I wish I could like this many more times, cause it’s pretty much exactly right and could be extrapolated out to any number of other aspects of modern day life.
Lately, I’m tired of arguing over coping mechanisms and work arounds to the current state of affairs. We need to address the root causes and we have to do it now. If we don’t, then we only have ourselves to blame.
I don’t think that’s true. I think it still happens, just in more subtle ways. Our society is structured in such a way as to encourage bullying in fact. The top of the heap are constantly celebrated and allowed to get away with being assholes. And rarely are people called out for it, because it’s just subsumed under the corporate ethos of competition, which is built along the social darwinian model of survival of the fittest. If you “defeat” others, then you are doing well in our society.
Plus, I think the majority of us who were bullied did not become bullys ourselves, but rejected that and became better for it. That’s been my experience at least, so, I know, anecdotal. Why the hell would I want to join in such a horrible activity. Do some? I’d guess, but not me.
I just don’t think that what @Ygret constitutes bullying. Believe me. I know it when I see it.
if you’ll go back up the stream to a post i made earlier you’ll see my main points some of which may overlap with the principles behind your post. the current dept. of ed. rate for passing percentage on the test comes from the law itself, nclb. the only way to change that would be to get the democratic party, which would like to make fixes to nclb, and the republican party, which would like to eliminate the dept. of ed., to agree on a compromise which would provide fixes for the law. a daunting exercise indeed.
and my point in that second passage you quoted is that a direct comparison of the high-stakes testing of students in public schools to the high-stakes testing of graduating professionals from law schools, accounting schools, medical schools, etc. is incredibly problematic because those schools get to weed out all but a small percentage of those enrolling. public schools have no such discretion over their student bodies. all children have a right to a free public education and no child left behind insists that 95% of all students must pass a test in certain subjects each year. not only that, all subgroups within a school must pass at the same rate. failure to demonstrate that passing percentage may result in a federal takeover of the school after 3 consecutive years failure to meet standards. the current administration has chosen to offer waivers to schools in states that are implementing the common core standards. the common sore standards were chosen because they were developed at the behest of major corporations (read wealthy donors) and had (at the time of this decision) a great deal of bipartisan support except in areas of the country which had tea party attitudes even before the tea party was started by rick santelli’s rant. areas like my home state of texas which refused to sign up. the common core has since become a touchstone of hostility within the republican party which is one reason it is now so controversial. i found myself somewhat annoyed at your seeming dismissal of the problems inherent within massive high-stakes testing of students from grades 3-12 by pointing to testing requirements for the licensing and certification of professionals which is really an apples to diesel engines comparison which would require many changes in statute and circumstances to make any such comparison pertinent. it was that annoyance which resulted in my response to your post.
i agree with you that the increased graduation rates are a data point that needs to be considered. the way forward will likely depend on a close study of what has led to that which may or may not correlate to the various burdens involved in massive high-stakes testing.
That warranted being called a self-satisfied narcissist? I guess you were able to read his mind and new exactly what he meant by those words. It’s called attribution error, and it means that because you disagree with his words, you’ve decided his motives must be bad as well. And it’s caused more grief and misery in this world than just about everything else put together.
Assuming good faith on the part of those we disagree with (unless there’s clear proof otherwise) is pretty much a prerequisite for any useful discourse, unless, of course, all you seek is an echo chamber of clones.
And as for fake politeness - well, let’s just say that I think that history has taught us what happens when simple respect for others (i.e. politeness) is denigrated as a weakness. It’s not pretty.
The big difference, Ygret, is that he punches up. Towards people with real power.
Perhaps bullying is common in the upper echelons where I don’t travel, but do you witness bullying in your day-to-day environment?
I’ll admit I read about awful behaviour, but quite frankly, bullying has been very rare in any workplace I’ve worked in the last 30 years. People in general are trying to do a good job and be happy. The odd time I’ve felt behaviour was close to that border (and far less harsh than calling someone a self-satisfied narcissist), a careful word has reminded people that such behaviour is both juvenile, status-hurting and career-limiting. You don’t usually see an apology, but you also don’t see a repetition of the behaviour.
Absolutely. In fact, I’d say the vast majority. It was why I was so shocked there were any.
I have to say, calling a co-worker a “self-satisfied narcissist” would be considered beyond the pale anywhere I’ve ever worked - period. I’m saddened to think how bad behaviour you’ve witnessed must be such that Ygret’s comments don’t make the grade.
However, by his own words, I believe he classifies it as a smack to stifle postings he disagrees with where he’s divined the motivations of the speaker as unsatisfactory (“polluting our world with their drivel”). And certainly verbal assault is often praised on the other side of the spectrum as a suitable tool for suppressing comments. Especially since they too know that such comments are motivated only by the dishonesty of the posters.
But frankly, unless we’re looking at mass slaughter followed by a terror to keep everyone in line, we’re going to have to accept that in order to forge our society, it will have to be done with a huge variety of opinions, many of which we personally dislike. Verbal abuse such as Ygret displays doesn’t make it easier to get the majority on side with policies which we both support.
Let me fix my comment to make more sense
Japan kicks out butt in education is due to OUR lack of a common curriculum.
Japan’s system creates students who test better on standardized tests, but you would need to provide more proof that the system is superior in creating students that are prepared for the real world.
I have to say, I’ve amazed at how little respect for the Japanese educational system most of the recent Japanese graduates I’ve talked to had. Now, this is biased by my sample being those willing to visit North America (and moderately small (less than a dozen over the years)). However, it was interesting that while they considered their educational system universally useless in installing useful long-term knowledge, most did consider that it performed the function for which they felt it was designed.
To wit, it allowed society to select for conscientiousness - i.e. the ability to work hard (if on meaningless tasks), follow orders, delay gratification, etc. along with at least moderate intelligence. In other words, it selected for the characteristics of middle-class economic success in modern society.
As such, they felt it was reasonable proxy for employers and high education to use. Or as one put it - “Decisions are going to based on something. Should they be based on a person’s personal charisma instead?”
Not the attitude I expected from those who shared my belief in the dubious value of large scale rote memorization.
How about an unemployment rate of 3.6%? Seriously, there are plenty of resources you can check for yourself. But, if you really think that the U.S. education system isn’t a dysfunctional mess, we have no common ground on which to begin a discussion.
Just because the US system has problems doesn’t mean the Japanese system is the answer. I don’t see how the unemployment rate is relevant, except that uneducated people (which Japan should have very few of) are hard to employ.
A better indicator might be in how many industries the Japanese economy has grown/created over the past few decades. Basically economic growth.
This is a complex subject and there are not likely to be any easy answers.
(Though you have a good point)
It seems to me that it took me 20 years to recover (to the extent that I have) from the “new math” I got taught in the 1960s.
Number line, though - that’s Rene Descartes, isn’t it? 1750s or thereabouts? I don’t think there’s anything new about teaching the number line… my parents know what it is, and they are in their late 80s. My mother was educated in a one-room schoolhouse. How can anyone ever learn the basics of graphing or co-ordinate systems - or how to use a ruler, for that matter - if they aren’t shown a number line?
First, I assure you, I don’t travel in any “upper echelons” nor will I ever do so, I imagine. 
Maybe you’re right and I’m overstating the problem of bullying, but I think that there are pecking orders in corporate environment, and those who don’t fit in are quickly singled out - maybe not in the same way they were in middle or high school, but there are always ways to make people who don’t fit in feel unwelcome. I’m in academia, a place where we are supposed to be far more enlightened, and I’ve seen the more subtle kind, too. Usually in the form of people talking smack about people they don’t like. It’s about reinforcing the social order, and that is why it still happens in schools and then replicates itself in the rest of life.
That’s a good thing. I think sexism is included in my definition, and in many ways that’s still pretty rampant. the corporate environment I think encourages competition and therefore conformity (this is not true of all corporate environments, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist at all).
this isn’t work, though. It’s a message board. Heated debate is allowed, even calling someone out is allowed. There are things you would say here, that I assume you wouldn’t say at work, right?
I’m still not sure I agree it’s bullying. I do think you can describe the original comment as narcissistic, as it assumes that because the poster thought that because he thought tests were easy, everyone else should too - well, no actually. Not everyone works like that. Calling someone narcissistic after a comment that one viewed as narcissistic in nature doesn’t equal bullying - which is calling someone demeaning names to further put that person down, usually not within the context of a discussion, but just randomly. it is usually aimed at those less powerful than you, in order to enhance your own status within a group or a social pecking order. As long as we have a class system, we’re going to get bullying, I think. As long as we have a society which values some over others, we’ll get bullying. people with some power will continue to exploit those they can in order to make themselves feel more empowered.
I think that @Ygret was pointing out specific behavior. I think you can argue it was caustic or even rude, and it’s bad form, but it’s not bullying.
Just one of many comments on this thread acknowledging that Common Core is a travesty, but blaming it on “the Feds,” “big guvmint bureaucracy” and so on, without acknowledging the corporate money behind these government efforts.
It’s pathetic how conditioned people are to ignore your bolded part. It just goes to show how corporatists have successfully manufactured consent of the masses to treat most government as futile and broken while corporations and destructive megalomaniacs (who despite their public relations serf charities are a massive net loss and drain on society) are to be treated as our glorious saviors.
Yes. We need to somehow reverse the process that’s turned most of us into such easily herded cattle. Can’t someone stop the cowicide?
I’m very sad to say that of the (small number of) people I’ve spoken with who had personal experience being bullied in the workplace, the majority were women in academia. Not a big sample size, and I know a moderate number of academics - but it was horrifying. Certainly I’ve heard (second hand, mind) isolated stories of behaviour that would get any office worker escorted out the door before the end of the day. I guess tenure is not always a force for good.
I will say that business environments do tend to be conformist, but I’ve mostly noticed real difficulties only when cultural or personal differences prevented someone from working well with others, or when there are radically different levels of commitment to the job. However, I do work in a pretty multicultural, cosmopolitan city.
I don’t know the original poster’s motives, but I doubt that if we substituted “music”, “sports” or “programming” for “tests” in the original comment, I don’t think we’d be imputing the same motives into his comment. Once again, I think we’re attributing motives because we’re not fond of the sentiment. Personally, I figured it was a reminder that not every student shared my dislike of tests - useful if we’re discussing policy that affects a large number of students.
The reason I post under my real name (Tom West) is to make me less tempted to fire off verbal abuse, no matter how annoying I find the poster’s content. (Obviously posting under my real name is a luxury not everyone has. Women are far more likely to attract nutcases, for one.) I find the idea that I will be personally associated with the post means I’m forced to reason with the poster as a human being, rather than the collection of evil motives that I’m highly tempted to attribute to them when I first read the post.
In reality, of course, postings have a much smaller bandwidth, so the odds of making an incorrect assessment of the person I am conversing with are higher, which means I should be more cautious about hurling invective, not less. The Internet’s reputation for heated debate is largely due to the fact that one usually escapes the consequences for one’s words. We’re crueler because we can get away with it.
Ygret’s subsequent posting revealed a pleasure over hurting someone because in Ygret’s mind, he deserved it. To me, it had a startling resemblance (albeit writ much smaller) to “I busted him one because he was looking at me funny.” The perpetrator has decided the victim’s motive (disrespect) and is quite satisfied that he’s put the victim in his place. The idea that he could have misread the victim’s motives is entirely absent. (Again, Ygret’s assault is obviously far smaller than actual physical violence - but to me the motivation seems almost identical.)
It’s a problem… I know, sadly.
I use my real first name, too. I’m not making reference to the anonymity factor, but to the context factor. Posting here is a different context, than having a discussion at work, so you’re going to act differently. I’m not saying that you aren’t going to have more or less respect, but human beings act different in different contexts. That’s all I meant.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m just not getting that vibe off @Ygret comments. Harsh, maybe, but not beyond the pale… Maybe I’m wrong, but I just don’t see the bullying you’re seeing. Sorry!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
