[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 ;)

[boomboomsubban]

I understand that reaching billions of people seems scarier, but how does it really differ from being able to convince the entire Roman Senate with one skilled oration? Convincing either group could lead to horrendous acts being committed.

The main difference is that there are more people, they can interact more, and their opinions matter slightly more than in the past. Those things also allow us to understand the deeper motives and purposes far better than ever before, even if we still foolishly ignore them.

[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.

[NicolasGorden]

First, giving a reply doesn't necessarily entail the person replying did so with a deep understanding for another's perspective. So I'm really not sure why you make that self serving logical step, but let's continue.

In terms of other people's perspective, oh, I see the value. When I was in college studying psychology, it's actually something we're taught to do to relate to patients. I've had to empathize professionally with people whose actions would make your stomach churn, I'm very familiar with the concept and the psychological mechanisms at play and the need for such open mindedness.

I'd absolutely want to see this question brought up by a professor in a class, but I think it's not very well fit for a 13-14 year old's university entrance exam. You can't possibly expect someone of that age to provide a nuance balanced answer so I don't think it's a good quality signal for an openness trait. In fact there's test for openness that have been devised by professionals, so if the university wanted to select for it, they could more objectively measure it. Based on this, I think we can agree the question is not very good for measuring openness.

To be clear, for older people this can be a good entrance question since it shows whether their inherent openness was developed or not. Given the context (13-14 year olds) one of 3 reasons you gave for using it is mostly gone.

Then you're left with it's value as an intelligence estimation. IQ tests are the gold standard for estimating intelligence. Since this type of question doesn't appear on IQ tests (for reasons that to some of us are really obvious), it also stands to reason it's not a very good question for that. So we've removed the 2nd reason you listed to ask it in an entrance exam.

Last in terms of communication, it would seem this type of question will result in very biased grading from the professors. To test the ability to communicate most academics use non-controversial topics. So again, not very useful for the purpose you state.

There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use for an entrance exam. Could this be random? Possibly.

But it seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. Since it's not particularly useful to it's stated purpose (as we've gone over) it makes sense it raises eye brows and it makes sense people question it. If there was no such trend, or if professionally developed test designed to objectively measure openness or IQ tests didn't exist, you'd have more of a point.

Notice how my language uses words like 'seem', 'appears', 'it would be reasonable', etc. I'm not saying I'm 100% right. I have a very nuanced and probabilistic point of view. But the parent comment I was answering to if you RTFA and RTFT and follow the conversation that you are jumping into, suggested that even thinking such a question to be controversy is mere 'ignorance'.

I believe I provided a reasonable argument against what I was answering to. And instead of continuing the thread with the kind of carefully crafted language and nuanced that I present, you ironically and sort of pedantically explained why it's important to consider other points of view without really getting my point. If someone doesn't agree with you, or if someone doesn't laugh at your joke, it isn't always because they didn't get it.

I highlighted the fact that you used the word 'causes' since it seems to highlight your lack of through thought toward answering my point, which to me qualifies as "reacting to the surface level of any ... topic". You seem more ready to answer than to understand. That's why I found it ironic and limited my original response to that part. Now since you insisted, you have my full perspective.

[kbenson]

> First, giving a reply doesn't necessarily entail the person replying did so with a deep understanding for another's perspective. So I'm really not sure why you make that self serving logical step, but let's continue.

No, but that, and my follow up, means I was attempting to. We're supposed to engage here assuming good faith. I think that includes assuming someone that replies to you and makes arguments on points you've presented (or they think you've presented) is at least trying to understand the other's perspective. And that was what the last paragraph of my earlier comment was about, people stopping at that superficial level, or spreading an assumption of a stance around.

> You can't possibly expect someone of that age to provide a nuance balanced answer so I don't think it's a good quality signal for an openness trait.

Well, it's probably not a good signal for much of anything at that age if used in isolation. It's part of an entrance exam though, so it could be used in any number of ways, I imagine. It could also just be a matter of seeing how the applicants handle an unusual question and stressful question. My guess, given the age group it's targeted at, is that there's no (or very few) "wrong" answers, as long it's backed up. Is it the wrong answer for them to say they they think it was a mistake, and this is how they would relay the problem to the public, and apologize and/or assign blame?

> Then you're left with it's value as an intelligence estimation.

If we presume your assumptions about the reasons it may be in place are exhaustive, then yes. I prefer to assume at best we can approach closely understanding someone else's reasoning from outside observation. I think arguments that have "then all you're left with" generally assume far too much. As an example, in my prior paragraph I gave a possible reason to include it which you haven't covered so far. I could probably come up with one or two more. We aren't close to being able to say "than you're left with", or as I think it was intended to by synonymous to (but I may be wrong), "the only other explanation is".

> if you RTFA and RTFT and follow the conversation that you are jumping into, suggested that even thinking such a question to be controversy is mere 'ignorance'.

That's not how I interpret those comments. I specifically don't interpret them as "even thinking the problem is a controversy is ignorance". I do interpret the first comment from karatestomp as stating that they thought that the issue wasn't very controversial, and the second comment saying it played on people ignorance. I interpreted that as people ignorance of the details of the issue. That doesn't imply it's impossible to be upset about it based on the facts, just that the article is playing on people lack of knowledge regarding the facts.

> I believe I provided a reasonable argument against what I was answering to.

Specifically, I was referring to your response to me when I said you provided little explanation, and your words of that reply are below, in their entirety:

>> 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.

Which while possibly reasonable, wasn't entirely useful, IMO, so I asked for more information.

> you ironically and sort of pedantically explained why it's important to consider other points of view without really getting my point. If someone doesn't agree with you, or if someone doesn't laugh at your joke, it isn't always because they didn't get it.

I laid out some items I though fairly accurate and self evident in a factual manner. My actual argument was not stated so forcefully, and was I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

> I highlighted the fact that you used the word 'causes' since it seems to highlight your lack of through thought toward answering my point, which to me qualifies as "reacting to the surface level of any ... topic".

That wasn't actually the problematic behavior I was calling out. Reacting at a surface level will happen, it's human nature. I think the problematic behavior is what you do next, which is "and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose." Engaging and attempting to understand a point of view, even if it's through argument and discussion, is not what I would consider problematic behavior.

Case in point, you reacted to the surface level of that, and missed what I was actually trying to communicate as what I saw as a problem. Calling someone out for that when they are already engaging is of little practical use, as I'm sure you're aware of at the moment, since it just happened to you. Unless you've run around promoting this misunderstanding as a prime example of someone else's bad behavior, you aren't really doing what I was talking about.

> Now since you insisted, you have my full perspective.

Yes, I do. Thank you. I still don't necessarily agree with you, but at least there was some discussion as to my points with regard to your argument.

[NicolasGorden]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. People are deeply different in their world perceptions.

I think you will love the Chinese saying of 'you can you up, no can no bibi'.

It does have a point I'll admit. But then we also need to consider the consequences of having such a perspective in the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled. Most things are double edged swords. :)

[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.

[NicolasGorden]

> not ... 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?

From the article you are literally quoting and bringing up:

> Protesters ... Government has deployed the Army ... twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army... Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral.

Either you are trolling or you are the type of person who doesn't let facts get in the way of making an argument. Either way, I'm done.

P.S. people who assume a lot generally get it wrong. Chomsky is not my favorite political guy. I tend to like Jordan Peterson more as he speaks more to my libertarian tendencies. But again, don't let facts get in the way of you making a caricature of what I think so you can attack it. There's plenty of people who basically play out the white version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrYbMbudILQ

[karatestomp]

Yes, I read it. I double-checked to make sure it wasn't actually anywhere near indefensible from most main-stream perspectives on the role of the state first, in fact. Which part makes it indefensible? Why might it have been the only (acceptable, reasonable, effective; any of those might be assumed to be implied and which one chooses might matter) option available? Context from the full prompt might help there. Why might that have been necessary? (Ditto). Which obligations might prompt the prime minister to consider that necessary? How could meeting those obligations, despite the cost, be moral? How could those things be reasonably seen as true?

Not one of those seems anywhere near an insurmountable challenge, even without going all jack-booted. Do they? How's it an indefensible position? It's tense and uncomfortable and grey, but not indefensible nor even requiring an extreme perspective to defend it.

[EDIT]

> P.S. people who assume a lot generally get it wrong. Chomsky is not my favorite political guy. I tend to like Jordan Peterson more as he speaks more to my libertarian tendencies. But again, don't let facts get in the way of you making a caricature of what I think so you can attack it.

Where'd I imply (what I gather you think I thought) that you're a leftist? For that matter where'd I imply I'm not, or that I don't have libertarian tendencies/sympathies? In fact this new information fits my model of what I reckoned your perspective to be pretty spot-on, so if I'd incorporated that into a caricature of you (where's that, incidentally?) I suppose I'd have nailed it.

[NicolasGorden]

> quoting their preferred political philosopher

> Chomsky is not my favorite political guy

> caricature... where's that

Quoting someone != saying someone is my preferred political guy. It's a strawman argument. I also never said you implied me to be leftist or even mentioned anything about left/right divide. I was simply pointing out that my preferred political philosopher has a 180 degree different perspective than the one you literally said was my preferred political philosopher. Proving you were assuming incorrectly. Oddly you used the fact that you got it wrong to prove you had me pinned correctly from the start.

Creating strawman arguments is particularly ironic from someone who is basically arguing in favor of learning to create ironmanning arguments.

To be clear, I can create an ironman argument for this type of position, and even for less defensible positions. As stated, it's actually not that hard compared to creating an ironman for an abusive parent. I'm not an extremist and have very moderate positions. This type of exercise IS valuable in a political science class and philosophy.

When I was in college studying psychology, it's actually something we're taught to do to relate to patients. I've had to empathize professionally with people whose actions would make your stomach churn, I'm very familiar with the concept and the psychological mechanisms at play. Having said that, this type of question has no place on a generic entrance exam, let alone an entrance exam for high school kids which should select for potential and intelligence, not obedience or ability to see nuance at the age of 14. It's a good thought exercise though I never denied that.

But please, again, don't let facts and reality get in the way of the narrative you are creating with your powers of assumption and strawmanning. Admitting you were assuming incorrectly would be inconceivable. You do you boo and stick with your original line of thought: I'm simply ignorant or I'd agree with you.

[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/