Talk:Childhood indoctrination

I'm really bothered by this. It's vague, it's pseudoscience, it makes distinctions that I don't think are really there. Either we teach kids or we don't. what is "indoctrinated" about what we teach is just our own views of it.GodotGrow a vagina 01:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you want children to be indoctrinated with Christianity, Godot? Are you a secret Christian? Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

... the hell?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Prox has gone off the deep end it seems. Тyrannis^Plead 01:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I'm also concerned that Godot may want children to be indoctrinated with Christianity. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

ONly if i get to eat the tasty children after. xians are so much more tasty!--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 01:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if it was rewritten as a demonstration of a snarl word. Ty^Annoy 01:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree to delete. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, taht works for me. Ty^Annoy 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That hurts. ShorinBJ (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to make an article

you really need to expand it beyond one sentence. Otherwise, I'll delete it again, cause as it is, it's too vague to mean anything.GodotGrow a vagina 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worthwhile of an article (Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to it in The God Delusion), but yeah. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not a psychologist, and he has a serious agenda. like most people, 'indoctrination' to him is not the love of science, or exposing children to the value of reading, or teaching a child not to beat on his brother - yet all of those are indoctrinations that instill your values about anything onto your child. Most people focus on what ever they don't like. "religious indoctrination", "homosexual agenda indoctrination", etc. but it's all the exact same thing. Even our education system is filled with it, since it's not just straight facts, but explanations of those facts, views about why those facts and not some other facts matter, etc. You can tell it's a term I'm loath to use, heh. :-) ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

An article critical to mission would probably would need to include some work by Daniel Dennett and Nicholas Humphrey, possibly others (particularly in regard to discussions of gender roles, sexuality, even left-handedness). -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This was one of the aspects of The God Delusion where I thought Dawkins was really belabouring the point. The "don't indoctrinate your kids" argument can only ever appeal to the liberal/tolerant end of the religious spectrum, who are less inclined to indoctrination anyway. Whereas if you seriously believe, for example, that the only way to avoid Hell is through Jesus Christ and the Bible, then of course you would impart that message to your children, because you want to save them from Hell too, right? It's kindof similar with political views: your worldview is bound to rub off on your children to some extent, and the more stringent your worldview (e.g. communist, hardline conservative, racist, etc.), the more forcefully you're likely to impart it to them.

Dawkins goes on a very irate rant about some kids in a school play being described by a newspaper as a Christian child, a Muslim child & a Sikh child (if I remember right) when they should instead be described as "a child of Christian parents", "a child of Sikh parents", etc. because they're too young to make an informed decision about their faith. This seems fatuously pedantic to me. If a child is being brought up as a Christian (or a Muslim, Sikh, whatever) then, whether or not you or I might agree with how they're being brought up, they are de facto a Christian child (or whatever) unless or until they decide otherwise. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My problem with the Dawkins-esqe "you are doing it wrong", is his idea that *THEY* indoctrinate, but *WE* don't. You and I were talking on one of the feminst pages about the fact that true indoctrination starts the day you are born. How you are held, talked to, challenged, disciplined, educated are all part of indoctrination - no more or less, or better or worse than a person teaching/forcing his child into a religion. I do not walk around naked in public. This isn't because i'm afraid of misquito bites, but because i was taught before I had any idea how to think, that "Nudity is wrong', and "the human body is bad" (thanks Plato and Christians!). Dawkins in most of his writings sets up this place where he sees what others do as bad, but does not or cannot see that the *principal* (not the ethics of what is being indoctrinated, but how its done and why) is the same everywhere, religious or not.GodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 20:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)