Intelligent Chat 2:

Yep

Well, I'm getting in on this _extremely_ late unfortunately, but... Kaitlin, I'm going to try to answer your first question.

Firstly, I am a reincarnationist, so it is with that caveat that I say the following....

I believe that everyone comes into their lifetime with what they have experienced in previous lifetimes. That can obviously be a tremendous lot, or very little depending on the maturity of the soul, but that's a side subject.

So... within the scope of such a soul coming into a new lifetime, I believe that genetics may obviously contribute certain factors to someone's possible behavior. Likewise, the environmental factors of the child (parents, family, or lack of such) also affect a child's development.

Consequently two different souls coming in with different experience could approach the same lifetime situation in considerably different manners. The varied decisions throughout a lifetime shape each individual through that lifetime and into others. Of course, I also believe in factors of karma and dharma, but that can get particularly complicated.

Regardless, all those interactions of factors together are what I feel influence a child's development. The older the soul coming into a lifetime, the less effect I believe a child's environment will have on that child.

Mind you, I say less, not none. Life experiences will always have their own effects, obviously, otherwise what's the point of the lessons of a lifetime on the evolution of that soul.

There... considering the subject, that's a _very_ curt response without much explanatory detail.

P.S.: YAY Oregonians! ;)

Donald, i agree with you, as things stand now, we need armed protectors, but thats only because for centuries, the social and interpersonal aspects of society have been neglected in favour of Empire expansion and military and scientific development. So, we are at present better and more focussed on fighting, conquest and dominance then we are at talking, healing and diplomacy.

I wouldn't stand by in the street and let anyone be attacked, and if i had to use some kind of weapon other than my hands i would if it meant saving someones life from an attacker. The point i'm trying to make is that the problems of the world are not ever going to be solved with force or rules, only understanding and education will bring about something akin to world peace. So, we have a world that is set up based on controlling the masses[ foreign and domestic] using fear and force. The fear can be anything from fear of losing your home if you don't pay your bills to fear of prison if you break the laws of the land, enforced by the police and army.

So when i say i don't support the army, i'm only aiming for a higher ideal, which i believe is not based on weak assumption and frail hopes, it's based on a new way of doing things...this way would never work in a military world, i know this, but if things where changed, if the focus was shifted then there would be little or no need for armies. I hope everyone in here would yearn for such a time.

I guess i'd like you and Bret to say that even though you are part of the system of which i oppose [ and i don't oppose anyone serving in it directly] you still think it more important to strive for peace using alternatives to violence and fear, without resorting to the old fashioned;

"well, it's just how the world is, there are bad people and if we don't stop them who will" response...things change, but only if we actively make an effort...it would be an amazing thing for the army to change from inside. Those bad people are products of poor education and social famine, if they were better fed in all regards, you'd never have to point a gun at them.

Maybe things have gone so far down the dark path that the only way things are going to change now is by the use of brute force, both military and political, with some kind of balance occuring after the blowout....i hope this isn't the case.

"well, it's just how the world is, there are bad people and if we don't stop them who will"

You call it old fashioned, I call it personal experience.

Fear is the last thing on my mind, it is counter productive especially when working a hearts and minds campaign like in Sierra Leone. Fighting and bloodshed is only aspect of the Army (as previously stated) and I have said what you want to hear already in a round about way.

I think you should seriously study what the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom has achieved in the last twenty years alone. They are not called the world's most professional without just cause.

Frank: Your response was wonderfully illustrated, and myself, also being a reincarnationist, agree with you full heartedly.

I agree with both Bret and Kevin, for whatever my humble opinion is worth, and I see both of their points as valid. The only difference is that unless a huge percentage, and I will call it "critical mass," of the people in this world subscribe to his theories (which I find to be correct) there will be no change. There is a point of critical mass in which all ideals of the world shift, but until that point a few people (world leaders) influence, and for all intents and purposes brain wash, their people into warped ideals and philosophies that serve THEIR purpose, not the world’s purpose.

Religion does the same thing. Each group of people that belong to a "definition" ("American," "Catholic," "Jehovas Witness," "An Eagle" [from a school basketball team]), will follow the ideas presented by their leader, president, Pope, coach, etc. so if the leader instills the "fighting" spirit for defense and conquer over the other groups or teams, that sick cycle lives on. Not to mention that this form of brain washing is targeted at men, who’s testosterone levels are quickly fooled into defending and attacking when their mind is made to believe a certain thing, and they get killed for it.

My point is that until there is a world leader who believes in ONLY peace, that has no weapons, that has a large number of people, and that does not piss anyone off, being fair and just to the citizens of their country, no other country will change.

This country must be influential enough to show to the rest of the world that things can be done another way, but the problem is that there are no countries like this now, and no one wants to be the first to try it and get their asses blown up.

To do so would be to run a risk, but the pay off would be showing the world that you can operate in peace.

Now here is the next problem: The whole world puts down their weapons and Bin Laden strikes again. What happens now? Do we sit him down and ask him why he attacked us, like a 4 year old hitting his sister? Do we attack his country and punish his people? NO. We lock Bin Laden up. The world leaders are the ones who are accountable for their people's and military's actions, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is always a deranged and power hungry world leader coming right up behind the previous.

We cannot make war go away totally when there is insecurity. If no country was insecure and if every country felt like they had no enemies there would be no need for any means of defense, but how do you instill security in a world like the one we live in? Everyone isn’t going to destroy their weapons, because everyone wants to be prepared. If there IS an attack, we want to be able to defend ourselves. Well that is an insecure mentality, sure, its being prepared for the worst, but it works against a peaceful and cohesive multi national society that only deals with peace.

So, how does anyone think that we should proceed? The UN, certain countries... etc. If you had the power to influence this type of change, what would be your next step?

I wouldn't change a thing. The slightest imbalance to the world as it is now will lead to a total economic collapse of some kind somewhere in the world. This will lead to war as it invariably does and has done.

For Miles (and everyone else too!):

I love your idea of old souls. One question though, how is a new soul created? I would imagine that with the population boom we have seen since WW2 (An increase of 2 BILLION people in the last 20 years alone, a whopping 50% increase.) that every soul that has ever been on bound to earth must be on earth right now.

Also are souls restricted to this planet, or are souls free to experience life in different planets, galaxies and so on?

I know you asked Frank, technically, but I have something to say about the subject, so I'll interject.

And other races do die out or lessen when there are wars, etc. (other planets, I mean), and their population goes through shifts as well, just like ours.

Souls are not restricted to Earth, there are millions of planets inhabiting life throughout the glalaxies and universes. Also bearing in mind that everything has energy, and that is all a soul is, so new souls dont get created, souls and consciousness transcends and manifests. There is an infinate amount of energy in the universe, and therefor infinate souls.

If there are endless souls more must be created all the time, hence we must have new souls.

How do you know anything about what you just said Kaitlin?

I mean no offence, but once again, you are speaking in an authorititive manner on subjects not even the most learned thinkers of our time are sure of. One can only speculate, and whilst you may be doing this, it doesn't appear so.

Faith and beliefs exclude the need for ifs.

if you believe it you believe it, simple as that.

No, it's only preaching if someone was to say not only do I believe it, but you MUST too. That's preaching.

Anything to further the minds of our future leaders ; )

I want to know when I ever claimed to be an authority on any subject or represent any opinions or facts other than my own.

(DISCLAIMER) I would also like to say that obviously nothing that is said is anything other than my pure opinion, undiluted, and not representative of any fact other than of my own perception.

This is my understanding of how the Universe works, of which I have done a lot of independent research.

I realize, my elfen friend, that you get easily thrown off by my seeming so sure of my opinion of subjects so philosophical and arguable, but considered I have tried to independly weigh the possibilities and find the answers I find most suit the subjects, I dont have a problem with my seeming "authoritative," because I am, after all, the authority of my own mind and opinion.

Anyone is more than welcome to dispute my opinion and present their own, however I would also like to say that I am not the way I am for lack of research, intellect, or interest.

And your opinion on the subject, All Done?

No offence Kaitlin, but i'll repeat my question.

How do you know the truth of anything you spoke of in your previous post, the one about souls and energy?

The fact thats it's your personal opinion, created from the desire to understand the world around you, is all well and good, but it still does not answer the question, despite your academic research approach to this subject, of how you actually know any of it to be true? I can read something in a paper or book, and though it makes sense in the context of the authors vision, and it may even fit in place with all the other small schema's i have of the world, i still don't know it to be true until i experience it for myself....and given that you're talking about soul rebirth and reincarnation, i find it alarming that you sound so sure.

Maybe it's that elusive "faith" thing Bret mentioned, that if you believe in something then you just know it's true....well....there have been many cultists, scientists, philosophers, military leaders and pretty much anyone who's ever put forth a theory,who've had that certainty and been wrong.

I admire your search, i really do, especially at such a young age, just be careful what you take for granted as fact, because as i'm sure you know, the facts we have faith in tend to shape how we act.

Even Jesus asked "what if", go figure.

Fact and belief are two very different things. Faith implies belief in something that cannot always be proven.

Just because one or two posts did not not contain a certain conjugative does not mean Kaitlin thinks it is fact. I believe it is amazingly naive to think such and then ask a question based on that, but that does not make it fact, it's still opinion.

I'm not sure what you're saying there Bret old boy? It seems you agree with me at first, because Kaitlins post was full of what seemed like facts straight from a book, and i questioned her belief in these things are facts.

The very fact Kaitlins post didn't contain any conjugatives [good word] is a strong indicator that she thinks of these things as fact, i have no idea, all i have is her words. You assume, i assume, it's all we can do if we mean to respond in earnest from our own points of view. If I was to say;

"The moon is made of cheese, stilton in fact, and it tastes like poo"

You would be forgiven for assuming i thought this to be fact, and was not, as no indication of my having read this statement somewhere is included, just passing on a theory, or random thought based on a humble observation i'd made. If you present something without doubt or alternative possiblity, you shouldn't be upset when someone like me asks you how you know this?

Ps,I didn't understand the bit where you called me naive....i didn't get that at all...which may suggest you're right.

The naivitey is just an indication that you neither subscribe to or believe in faith in as a concept, which is upheld by your answer.

This is not to say you are naive just your take on things is different to mine. Just as my faith is considered illogical (and perhaps naive) by yourself.

Assumption and, more importantly, perception play huge roles.

Bret you've lost me completely, i have no idea what you're talking about...

I'm just a simple fella, speak plain man!

I've said it before; I'll say it now.

"I may come to find that I am just as full of it as I find you people to be"

I said that in a theological discussion on one of these forums, and it is still a relevant comment now.

Nothing can be known for sure- ever. That is the basic state of the human condition, constantly searching for truth, that's where God comes into the equation. We would all like to think we know the truth over anyone else, and if some of us have a direct link with God it takes the fear out of the unknown, for the simple reason that God knows all.

That’s the basis of religion or any form of spiritual faith.

The bottom line is that throughout the course of my spirituality I have come to find things for myself, disregard what others have told me, absorb information from THIS book, and THAT book, watch THIS movie, and listen to a lecture about THIS subject, and have only come to find that my knowledge leaves more questions than validates answers.

I started down this rabbit hole thinking it wasn’t nearly as deep as I thought it to be; it keeps getting deeper and darker.

I am not an authority on any subject, but I know a lot about a lot of things (especially for my age), and I am always willing to listen to a well put forth argument or discovery in hopes it will answer more of my questions; because I have tons.

I know nothing for fact, but at this point in time I have a perspective of how the Universe works, and I am sure it will shift, as I am only human.

But am I sure of the knowledge I have gathered? Of course. I wouldn’t have searched and absorbed so much of it if I wasn’t hoping to come to a conclusion. So I will repeat- dispute my opinions if you think I am wrong. Research them if you think that there is a better way, but don’t get on my ass strictly because my confidence of philosophical subjects puts you off. My confidence is well founded, and I am not being egotistic, I just know what I have put into my study and I find myself to be a reliable resource for unbiased information and theory- and it helps that I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and that there is a huge possibility that I am not 100% correct, and would love to find as much of the truth as is possible; so if you have some truth, bring it forth. I would love to hear what your philosophy is, because at the end of the day- I have just as many questions as the next person.

Kaitlin, it's not your confidence that puts me off.

No one here is in any doubt that you're a smart cookie, or that your opinions are anything but well thought out. If we were discussing eating, or walking, or something you've actually done, then you could be as full on as you liked and no one could really dispute your experience, your opinion maybe, but not your experience.

I think the problem here is that you have mistaken, or tend to describe knowledge in the same way as experience. That you know so many facts from books and other sources is a credit to your search, i know the feeling of the rabbit hole as well, i'm still waiting for the light at the end and i could quite easily rant on about how i think the world works, paranormal and normal. I just can't be sure outside my own experience what is an absolute truth enough to say to someone else

"this is how this works fur sure because i have researched it"

There is a certain responsibility in communicating theories i think. They should be conveyed in a gentle manner that still leaves it up to the mind of each person who reads or hears the theory. Not everyone is held so firm in themselves as i am, some might read your words and take them for gospel, perhaps even cease to search for themselves. I'm being dramatic here, but, I believe i have a valid point.

I mean no offence, maybe i will share some of my beliefs with you, you seem to have enough of your own that i wouldn't effect you in any convertish type way.

It just rattles me bones to hear anyone who's not a God talk about "how things are" in the Universe.

I understand what you mean, I think that sometimes I get carried away with thinking everyone is as unphazed as I am by people seeming confident about subjects. I always double-check opinions and references before I believe in them myself.

I am a free thinker, the last thing I want to do is to put a box around other people's minds. That is why I believe religion is the biggest source of mental and spiritual destruction, simply because it cuts people off from self-discovery. I do not intend to do so, in any facet, to anyone.

My words are far from Gospel, they are my opinion. That being said, the Gospel holds no "for sure" fact in it either, so the reference is self-defeating. I urge everyone to make up their own minds, but when someone asks a question and I believe I have found MY personal answer, I am more than willing to share it.

Seeing your point (and trying not to be hard headed ;) ), I will try to open up any philosophical statements with "I think," or "My opinion," instead of directly answering the question, just so that no one thinks that my opinion is fact. That should alleviate the problem, yes? Your point is valid, I tend to always think I am talking to people too much like yourself and mine, to get swayed by confidence and let it jeopardize their independent thinking.

(Disclaimer) ->MY OPINION: (gotta love it…)

I would also like to point out, however, that experience does not lead to clarity of mind. For instance (and I am using this as an example because it is still relative to me) people can have sex and still not be able to describe it as well as I can, or even know as much about it, even though I have never had the physical experience myself and they have. It is not always the experience that grants the knowledge; it is a deeper psychological understanding and the boundaries of the mind. Metaphysically speaking, the same situation applies. I know many more of the technical aspects than many people do who have done things that I have not, although I do have first hand experience with most of the metaphysical and paranormal subjects of which I speak.

Common sense, education, and logical ability, determine understanding of a subject, not necessarily physical experience. It is the mental framework of the experience that dictates its relevance and general understanding.

Plus if everyone were afraid to put forth theories and seem confident about them, philosophical boundaries would never be broken.

Ok Kevin,

You believe in logic without faith. (Anything that cannot be explained with logic and physical evidence cannot exist.)

I believe in logic and faith. (Anything that cannot be explained with logic and physical evidence can exist, we just haven't attained that level of understanding yet.)

I considered your belief that Kaitlin was speaking as though it was fact to be naive.

You consider my faith in there being a God to be naive also.

Our conflicting attitudes on life are neither wrong or right, they just lead to interesting debate some or most of the time.

No Bret, i believe Faith without some logic to it is illogical.

But rock on bro.

ok, i just read every word everyone wrote on this whole page.

and i agree/disagree with some of it.

but i have a new topic thats very controversial and i would love to get some feedback from it.

if i could have the permission to start a new debate...i will

thank you

Go for it Laura-

The faith conundrum will always be there to pick up on another post, or this one later on. It's inevitable.

Also, Kevin, I believe that faith without logic is illogical as well.

But that is the basis of all faith.

Both you and Bret are 100% correct (in my humble opinion)

Kevin, only going by the info I had. But fair enough... looks like we're opposite sides of the same coin.

Laura, please do, I wait with baited breath.

Nae bother Mr man, we're like two bad ass tough guys in some mince 80's film who spend the first hour beating on each other, only to realize they are both the good guys and on the same team.

Your place or mine?

ok, so heres the new topic.

Inter-racial Relationships. are they right or wrong? whats wrong with them (if anything) why or why shouldnt you agree with them? is it something God wouldnt want?

I have been talking about this a lot lately around my friends and family and i have gotten some interesting feedback so im excitedly waiting your response.

thank you.

Interracial relationships, not a problem with me. God doesn't see colour, God sees souls.

Chris Waite was the best teacher I ever had. Very kinesthetic and audible in that he'd not only make us read the book, but make us read aloud in a group. 1984 and Animal Farm being our two GSCE subjects (Orwell is superb). We'd either be given parts/roles to read or take it turns reading paragraphs.

But he'd take it further. He was never happy with the usual droning of the words, but make us give emotion to the books too. Napoleon in Animal Farm would have a northern accent, or any accent we wanted to inject to his character. It made his class the only one I WANTED to go to.

I was never much of a writer as a kid, but I've always remembered the spirit of his teaching and that has spurred me on as I have got older.

Kev, do you got Hobgoblin dark ale up in the nether regions?

Interracial relationships- no problem. Having a problem with them is ignorance at its least evolved.

To the learning, good question JPM. Personally I only learn something if either I have interest in it or if someone sits me down and MAKES me focus, otherwise I really couldn’t care less. I have natural aptitude for things, or I push it aside and there is no way to get me to absorb any of it. I don’t really fit into any of the 3 groups because I can learn any of the ways, but only if my interest lies in the subject. If I don’t have natural curiosity, there is no hope of wedging any of it into my brain- regardless of how many teachers ever tried.

That being said, I think hard headedness is a problem in the school system, but I also think that the useless junk that they are stuffing into kids' heads these days strikes them as just what it is.... useless junk. If kids thought that they were going to use it more, they would care more. That’s the largest part of schools defection, I believe.

I think that each teacher teaches based upon their learning style, I don’t think that schools necessarily cater to one style over the other, because it is very individual to the teacher.

For instance, the most fun teacher, and my favorite teacher, I ever had had serious ADD, so for the sake of keeping HIMSELF focused he had to keep things pretty entertaining. His style was lecture based, but he made us all do "active" reading in our English books to make sure that our brains were thinking about the important parts, looking up words, etc. (active reading is making notes and marks all over the page, dissecting it to its smallest bits and details).

My school was very good at catering to all learning styles, and the teachers would do whatever they had to do to get the information to stick. They understood that some kids needed to fidget and doodle while others needed to be totally silent and focused, that for some students, taking notes distracts them more than helps them. I think that if all schools were more focused on individual learning styles, versus the 3 categories, that it would help very much.

The best thing that they could do, in my opinion, is to use all 3 styles and keep the classes interesting, not just lecture, not just notes, not just group projects, etc. but a mixture of all the above, because in life, we will have to use all 3, and no one will cater to you because you can only use one. I think it would do a disservice to kids to raise them adapting to them, when they will in turn have to adapt to the world and deal with people of every style. They need to learn to make due.

Anyone else have an opinion?

Hmm I am inclined to disagree with a school wide weekly award because it will become an elitist affair rather quickly. In my school if you weren't in the top ten percent then you didn't warrant any extra attention, when it should have been the other way around.

This kind of award should be on a parental basis. Family encouragement is better as it gets the parents involved with their child's learning too.

I have a strong feeling that you'll be closely involved with your childrens education, Matt, because you have a strong interest in your kids and education. I think you'll be using a reward system whether a school incorporated a similar idea or not.

The only problem with that, is that like yourself, I was too smart for my own good.

I learned very quickly what you did, I would not be held back a grade by not getting good grades. I could do the minimal amount of work; have to deal with a little bull from the teachers, but still pass. I also learned that my charm and my intelligence had many more logical uses than math homework. I learned how to work people, I learned how to work people VERY WELL; which I see as a bonus, because the kids that are stuck in school that are too smart for their own good will learn other things about life that the other kids are too busy doing a lab project where they heat up a balloon or something.

I never fell for the instant gratification. The system didn’t work for me like it worked for you. The only thing that EVER motivated me was my own interest, and it didn’t matter the punishment or the reward- hence "hardheadedness is the biggest problem in our school system," (I said something to that affect in my above post). If anything, putting a carrot in front of me made me resent that the teacher didn’t see my point of view or respect my mind, and I would do EVERYTHING I could NOT to do the work.

You couldn’t make me work for an award to save my life. And the kids like that, what can you do with? Nothing. You've got to hope that they make it through alright and make good choices.

I agree that moving kids up and around different classes isolates them, it creates friction with the other children, etc. but the award system will only work for about 98% of the kids, whereas the smart hardheaded kids will be left in the dust. Of course you have to cater to the mass populace, that’s not an issue. But I think most kids need more attention from their teachers and adults around them. That alone would solve many issues.

Parents also don’t value their children’s educations enough, they aren’t pushing reading like your parents did, JPM, they are concerned with dinner and plugging the kids into the TV so that they can have lives or can rest because they are overworked- they are spreading their bull down to their kids, and impacting them negatively, but what can they do? They are people too, they want happiness, free time, relaxation, etc. but the school system is designed to be carried out at HOME, hence homework and parent teacher conferences.

My parents stopped caring if I did the work and never pushed me to read, which for me, wasn’t a bad thing, but for most kids, its a detriment.

The problem that I see with an award system is its just like honor roll. Some kids will be inclined to do it, some wont, but it will put most of the kids out, and they will stop caring. Education has to be more personal.

I agree with what you are trying to say.

The reason that I am free thinking and willing to argue with adults today is because my school ENCOURAGED us to compete with the teachers, prove them wrong, tell them "no," express our individuality. We were CONSTANTLY having debates, with the teachers and with our classmates, discussions, group projects, etc. We were out to prove that WE could think for ourselves, not necessarily that we could memorize the Corinthians in Greek (although we were supposed to do that too...). Now I know I may not seem like the best example. The last thing we need is a whole bunch of snot nosed 16 year olds running around arguing with people and having such cut and dry opinions, but on the contrary, I think it has made me a better person and will make me a better adult.

Schools should be more open, and more focused on child development than child restriction and hindrance for the sake of the teachers’ prerogative or ego problem.

About me individually, I am just too hard headed for my own good. NO material reward or punishment has ever done more than PISS ME OFF and make whoever enforced or offered regret it, but that's just me. Most kids aren’t like that. For instance my dad has a standing offer with me that when I finish my last correspondence packet (for high school) and graduate (I tell people I have already graduated because I only have 1 credit left) that he will get me a brand new Lexus of my choice. Now most kids would get their asses right into action... not me. It made me resent the fact that he thought I would be SO shallow and I have not finished my high school for the last 4 months STRICTLY BECAUSE IT WAS INCENTIVE.

I am VERY possessive over my mind and my actions, and even though I will have to finish the one credit eventually and the logical thing to do would be to finish it as soon as possible and then get my car, I will hold off as long as I can just because he did that @#%&$%. I am in charge of my mind, my body, and my actions, and I am not swayed. This "hardheadedness" is to my own detriment. I am crazy to let it stand in the way of my shiny new car... plus I will have to finish it anyway... but he shouldn’t have "carroted" me!!!! I resent that.

Again, most kids are not like me. Their mental pride is not so much that they would not perform for an award or a car, but mine is.

I agree full heartedly about open discussions and challenges in the classrooms though. My school was always run very "college" style, and I benefited from it because I am more independent mentally and physically. It would be a great thing to instill in kids, but I don’t know if the average kid could handle it. I went to a private school where all the kids were brilliant and generally mature. I don’t know if it would work for the "run of the mill kid," because even though you would have benefited from it, JPM, you were not the average kid and are not the average person. Society doesn’t cater to the extraordinary.

In psychological research, where reward schemes have been put in place, there is a marked improvement in behaviour and performance in tasks related to the rewards, but, personally i think that if teachers were given more support, wages and teaching freedom they would be better equiped to instill in their students a love for learning where the carrot system wasn't needed. It's worth considering the negative reactions of the reward scheme, which include the expectation of reward in every area of life, especially the younger the individual is exposed to the system, and yes indeedy, elitism of a kind.

In short, reward schemes seem like a kind of last resort in place of inspired teaching.

Well, JPM, what do you think of the honor role system? Not advanced classes for them, but just the bumper sticker for your moms’ car and honorable mention somewhere, maybe some other “carrots” for a good GPA?

Because I think that the GPA doesn’t matter, necessarily. I look at the kids with the good GPAs in most cases and think, “What idiots. They couldn’t think for themselves if they tried, and that was if they wanted to.” I think that there is far too much emphasis on grades and performance than on independent thinking and life skill development. Especially considering that very little of what is learned in high school is relevant to real life, let alone helpful in many fashions.

At the same time, there has to be a system set up to rate how a child is doing in school, and it has to be fair. Now, I think that the grading system is incredibly defunct and biased. For instance, I only did an average of one assignment out of every 9 I was given, and I pretty much failed every test, needless to say I was getting the grades of a dipstick, but all my teachers knew I was nothing of the sort. I had personal relationships with them, I worked them, they knew how intelligent I was, and I performed well in class, so my grades were marked NA. Not applicable!!! I never got one “F” even though everyone knew I deserved one, based upon favoritism and potential. Was that fair to the kids who struggled and worked their butts off and got Cs? (At my school C was the average, because the grading system was so steep) No. It wasn’t necessarily fair, but what can you do?

Each child is SO individual that I don’t think any sort of SYSTEM is going to fix it. Individual attention and adaptation on the teachers’ parts. More incentive for them, but at the same time, these people should have passion for teaching children and for challenging them to GROW, not just absorb information and then regurgitate it on a test.

“Catch a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time.”

Same concept, teach a child to think for themselves, they will be fine. Tell a child what to think about each individual situation, and leave them lost at sea with no fish in sight.

Personal responsibility needs to be heightened as well. I also think that kids need to be able to go into what they are interested in, considering high school is pretty much a waste of time anyway. Internships (another thing my school did), specialty classes, guest speakers and lectures you could choose to go to… those were all things my school did that worked BEAUTIFULLY, and the kids at my school are SO MUCH better prepared for it.

Now keep in mind my school costs about $25,000 annually to attend. So how can we get the same kind of environment publically? Is it the MONEY that makes it work, or is it the wrong people with the wrong philosophies heading the school systems?

It seems like schools try to make us into robots, when needless to say, we are not. Catering to individuality in an environment with checks and balances will help, because as was agreed upon earlier, society does not cater to the extraordinary, we need to be able to argue, dig deep, find the truth, look into philosophy, let the kids make up their own minds and CHALLENGE each other, like they will be challenged in the world.

I think COMPETITION is the best motivator, not carrots, personally.

Its like the "clicker" system with puppies.

Anyone ever seen that? You are training a puppy and then make a click sound whenever the puppy does something right.

I wonder how well that would work on a kid.... hmmm...

lmao