[karatestomp]

Reminds me of a story that made it onto HN some months (years maybe? how time flies) back about an entrance exam prompt to some British university program requiring the candidate to craft a message defending some unsavory deed on the part of the UK government. That kind of "gaming" is super-common and very valuable in (for example) political science circles, so wasn't, per se, a bit weird or bad or even unusual, but was made to seem so for a headline.

[EDIT] specifically I think the prompt was something like "It's 10 years in the future, such-and-such party has control of government and can be assumed to hold policy positions basically the same as they do now. General world situation is X. The government has just violently put down mass protests over [something]. Craft a statement for the prime minister defending these actions as necessary for the preservation of the government and protection of general welfare." Which is a completely normal—if simple—sort of poli-sci exercise.

[arethuza]

It was about Eton, a private high school, and the "unsavory deed" shooting by the Army of protestors:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900

[iso1631]

That seems a very odd take from the paper

"So Eton appears to have asked young boys how to justify police brutality against the general public…"

This is for an entrance exam, Eton expects people to already be able to justify it before they even get to Eton.

[karatestomp]

Yeah, that's the one. Fake "controversy" playing on ignorance.

[NicolasGorden]

I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence.

The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along.

It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it.

It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony.

Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM

[kbenson]

Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

If the student does support the action, accurately anticipating the objections of the other side and explaining why the action is justified in a way meant to mollify them is also useful.

Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

Truthfully, I'm much more worried about what I see as the common trend of only viewing and reacting to the surface level of any event or topic, and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose. That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.

[boomboomsubban]

>That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.

That seems like one of those things that has always been extremely common, but is difficult to see when reading history rather than news. People always justify their own thoughts and goals over trying to understand another point of view.

[kbenson]

Yes, but I think the differences in the ability to disseminate criticism to a large audience over time have have changed how this affects society. That is, people have always done this, and probably always done it about the same amount, but haven't always had it visible to hundreds, thousands or millions of others as easily as it is now. That's not really what I said before, but I think better encapsulates what I mean (or, at least, what I mean now that you've forced me to think about it a bit deeper ;)

[blaser-waffle]

> Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

I did a Poli-Sci degree and this was a standard thing: write me an essay on a position. Cool, now write me a paper that is 100% against that position.

We had an instructor, a former US Navy officer, that required us to write an essay that was a 100% earnest defense of Al Qaeda's worldview. I ended up leaning heavily on "Jihad Vs McWorld" and "Clash of Civilizations", though I think the latter (Clash) isn't really valid or useful anymore.

> Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

PR releases are as much about what you think about the issue, but also what you think that others will think about the issue. That does a good job of bringing out your prejudices, and challenges you to think about what their true goals are and why.

[NicolasGorden]

> writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way

100% agree with you. But you are contradicting a point I never made. So... good job taking down your own strawman argument. It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

[kbenson]

I think the argument I laid out also applies towards selecting for obedience, in that it doesn't, at least not obedience to the state. It does select for people being able to follow the rules of the assignment in front of them, which is obedience, but I'm not really interested in a discussion about whether people should rebel against things like simple instructions for an assessment assignment.

> So... good job taking down your own strawman argument.

It would be easier to have a constructive discussion if you engaged with the point, rather than dismissed the argument out of hand. I think the points still apply, but since you've opted to either ignore them based on the assumption they don't apply, or have considered them and refuted them without explaining why, I'm now left to ask you which it is, and whether you can elaborate.

> It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

Which part? That interpreting the position and arguments of others is hard work and requires skill? I agree with that. Hopefully you weren't implying I was only trying to to understand the position at a superficial level and looking for others to support me while being uninterested in what you're saying. I'm definitely not trying to do that, as evidenced by me replying to you, and engaging with you as to your meaning, and not just advertising to everyone else how wrong your position is without doing so.

[karatestomp]

I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for.

That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.

[NicolasGorden]

Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments.

There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards.

The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied.

You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.

[karatestomp]

> Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments.

The original premise does not call for any such thing, though. The position is uncomfortable. It's far from indefensible. One can even adopt a position well outside what most would consider "authoritarian" and not render it indefensible—and which position the student is able to adopt, or feels they must adopt, to defend it, may be instructive. What else they do with the prompt, which is pretty open, is also valuable signal. Express any regrets? Shift blame? Cite history? Take responsibility? Make promises? Resign? Why does the student seem to have chosen to do these things? Do they do them effectively? This on top of having some basic ability to understand and articulate[1], if not agree with, any of the many common or uncommon positions that allow that state violence can be morally justifiable to maintain order.

> You assume much.

Yes.

[1 EDIT] Understand and articulate and express to a broad and diverse audience which includes many of the very people who were upset in the first place, that is! Simply quoting their preferred political philosopher won't do. The prompt in fact probably asks so much of the student that there's almost no hope they'll do a great job, but then, that's not the point—how much of the subtlety of the task to they even notice, and so attempt to take on? How effective is the attempt? It's a damn good prompt, really.

[op03]

People have been making the point long before Chomsky. Education for the masses is about training people to fit into domination based hierarchies[1]. In the past such systems produced better outcomes.

As info explodes and people learn there are other structures besides Hierarchies that can produce outcomes (such as Networks) the Hierarchies start teetering. And training for obedience becomes less important.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc

[nradov]

Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want?

https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/