learn what life is all about and find something worthy to be and to look forward to. He is no hippy expecting to find it from some guru in India or Nepal!

So, what happens, he spends his four years in college studying a mountainous mass of confusing, conflicting economic, sociological, political science, psychological theories mixed up with five thousand years of easily forgotten history and up up to a billion years of paleontology, anthropology, archeology, etc.

By the time he is finished, he has given up ever making sense or meaning out of itl. All he can do is look back at it and regard it as a sort of "trial by fire" used by the upper class to weed out the underclass.

But after going through his four years of grade inflation, he is then introducted to degree-inflation. His four years were just first step. He has to get more degrees to really "qualify." If his parents are wealthy, he can become a professional student.

I say that in social evolution one can find the explanation of what is going on in the living world to the same extent physics explains the physical world.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ummmmm.....what? :confused:

[RenaissanceBiker]

No, I don't want fries with that.

[Mark6]

And your point is...?

[TragicMonkey]

Cheer up, honey, and just remember that life is nothing more than an inexorable trip to the grave anyway.

[Piscivore]

Dude, sometimes you need to put down the bong.

[Philosaur]

He's selling a book. Check his sig.

ETA: Although admittedly, this is a very abstruse sales pitch.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

He's selling a book. Check his sig.

ETA: Although admittedly, this is a very abstruse sales pitch.

Technically I think it would be more accurate to say he is not selling a book.

[I Ratant]

On the positive side, possessing a degree shows any potential employer that one can set a goal at some distance in the future, and get there.
Many jobs will be similar... work on something that will do something, -when- it's completed.
Others, once the person is in it, nothing much will change for the duration.
Depends on the career field.
And the person's ability to assimilate the curriculum of that field.
There's few Academies of Ditch Digging and Shovel Leaning, but a local community college may have lots of opportunities to improve one's situation.
Just takes work and self-application towards the goal.

[Aoidoi]

Cheer up, honey, and just remember that life is nothing more than an inexorable trip to the grave anyway."You are a pain receptor on an inevitable course towards oblivion." - Dogbert

[Philosaur]

Technically I think it would be more accurate to say he is not selling a book.

Too-shay! :p

[Cainkane1]

A young man can look ahead and see his whole life before him---a job, house, famiy, then old age---and if he is idealistic, it somehow seems so predictable and meaningless. His parents may hold religious beliefs, but he is educated enought to dismiss the thought of a huge spirit floating down from "heaven" in "the End Times" and the like. He is not going to be suckered into believing in illusions and mythology.

So, he figures that once he gets his liberal education from the four years in college he has planned, he will learn what life is all about and find something worthy to be and to look forward to. He is no hippy expecting to find it from some guru in India or Nepal!

So, what happens, he spends his four years in college studying a mountainous mass of confusing, conflicting economic, sociological, political science, psychological theories mixed up with five thousand years of easily forgotten history and up up to a billion years of paleontology, anthropology, archeology, etc.

By the time he is finished, he has given up ever making sense or meaning out of itl. All he can do is look back at it and regard it as a sort of "trial by fire" used by the upper class to weed out the underclass.

But after going through his four years of grade inflation, he is then introducted to degree-inflation. His four years were just first step. He has to get more degrees to really "qualify." If his parents are wealthy, he can become a professional student.

I say that in social evolution one can find the explanation of what is going on in the living world to the same extent physics explains the physical world.
Education is good. What you do with it up to you and lady luck.

[madurobob]

So, he figures that once he gets his liberal education from the four years in college he has planned, he will learn what life is all about and find something worthy to be and to look forward to.

Thats your problem right there. An education isn't something you get once, then you're done. Its a process. A never-ending process. You are a perpetual student, always learning, always seeking out new things to learn.

Earning that college degree is no great feat and not a point at which to think you are done and can stop being curious. It is simply the minimum requirement to a wide variety of ongoing education; a badge that shows to others that you are intellectually curious and hold learning in high esteem.

[slingblade]

He's selling a book. Check his sig.

ETA: Although admittedly, this is a very abstruse sales pitch.

Having read the blurb at his site, I can confirm that Charles did indeed suffer grade inflation in his English classes.

[NewtonTrino]

Having read the blurb at his site, I can confirm that Charles did indeed suffer grade inflation in his English classes.

LOL. Nice one.

Anyway to give a real "answer" to the OP I have to say that college is not the end itself but simply a means to an end. A college degree by itself doesn't qualify you for many jobs, it's supposed to show that you can think. If working on your "thinking" isn't of interest then going to college is a waste of time.

[phantomb]

By the time he is finished, he has given up ever making sense or meaning out of itl.

So you did learn what life is all about.


All he can do is look back at it and regard it as a sort of "trial by fire" used by the upper class to weed out the underclass.

It also gets you a job if you chose the right degree.

[Giraffe107]

By the time he is finished, he has given up ever making sense or meaning out of itl. All he can do is look back at it and regard it as a sort of "trial by fire" used by the upper class to weed out the underclass.



Now now, complex numbers weren't that difficult.

[fuelair]

Is it me, or have the trolls under the bridge eaten Charles and gnawed his bones clean?






Oooooooor is he a classic hit and runner?

[Philosaur]

Is it me, or have the trolls under the bridge eaten Charles and gnawed his bones clean?






Oooooooor is he a classic hit and runner?

There was never an intention to start a discussion. The goal was to get at least a few people to check out his website and buy his book. It worked on at least a couple of us, but I think we went with the same morbid curiosity people have when they go to see the bloated corpse discovered in the woods.

[I Ratant]

So you did learn what life is all about.



It also gets you a job if you chose the right degree.
,.
Do not go for a degree as a paralegal, get it, graduate with honors, and find convicted felons aren't hireable as paras...
One of my friends did that.

[Dave Rogers]

So, what happens, he spends his four years in college studying a mountainous mass of confusing, conflicting economic, sociological, political science, psychological theories mixed up with five thousand years of easily forgotten history and up up to a billion years of paleontology, anthropology, archeology, etc.

By the time he is finished, he has given up ever making sense or meaning out of it.

Not me. I took Physics.

Dave

[Aepervius]

If you (the OP) see college as a place where to learn a collection of fact, you completely missed the point. It is supposed to teach you methodology of research, how to collect fact, how to write , make a logical reasonning etc...

[charles brough]

On the positive side, possessing a degree shows any potential employer that one can set a goal at some distance in the future, and get there.
Many jobs will be similar... work on something that will do something, -when- it's completed.
Others, once the person is in it, nothing much will change for the duration.
Depends on the career field.
And the person's ability to assimilate the curriculum of that field.
There's few Academies of Ditch Digging and Shovel Leaning, but a local community college may have lots of opportunities to improve one's situation.
Just takes work and self-application towards the goal.

I agree. But most good jobs need technical training in the physical sciences, not the liberal arts. A disproportionate amount of higher learning is wasted in the many seperate fields of social science, and in them, there is a lot of compromising with the old faith and, as well, our secular ideals. In order to do this compromising, it has to create the definition confusion and other stragitems it uses, all of which add years to an education that is anyway compromised.

Of course, people who have been through that "trial by fire" are sensitive about it being criticized and overly defensive. It has had to be this way because we depend upon our compromised ideological system to bring some sort of unity to the world.

But when it fails, we will have to have something to go in its place . . .

[charles brough]

If you (the OP) see college as a place where to learn a collection of fact, you completely missed the point. It is supposed to teach you methodology of research, how to collect fact, how to write , make a logical reasonning etc...

Yes, that is what we are told . . . .

[I Ratant]

I agree. But most good jobs need technical training in the physical sciences, not the liberal arts. A disproportionate amount of higher learning is wasted in the many seperate fields of social science, and in them, there is a lot of compromising with the old faith and, as well, our secular ideals. In order to do this compromising, it has to create the definition confusion and other stragitems it uses, all of which add years to an education that is anyway compromised.

Of course, people who have been through that "trial by fire" are sensitive about it being criticized and overly defensive. It has had to be this way because we depend upon our compromised ideological system to bring some sort of unity to the world.

But when it fails, we will have to have something to go in its place . . .
.
As an aeronautical engineer by degree and obssession :), working in Flight Test, I met several engineers in the same job code who had no formal education, but were quite qualified for the job. And others both educated and no formal education who just took up space.
One of the administration types told me he could tell the difference... ISTR he mentioned confidence in doing the work.
My dad had to join the NJ National Guard so that her brother would let him met my mother. He'd been a building supervisor in New York City. Joined as a private, retired as a full-bird colonel. At his funeral in Arlington, the whole base contingent where he'd been the commander for four years showed up!

[Philosaur]

Yes, that is what we are told . . . .

Should this be moved to the conspiracy theories forum?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Yes, that is what we are told . . . .

I see that you have identified a problem within our society. Do you have a proposed solution or just these complaints?

[Philosaur]

I agree. But most good jobs need technical training in the physical sciences, not the liberal arts.


Evidence? Oh, and define "good".


A disproportionate amount of higher learning is wasted in the many seperate fields of social science, and in them, there is a lot of compromising with the old faith and, as well, our secular ideals. In order to do this compromising, it has to create the definition confusion and other stragitems it uses, all of which add years to an education that is anyway compromised.


Are you just expressing an opinion, or are you prepared to make an argument?


Of course, people who have been through that "trial by fire" are sensitive about it being criticized and overly defensive. It has had to be this way because we depend upon our compromised ideological system to bring some sort of unity to the world.


Your conspiracy-fu is impressive. I notice you're already setting up any one who disagrees with you as "sensitive" and "overly defensive" because we're all victims of Stockholm Syndrome.


But when it fails, we will have to have something to go in its place . . .


Oooh! You're so close to making a prediction! Will it happen in 2012?

[Mark6]

Oooh! You're so close to making a prediction! Will it happen in 2012?
You need to buy his book to find out.

[GreyArea]

A young man can look ahead and see his whole life before him....

Cool story, Brough.

[mike3]

Cool story, Brough.

Um, I'm just curious: what is wrong with that little claim, anyway? You make it sound like it's a "cool story" but still just a "story" i.e. a falsehood.

[Finn McR]

I could supply a personal anecdote of the BS over the BA, but that is what it would be and always would remain, an anecdote. If the point is to complain about types of degrees, provide numbers; if the point is to point out the benefit/waste of secondary education,...provide numbers and we can hash that out.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I could supply a personal anecdote of the BS over the BA, but that is what it would be and always would remain, an anecdote. If the point is to complain about types of degrees, provide numbers; if the point is to point out the benefit/waste of secondary education,...provide numbers and we can hash that out.

Me too. I got a B.A. in Art and couldn't find a job. I joined the Army then went back to school with the G.I. Bill. I got a B.S. then a M.Eng. in Civil Engineering and had a good job before graduation.

[charles brough]

I see that you have identified a problem within our society. Do you have a proposed solution or just these complaints?

It really isn't a complaint. I am not suffering because of it.

So, what is the solution? I don't see it as a problem that our secular system itself can solve. When we began to out grow the old mythology of Christianity, our secular ideology evolved. Over the last three centuries, it worked to fit the progressing need, but like all ideologies, a time comes again when its changes are no longer constructive, does not work so well any longer, and will have to be eventually replaced. The rise of classism in higher education is only one of many signs of trouble in the system.

Not being objective about it is no way to facilitate that process.

[charles brough]

Um, I'm just curious: what is wrong with that little claim, anyway? You make it sound like it's a "cool story" but still just a "story" i.e. a falsehood.

a miss quote. In never use the word "cool" that way. I do remember inferring that a statement was a claim or opinion. If something is definitely false, I come right out and say so, and without any inference that it was a deliberate falsehood! I don't think anyone here should claim the other of lying.

[RenaissanceBiker]

It really isn't a complaint. I am not suffering because of it.

It sure sounds like a complaint.

So, what is the solution? I don't see it as a problem that our secular system itself can solve.
The rise of classism in higher education is only one of many signs of trouble in the system.

Not being objective about it is no way to facilitate that process.

So we can't solve it but we can be objective about it. We can expound on the symptoms of societal ills perceived in our post-secondary education system. We can lament at length about the inflated value society places on completing these programs of questionable worth.

You're getting a D in freshman algebra, aren't you?

[Tricky]

To look forward to?

A few years of being underemployed. Maybe more depending on your major. Gradually you will find appropriate work. You'll advance depending on how much time and effort you want to spend. Your college training will not seem obvious, but it will be there for you as invisible support. You'll live a more comfortable life than you would if you did not go to college, assuming you weren't born wealthy.

And you'll look back on your college days with a mixture of longing and loathing, simultaneously wondering, "how the hell did I survive?" and "I wonder if I'll ever do anything that good again?"

[The_Animus]

Yep that's it. Used to be that you needed some schooling to get a decent job, then you needed a high school diploma, then you needed 4 years of college, now it's even more than that.

School, in addition to providing basic education (reading, writing, math), is a place to put people to keep them off the job market. In order to extend this time, more and more school is required and a grossly large proportion of it is spent learning stuff that is useless.

As the OP mentions, it is also a big test to see who is willing to set aside years of their lives and jump through the hoops for the future promise of the carrot at the end of the stick.

[NewtonTrino]

Yep that's it. Used to be that you needed some schooling to get a decent job, then you needed a high school diploma, then you needed 4 years of college, now it's even more than that.

School, in addition to providing basic education (reading, writing, math), is a place to put people to keep them off the job market. In order to extend this time, more and more school is required and a grossly large proportion of it is spent learning stuff that is useless.

As the OP mentions, it is also a big test to see who is willing to set aside years of their lives and jump through the hoops for the future promise of the carrot at the end of the stick.

It's even worse than it looks. Not because you require so much schooling but because the jobs of today require ACTUAL SKILLS. In other words the schooling isn't there as an elaborate test, it's there to help you learn how to think and become skilled. Modern high paying jobs almost always require a high level of individual skills that, frankly, most of the population doesn't have and may not even be able to learn. This is part of the reason why (IMHO) we are going to continue to see the upper classes pull away in terms of income.

[charles brough]

.
As an aeronautical engineer by degree and obssession :), working in Flight Test, I met several engineers in the same job code who had no formal education, but were quite qualified for the job. And others both educated and no formal education who just took up space.
One of the administration types told me he could tell the difference... ISTR he mentioned confidence in doing the work.
My dad had to join the NJ National Guard so that her brother would let him met my mother. He'd been a building supervisor in New York City. Joined as a private, retired as a full-bird colonel. At his funeral in Arlington, the whole base contingent where he'd been the commander for four years showed up!

This makes sense to me. Continued formal education in any of the physical sciences helps people in any and all the technical fields. My post referred to the liberal arts, the "liberal education" process dealing with non-physical sciences. Some here in the group claim it enables the individual to think, or to thing better, but they have not demonstrated that. They have, instead, shown to be sensititive about it. I might believe it taught them how to think if any were willing to show a mocum of curiosity. Instead, what their formal liberal arts studies seem to have done is teach them to feel elite and look scornfully on those they think have have not been through the same wasteful four years they suffered and who, therefore, think differently.

Myself, I have studied some sixteen social and natural science fields mining them for data. I purposely avoided examining the social theorists and worked hard to keep from absorbing the stilted, high mandarin, academic lingo.

I really don't think that a liberal arts graduate can think any better than an chemical engineering graduate or a medical graduate. And in the technical fields, I found that social science professors have low status on the campus and tend to be thought of as pseudo scientists by the technical faculty, although no one wants to acknowledge it. .

[I Ratant]

I enjoy talking to all.
Except the self-inflated blowhards... who can be interesting to listen to, with the view that they are just blowing smoke. Some of them don't realize it, others do it because they can.
I don't feel "better" than anyone who can speak their mind, even when they're not all that well educated.
Many degreeless people are quite common-sensed and capable in their work, and can discuss it, and many times do it better than me. :)
The deliberately stupid, like your standard street criminal, I have no use for at all.

[slingblade]

This makes sense to me. Continued formal education in any of the physical sciences helps people in any and all the technical fields.

This is true. Not all fields, however, are technical. Both the physical sciences and the liberal arts only go so far. Overlap is important.

My post referred to the liberal arts, the "liberal education" process dealing with non-physical sciences. Some here in the group claim it enables the individual to think, or to thing better, but they have not demonstrated that.

My problem is your general disdain of the liberal arts, as if they have no place, no reason, and no meaning. You are not qualifying anything you say, or giving any hint that you realize that the liberal arts do have importance.

Are you familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? Does that come up often in the technical fields? I didn't find it so when I attended college from 2001 to 2006.

Analytical thought is taught in the study of liberal arts. My classes in logic were not offered by the physical sciences department, but by the social sciences department. In addition, the many classes I had on literature analysis, and one of those in particular, were very helpful in "learning to think."

This doesn't mean I think the social sciences are the only place to learn critical thinking. But I know it's taught there.

They have, instead, shown to be sensititive about it.

That might be simple human nature, which would be a topic discussed in those social science classes you say so many of the "technical faculty" disdain. People do tend to react negatively when their areas of expertise, or even of simple interest, are attacked as not being all that worthwhile. Shouldn't you have expected such a reaction?


I might believe it taught them how to think if any were willing to show a mocum of curiosity.

It's "modicum." And curiosity in what, specifically? Or do you mean in anything? You aren't seriously stating that a liberal arts education kills curiosity in everyone who undertakes it? Then explain the seeming curiosity of so many of the people who post here who have liberal arts degrees, please. I find their sense of curiosity quite strong. You don't? Or do you only mean that you're sad no one is much interested in your book?


Instead, what their formal liberal arts studies seem to have done is teach them to feel elite and look scornfully on those they think have have not been through the same wasteful four years they suffered and who, therefore, think differently.

My five years were not wasted, thank you, and that's exactly the attitude of which I speak, which raises hackles and causes these defensive reactions in your readers. Surely you don't think this attitude of yours is conducive to any meaningful discussion? When you come out swinging, as it were, what sort of reaction are you trying to elicit?

As to this claim that liberal arts graduates feel they're "elite," do you not see the same tone and tenor coming through your own views? Are you not trying to tell us that the physical sciences are somehow "better" than the liberal arts and social sciences?

I studied and worked damned hard during my years in college. In fact, I've just had to go through the box in which I'd saved five years of work, to sort it out, because I'm moving and can no longer hang onto all of it. When I looked through it all, I felt overwhelmed at all I'd managed to accomplish, and accomplish well, thanks. Am I "better" than other people? Well, I know I've done something difficult, and I finished it, and I even managed to garner a few honors. It's something to be quite proud of, certainly, and I am.

But the argument that I now think I'm "better" than other people...that's right off the playground, isn't it? Something meant to put me on the defensive? I think I've done something that not everyone can do, or will do. I'm rightfully proud of my accomplishment. But it's only one aspect of my life. I don't possess the arrogance needed to think this one accomplishment in my life, out of the other thousands of things I've done or ever will do, now makes me a better human being than others. There's a lot more to me, and to other people, than just my degree.

Myself, I have studied some sixteen social and natural science fields mining them for data. I purposely avoided examining the social theorists and worked hard to keep from absorbing the stilted, high mandarin, academic lingo.

Your bias is not just showing, it's doing a damned tap-dance across the thread. And if this is how you do research, please allow me to inform you that you poisoned your own well before you began.

I really don't think that a liberal arts graduate can think any better than an chemical engineering graduate or a medical graduate. And in the technical fields, I found that social science professors have low status on the campus and tend to be thought of as pseudo scientists by the technical faculty, although no one wants to acknowledge it.

When I say my liberal arts education taught me to think critically, it in no way even begins to imply that I believe I "think any better" than another graduate in another field. It means only that I have learned to use the tools of critical thought, and I now "think better" than I once did.

However, let me advise you that you do need to shore up your English skills. Because it is also human nature to disdain someone who attacks something he himself cannot do as well as those whom he attacks. I'm having a hard time taking your criticism of my field of study as seriously as it might warrant, because you need my liberal arts to communicate your thoughts. And you aren't doing all that well. Why not?

And if that is a book you've written and are trying to push...your title is ridiculously far too long. A title is not meant to be your thesis statement.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You mean my plans to minor in history are wasted? Man, I guess I'll go minor in something I hate then. :|

[I Ratant]

You mean my plans to minor in history are wasted? Man, I guess I'll go minor in something I hate then. :|
.
My sister had German and chemistry as her majors in college.
Graduated, to be a secretary.
Took an aptitude test and found out she was adept at programming... took that to work on the Shuttle as a safety coordinator and other sciencey objects floating above us for many years.
Ya never know where life is going to send you.

[charles brough]

I'm sorry you don't like my book title, Slingblade but, more importantly, you seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. Perhaps your "logic course" and "learning how to think" failed.

I am all for teaching students the social sciences. I even understand and approve of their teaching social theory. If it were not for its compromising with our secular ideology and with Christianity, it would not work, the volitile and open Age of Enlightment Voltair attacking of Christianity would still be destabilizing society and also preventing the spread of the rationalized-science secular unity that the US has attained in this fractured, divided ideological/religiosity-run world.

But ultimately, that will all end. Societies change and civilizations decline. Ultimately, the old ideologies will have to be replaced or there can never be a recovery, never be a new civilization to bring us out of the down process we are entering into. It is not too early for capable people to begin thinking about it . . .

[Philosaur]

I'm sorry you don't like my book title, Slingblade but, more importantly, you seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. Perhaps your "logic course" and "learning how to think" failed.


Or perhaps your inability to express yourself verbally is to blame.

Nah--it's probably just that my Philosophy degree makes me unable to understand your down-to-earth, pragmatic, real-world language. You're just not writing with enough "stilted, high mandarin, academic lingo".


I am all for teaching students the social sciences. I even understand and approve of their teaching social theory.


I'm so glad you approve. For a minute there I felt rejected and worthless.


If it were not for its compromising with our secular ideology and with Christianity, it would not work, the volitile and open Age of Enlightment Voltair attacking of Christianity would still be destabilizing society and also preventing the spread of the rationalized-science secular unity that the US has attained in this fractured, divided ideological/religiosity-run world.


For someone who views liberal arts education with such disdain, you write like a regular contributor to Social Text.

Oh, and it's "Voltaire". You're welcome.


But ultimately, that will all end. Societies change and civilizations decline. Ultimately, the old ideologies will have to be replaced or there can never be a recovery, never be a new civilization to bring us out of the down process we are entering into. It is not too early for capable people to begin thinking about it . . .

Seriously. You should submit this to a post-mod lit-crit rag. They would eat it up!

[slingblade]

I'm sorry you don't like my book title, Slingblade but, more importantly, you seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. Perhaps your "logic course" and "learning how to think" failed.

I am all for teaching students the social sciences. I even understand and approve of their teaching social theory. If it were not for its compromising with our secular ideology and with Christianity, it would not work, the volitile and open Age of Enlightment Voltair attacking of Christianity would still be destabilizing society and also preventing the spread of the rationalized-science secular unity that the US has attained in this fractured, divided ideological/religiosity-run world.

But ultimately, that will all end. Societies change and civilizations decline. Ultimately, the old ideologies will have to be replaced or there can never be a recovery, never be a new civilization to bring us out of the down process we are entering into. It is not too early for capable people to begin thinking about it . . .


Not even going to try to answer any of the questions I asked you? They weren't rhetorical.

Your snotty jibe is also noted. It didn't improve the conversation.

[charles brough]

This is true. My problem is your general disdain of the liberal arts, as if they have no place, no reason, and no meaning. You are not qualifying anything you say, or giving any hint that you realize that the liberal arts do have importance.

Are you familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy? Does that come up often in the technical fields? I didn't find it so when I attended college from 2001 to 2006.

Analytical thought is taught in the study of liberal arts. My classes in logic were not offered by the physical sciences department, but by the social sciences department. In addition, the many classes I had on literature analysis, and one of those in particular, were very helpful in "learning to think."

This doesn't mean I think the social sciences are the only place to learn critical thinking. But I know it's taught there.

People do tend to react negatively when their areas of expertise, or even of simple interest, are attacked as not being all that worthwhile. Shouldn't you have expected such a reaction?

It's "modicum." And curiosity in what, specifically? Or do you mean in anything? You aren't seriously stating that a liberal arts education kills curiosity in everyone who undertakes it? Then explain the seeming curiosity of so many of the people who post here who have liberal arts degrees, please. I find their sense of curiosity quite strong. You don't? Or do you only mean that you're sad no one is much interested in your book?

My five years were not wasted, thank you, and that's exactly the attitude of which I speak, which raises hackles and causes these defensive reactions in your readers. Surely you don't think this attitude of yours is conducive to any meaningful discussion? When you come out swinging, as it were, what sort of reaction are you trying to elicit?

As to this claim that liberal arts graduates feel they're "elite," do you not see the same tone and tenor coming through your own views? Are you not trying to tell us that the physical sciences are somehow "better" than the liberal arts and social sciences?

I studied and worked damned hard during my years in college. In fact, I've just had to go through the box in which I'd saved five years of work, to sort it out, because I'm moving and can no longer hang onto all of it. When I looked through it all, I felt overwhelmed at all I'd managed to accomplish, and accomplish well, thanks. Am I "better" than other people? Well, I know I've done something difficult, and I finished it, and I even managed to garner a few honors. It's something to be quite proud of, certainly, and I am.

But the argument that I now think I'm "better" than other people...that's right off the playground, isn't it? Something meant to put me on the defensive? I think I've done something that not everyone can do, or will do. I'm rightfully proud of my accomplishment. But it's only one aspect of my life. I don't possess the arrogance needed to think this one accomplishment in my life, out of the other thousands of things I've done or ever will do, now makes me a better human being than others. There's a lot more to me, and to other people, than just my degree.

Your bias is not just showing, it's doing a damned tap-dance across the thread. And if this is how you do research, please allow me to inform you that you poisoned your own well before you began.

When I say my liberal arts education taught me to think critically, it in no way even begins to imply that I believe I "think any better" than another graduate in another field. It means only that I have learned to use the tools of critical thought, and I now "think better" than I once did.

However, let me advise you that you do need to shore up your English skills. Because it is also human nature to disdain someone who attacks something he himself cannot do as well as those whom he attacks. I'm having a hard time taking your criticism of my field of study as seriously as it might warrant, because you need my liberal arts to communicate your thoughts. And you aren't doing all that well. Why not?


I took a long look at your long and truly elquent respone as you do, I see,have questions in it. And I am now convinced I should have expected the reaction I got to my post. There are clearly more professionals in this forum than the others. . .

My main point has been that social theory compromises the data arising from the social sciences in order to avoid conflict with the major religious ideologies. Most of the rest which the group here objects to stems from that conclusion. Rather than deal with them, I suggest we deal with my main conclusion.

And there is no reason to object to statements that social theory compromises since I believe I did mention that this compromising has been absolutely essential in order to provide some connectedness with the old religions since the secular ideology has proven unable to replace them.

I think the problem is the idea that our secular system is an ideology. Yet, no one here has complained about that. (my short term memory is not good, so I could be wrong there.) If so, I have cause to think that the many issues raised ultimately stem from that but come back a bit disguised.

Social science is absolutely vital to modern society, of course. And our modern world is being sustained by the social theorists turning the data of the social sciences in such a way as to be minimally compatable with the old religions in order to minimize disharmony in our ideologically divided world. You have all played a constructive role in all that. It was not a waste.

But my point is that it cannot last and that it is time for some of us to at least begin to think about what comes next. The growth of Islamic terrorism should be seen as a warning. Our ideological uniting of the world is not proving adequate.

[I Ratant]

And the LAPD uses my sister's language skills as a consultant. She got some nice goodies at the 1984 Olympics... :)

[Philosaur]

My main point has been that social theory compromises the data arising from the social sciences in order to avoid conflict with the major religious ideologies. Most of the rest which the group here objects to stems from that conclusion. Rather than deal with them, I suggest we deal with my main conclusion.

You're packing LOTS of vague, bare assertion into one paragraph here. Furthermore, none of this was contained or even hinted about in the OP. but if you claim that this was your main point all along, then I guess this is what I'll address.

*Which* social theory?

*How* does it compromise data from social sciences?

*Why* would "social theory" need to avoid conflict with major religious ideologies?

I think it would be instructive to answer these questions to clarify your main point, since I still can't figure out what the heck your arguing for.

[charles brough]

And the LAPD uses my sister's language skills as a consultant. She got some nice goodies at the 1984 Olympics... :)

I was there in the Colesseum at that Olympics. I remember when the guy came down into the Bowl powered by a little rocket on his back. Those were the days!

Oh, by the way, did you know Donald Trump says he is proud of himself? I'm so happy for him . . . I thought the President was born in Iceland!:jaw-dropp

[charles brough]

You're packing LOTS of vague, bare assertion into one paragraph here. Furthermore, none of this was contained or even hinted about in the OP. but if you claim that this was your main point all along, then I guess this is what I'll address.

*Which* social theory?

*How* does it compromise data from social sciences?

*Why* would "social theory" need to avoid conflict with major religious ideologies?

I think it would be instructive to answer these questions to clarify your main point, since I still can't figure out what the heck your arguing for.

My appologies. I went back to my op and I did not go that far as I had assumed. Anyway, I am glad you so briefly addressed those three issues. I really dread huge long critiques.

Which social theory? We all know that there is controversy in science over detail, but it is never in total, hopeless chaos or confusion, even social theory. There is a broad consensus. It is that general agreement that is what is taught directly and indirfectly all through the whole school system from the first grade up through university scholarships. The total is what we call our secular way of life and which I refer to as our secular ideology because it not "truth" because it changes and "truth" is an abstraction that does not exist because it is an abstraction.

How does it compromise data from the social sciences? I think you mean "in what way does it compromise . . . " But I don't think I ever said it compromises the data of social science. I have great respect for the accuracy of the anthropologist, archeologists, historians, etc. etc. The compromising comes in in the way that data is interpreted by the social theorists. I wish I could give you examples but it took 278 pages to built the picture needed to show it and a long list of the strategems that had to be used. All together, the social theory consensus created a closed system of thinking that is impregnable to outside ideas except for the one clear flaw that I am able to build upon. They do and they have to ignore that we evolved as small group primates (fact), developed ianguage to build ideological systems capable of expanding the size of those groups (another fact). and that when those ideologies become inconsistent with the growth of technology that the ideology itself has fostered, they adopt parts of another ideology by ingenius compromises which belie their claim to have "the truth" and which are not acknowledged (my theory, social evolution).

Lastly, (the 3rd) as to why social theory has needed to compromise with Christianity and even the other faiths. It needed to be done so that the Age of Enlightenment could be ended and the attack and church counter attacks a la Voltaire and Didero could be stopped. The American revolt and then the French Revolution had stirred up a lot of fear that it was all tearing society apart. Le Comp was the last straw, from then on, the compromise (I refer to it as the Accord) was intuitively done. There is no written record of it and no one speaks of it, but it was set up that church and state be separated (and idea started by the Founding Fathers) and that the church remain the spokesmen for morality. The result was the reducing of the church's influence on public opinion and the establishing of what is called "liberal Christians," the ones who generally attend the mainline churches. It has been they who run the economy and political system.

[Philosaur]

Which social theory? We all know that there is controversy in science over detail, but it is never in total, hopeless chaos or confusion, even social theory. There is a broad consensus. It is that general agreement that is what is taught directly and indirfectly all through the whole school system from the first grade up through university scholarships. The total is what we call our secular way of life and which I refer to as our secular ideology because it not "truth" because it changes and "truth" is an abstraction that does not exist because it is an abstraction.


So the social theory you refer to is the broad scientific consensus being taught to students?


How does it compromise data from the social sciences? I think you mean "in what way does it compromise . . . "


What's the difference?


But I don't think I ever said it compromises the data of social science.


Oh, but you did, only a couple of posts back. I even highlighted it and quoted it for you. I'm sure you can find it if you look.


I have great respect for the accuracy of the anthropologist, archeologists, historians, etc. etc. The compromising comes in in the way that data is interpreted by the social theorists.


Presumably, social theorists are people who study the social theory you just defined earlier--the scientific consensus taught to students, right? And they are misinterpreting the data of anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians?


I wish I could give you examples but it took 278 pages to built the picture needed to show it and a long list of the strategems that had to be used.


That would probably be due to a very low SNR.


All together, the social theory consensus created a closed system of thinking that is impregnable to outside ideas except for the one clear flaw that I am able to build upon.


Impregnable? I'm sure the Chinese would love to know how to keep an ideology unsullied by outside influence. In any event, I would need to see quality evidence to believe your claim.


They

Social theorists?


do and they have to ignore that we evolved as small group primates (fact), developed ianguage to build ideological systems capable of expanding the size of those groups (another fact).


You must be reading a bunch of crackpot theorists. My understanding is that this is pretty mainstream science.


and that when those ideologies1 become inconsistent with the growth of technology that the ideology itself has fostered, they2 adopt parts of another ideology3 by ingenius compromises which belie their claim to have "the truth"4 and which are not acknowledged (my theory, social evolution)5.

Whoa!

1. Which ideologies? I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word means.

2. Who are "they"? Social theorists again?

3. Which other ideology?

4. Here's a tip: any time someone claims to have "the truth", run away. And if you are reading stuff where people routinely claim to have "the truth", then you are, indeed, reading a bunch of crackpots.

5. What is this parenthetical referring to? You are aware, I'm sure, that there is already a theory of cultural evolution, right? Is social evolution something different?


Lastly, (the 3rd) as to why social theory has needed to compromise with Christianity and even the other faiths. It needed to be done so that the Age of Enlightenment could be ended and the attack and church counter attacks a la Voltaire and Didero could be stopped. The American revolt and then the French Revolution had stirred up a lot of fear that it was all tearing society apart. Le Comp was the last straw, from then on, the compromise (I refer to it as the Accord) was intuitively done. There is no written record of it and no one speaks of it, but it was set up that church and state be separated (and idea started by the Founding Fathers) and that the church remain the spokesmen for morality. The result was the reducing of the church's influence on public opinion and the establishing of what is called "liberal Christians," the ones who generally attend the mainline churches. It has been they who run the economy and political system.

Do the Freemasons figure into any of this? How about the Rosicrucians? Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn? Shriners?

[charles brough]

In post #45, I referred to the social sciences instead of just that part of it that is the source of the compromise used in all the social sciences, that is, social theory. The social sciences that I listed and others diligently collect valuable data but they as well as the schools, students and then the general public all enterpret it according the the general consensus of the social theorists. Yes, they misinterpret or slant it in ways that avoid conflict with religious and secular doctrine because the social scientists who collect data, the teachers, professors in the universitie, and the students all want to avoid public controversy, to avoid conflict with both the church and our secular way of thinging. Everyone but religious militants want the general focus to be, instead, on bringing about enough world unity to build and sustain the global economy. This is all well and good as long as it can last, but it is showing signs it won't last. It is time to begin thinking of what comes next.

Is the reference to "SMR" meaningful or just meant to in some way show resentment? Your accurastion/reference to "crackpot scientists" is another cheap "put down" attempt. Wouldn't it show more maturity and/or dignity to avoid such quibble-distractions and deal with all this in a professional manner, or are we to think all professional content proceeds in such an atmosphere? (I think it does sometimes!)
)
Yes, the social science consensus accepts that ideology is what binds us into societies and serves that function, but that is as far as that bit of now obvious science is taken because it leads to social evolution, and that conflicts with both religious and secular ways of thinking.

When taken foreward, we come to deal with the large mainstream societies bonded by the large, mainstream religions such as Christianity, Islam, the Hindu-Buddhist world and the Marxist as the largest of the ideological bonds. The logical way to deal with them is to define them as "societies" and the word exclusively used only for that because they funtion in an almost biological wayThey comprise territory. They compete. A sort of natural selection process takes place among them. When one weakens, a new one grows at its expense.

That is what I happens and which I refer to as social evolution. (Why not give us all a short explanation of how "cultures" undergo evolution? Is it the "meme" theory? Do social scientists take it seriously?)

Considering the process described above, you can perhaps see why the church would not want science to say that religions serve a social evolutionary function. Also, we are directed by our secular ideology to think in terms of spreading "our democratic way of life," not to think, instead, that Secular Humanis is serving as a sort-term bridge-ideology function of holding the divided world together by its idealistic doctrines.

It would be impossible for the present world system to function if this compromised ideological hodgepoge were not built up into a closed system of thinking. All the social science data is intepreted in a way that enables each weakness in its way of thinkiing to be buttressed, to be supported, by the others rationalising.

[Darth Rotor]

charles brough:

My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

[Macgyver1968]

He's selling a book. Check his sig.

ETA: Although admittedly, this is a very abstruse sales pitch.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Charles posts the same type of threads on sciforums, in a thinly veiled attempt to market his book.

[charles brough]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Charles posts the same type of threads on sciforums, in a thinly veiled attempt to market his book.

Well, well, it seems I can only stirr up irrelevant-to-the-point one liners or ponderous, long cascading professor-type nit-picking. Why not come out and lets see your explanation of what civilizations have done in the past and do now as well as what causes them and the rise of the human cultural heritage. (!) Surely, you can do that because, after all, your social science education has taught you to think. Right? . . .

I thought the forum was for advancing real thoughts, not just to provide a one-upmanship game for retired professors, professional students and intellectual voyours. :jaw-dropp

[Philosaur]

Well, well, it seems I can only stirr up irrelevant-to-the-point one liners or ponderous, long cascading professor-type nit-picking. Why not come out and lets see your explanation of what civilizations have done in the past and do now as well as what causes them and the rise of the human cultural heritage. (!) Surely, you can do that because, after all, your social science education has taught you to think. Right? . . .

I thought the forum was for advancing real thoughts, not just to provide a one-upmanship game for retired professors, professional students and intellectual voyours. :jaw-dropp

So either we engage you with "ponderous, long cascading professor-type nit-picking", or we dismiss you with "irrelevant-to-the-point one liners"? It would appear that interacting with you at all is a lose-lose situation.

I can tell you why I, at least, can't engage with you any more:

1. Your ideas are vague to the point of meaninglessness.

2. Your use of words and ideas is idiosyncratic, which makes it tough to know what you are referring to (e.g. "social theory").

3. You are inconsistent--and oblivious to this fact. Here are two quotes from you (from posts 48 and 52) to illustrate my point:


My main point has been that social theory compromises the data arising from the social sciences in order to avoid conflict with the major religious ideologies.


But I don't think I ever said it compromises the data of social science.


4. Your writing style is verbose, convoluted, and littered with obvious spelling errors. Any one of these traits can be overlooked, but all three together is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

5. You apparently don't even bother to comprehend the criticisms or feedback others do give you. For instance, you complain that I mentioned crackpots. Did you even understand what I said? You claimed:


[Social theorists] do and they have to ignore that we evolved as small group primates (fact), developed ianguage to build ideological systems capable of expanding the size of those groups (another fact).


And I replied that if ANY theorist (of a relevant discipline) ignores the very mainstream idea that we evolved as small group primates, then that theorist is a crackpot. Is your objection that I used the word "crackpot"? Are you now defending the "social theorists" who have steered us so wrong? Or did you compose a knee-jerk post because you've come to see the word "crackpot" as an attack against you?

[The Man]

Four years of college ahead . . .THEN what? ‘


Look to The Silhouettes for that answer.


i5ohXU7MahM

Basically the same “…THEN what?” (or now what?) answer for one not facing “Four years of college ahead”, though in the former case the prospects will hopefully be better (even if only slightly) after the success of such an endeavor.

[charles brough]

So either we engage you with "ponderous, long cascading professor-type nit-picking", or we dismiss you with "irrelevant-to-the-point one liners"? It would appear that interacting with you at all is a lose-lose situation.

I would be also like to end this discussion. I find putting in all the brackets, quotes and slants to be laborious and tedious. I'll begin backing off with this post.

I double checked to be sure I use the word "social theory" in the same way it is generally used in social science. I believe I have: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Social_theory

Thanks for reminding me of the typos and miss spelling. My appologies.

3. You are inconsistent--and oblivious to this fact. Here are two quotes from you (from posts 48 and 52) to illustrate my point

Please re-examine the two posts again. They are only inconsistent if "social theory" and "social science" mean the same thing. They do not and I used them to mean that difference. My whole point was that they are different, that the social science are for the gathering of data. I see the social theorists as being those who are supposed to enterpret it and lead social scientists in how to put the data together.

4. Your writing style is verbose, convoluted, and littered with obvious spelling errors. Any one of these traits can be overlooked, but all three together is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment..

Except for spelling errors, I can only say I disagree with you. So, on this point, we both have our opinions. I don't normally consider opinion statements and responses worth doing.

5. You apparently don't even bother to comprehend the criticisms or feedback others do give you. For instance, you complain that I mentioned crackpots. Did you even understand what I said?

"And I replied that if ANY theorist (of a relevant discipline) ignores the very mainstream idea that we evolved as small group primates, then that theorist is a crackpot. Is your objection that I used the word "crackpot"? Are you now defending the "social theorists" who have steered us so wrong? Or did you compose a knee-jerk post because you've come to see the word "crackpot" as an attack against you?

Yes, I said that we are small group primates, but I did not say social scientists did not recognize that fact. Those who do not are probably religious crackpots. What I said is that they fail to take it further, that is, that we cannot function satisfactorily in groups larger than at most a couple hundred people unless bonded together by a common ideology. This is the part that tends to be left out of social theory because, as I stated, it leads to theory that offends both religious and secular ideals and doctrines.

But when one does build on that, then it is practical to define "religion" and "society" functionally in terms of each other. One bonds the other and one is the product of the other. Once this is done, then it is possible to deal with the word "society" as a clear and precise entity. It becomes possible to see how it even has a biological-like life cycle. It experiences natural selection.

I hope no further respone is necessary . . .