The main reason we had rules to force kids to attend primary school was to make obedient soldier citizens to support their nation in time of war. This effect was even stronger for democracies: Using data from the last 150 years in a small set of countries, and from the postwar period in a large set of countries, we show that large investments in state primary education systems tend to occur when countries face military rivals or threats from their neighbors. By contrast, we find that democratic transitions are negatively associated with education investments, while the presence of democratic political institutions magnifies the positive effect of military rivalries. …
Louis Vuitton Replicas true that you could be obviously influenced to move on with the selection of the proper accessories because one there’s a chance you’re obtaining with you won’t match with the newest outfits where you may be obviously compelled in carrying on the looking for the new ones with the passage of time.
"military success" does not equal societal success. On paper the Roman empire still had the most dominant military the world had ever seen when it fell. They overspent on that conquest machine & on opulence at home until there was no more money to pay the soldiers & the whole thing started falling apart.
Surprisingly, societies which glorified their own survival are the ones we see surviving. Or do I mean not surprisingly?
Education is supported by governments and required to instill the values of the government. Another great surprise, societies which make a point of propagating their values in to their citizens are the ones we see surviving.
I don't mean to diminish Robin's post as much as the reaction of some readers that somehow seeing schools supporting the military success of a society is some scandalous discovery, as opposed to most likely the minimum you would expect in a society that survives in a competitive world. The reality is... reality. There are no surviving institutions that do not practice a glorification of their own values and glorification of those who give their lives for the insititutions.
I don't understand Michael Vasser's comment (is the answer "peace"?) but I didn't mean to suggest we should think more highly of war. I meant rather that we might associate this linkage between primary school enrollment and war with other war-linked innovations (radar, nuclear power, etc.) that are already accepted as having provided peacetime benefits.
No, in Europe no longer existent nations such as Latvia –Poland and Austria –Hungary had powerful interests such as the church and aristocracies, which inhibited universal education and the development of nationalism and capitalism. Education was run by the church and anti-business aristocrats opposed a unified central state which would reduce its powers. Successful states used capitalists to pay for its armies and wanted workers to think of themselves as members of the nation. Capitalists and educated workers could be taxed to support a strong military.
So it was not a choice between “We don’t want no thought control” and being made educated robot soldiers. Those who didn’t participate in nation building became the satellites and slaves of the ones who did. Being a flower child was not an option. I don’t agree with the tenor of the statement that:“The main reason we had rules to force kids to attend primary school was to make obedient soldier citizens to support their nation in time of war. This effect was even stronger for democracies”
Yes, of course. But conditional on the original author forgetting, I think it's acceptable for commenters to just ask, rather than being expected to track it down themselves. It's not because it is hard to track down (though it often is); even if it is easy to track down, one may wish to discuss the sources as a means for affiliating and interacting with the others who read/write a post.
Isn't it more efficient for the writer of an article to include the obvious links (the writer already has the links handy) rather than for a number of readers to need to search for the links?
Re: "Overall, our empirical results indicate a causal relationship from rivalry to primary educational enrollment. …"
Can someone who has read the paper please summarize the authors' reasons for asserting that the empirical results do in fact indicate the causal relationship they describe?
Are you saying that citing research is irrelevant because “you could find studies that ‘prove’ pretty much everything you want”. Isn’t that anti-intellectual?
I'm saying that citing a few studies that show statistical correlation between certain variables out of a larger body of literature in order to support an overarching ideological point is probably not very scientifically appropriate.
For instance, in the post about the good effects of religion, he cited studies which, IIUC, refer to the US and East European countries, while neglecting to mention other studies that show a positive correlation between atheism and high standard of living at country-level, and individual-level negative correlation between atheism and imprisonment.
But to respond to your criticism more directly, criticizing academia, claiming that religion is (sometimes) positive, or criticizing the origins of public education are not the same as criticizing intellectualism.
Not necessarily, but I'm starting to see a pattern.
Personally, I’ve certainly managed to learn a lot outside of academia or public schooling. I think you’re disparaging others by implying that the same isn’t true for them as well.
I don't doubt that, but how much of the knowledge you gained was created by people who were not academics, or were not educated in public schools and universities?
Hanson is brilliant because he is able to force everything through a few orifices. Near-far, Forager-farmer,Signaling that we care, etc.He is not so good at expanding those orifices. So he kind is like a priest or rabbi. Whoops, I may be mixing up too many metaphors.
Did you read your own comment? Are you saying that citing research is irrelevant because "you could find studies that 'prove' pretty much everything you want". Isn't that anti-intellectual?
But to respond to your criticism more directly, criticizing academia, claiming that religion is (sometimes) positive, or criticizing the origins of public education are not the same as criticizing intellectualism. Personally, I've certainly managed to learn a lot outside of academia or public schooling. I think you're disparaging others by implying that the same isn't true for them as well.
So, maybe it's not just you that thinks Robin is leaning towards anti-intellectualism, but I think you and anyone else that agrees with that sentiment is mistaken.
There is nothing anti-intellectual about asking that education become something we are drawn to in real life instead of by rows in classrooms. The main reason so many bookstores disappeared in the South was the fact that people already felt forced to read segments of books in the schools of which too many people had already fought over the contents. Plus, organization can happen for education at community levels, in ways far more spontaneous than - as I remember one first grader telling my mother, I'm at the head of the class. Your daughter is at the tail of the class.
Louis Vuitton Replicas true that you could be obviously influenced to move on with the selection of the proper accessories because one there’s a chance you’re obtaining with you won’t match with the newest outfits where you may be obviously compelled in carrying on the looking for the new ones with the passage of time.
"military success" does not equal societal success. On paper the Roman empire still had the most dominant military the world had ever seen when it fell. They overspent on that conquest machine & on opulence at home until there was no more money to pay the soldiers & the whole thing started falling apart.
Surprisingly, societies which glorified their own survival are the ones we see surviving. Or do I mean not surprisingly?
Education is supported by governments and required to instill the values of the government. Another great surprise, societies which make a point of propagating their values in to their citizens are the ones we see surviving.
I don't mean to diminish Robin's post as much as the reaction of some readers that somehow seeing schools supporting the military success of a society is some scandalous discovery, as opposed to most likely the minimum you would expect in a society that survives in a competitive world. The reality is... reality. There are no surviving institutions that do not practice a glorification of their own values and glorification of those who give their lives for the insititutions.
I don't understand Michael Vasser's comment (is the answer "peace"?) but I didn't mean to suggest we should think more highly of war. I meant rather that we might associate this linkage between primary school enrollment and war with other war-linked innovations (radar, nuclear power, etc.) that are already accepted as having provided peacetime benefits.
Robin has since updated his post to include a link to the paper. This is a good thing that might not have happened if commenters didn't ask about it.
No, in Europe no longer existent nations such as Latvia –Poland and Austria –Hungary had powerful interests such as the church and aristocracies, which inhibited universal education and the development of nationalism and capitalism. Education was run by the church and anti-business aristocrats opposed a unified central state which would reduce its powers. Successful states used capitalists to pay for its armies and wanted workers to think of themselves as members of the nation. Capitalists and educated workers could be taxed to support a strong military.
So it was not a choice between “We don’t want no thought control” and being made educated robot soldiers. Those who didn’t participate in nation building became the satellites and slaves of the ones who did. Being a flower child was not an option. I don’t agree with the tenor of the statement that:“The main reason we had rules to force kids to attend primary school was to make obedient soldier citizens to support their nation in time of war. This effect was even stronger for democracies”
It isn't really obvious what counterfactual to 'war and threat of war' is being entertained here.
Yes, of course. But conditional on the original author forgetting, I think it's acceptable for commenters to just ask, rather than being expected to track it down themselves. It's not because it is hard to track down (though it often is); even if it is easy to track down, one may wish to discuss the sources as a means for affiliating and interacting with the others who read/write a post.
So, does universal/compulsary education tend to make people into more tractable and/or effective soldiers?
It would be amusing if preparing for war wasn't about war.
Isn't it more efficient for the writer of an article to include the obvious links (the writer already has the links handy) rather than for a number of readers to need to search for the links?
Re: "Overall, our empirical results indicate a causal relationship from rivalry to primary educational enrollment. …"
Can someone who has read the paper please summarize the authors' reasons for asserting that the empirical results do in fact indicate the causal relationship they describe?
Are you saying that citing research is irrelevant because “you could find studies that ‘prove’ pretty much everything you want”. Isn’t that anti-intellectual?
I'm saying that citing a few studies that show statistical correlation between certain variables out of a larger body of literature in order to support an overarching ideological point is probably not very scientifically appropriate.
For instance, in the post about the good effects of religion, he cited studies which, IIUC, refer to the US and East European countries, while neglecting to mention other studies that show a positive correlation between atheism and high standard of living at country-level, and individual-level negative correlation between atheism and imprisonment.
But to respond to your criticism more directly, criticizing academia, claiming that religion is (sometimes) positive, or criticizing the origins of public education are not the same as criticizing intellectualism.
Not necessarily, but I'm starting to see a pattern.
Personally, I’ve certainly managed to learn a lot outside of academia or public schooling. I think you’re disparaging others by implying that the same isn’t true for them as well.
I don't doubt that, but how much of the knowledge you gained was created by people who were not academics, or were not educated in public schools and universities?
He is not so good at expanding those orifices. So he kind is like a priest or rabbi.
[very politically uncorrect and possibly offensive joke suppressed... :) ]
Hanson is brilliant because he is able to force everything through a few orifices. Near-far, Forager-farmer,Signaling that we care, etc.He is not so good at expanding those orifices. So he kind is like a priest or rabbi. Whoops, I may be mixing up too many metaphors.
Did you read your own comment? Are you saying that citing research is irrelevant because "you could find studies that 'prove' pretty much everything you want". Isn't that anti-intellectual?
But to respond to your criticism more directly, criticizing academia, claiming that religion is (sometimes) positive, or criticizing the origins of public education are not the same as criticizing intellectualism. Personally, I've certainly managed to learn a lot outside of academia or public schooling. I think you're disparaging others by implying that the same isn't true for them as well.
So, maybe it's not just you that thinks Robin is leaning towards anti-intellectualism, but I think you and anyone else that agrees with that sentiment is mistaken.
There is nothing anti-intellectual about asking that education become something we are drawn to in real life instead of by rows in classrooms. The main reason so many bookstores disappeared in the South was the fact that people already felt forced to read segments of books in the schools of which too many people had already fought over the contents. Plus, organization can happen for education at community levels, in ways far more spontaneous than - as I remember one first grader telling my mother, I'm at the head of the class. Your daughter is at the tail of the class.