57 unchanged lines collapsedOverriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If youfail, thenfail – even if you succeed – not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or to complain. Caplan writes about children: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math. No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but even to *mathematicians:* to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. He says himself that he has “never really liked” the “piles” – piles! – of math he has done. Clearly, this has been a torturous experience for him, so why should the next generation be spared this coercion? Worse, he implies that some amount of force is warranted to impose his edict on children since he won’t let them disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Withholding love and affection? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated, as philosopher Ayn Randexplains.[^1] There’sexplains:↵ ↵ > % source: Ayn Rand. *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 159). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.↵ > When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are *not* clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.↵ ↵ There’s the injustice and coercion hidden in Cooper’s ‘request’ to remove a black employee from the front desk for being black, and in Caplan’s “keyhole solution” to “require” children to do math for being children. Telling children they’re “too young” not to do math compares to telling black people they’re too dark-skinned not to pick crops. Until you understand this, you do not understand freedom. Caplan doesn’t understand it.3 unchanged lines collapsed> % source: Ayn Rand.*Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 161). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.”↵ >Ibid. (p. 161).↵ > If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while? An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. After all, the reasoning behind abolition was *not* that free men are more productive than slaves (although usually they are). Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Like abolition + picking crops, Caplan’s rotten concept “Unschooling + Math”, whichhehe, again, dresses up with the term “keyhole solution”, is a textbook example of mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. He derides the principled, uncompromising stance toward freedom as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but *right?*3 unchanged lines collapsedIf society progresses in the way I hope, Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As itdeserves.↵ ↵ [^1]: Rand writes: “When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are *not* clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.” In: *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 159). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.deserves.
57 unchanged lines collapsed
Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail – even if you succeed – not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or to complain.Caplan writes about children: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math. No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but even to mathematicians: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. He says himself that he has “never really liked” the “piles” – piles! – of math he has done. Clearly, this has been a torturous experience for him, so why should the next generation be spared this coercion? Worse, he implies that some amount of force is warranted to impose his edict on children since he won’t let them disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Withholding love and affection? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated, as philosopher Ayn Rand explains:
When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
There’s the injustice and coercion hidden in Cooper’s ‘request’ to remove a black employee from the front desk for being black, and in Caplan’s “keyhole solution” to “require” children to do math for being children. Telling children they’re “too young” not to do math compares to telling black people they’re too dark-skinned not to pick crops. Until you understand this, you do not understand freedom. Caplan doesn’t understand it.
3 unchanged lines collapsed
If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. After all, the reasoning behind abolition was not that free men are more productive than slaves (although usually they are). Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Like abolition + picking crops, Caplan’s rotten concept “Unschooling + Math”, which he, again, dresses up with the term “keyhole solution”, is a textbook example of mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. He derides the principled, uncompromising stance toward freedom as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but right?
3 unchanged lines collapsed
If society progresses in the way I hope, Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.