/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(555.42 KB 200x200 external-conck.gif)
Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 07:19:08 [Preview] No. 33121
Does your language have separate words for being somebody's child, and for beign an actual child? I think our cultures are suffering when this word is missing, it's as if the relationship between an adult and her elderly parents is somehow illegitimate, not worth talking about or not a factor in public life at all.

Another thing I have a problem with is I think western culture has been for decades optimized to only have 1 kid for two moderately well-earning parents. I think the public common sense has begun assuming that parenting means focusing solely on a single child at a time, and people with many children are given misinformation that assumes that children's interaction doesn't play a part in raising a family. It's assumed that the learning environment always consists of 1 adult quiding 1 child, and children of varying ages don't really have any space to learn how to get along and getting socialized together. Individual big families will of course reinvent that wheel out of necessity, but I think it's stopped being part of the wider culture that could pass on through every generation and find the best methods over time. Single child families only pass on information about how a child should act with grown adults but not any other kids, and big families' kids are left in a sort of Lord of the flies type situation where parental focus is limited and divided between every child one at a time instead of guiding their cooperation.


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 07:48:47 [Preview] No.33123 del
>I think the public common sense has begun assuming that parenting means focusing solely on a single child at a time
Well, how else they would raise the most optimal kid as possible: a spoiled brat?


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 08:05:43 [Preview] No.33124 del
>>33123
Send him to school to be raised by the state so both parents can go back to work to afford lots of presents. 1 child can be raised just as well as 10 these days when you are not the parent, the state is. In my country, children start school at 3 but are already in full time care groups at 2 and stay in school until full adulthood (18) and there is state funded TV for babies so mothers don't have to interact with child, it even ends in bed time story so mothers can leave ipad in crib.

I think the ideas of parents actually raising children are long dead in my country. The only reason people have 1 child is because it's cheaper and less inconvenience. That way parents can afford more drink, drugs and other hobbies.


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 11:20:32 [Preview] No.33126 del
>>33124
True, it's just easier to deal with children that way and even people who talk about how bad doing that is when they don't have children soon end up dong it themselves when they do, because children are a pain.


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 19:43:29 [Preview] No.33128 del
Ok, so here are some serious replies.

>>33121
I don't think language has much to do with it. Missing a word doesn't necessarily mean there's a negative implication behind it.
Children interaction is an important part of the development of a child's personality and psyche (and mental capabilities?), but it can be given outside the family's environment, on the playground, in nursery, kindergarten and school. It might be a problem however that on this path, the kid won't really learn how to interact with older and younger ones. Being forced to interact with those definitely means a plus because they aren't peers, the interaction with them offers different challenges, experience and reward. For example an older brother can learn responsibility via his younger siblings.
In traditional big/great family - where (at least) three generations lived in the same household with uncles, aunts and their kids, the cousins - offered a wide variety of interactions and many different learning opportunities. Chiefly the grandparents were the babysitters, since the working age adults were all on the fields, with the animals, but the older kids were involved and they could learn to be parents because the turn to become ones soon was on them. But this also doesn't mean the actual parents neglected their children, they were trusted with many tasks around the adults, did small work and in the meanwhile learnt behaviour and hierarchy via observation and mimed them among each others.
I think having siblings, and big family can help to achieve a sense of community which then can be transferred to larger units, to neighbourhood, then smaller patria, then nation. It's a way for the individual to learn his place in the world.
Maybe this is a little too idealistic, many things could go wrong even with a large family.


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 20:01:43 [Preview] No.33129 del
>>33124
I see what you mean.
I believe one can fuck up a kid via two ways (beside many other). Giving too much attention and giving too little. Leaving the kid to raise by the state (not in foster care but by just hoping the school will raise them) is a good way to make them wanna crave attention )which later in their lives will be transferred to their partners). In school the easiest way to gain attention is by behaving bad, since this will force the teacher off course and pay attention for the troublemakers. This way they also gain attention from peers. While they get some meek punishment, the attention itself will be the reward which will strengthen this behaviour. Then they'll use it at home too on their parents. And voila you get an aspiring adult with full of bad choices already under their belt, and set on course to make some more.
There's probably more to it, but I'm tired as fugg.


Bernd 12/15/2019 (Sun) 20:27:50 [Preview] No.33130 del
>>33129
This goes a long way to explain why kids today don't learn anything in school.


Bernd 12/17/2019 (Tue) 21:33:47 [Preview] No.33180 del
>>33130
Many reasons why educations is fucked.
But yeah. I'm not sure how it is there but here a class takes 45 minutes (in primary and secondary schools). This should include a verbal "exam" of a couple of students (about the previous lesson), then a short recap of the previous lesson, then teaching the new lesson, then giving homework. Maybe other stuff. This is basically nothing, especially if the teacher wants to hand over the knowledge in a meaningful way. And then come the renitents who shit all over the thing. What the kids gather from the whole thing? Not much, it will depend if they are willing to learn at home from books and notes.
But this isn't raising kids, just demanding them memorizing some irrelevant stuff. It become fashionable to talk about developing their skills, abilities, but that doesn't work on wholesale with 20-35 kids in one class. How could a teacher measure each students strengths and weaknesses? Especially these teachers, who are weak teacher materials, but for that money what talents will choose that profession?
It turns out btw, that one teacher can work the best with classes consisting <10 kids. And kids learn the best in similar frames. Coincidentally that's about the number of a large family.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 07:46:10 [Preview] No.33191 del
(96.38 KB 800x504 german-school.jpg)
>>33180

There are plenty of reasons why education doesn't work as it imagined in idealistic form. For example, compulsory free education, as any compulsory free stuff, loses its value in psychological sense, and becomes something like everyday burden for child, not like thing he want to achieve. Humans are curious by design, it is evolutionary trait, but going for 10 years in some place and studying every day isn't fun, so curiosity doesn't help. Although there is no great way to do education differently (maybe direct stream of information into the brain through brainwashing chip, but it is future).

But there is another question: did it really worked in any time of human history? We tend to look at some records about well-educated aristocratic kids who knew 4 languages while being 15 yo, but this isn't fair to compare some small amount of people to general population. And in general, most of people were never educated, not in past, not today. For example, common stereotype that average modern person couldn't write with proper grammar (and it is true). But average factory worker 50 years ago wasn't really better, he just didn't had a place to write something every day, like internet or messengers now, so we don't see results.

Schools for masses are daycare and socialization centers, not education institutes (although they provide some basics), and they didn't degrade over time - they always were like this. Education of individual is still his own task, school just provides some free time for this, and some people can use it for own benefit (but mostly they don't).


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 20:22:46 [Preview] No.33206 del
>>33191
>Humans are curious by design
And children are way more curios and they have a mind sucking up knowledge like a sponge sucking up water. And this is the first problem, parents just can't be bothered to fill the knowledge into them, or don't even know they can, should, or how to. Many kids start talking later since all the adults around them just babble like idiots (gu gu gu) to them and don't talk normally, they mimic the kid instead of presenting an example to them. What's worse: in Waldorf - for example - kindergartens if a child asks something (why this? or why that?) the policy is not replying but just humming some song. Wtf? This thirst of knowledge could be exploited, and not just with giving knowledge, but making them love learning.

Public education doesn't have long history, but when mass education already existed (which started with church owned schools) that strict church line was quite efficient to make students learn what was expected. Tho the teachers (priests themselves) were quite committed to do their jobs, it was really a vocation more often than not.
I think it really depends what we (as society, or government, or adults who give their kids into the care of the teachers) expect from the kids, what is our goal what we want to create out of them. For example Waldorf was made for the kids of tobacco factory workers who also became tobacco factory workers, so expectations weren't high, just that they could do their job. Is this made them lesser human beans? ofc not.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply