Then you get Trump. Congratulations. Trump is your fault, not mine. You made me vote for him. — Hanover

That was supposed to be reverse psychology, dummy.

The schools stop teaching the basic nuts and bolts about the world and decide their role is social engineering. — Hanover

What un said, plus: About the first thing that's done when designing a curriculum is that the underlying ideological basis is decided on. You will be pained to know, I'm sure, that these days that is usually some form of liberal humanism (which is why teachers are not supposed to hit your kids, scream at them or force boring rote-learned work down their throats). And that ideological basis has developed over the years, which is largely why education now in the West is, thankfully, very different from what it was a hundred years ago. So, the social engineering is happening all the time; it's called education policy. And it's never just about neutrally teaching nuts and bolts. There is no perfect neutral standpoint. So, obviously ideological forces fade into the background when you take them for granted, but we're always immersed in them regardless.

I'm not saying that gender-neutral schools are a bad thing. I'm saying that it shouldn't be pushed into all schools, just as I think a certain religious philosophy shouldn't be pushed in all schools. — Harry Hindu

So, who is your foil here? Who is saying that gender-neutral schools are necessarily and unqualifiedly a good thing? What your interlocutors are attempting is more like exploring the grounds on which the subject could be meaningfully debated. What we're getting back in return is an attempt to shut things down on the basis of buzzwords like "authoritarian socialism" etc. So, maybe they represent progress. Maybe not. Shouldn't we explore how we would find the answer to that question?

I'd love to see you address the first question in my post. That is a legitimate question, no? — Harry Hindu

No, because you've missed the context of my conversation with Hanover on what's being problematized and in which culture.

And the rest of your post is an irrelevant rant.

So if you want to respond on the basis of what I wrote, e.g.

I'm not personally an advocate of gender-neutral schools as yet, but I'm curious about the effects and open to being convinced, and I definitely don't find them as frightening an idea as some do. — Baden

The below is my focus which basically amounts to asking on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand in order to determine where education policy should go?

If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me.
— Baden — Baden

Go ahead.

Another pointless non-response based on venting your own prejudice.

Another way of asking this is: How do we get to a point where we can conceive of not inflicting, to the extent that we find them wanting, our cultural identities re gender on our kids?

A lot of chaff among the wheat here. The below is my focus which basically amounts to asking on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand in order to determine where education policy should go?

If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me. — Baden

@Hanover ? @Bitter Crank ?

First of all, I agree parenting is up to the parent within legal limits. And advice is just that, advisory. Never said anything to the contrary.

You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. — Hanover

This is a misrepresentation of the debate we're having. Education is ideological one way or the other. Separating boys and girls is as ideological as mixing them; gender non-neutral schools are as ideological as gender-neutral schools. Getting kids to sing the national anthem at school is enforcing an ideology. Banning it in every school would be enforcing a different one. If your contention is that the prevailing ideology is not an ideology because you're blind to it then you're a classic victim of ideology. So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand.

Why wage this culture war? What do you expect to gain other than polarization? Can you not just let the stupid be stupid? You'll be afforded ample opportunity to smugly declare their stupidity if that's what you need. They're not listening to you anyway. — Hanover

Are you saying rather than change things for the better, we should do the stupid thing because the stupid people won't listen to us anyway? Seems you sorely lack the—how you say?—American can-do attitude. :victory:

I don't see it as an issue of stupidity anyway, but as a lack of openness, which with time can change. Gay marriage was deemed inconceivable just a generation ago and those advocating it were accused of all the things you accused me (or liberals? or academics?) of above. Anyway, I'm not personally an advocate of gender-neutral schools as yet, but I'm curious about the effects and open to being convinced, and I definitely don't find them as frightening an idea as some do. (So, you can still ask me to come babysit without fear I'll turn your son gay by forcing him to play Barbies. :up: )

Beyond this specific argument, in any case, looms the issue of how culture, even namby-pamby culture, imprints sexual identity and where do we go to get an objective a view as possible on what's desirable in that field? The psychologist? The biologist? The philosopher? There's no point looking for a solution to the culture itself to see what it's already doing because that's what's being problematized. If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me.

Well, seeing as their report is supported by 400 scientific references, they have a legitimate right to exert some influence based on its findings imo. That influence is not likely to be decisive given the overall conservative nature of US politics.

Getting back to the Swedish example, which is more interesting to me because it shows what actually happens when theory is put into practice as opposed to what opponents of all things liberal fear will happen, there has been a study (unfortunately not free to access) concerning the results of such policies. Here's a summary of the conclusion:

"While the conclusion suggests we’re genetically prone to immediately ascribe gender categories to others, it also suggests socialized differences can be mitigated. Compared to children from traditional preschools, children from gender-neutral schools were more likely to play with unknown children of another gender — an important finding since, “young children who favor same-gender playmates develop more extreme gender-typed interests and behaviors over time,” the study authors write, citing previous research. The children from gender-neutral schools also held fewer gender stereotypes (e.g., dolls are for girls)."

https://theswaddle.com/the-results-of-extreme-gender-neutral-education/

So problematizing gender categories and acting on that through education policy results, it seems, not in boys and girls not recognizing each other as different, but in:

1) More openness to other genders
2) Fewer gender stereotypes

So, getting back to the OP's hypotheses:

1) To the extent that gender differences are biologically rather than culturally conditioned, gender neutrality in education and wider society will have no effect on personality or identity.

Seems to be borne out by this study re identity at least.

2) To the extent that such differences are culturally conditioned, they are distorting constraints on human freedom, barriers to equality, and potential causes of psychological conflict and trauma.

More controversial. But if one accepts relatively less openness to other genders and more gender stereotypes to be distorting constraints on freedom, to be anti-egalitarian and undesirable psychologically, which seems a not immoderate interpretation, then also borne out.

So, if the fears that gender-neutral schools are a damagingly disruptive form of socialization that perverts our children's genetically programmed understanding of sex differences are wrong, and this form of education merely serves to undermine socialized stereotypes that are a hangover from a less enlightened past, should we not all get on board?

Banned and mass deleted @Evola for being tom/Inis etc.

I also find the level of fear at such stuff as epitomised by the hysterical counter-reaction of Jordan Peterson rather unmanly and suspect said Professor's parents made him wear pink on Sundays or nicknamed him "Jordania" or something.

I expect their bangings on to at least be based on scientific research, which is better than the alternatives on display, and respect their right to bang on each other, and find the vitriol directed at such banging misdirected.

Good parenting is as much based upon personal morality and tradition as it is a science — Hanover

Sure, but if I go to a psychologist, I expect science. If I want personal morality and tradition, I'll consult my conscience, or a priest, or a witchdoctor (depending on my tradition).

They can say whatever they want, but I don't want them making parenting policy for the masses. — Hanover

They're not, they're making policy for psychological practice, i.e. for psychologists, which is what they're supposed to do. Why can't you let them have their cake and you eat yours? Why the defensiveness?

https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/comment-on-the-apa-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-boys-and-men/ — unenlightened

Actually makes my satirical "How dare you! You'll turn them into sissies!" look mild.

Yes, fairly mild liberal stuff from the APA. But that's all it takes for the reactionary hordes, sorry, "scholars" to emerge foaming at the mouth.

Typical example:

"Psychologists strive to build and promote gender-sensitive psychological services."

"It has been suggested that many men do not seek psychological help because services are not in alignment with masculine cultural norms that equate asking for assistance for psychological and emotional concerns with shame and weakness (Addis & Mahalik, 2003). An understanding of gender norms when designing services for boys and men may lead to greater participation among this population (Mahalik et al., 2012)."

Foam-at-the-mouth-reactionary-scholars:

"How dare you! You'll turn them into sissies!"

The offensiveness of seeing a boy clothed in pink is dwarfed by the offensiveness that the schools, the government, or any APA "expert" knows better how to raise my kids and thinks he or she has the right to weigh in on it. — Hanover

These are guidelines for psychologists dealing with kids. And, yes, if someone brings their kid to a psychologist, the presumption is that they want that expert to "weigh in" on things. I'm not seeing the offensiveness here.

If Ireland refuses, too bad for them, they are out. — Evola

This fantasy scenario is based on what? Ireland has been in lockstep with the EU from day one and will continue to be. Over 90% of the Irish want to remain in the EU and the relationship is rock solid. So this idea that it would ever get to the point where Ireland would break from the EU and basically join the UK by having a soft border with them instead of the EU shows a serious lack of understanding of the relationship between Ireland and the UK, and Ireland and the EU (the latter two of which will quietly go behind doors and hammer out an agreement in the worst case no-deal scenario).

But yes, the UK are already signalling there is nowhere for them to go on this and they'll back down.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/05/brexit-latest-newsmay-promises-deal-honours-commitments-northern/

Ireland's not going to get into a kerfuffle with the EU. And it won't have to, seeing as a no-deal would pretty much ensure the Tories lose the next election. Self-preservation will rule and the UK will cave.

Yes, and as a result one can e.g. simultaneously describe something as good (sensually) and not good (morally) without falling into contradiction. Unless some particular sense is specified, asking what is 'good' is bound to lead to confusion.

This is just a rehash of rejected ideas that Ireland and the EU consider unworkable. There was already a real compromise, which was the backstop, and that hasn't been reopened for negotiation. This 'compromise' is an attempt at keeping the warring factions of the Tory party together. The EU is likely to view it as irrelevant internal politics.

Re Inis, I'm not sensing a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth at his departure, so I'll give this another hour or so for further comments and then close up.

I just saw he posted a misleadingly edited version of my PM to him in the abortion discussion too. Right, well...

Banned @Inis for repeatedly reposting a PM I sent him into the Brexit discussion. General mendaciousness and time-wasting also.

So you asked me who Ireland's representative on the EU commission was knowing I'd answer Phil Hogan because he is the Irish commissioner, so that you could then contradict me on the basis that Phil Hogan represents the interests of all the EU not just Ireland. Fascinating. Now beyond trolling, do you have an actual point to make?

Fascinating.

Anyway @Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring.

Fascinating.

"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hogan

Phil Hogan. Why? I mean, judging by his girth he has expansionist aims, but is he antagonistic towards Russia too?

Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state... — Inis

Do you know what those words mean?

.. with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant — Inis

Apparently not. The reference to Russia is telling though.

The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this?

@Wallows

Psychology is a social science, but the same basic principles of deduction and induction apply as do to science in general:

"... inductive and deductive reasoning go hand in hand in theory and model building. Induction occurs when we observe a fact and ask, “Why is this happening?” In answering this question, we advance one or more tentative explanations (hypotheses). We then use deduction to narrow down the tentative explanations to the most plausible explanation based on logic and reasonable premises (based on our understanding of the phenomenon under study). Researchers must be able to move back and forth between inductive and deductive reasoning if they are to post extensions or modifications to a given model or theory, or built better ones, which are the essence of scientific research."

Principles of Social Science Research

You tend to find a significantly higher amount of qualitative vs. quantitative methodology though than in the hard sciences.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html

Hi again. Just wondering about the different theories along the 'What is Happiness' spectrum.
I am not sure whether the views above are at opposite ends. And yours is the middle way? — Amity

I can't lay claim to the middle way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way

I really don't know about the (post) modern culture - is there a specific philosopher I can read about? — Amity

There are many and they might not make sense without context. Best probably to get a general overview and then follow up on the philosophers mentioned.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#2

Also, there's an accessible series of vids of Rick Roderick lectures on YouTube: e.g.

We can have our cake and eat it too! It can be partly exploratory, and partly a thesis. I mean we can make conclusions on what we know about happiness, and leave some wiggle room for some exploratory content, for example, the part of happiness that we are not sure about. — Purple Pond

:up:

Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it. Actually, everyone should just leave their country when growth slows down and come back during the next boom. The IMF projects that that will definitely work.

I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". So, I suggest you Google it. In the meantime, this is what the IMF actually has to say.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/11/13/na111418-uk-economic-outlook-in-six-charts

"The UK is set to exit the EU in March 2019. It is now in the process of negotiating its future relationship with the EU. Growth has moderated since the 2016 referendum, moving the UK from the top to near the bottom of the Group of Seven growth tables. "

"...reverting to WTO trade rules, even in an orderly manner, would lead to long-run output losses for the UK of around 5 to 8 percent of GDP compared to a no-Brexit scenario."

"A worst-case scenario would be a disorderly exit without a transition period. Such an outcome would lead to a sharp fall in confidence and reversal of capital flows, which would affect asset prices and the value of sterling."

EU: Ok, bye then! — Benkei

Exactly. But again it's managed capitulation from May. She must cave but the crazy wing of her party won't let her until the walls are falling in around them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-attorney-jay-sekulows-family-has-been-paid-millions-from-charities-they-control/2017/06/27/6428d988-5852-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.0831a955a97a

https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-hot-topic/donor-alert-39-aclj-39-is-two-charities-dominated-by-one-family/74

Probably all you need to know is:

"Since 1998, ACLJ And Another Charity Have Paid More Than $33 Million To Members OF Jay Sekulow’s Family. "

https://www.hrc.org/resources/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-american-center-for-law-and-justice

I suspect that the ACLJ isn't a reliable source of news. — Michael

It's not a coincidence that the first thing you see when you click on that link is a big green "donate" button. Creating outrage on false premises and then using it to suck money out of the outraged is the modus operandi of creeps like Sekulow.

Which of course makes a nonsense of the whole plan. As in: We promise not to leave the Customs Union if it means instituting a hard border unless you don't agree with us on our proposed solution, in which case we'll go ahead and do what we like.

. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union — Benkei

They want to be able to leave the Customs Union even if Ireland and the EU don't agree to their solutions.

the "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, — Benkei

They're looking for a time-limit and/or a legal guarantee they can unilaterally leave it. Both of which would make it pointless. It's like an insurance company asking if they can not pay you if you have an accident.